Posts Tagged ‘research’

Bull City Bulletin Live –

The Sociological Significance of The Triangle in the Mass Fluoridation Scheme

Please join us for the 5th episode of The Bull City Bulletin where I give a special report of my research into the sociological significance of the mass Fluoridation scheme here in the “Triangle Area” of North Carolina.

I cover the always encroaching regional & multifaceted federal/corporate bureaucracy which invaded the Durham geography earlier in the 20th century, the influence of the American Eugenics agenda in implementing the fraudulent fluoridation policy in Durham, and the other players involved in bringing the weaponized US Public health service to the Research Triangle Park.

The facts laid here to bear, show a significant case can be made that Raleigh, Durham & Chapel Hill are perhaps the most formidable bastion of pro-fluoridationist energy on Earth and therefore toppling this fraud here could set off a domino effect across America to unglue the fluoridation psychology for ever.

This is an information dense transmission, do not get left behind!

For more Real News for Real People: http://www.bullcitybulletin.com

Advertisements

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.

Hi Steve,

I hope you’ve been well.

I am mailing you to find out if you would be willing to make a public comment on this recent article published by TIME magazine which cites Fluoride as being an industrial chemical that causes harm to the brain.

Children Exposed to More Brain-Harming Chemicals Than Ever Before (TIME magazine)

 “Now the same researchers have reviewed the literature and found six additional industrial chemicals that can hamper normal brain development. These are manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Manganese, they say, is found in drinking water and can contribute to lower math scores and heightened hyperactivity, while exposure to high levels of fluoride from drinking water can contribute to a seven-point drop in IQ on average. The remaining chemicals, which are found in solvents and pesticides, have been linked to deficits in social development and increased aggressive behaviors.”

I’d also like to take this opportunity to make you aware that I receive regular traffic to my website, as a result of people searching YOUR name, ostensibly to discover your feelings on this topic (see graphic below).  Whether the people searching your name are in alignment with your “convictions” or not, I’m not sure…but in any case I thought I would offer my website as a platform to get your “expert” analysis on this TIME magazine article & why you feel the general population should ignore all the warnings about drinking too much fluoride published by respected scientists at Harvard University.  I will gladly publish whatever you have to say on this subject since I know you are highly motivated to combat any “anti-fluoride” sentiments that show themselves on the internet.

slott

Sincerely yours,

Corey Sturmer

____________________________________________________

Corey, i have no specific comment for you to place on your little blog.  Actually, it’s of no concern to me what you post on it.  If you simply want to be educated on Grandjean’s statements, first, notice that there is no mention of concentration levels of fluoride, simply the implication that the mere presence of fluoride at any concentration will “hamper brain development”.  There is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels, including plain water.  Fluoride is certainly no exception.  Concentration level is the difference between safety and toxicity of ANY substance we ingest. Water is fluoridated at the minuscule concentration of 0.7 ppm.  At this concentration it is not toxic.  If you care to dispute this elementary fact then provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your claim.  Keep in mind that the antifluoridationist websites, and blogs on which you solely rely for your “information” do not qualify as valid sources.

As far as Choi and Grandjean’s Harvard Review on which Grandjean bases his “suggestions” about IQ and brain  development in regard to fluoridated water, this was actually a review of 27 Chinese studies found in obscure Chinese scientific journals, of the effects of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the well water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian village. The concentration of fluoride in these studies was as high as 11.5 ppm. By the admission of the Harvard researchers, these studies had key information missing, used questionable methodologies, and had inadequate controls for confounding factors. These studies were so seriously flawed that the lead researchers, Anna Choi, and Phillippe Grandjean, were led to issue the following statement in September of 2012:

“–These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”

–Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author

As it seems there have been no translations of these studies into English by any reliable, objective source, it is unclear as to whether they had even been peer-reviewed, a basic for credibility of any scientific study. These studies were flawed that NOTHING could be “concluded” from them.

Steve

Steven D. Slott, DDS

PO Box 1744

Burlington, NC.  27216

Sent from my iPad

____________________________________________________

Steve,

I have to be honest I really just wanted to be entertained by the psychological acrobatics I knew you would perform in order to justify the continued addition of an industrial chemical to our water supply.  Like always you delivered so thanks for the laughs!

However  I must admit it would be a lot funnier if it wasn’t so sad, how many people like yourself have to resort to picking a part each damning study which individually contribute to the gradual chipping away at the 60 year long PR stunt that is public water fluoridation.  I respect you more than most apologists because at least you put forth a lot of effort…But let’s be real – you are on the defense because the body of evidence which supports public water fluoridation is diminishing quickly & the body of evidence which supports its removal is growing all the time.  You & others of your ilk have had your time and I think you are acutely aware of this fact, as evidenced by all the frantic attacks you wage against those who speak out about this crime on the internet.

One would think,  given the self pronounced efficacy of this practice, that we would not be finding out about adverse health effects 60 years after the fact & instead the “scientific community” would have known ALL possible ramifications of ingesting fluoride when it was first forced on the American public in the 1950’s.  Of course, we know that the establishment did know many of the ramifications (and that they were negative), but this was ignored intentionally & those reasons are precisely why it was rammed down our throats in the first place.  NOT for the “dental health” of our nation but to actually impair the rational cognitive ability of the American people, which you epitomize by the way.

It is even more laughable, how focused you & other statists are on the “optimal concentration level” of fluoride in our water, when this so-called “optimal level” was so recently lowered due to the department of health & human services own admission, that over ingestion of fluoride is responsible for 40% of adolescents now suffering from some degree of fluorosis.    Statists always hide behind the auspices of having figured out the “exact optimal level” of fluoridation thanks to the “science,” except they never acknowledge that their “science” was originally flawed by their own admission.  Do you not see how discrediting it is to unilaterally change the “optimal level” without admitting that the prior “optimal” was too much?
Maybe that’s a mental trapeze act you just aren’t ready to perform yet.

Of course,  another thing I never hear you & other statists say, is whether you actually know the proper “dose” of fluoride.  I suspect this is because

  1.  There isn’t a proper dose to ingest orally since drinking fluoride is absolutely non-essential & has no material positive effect on any organ when ingested &
  2.  Talking about dosages & what medications one should ingest would be outside the scope of your licensure as a dentist & surely discredit you as a legitimate source of information on this topic…

But you have already discredited yourself countless times around the web & I thank you for providing one more example today.

Corey

____________________________________________________

Gee, Corey, it’s not like I haven’t seen all this ridiculous nonsense copied/pasted from  antifluoridationist websites, countless times.  Your total lack of success in furthering your irrational vendetta against fluoridation, in spite of your repeated “presentations” to intelligent people,  is all that needs to be viewed in regard to your claims.  Why don’t you surprise everyone and actually come up with something intelligent, instead of just parroting Connett’s  nonsense from “fluoridealert.org“?

Steve

Steven D. Slott, DDS

PO Box 1744

Burlington, NC.  27216

Sent from my iPad

____________________________________________________

Steve,

Without giving any credence to your opinion of what is “intelligent” or not, since it has been made abundantly clear that you are no authority whatsoever on original thought, I humbly submit my latest video which will teach you more about water in 10 minutes than you ever learned in the fluorescent lit halls of academia which seem to have forever savaged your feeble mind.

Corey

____________________________________________________

Thanks, Corey, but I prefer to obtain my information from credible, reliable, and authoritative sources of peer- reviewed scientific literature…..not from “YouTube” videos and antifluoridationist websites.

Steve

Steven D. Slott, DDS

PO Box 1744

Burlington, NC.  27216

Sent from my iPad

Join the Facebook Event Here

The Durham City Government has just announced that they will be officially receiving the recommendation from the Durham Public Health Board to continue drugging our municipal water supply this coming Thursday on September 5, 2013. Terry Capers from the City Clerk’s office recently wrote,

To: thegldnrule@gmail.com

from: Terry.Capers@durhamnc.gov

The Durham County Public Health Director Ms. Gayle Harris will present the Mayor and City Council with the Municipal Water Fluoridation recommendation at the Work Session on Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 1:00 pm!

If you are interested in speaking at the Work Session regarding the item please let me know and I will inform the City Clerk’s Office of your presence. 

On Friday afternoon, August 30th the September 5th Work Session agenda will be posted to our website for your convenience.

Questions please let us know.

Enjoy your Thursday! 

Since we have now become experts at seeing through the tired & repetitive public health propaganda, we can accurately predict what we will hear from Gayle Harris on September 5th, 2013 and react accordingly.  It should be no surprise to anyone that Gayle Harris will say something similar if not exactly the same as was uttered by Vicki Westbrook all the way back in 2011, when I first brought this issue to the Council’s attention.

In fact, the audio recordings of Vicki are below where she said something remarkably similar to the official recommendation produced by the board of health back in June of this year, nearly 2 years later;

“Fluoridation in drinking water is again considered to be one of the primary resources for preventing tooth decay and one of the top 10 advances in Public Health that has happened since the 1900’s”

-Vicki Westbrook

Compare & Contrast Vicki’s statement from 2011 with the recommendation published in June by the board of health, after so much “diligent consideration” by the board of health & Durham City Government, which Gayle Harris will repeat to the city council on this coming Thursday:

Durham Board of Health News: “Board of Health Recommends Continued Fluoridation of Drinking Water”

“This recommendation is deemed effective for prevention of tooth decay and for promotion of good oral health by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (US-DHHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

If my prediction comes true, this would certainly re-confirm the pattern we have noticed since the beginning of our efforts which is to repeat the propaganda perpetrated by the U.S. Public Health Service, where the Fluoridation policy originated in the first place during the 1950’s.

You see, even after the Fluoride fraud was brilliantly exposed in 2012 by WTVD in addition to a collective 2 years protesting publicly, the sad fact is that the prognosis from the whole Durham City Government remains every bit as un-evolved as it was to begin with:

“The Government will continue to medicate the population through the water supply, without providing any scientific evidence of its benefits.”

Have they not learned anything throughout all this time?  Do the people in our city government have no critical thinking skills of their own, or will they continue to restate the federal agency’s every word like they are dog on a choker leash?

While they have surely put on a nice theater which I will elaborate on below but first we ask ourselves;

  • Is it true that the board of health is making a legitimate & well researched recommendation?
  • Have they honestly debated the subject & considered all the developments since I brought this to their attention in 2011?

Let’s review the chronology of events and judge for ourselves:

  1. December 20, 2011 I presented scientific evidence to Durham City Council that fluoride was harmful to our bones & lowers the Intelligence Quotient in Children among other things & demanded it be stopped.  Vicki Westbrook appeared preemptively to say what was quoted above.
  2. December 25, 2011 The Herald Sun & Durham City Government Dismiss the whole thing
  3. January 2012 – I create DurhamAgainstFluoride.com
  4. January 2012 Los Angeles Healthcare System releases Study Linking Fluoride Uptake with #1 Killer Cardiovascular Disease
  5. March 22, 2012 I make a formal request for the documents which substantiate the city’s claim that drinking fluoride prevents tooth decay.  This is when Kevin Buchholtz from the Dept. of Health and Human Services appears and admits to the City Council that fluoride leaches lead from the pipe system and causes behavior problems in children, in addition to giving his own daughter dental fluorosis
  6. May 22, 2012 – Albuquerque, the most populated city in New Mexico Bans Public Water Fluoridation
  7. July 25, 2012 Harvard Releases Comprehensive Study Concluding Ingesting Fluoride Lowers Intelligence Quotient
  8. September 21, 2012 I Appear at Durham Public Health Board to encourage the board to do their own research and be proud about bucking the system; they create another ad-hoc committee to review Fluoride Issue
  9. November 15, 2012 WTVD releases their incredible 7.5 minute investigative report on Fluoride, featuring Durham Against Fluoride & the Board of Health
  10. November 29, 2012 Durham City Government Releases Rebuttal Video of Vicki Westbrook repeating unsubstantiated claim; “Fluoride is added to prevent tooth decay”
  11. December 2012 Durham City Government Posts Job Listing for Public Relations Manager for the Water Management Division
  12. January-February 2013 I began working with anti-Fluoride activists from Raleigh, Durham & Chapel Hill to produce a 1.5 hour long retrospective documentary on our efforts so far
  13. March 2013 Durham Public Health Board Finally Has their Hearing to debate the Fluoride issue and make their official recommendation; I am removed by force by a Deputy Sheriff who followed orders from Gayle Harris
  14. April 2013 the Documentary, entitled “21st Century Dawes Project” is published exposing the Triangle Public Health Bureaucracy which enforces water Fluoridation in Raleigh, Durham & Chapel Hill
  15. May 22, 2013 Portland Oregon votes “NO” to adding Fluoride
  16. July 25, 2013 Mayor Bill Bell asserts King-like Powers over Durham, stifles Anti-Fluoride Protests
  17. July 29, 2013 Israel joins most of the developed world & Bans Fluoride
  18. THIS Thursday September 5 2013 Gayle Harris will repeat the same script from the Department of Health and Human Services; We the People will repeal their recommendation because the city has still not produced any scientific evidence to substantiate their claim drinking fluoride chemicals will prevent tooth decay.

As was explained in my last post, the bureaucracy of Durham’s Government has kept the fluoride topic a real hot potato for 2 years now, passing it from one ad-hoc committee to another so as to provide the illusion that they are taking this issue seriously, but never producing any legitimate evidence to substantiate their claims.  How they can possibly still think that we are still buying this tactic any longer can only be understood by coming on Thursday to observe if my prediction about what Gayle Harris will say comes true.

Since no tangible evidence has been produced so far to substantiate their claims, and I assure you they will not be produced on Thursday, the original request which the City is trying to answer with this recommendation remains unanswered, no matter what Gayle Harris or anyone else says.  This is because the evidence which supports drinking fluoride as a means to prevent tooth decay does not exist, yet remains the basis of the continuation of the policy.

Even more troublesome is the fact that the government agent providing Thursday’s recommendation to the City Council also happens to be the individual who ordered a Sheriff to remove me from the *Public* hearing when I exposed the original fraud back in March of this year.  Talk about conflict of interest! Thanks to the wonders of youtube, we can instantly time travel to that moment when Gayle squeals “Sheriff!” as I debunk their fraud in real time:

Given all of the above, we the people will come to 101 City Hall Plaza, Durham, NC on Thursday September 5th and appeal this recommendation, restating these truths which we believe to be self evident: that medicating the city’s water supply with a corrosive waste product from the fertilizer manufacturers is an unethical, poisonous, and illegal thing to do!

Join the Facebook Event Here

PaulRevere

Alex Jones’ Infowars.com Paul Revere Contest began at the beginning of 2013 to inspire liberty-oriented individuals to produce a short film on the state of our world and the state of freedom, to be considered for a potential $115,000 in prizes!  It was soon thereafter I began working with other activists in Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill to create our entry which was entitled “21st Century Dawes Project” and followed retrospectively the efforts of myself and others in the area to raise awareness on the mass medication of our public water supplies by the bureaucratic & academic “elite” who have convinced generations of people that it is in their best interest to drink an industrial toxic waste – one that is destroying our minds & bodies systematically.

Support Us – Rate & Comment on

“21st Century Dawes Project”

After much hard work the Infowars Paul Revere Contest is now LIVE where our entry is featured.  Please support Durham Against Fluoride, Greater Raleigh Resistance, Fluoride Free Chapel Hill and in general – FREEDOM – by visiting the contest page and commenting/rating our entry.

  • Finalists announced July 17th
  • 3rd place announced July 22nd
  • 2nd place announced July 25th
  • GRAND PRIZE announced July 29th

Support Us – Rate & Comment on

“21st Century Dawes Project”