Posts Tagged ‘political’

Relevant Link: Don O’ Leary is an Orange County Resident Running for County Comissioner in 2016, he also has a lot of great, relevant videos/articles at his site.

My Letter to Orange County Health Director Colleen Bridger After Orange County Referred Our  September 4 Anti-Fluoride Petitions To her

Dear Colleen,My name is Corey Sturmer & I am a 25 year resident of the triangle.  In 2011 I became aware that the city governments of Wake, Durham & Orange county have had a more than 60 year long policy of purchasing waste chemicals (hydrofluorosilicic acid/ silicofluorides, fluorosilicic acid) from fertilizer & aluminum industry & distributing it to the citizens through their water supply, ostensibly to help “prevent tooth decay.”

I happen to know that the propaganda surrounding its efficacy as a preventative health measure came directly from the health & human services department of our federal government, and secondarily through the public health departments of the respective states…Then on downward to each county.  Generally speaking the states’ position has amazingly not changed much in the last 60 years, despite all of the evidence which has come out on the practice since it was first instituted in the late 1950’s.

I was present earlier this month before the board of commissioners of orange county to provide a common sense approach to why this policy should be reversed IMMEDIATELY.  I am e-mailing you because I understand this issue has now been brought to your attention by the commissioners & they are waiting for some advisement from you & the board of health of orange county.

So I would like you to please consider the following as common sense reasons why this policy should end.

Civil Liberty, Informed Consent, Lack of Licensure

 

Nobody in the history of public water fluoridation has ever debated the fact that the alleged purpose of the policy is to help prevent tooth decay.

 

According to the Federal Drug Administration’s code section 201(g)1, definition of a drug, a drug is defined by its INTENDED APPLICATION

 

Source: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/federalfooddrugandcosmeticactfdcact/fdcactchaptersiandiishorttitleanddefinitions/ucm086297.htm

(g)(1) The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.
If the county wants to apply fluoride to the water for the purposes of preventing tooth decay, then they are legally bound to have it approved by the FDA as being safe and effective for such an application.  Please take notice that Fluoride has NEVER BEEN APPROVED by the FDA: http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/fda/not-approved/
Since it is impossible for any being to deny that fluoridation is de facto drugging of the water supply, we then need to consider what North Carolina general statutes say about distributing (unapproved) drugs without a license.  It is in fact a Class H Felony to do so, which would mean the offending parties in Orange county are guilty of violating North Carolina state drug laws.See: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_106/GS_106-145.6.pdf

G.S. 106-145.6
§ 106-145.6. Denial, revocation, and suspension of license; penalties for violations.
Adverse Action.
The Commissioner may deny a license to an applicant if the Commissioner determines that granting the applicant a license would not be in the public interest. Public interest considerations shall be limited to factors and qualifications that are directly related to the protection of public health and safety. The Commissioner may deny, suspend, or revoke a license for substantial or repeated violations
of this Article or for conviction of a violation of any other federal, state, or local prescription drug law or regulation. Chapter 150B of the General Statutes governs the denial, suspension, or revocation of a license under this Article.
(b)
Criminal Sanctions.
It is unlawful to engage in wholesale distribution in this State without a wholesale distributor license or to violate any other provision of this Article. A person who violates this Article commits a Class H felony. A fine imposed for a violation of this Article may not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).

Lastly – drugging the water supply in such a manner violates informed consent laws, which require the patient to be informed & to give their explicit consent before accepting a medical treatment like fluoride.  It may also violate certain individual’s freedom of religious expression since some religions forbid consumption of toxins such as fluoride.  If they don’t even know fluoride is added to their water they could be unwittingly committing blaspheme!

These basic rights should be respected & protected by the county, not deliberately destroyed.

Precautionary Principle
The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk.
Colleen – There is no scientific consensus that fluoride is harmless.  In fact quite the opposite.I challenge the board of health to bear the burden of proof that consuming fluoride through the water supply is NOT harmful in any way.  This is a rhetorical challenge because it is impossible for your board of health to do it.  Even the promoters of fluoridation have admitted that drinking fluoride will inevitably cause some degree of dental fluorosis which is the outward manifestation of systemic overexposure.  This is well reported by the center for disease control.  Fluorosis shows up as white spotting & mottling of the dental enamel.  Therefore it can not be refuted that fluoride is detrimental & thus – does not comply with the precautionary principle & should not be a policy!
If dental fluorisis is not enough harm to satisfy you, then please consider these more recent studies which raise enormous doubts about the safety & efficacy of public water fluoridation:
Fluorid deposits in your pineal gland (melatonin center affecting sleep cycles): http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html
I appreciate your consideration to this critical public health issue & would like to offer my contact information if you have any questions or concerns about this inquiry.

 

 

Corey Sturmer
Colleen Bridger’s Response to Our Petitions; A Recommendation to Continue Drugging Orange County’s Water Supply

Good afternoon,

I wanted to share with you the information I sent the Board of County Commissioners regarding your concerns about the health effects of fluoride in municipal drinking water.  I’ve attached just a few of the documents I reviewed in making my recommendation for your information.  The key points from this review are:

1)      The preponderance of medical and dental organizations nationally and in North Carolina support community water fluoridation as safe and effective and

2)      Water fluoridation decisions are made by the entities that provide municipal water.  The largest municipal water supplier in Orange County is OWASA and they just this year voted to continue fluoridating their water.

Therefore my recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (and also my recommendation to the OWASA Board when they asked) is that they support the very important, safe and effective public health practice of fluoridating municipal water supplies.

Thank you so much for bringing this issue to our attention.  We can miss important health issues affecting our community and need active residents like you to make sure we are always staying on top of the myriad health threats that we face.  I will continue to monitor the emerging research on the health effects of fluoridating municipal drinking water and if I see any reason to revisit this recommendation, I assure you I absolutely will.

Sincerely,

Colleen Bridger, MPH, PhD

Orange County Health Director

Phone: 919.245.2412 / Cell: 919.612.2053

My Spoken Response to Colleen Bridger on October 7 2014

Letter attached to Colleen Bridger’s Reccomendation Authored by Gary Rozier, a semi-retired Public Health Professor @ UNC

GaryRozierGary Declines to do Interview about Public Water Fluoridation, despite authoring numerous letters in support of it

Dear Gary,

I was recently notified by the Orange County Health Director Colleen Bridger that she & the health department are publicly endorsing the idea of public water fluoridation in response to some recent petitions that the government stop this practice immediately.  After reviewing Colleen’s statement, she appears to be using the attached letter authored by you in 2012 together with several other stated endorsements from various organizations.

I am mailing you Gary because I gather from your letter that you are a highly educated & knowledgeable person on the various machinations & applications of governmental policy, which may result in a city applying a policy like water fluoridation to the population.  I also gather that you sincerely believe that this is an appropriate role for government to play, which is a legitimate position to have if you’re honest about it, which I gather you are being.

It is for these reasons I am interested in conducting an interview with you on the topic of health policy & public water fluoridation.  Would you be willing to participate?  This might be a good opportunity to illustrate to the public why public water fluoridation should be maintained – so I hope you will seize this opportunity.

Let me know your thoughts, & if you’re interested we can worry about logistics.

Corey

 

__________________________________

Corey,  Thank you for the opportunity to participate in a discussion about water fluoridation.  However, I am in phased retirement and not able to take on any engagements. Regards!  GaryRozier

__________________________________

Gary,

Thanks for the reply…

I find your statement interesting – generally most people I know who enter into full or even phased retirement, are able to find MORE time to take on different engagements. But I understand how freely discussing the realities of public water fluoridation may pose a liability to what appears to be your life’s work.  So one way or the other I get the message.Have a good retirement Gary,Corey

 

 

Editor’s Note: For those of you reading this who currently live in the “Triangle area” of Raleigh, Durham & Chapel Hill North Carolina, I implore you to pay special attention to the historical context presented in this 1993 article by Murray Rothbard. Why? Because one of the main characters highlighted in Rothbard’s excellent essay on the history of water fluoridation in the United States has a particular relevance to your current circumstance, which should not go unnoticed.

Specifically I refer to one, Oscar Ewing, who you will find not only played a critical role in the nationalization of community water fluoridation, but eventually retired to Chapel Hill, NC where he busied himself buying the land which later became Research Triangle Park.  This is a vast subject which deserves its own examination independently of the fluoride issue, one which I intend to dissect at a later time.

by Murray N. Rothbard

This essay originally appeared in the January 1993 issue of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Yes, I confess: I’m a veteran anti-fluoridationist, thereby – not for the first time – risking placing myself in the camp of “right-wing kooks and fanatics.” It has always been a bit of mystery to me why left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of Alar on apples, who cry “cancer” even more absurdly than the boy cried “Wolf,” who hate every chemical additive known to man, still cast their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance. And not only let fluoride emissions off the hook, but endorse uncritically the massive and continuing dumping of fluoride into the nation’s water supply.

First: the generalized case for and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost incredibly thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine! For this the entire adult population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass medication!

The case against, even apart from the specific evils of fluoride, is powerful and overwhelming.

(1) Compulsory mass medication is medically evil, as well as socialistic. It is starkly clear that one key to any medication is control of the dose; different people, at different stages of risk, need individual dosages tailored to their needs. And yet with water compulsorily fluoridated, the dose applies to everyone, and is necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one drinks.

What is the medical justification for a guy who drinks ten glasses of water a day receiving ten times the fluorine dose of a guy who drinks only one glass? The whole process is monstrous as well as idiotic.

(2) Adults, in fact children over nine, get no benefits from their compulsory medication, yet they imbibe fluorides proportionately to their water intake.

(3) Studies have shown that while kids 5 to 9 may have their cavities reduced by fluoridation, said kids ages 9 to 12 have more cavities, so that after 12 the cavity benefits disappear. So that, at best, the question boils down to: are we to subject ourselves to the possible dangers of fluoridation solely to save dentists the irritation of dealing with squirming kids aged 5 to 9?

(4) Any parents who want to give their kids the dubious benefits of fluoridation can do so individually: by giving their kids fluoride pills, with doses regulated instead of haphazardly proportionate to the kids’ thirst; and/or, as we all know, they can brush their teeth with fluoride-added toothpaste. How about freedom of individual choice?

(5) Let us not omit the long-suffering taxpayer, who has to pay for the hundreds of thousands of tons of fluorides poured into the nation’s socialized water supply every year. The days of private water companies, once flourishing in the U.S., are long gone, although the market, in recent years, has popped up in the form of increasingly popular private bottled water even though far more expensive than socialized free water.

Nothing loony or kooky about any of these arguments, is there? So much for the general case pro and con fluoridation. When we get to the specific ills of fluoridation, the case against becomes even more overpowering, as well as grisly.

During the 1940s and 50s, when the successful push for fluoridation was underway, the pro-forces touted the controlled experiment of Newburgh and Kingston, two neighboring small cities in upstate New York, with much the same demographics. Newburgh had been fluoridated and Kingston had not, and the powerful pro-fluoridation Establishment trumpeted the fact that ten years later, dental cavities in kids 5 to 9 in Newburgh were considerably lower than in Kingston (originally, the rates of every disease had been about the same in the two places). OK, but the antis raised the disquieting fact that, after ten years, both the cancer and the heart disease rates were now significantly higher in Newburgh. How did the Establishment treat this criticism? By dismissing it as irrelevant, as kooky scare tactics. Oh?

Why were these and later problems and charges ignored and overridden, and why the rush to judgment to inflict fluoridation on America? Who was behind this drive, and how did the opponents acquire the “right-wing kook” image?

THE DRIVE FOR FLUORIDATION

The official drive began abruptly just before the end of World War II, pushed by the U.S. Public Health Service, then in the Treasury Department. In 1945, the federal government selected two Michigan cities to conduct an official “15-year” study; one city, Grand Rapids, was fluoridated, a control city was left unfluoridated. (I am indebted to a recent revisionist article on fluoridation by the medical writer Joel Griffiths, in the left-wing muckraking journal Covert Action Information Bulletin: “Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy?” [Fall 1992], pp. 26–28, 63–66.) Yet, before five years were up, the government killed its own “scientific study,” by fluoridating the water in the second city in Michigan. Why? Under the excuse that its action was caused by “popular demand” for fluoridation; as we shall see, the “popular demand” was generated by the government and the Establishment itself. Indeed, as early as 1946, under the federal campaign, six American cities fluoridated their water, and 87 more joined the bandwagon by 1950.

A key figure in the successful drive for fluoridation was Oscar R. Ewing, who was appointed by President Truman in 1947 as head of the Federal Security Agency, which encompassed the Public Health Service (PHS), and which later blossomed into our beloved Cabinet office of Health, Education, and Welfare. One reason for the left’s backing of fluoridation – in addition to its being socialized medicine and mass medication, for them a good in itself – was that Ewing was a certified Truman Fair Dealer and leftist, and avowed proponent of socialized medicine, a high official in the then-powerful Americans for Democratic Action, the nation’s central organization of “anti-Communist liberals” (read: Social Democrats or Mensheviks). Ewing mobilized not only the respectable left but also the Establishment Center. The powerful drive for compulsory fluoridation was spearheaded by the PHS, which soon mobilized the nation’s establishment organizations of dentists and physicians.

The mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the stamping of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all generated by the public relations man hired by Oscar Ewing to direct the drive. For Ewing hired none other than Edward L. Bernays, the man with the dubious honor of being called the “father of public relations.” Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was called “The Original Spin Doctor” in an admiring article in the Washington Post on the occasion of the old manipulator’s 100th birthday in late 1991. The fact that right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society correctly called fluoridation “creeping socialism” and blamed Soviet Communism as the source of the fluoridation campaign (no, not Bolsheviks, guys: but a Menshevik-State Capitalist alliance, see below) was used by the Bernaysians to discredit all the opposition.

As a retrospective scientific article pointed out about the fluoridation movement, one of its widely distributed dossiers listed opponents of fluoridation “in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan.” (Bette Hileman, “Fluoridation of Water,” Chemical and Engineering News 66 [August 1, 1988], p. 37; quoted in Griffiths, p. 63) In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays laid bare the devices he would use: Speaking of the “mechanism which controls the public mind,” which people like himself could manipulate, Bernays added that “Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country…our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…” And the process of manipulating leaders of groups, “either with or without their conscious cooperation,” will “automatically influence” the members of such groups.

In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that “it is wholesome to eat bacon.” For, Bernays added, he “knows as a mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands the psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians.” (Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New York: Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18, 49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, p.63) Add “dentists” to the equation, and substitute “fluoride” for “bacon,” and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda campaign.

Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles.

After the 1950s, it was all mopping up – the fluoridation forces had triumphed, and two-thirds of the nation’s reservoirs were fluoridated. There are still benighted areas of the country left however (California is less than 16 percent fluoridated) and the goal of the federal government and its PHS remains as “universal fluoridation.”

DOUBTS CUMULATE

Despite the blitzkrieg victory, however, doubts have surfaced and gathered in the scientific community. Fluoride is a non-biodegradable substance, which, in people, accumulates in teeth and bone – perhaps strengthening kiddies’ teeth; but what about human bones? Two crucial bone problems of fluorides – brittleness and cancer – began to appear in studies, only to be systematically blocked by governmental agencies. As early as 1956, a federal study found nearly twice as many premalignant bone defects in young males in Newbergh as in unfluoridated Kingston; but this finding was quickly dismissed as “spurious.”

Oddly enough, despite the 1956 study and carcinogenic evidence popping up since the 1940s, the federal government never conducted its own beloved animal carcinogenicity test on fluorides. Finally, in 1975, biochemist John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Berk, a retired official of the federal government’s own National Cancer Institute (NCI), presented a paper before the annual meeting of the American Society of Biological Chemists. The paper reported a 5 to 10 percent increase in total cancer rates in those U.S. cities which had fluoridated their water. The findings were disputed, but triggered congressional hearings two years later, where the government revealed to shocked Congressmen that it had never tested fluoride for cancer. Congress ordered the NCI to conduct such tests.

Talk about foot-dragging! Incredibly, it took the NCI twelve years to finish its tests, finding “equivocal evidence” that fluoride caused bone cancer in male rats. Under further direction of Congress, the NCI studied cancer trends in the U.S., and found nationwide evidence of “a rising rate of bone and joint cancer at all ages,” especially in youth, in counties that had fluoridated their water, but no such rise was seen in “non-fluoridated” counties.

In more detailed studies, for areas of Washington state and Iowa, NCI found that from the 1970s to the 1980s bone cancer for males under 20 had increased by 70 percent in the fluoridated areas of these states, but had decreased by 4 percent in the non-fluoridated areas. Sounds pretty conclusive to me, but the NCI set some fancy statisticians to work on the data, to conclude that these findings, too, were “spurious.” Dispute over this report drove the federal government to one of its favorite ploys in virtually every area: the allegedly expert, bipartisan, “value-free” commission.

The government had already done the commission bit in 1983, when disturbing studies on fluoridation drove our old friend the PHS to form a commission of “world-class experts” to review safety data on fluorides in water. Interestingly, the panel found to its grave concern that most of the alleged evidence of fluoride’s safety scarcely existed. The 1983 panel recommended caution on fluoride exposure for children. Interestingly, the panel strongly recommended that the fluoride content of drinking water be no greater than two parts per million for children up to nine, because of worries about the fluoride effect on children’s skeletons, and potential heart damage.

The chairman of the panel, Jay R. Shapiro of the National Institute of Health, warned the members, however, that the PHS might “modify” the findings, since “the report deals with sensitive political issues.” Sure enough, when Surgeon General Everett Koop released the official report a month later, the federal government had thrown out the panel’s most important conclusions and recommendations, without consulting the panel. Indeed, the panel never received copies of the final, doctored, version. The government’s alterations were all in a pro-fluoride direction, claiming that there was no “scientific documentation” of any problems at fluoride levels below 8 parts per million.

In addition to the bone cancer studies for the late 1980s, evidence is piling up that fluorides lead to bone fractures. In the past two years, no less than eight epidemiological studies have indicated the fluoridation has increased the rate of bone fractures in males and females of all ages. Indeed, since 1957, the bone fracture rate among male youth has increased sharply in the United States, and the U.S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world. In fact, a study in the traditionally pro-fluoride Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), August 12, 1992, found that even “low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly.” JAMA concluded that “it is now appropriate to revisit the issue of water fluoridation.”

Clearly, it was high time for another federal commission. During 1990–91, a new commission, chaired by veteran PHS official and long-time pro-fluoridationist Frank E. Young, predictably concluded that “no evidence” was found associating fluoride and cancer. On bone fractures, the commission blandly stated that “further studies are required.” But no further studies or soul-searching were needed for its conclusion: “The U.S. Public Health Service should continue to support optimal fluoridation of drinking water.” Presumably, they did not conclude that “optimal” meant zero.

Despite the Young whitewash, doubts are piling up even within the federal government. James Huff, a director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, concluded in 1992 that animals in the government’s study developed cancer, especially bone cancer from being given fluoride – and there was nothing “equivocal” about his conclusion.

Various scientists for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have turned to anti-fluoridation toxicologist William Marcus’s warning that fluoride causes not just cancer, but also bone fractures, arthritis, and other disease. Marcus mentions, too, that an unreleased study by the New Jersey Health Department (a state where only 15 percent of the population is fluoridated) shows that the bone cancer rate among young males is no less than six times higher in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated areas.

Even coming into question is the long-sacred idea that fluoridated water at least lowers cavities in children five to nine. Various top pro-fluoridationists highly touted for their expertise were suddenly and bitterly condemned when further study led them to the conclusion that the dental benefits are really negligible. New Zealand’s most prominent pro-fluoridationist was the country’s top dental officer, Dr. John Colquhoun.

As chairman of the Fluoridation Promotion Committee, Colquhoun decided to gather statistics to show doubters the great merits of fluoridation. To his shock, he found that the percentage of children free of dental decay was higher in the non-fluoridated part than in the fluoridated part of New Zealand. The national health department refused to allow Colquhoun to publish these findings, and kicked him out as dental director. Similarly, a top pro-fluoridationist in British Columbia, Canada, Richard G. Foulkes, concluded that fluoridation is not only dangerous, but that it is not even effective in reducing tooth decay. Foulkes was denounced by former colleagues as a propagandist “promoting the quackery of anti-fluoridationists.”

WHY THE FLUORIDATION DRIVE?

Since the case for compulsory fluoridation is so flimsy, and the case against so overwhelming, the final step is to ask: why? Why did the Public Health Service get involved in the first place? How did this thing get started? Here we must keep our eye on the pivotal role of Oscar R. Ewing, for Ewing was far more than just a social democrat Fair Dealer.

Fluoride has long been recognized as one of the most toxic elements found in the earth’s crust. Fluorides are by-products of many industrial processes, being emitted in the air and water, and probably the major source of this by-product is the aluminum industry. By the 1920s and 1930s, fluorine was increasingly being subject to lawsuits and regulations. In particular, by 1938 the important, relatively new aluminum industry was being placed on a wartime footing. What to do if its major by-product is a dangerous poison?

The time had come for damage control; even better, to reverse the public image of this menacing substance. The Public Health Service, remember was under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and treasury secretary all during the 1920s and until 1931 was none other than billionaire Andrew J. Mellon, founder and head of the powerful Mellon interests, “Mr. Pittsburgh,” and founder and virtual ruler of the Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA), the dominant firm in the aluminum industry.

In 1931, the PHS sent a dentist named H. Trendley Dean to the West to study the effects of concentrations of naturally fluoridated water on people’s teeth. Dean found that towns high in natural fluoride seemed to have fewer cavities. This news galvanized various Mellon scientists into action. In particular, the Mellon Institute, ALCOA’s research lab in Pittsburgh, sponsored a study in which biochemist Gerald J. Cox fluoridated some lab rats, decided that cavities in those rats had been reduced and immediately concluded that “the case (that fluoride reduces cavities) should be regarded as proved.” Instant science!

The following year, 1939, Cox, the ALCOA scientist working for a company beset by fluoride damage claims, made the first public proposal for mandatory fluoridation of water. Cox proceeded to stump the country urging fluoridation. Meanwhile, other ALCOA-funded scientists trumpeted the alleged safety of fluorides, in particular the Kettering Laboratory of the University of Cincinnati.

During World War II, damage claims for fluoride emissions piled up as expected, in proportion to the great expansion of aluminum production during the war. But attention from these claims was diverted, when, just before the end of the war, the PHS began to push hard for compulsory fluoridation of water. Thus the drive for compulsory fluoridation of water accomplished two goals in one shot: it transformed the image of fluorine from a curse to a blessing that will strengthen every kid’s teeth, and it provided a steady and substantial monetary demand for fluorides to dump annually into the nation’s water.

One interesting footnote to this story is that whereas fluorine in naturally fluoridated water comes in the form of calcium fluoride, the substance dumped into every locality is instead sodium fluoride. The Establishment defense that “fluoride is fluoride” becomes unconvincing when we consider two points: (a) calcium is notoriously good for bones and teeth, so the anti-cavity effect in naturally fluoridated water might well be due to the calcium and not the fluorine; and (b) sodium fluoride happens to be the major by-product of the manufacture of aluminum.

Which brings us to Oscar R. Ewing. Ewing arrived in Washington in 1946, shortly after the initial PHS push began, arriving there as long-time counsel, now chief counsel, for ALCOA, making what was then an astronomical legal fee of $750,000 a year (something like $7,000,000 a year in present dollars). A year later, Ewing took charge of the Federal Security Agency, which included the PHS, and waged the successful national drive for water fluoridation. After a few years, having succeeded in his campaign, Ewing stepped down from public service, and returned to private life, including his chief counselship of the Aluminum Corporation of America.

There is an instructive lesson in this little saga, a lesson how and why the Welfare State came to America. It came as an alliance of three major forces: ideological social democrats, ambitious technocratic bureaucrats, and Big Businessmen seeking privileges from the State. In the fluoridation saga, we might call the whole process “ALCOA-socialism.” The Welfare State redounds to the welfare not of most of society but of these particular venal and exploitative groups.

Ed.: See also, from 2005, Fluoride Follies by Donald W. Miller, MD.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN FACEBOOK EVENT

Durham Citizens,

As you may already know the fight to put a stop to the unhealthy practice of public water fluoridation pushes onward.

Last month we had a great turn out at the Durham County Public Health Hearing where citizens and activists stood in unison to urge our county health officials to recommend our city council put a stop to this madness.  As promised, WTVD Channel 11 showed up to capture those who spoke up on video.  This footage will be used in an investigative report due to air this November on the issue of Fluoridating public water.  The monday after our meeting, I sat down with anchor Steve Daniels to discuss the whys and hows of this issue.  I am pleased to report that WTVD is preparing a great informative report that is sure to bring incredible awareness to this issue.

We already had great success in making our voices heard last month and was promised by the county health board that they would form a subcommittee in order to review the evidence which supports our position against Fluoridation.

Unfortunately, almost 1 month later my sources say that the county health board has reneged on their promise and so far have not taken ANY action to form a subcommittee to formally review the evidence we are presenting.

While discouraging, now is NOT the time to give up – rather – now is the perfect time to show our civil servants that WE MEAN BUSINESS!

Thursday October 18th @ 5:00 PM there will be another county health board meeting and I am planning to show up and hold them accountable!  Me and a few other activists are planning on using our allotted speaking time to play a short informational piece on Fluoridation, and to ask them politely why they have not looked more thoroughly into this issue.  Afterall, it’s our HEALTH that is at risk!

CLICK HERE TO JOIN FACEBOOK EVENT

Side Note – If you are interested in removing Fluoride from your tap water without petitioning your city government to do so, you are now able to order the proper filters via the DurhamAgainstFluoride website!  The filter advertised is what I personally use and recommend and is specifically designed to remove the noxious cocktail of chemicals known as “FLUORIDE!”  ALL Proceeds from the sale of these filters will go towards more flyers, more activisim and more advertising for the ANTI-FLUORIDE movement in Durham!!