Wednesday, February 22, 2012

More Concerns of Fluoride Finally Exposed

More coming from Arkansas after the statewide, mandated fluoride by their state legislature last year.

A licensed operator of a county water treatment is taking up the fight against fluoride, giving details on how badly fluoride, mixed with other chemicals in the water, leaches the lead from the old water pipes in all cities.  To quote him:  "...experience in other areas of the country with aging infrastructure has shown that fluoride chemicals added to the water supply can result in extremely high lead levels in children. In 2004, an investigation by the CDC found that 42,000 children in Washington D.C. 16 months old and younger had blood levels 2.4 times higher than normal."

"...water officials in Washington, D.C. who told him the problem was created when they switched to chloramines for water disinfection, mixing chloramines with fluoridation products that combined to have a corrosive effect on the city's aging lead pipes.

"In aging systems, even with optimal corrosion control in place, it would be a challenge, if not impossible, to prevent the leaching of lead into the water," Fonseca said. "This is a very important public health issue. Under our contract, I don't see how they (the state mandate) can force us to fluoridate the water."

Congratulations to Mr. Fonseca for standing up with the truth and facts that obviously "officials in Washington, D.C." know about but are choosing to ignore in order to push their fluoride agenda.  The article continues with listing several cities in Arkansas that are choosing to fight the state mandate.  The licensed operator also brings up how fluoride will affect the horse racing business and is already affecting the chicken factories and other industries that deal with animals and tourism.  What's your thoughts?  Should the nation be forced to replace all water pipes in order to accommodate the fluoride chemicals?

Petition for FDA's assault on DSHEA

This just in from Citizens for

Our latest goal - 25,000 signatures by February 25 - has already been met! The response to our petition drive to stop the FDA's “Draft Guidance for Industry: Dietary Supplements: New Dietary Ingredient Notifications and Related Issues” - a true threat to your health freedoms - has been nothing short of inspiring. To read more about the dangers of the proposed NDI Guidance, check out our website: - and pay particular attention to James Gormley's "The FDA's Plan to Cripple the Health Food Industry: Their New War Has Begun".
Thanks to all your efforts decision-makers in Washington D.C. are more aware than ever before of the dangers lurking within this horrible policy proposal. Yet, as of this email alert, the Guidance has yet to be withdrawn.
Given that your latest participation netted 4000 signatures in seven days, we thought we'd go for 4800 more by the end of February - and this year you have an extra day to do it. Let's go for an even 30,000 signatures by midnight on February 29!
If there is anyone you know who treasures their health freedom and is unaware of this threat, forward this alert. Tell your friends to forward it to their friends and get them involved too.
Stay tuned to for updates on this critical campaign.
As always, thanks for being involved,
The Citizens for Health Team
Follow Citizens for Health on Twitter!Like FoodIdentityTheft on Facebook!Follow on Twitter!

Friday, February 17, 2012

Angry Fluoride Proponents File Court Complaint to Get Fluoride Back

By Bennett Hall, Corvallis Gazette-Times | Posted: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:00 am
"The Philomath City Council (Oregon) decided in May 2011 to stop putting hydrofluorosilicic acid into the municipal water supply, saying it had concerns about the safety of fluoride compounds and doubts about the wisdom of adding fluoride to drinking water...John Barlow of Citizens for Healthy Teeth, the sponsor of Measure 02-76, lodged a complaint Wednesday with the Oregon Elections Division alleging that the city was improperly attempting to sway voters in advance of the election..."
Ok, here's the timeline>>
1.)  The City Council did their own research, prior to May 2011, having plenty of open, public discussions about it, and decided to take fluoride out of the city drinking water. 
2.)  Along comes the director for "Citizens for Healthy Teeth" starting a petition to put it back into the water with a public vote to be held on March 13, 2012. 
3.)  The City Council explained their position of why they voted the way they did in their own self-printed, quarterly City newsletter, and mailed it out to the residents with the monthly water bills--which was last Sept.'s issue 
4.)  Because of the opponents' petition filed after May and before Sept. to have an election in March 2012 about fluoride, the City put  in their own self-printed, quarterly January 2012 newsletter an announcement about a town hall meeting for the public to debate the issue of fluoride (again) on Thursday, Feb. 23, 2012.
5.)  The "Citizens for Healthy Teeth" accused the City of purposely trying to influence the residents with their explanation  in the Sept. newsletter, with the article's author pointing out that, "The September edition was devoted entirely to the council’s rationale for discontinuing fluoridation, while the January edition contained a brief notice of a town hall meeting on the issue." 
6.) "These (City's) actions were designed to discourage Philomath voters from signing the initiative petition subsequently approved by the circuit court, and to influence the outcome of the election scheduled for March 13, 2012, the complaint charges."
7.)  The complaint continues accusing the City of taking a position on the matter while also using "city employees and resources" to do it....
8.)  ...and then, of all things, accused the City of being "wrong" to post in their January City newsletter about the town hall meeting "because only the anti-fluoridation position will be represented there."
9.)  "Citizens for Healthy Teeth" verified that they were invited to have speakers and take part in the town hall debate, but they declined their invitation, and then accused the city manager of working with the pro-fluoride people to have speakers at the town hall meeting next week.
10.)  "Citizens for Healthy Teeth" director got mad and complained to the Oregon Elections Division, stating that >>  “It seems to me that both elected officials and city officials have caused other city employees to put out what’s basically campaign literature on city time and at city expense,” Barlow said.  “There’s a role for public entities to play in terms of education. I just think this went well beyond that.”
11.)  The Elections Division says they've started an investigation, and states that, "If Philomath officials are found to have violated election law, the city would be fined $75."

What's wrong with this picture??  Sore losers?  Diversionary?  Crying "victimhood?" Granted, the City's elected officials ----
  • did "take a position" after research and public debates on the matter of fluoride and voted it out last year, May 2011;
  • did give their explanation for voting it out in their own self-printed, quarterly, city newsletter in Sept. because the proponents' petition to bring fluoride back had been filed in court prior to Sept., but after the City's quarterly newsletter went out in May; 
  •  did arrange to have a town hall meeting for the residents to debate the issue all over again in February because of the proponents-for-fluoride being granted a ballot election for it in March;
  • did announce same-said town hall meeting in their own quarterly city newsletter in January;
  • did invite the proponents-for-fluoride to speak at the town hall debate;
  • did receive from the proponents-for-fluoride a decline to their invitation, with the proponents-for-fluoride admitting to the media that they declined the invitation to speak;
  • and finally, yes, because it IS a city town hall event that the city scheduled, the city manager official did "work with" the remaining people who will be speakers at the city town hall event (who else would have the authority to do it?)  
The 7 of the 8 comments below the article give more details of how the city officials arrived at their decision to stop using "fluoride" in their water, including public debates before their decision and all summer long even after they stopped it, but the proponents still filed the court complaint against them.  The article's author provided his name, phone number, and email address >
Contact Bennett Hall at 541-758-9529 or
And the contact information for the Oregon Elections Division, Secretary of State Kate Brown >>
Contact Elections Division
Open 8 AM - 5 PM, Mon - Fri
(503) 986-1518
(866) 673-VOTE
255 Capitol St NE, Ste 501
Salem, OR 97310-1306

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Three Lawsuits about Fluoridation

Three Lawsuits about Fluoridation

by Fluoride Action Network
Source: HANS e-News - September 1, 2011

Three lawsuits have been filed recently in the US that could have a major impact on the fluoridation debate.

The first lawsuit is in Clallam County, Washington. On April 28, Protect the Peninsula's Future, Clallam County Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, and Eloise Kailin filed suit in superior court against the cities of Forks and Port Angeles, Washington, noting that the fluoride chemicals being used matched the definition for prescription drugs. The suit alleges that the cities lacked the necessary permits for dispensing these drugs. Plaintiffs requested that the practice be halted under search and seizure statutes until permits were obtained. The request was denied by the superior court, but a review by the State Supreme Court was requested and the court's review decision is currently pending.

The second lawsuit was filed by an individual, Patrick Reeners, of Gallatin, Tennessee on July 19, 2011, in the general sessions court of Sumner County. The suit is against the American Dental Association (ADA), and the complaint was served on the organization's President, Dr. Raymond Gist, DDS. The charge is fraud, false advertising and willful harm. Reeners believes the promotion of water fluoridation as "safe and effective" was never approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He believes the ADA makes this claim while failing to recognize and fairly report on harmful cumulative contributions of fluoride from multiple non-water sources of fluoride.

Reeners believes that fluoride is portrayed on the Association's website as a totally desirable and harmless means of preventing tooth decay. In particular, Reeners believes that the fluoride additive is promoted as if drinking water provided an appropriate dosage, which might be true if you could control total water consumption. However, people also ingest significant doses of fluoride from many other sources such as food, beverages, dental products, and medication. The suit alleges that the general public is ill-informed of the amounts of fluoride on or in most of these products. For example, brewed black tea reportedly tested at more than three parts per million (ppm) fluoride, three times the one ppm of fluoridated drinking water. White grape juice was reported at 2.7 ppm (EPA report #820-R-10-015 Dec. 2010, page 26).

The third lawsuit was filed on August 9th, 2011, by multiple individual plaintiffs on behalf of the general public interest. The suit was filed in the federal District Court, Southern District of California, against the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), which serves some 17 million consumers. The suit alleges wilful misrepresentation, deceptive business practices, and infringements on the consumer's constitutional right to be free of bodily intrusion without their consent. This lawsuit challenges the MWD's claims of safely and effectively reducing tooth decay while delivering a drug that has not been approved for MWD's claims for intended use. It alleges that MWD knowingly failed to inform the public and water recipients of the drug's unapproved status or give notice of evidence of significant potential harms from hydrofluorsilicic acid, which would require a full FDA review, approval process, and notice of any contraindications.

Plaintiffs point to the unique health effects of hydrofluorosilicic acid, which when compared to sodium fluoride, have a disproportionate toxic effect on children, and the fact that consumers are unable to prevent absorption of the chemical through their skin during baths and showers.

These three lawsuits insist on better protection of the public health by application of existing laws.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Updates on Fluoride and NDI Guidelines

Bolivar, Missouri had a tie vote about keeping or removing fluoride in their city water, and their Mayor got to cast the tie-breaking vote.  Mayor Best voted to remove fluoride! 

Ohio has a state-mandated fluoride rule as of the early 1970's, and Athens, Ohio with 29 other cities in Ohio used the "opt-out" rule.  But then in 1997 Athens voted fluoride in their water against the resident wishes, and it's been a debate ever since.  Currently there are still 23 cities in Ohio who are still using the original "opt-out" rule, even though that loophole has been removed. 

Jamaica columnist says the toothless residents need more than fluoridated water in their national mandated healthcare insurance because the fluoridated water has not solved the problem.

New Hampshire state legislators have introduced a bill to remove their state-mandated fluoridated drinking water policy.  It's to be voted on this legislative 2012 session.

Here's an article that's questioning the issue of fluoride, categorizing it as an environmental issue gone political by conspiracy theorists who believe fluoride is a "communist plot."  Lots of informed comments follow the article.

Then there's Rolla, Missouri where the city council covered several issues, i.e., their city library, with resident opponents speaking out against fluoride in their city water (it's covered at the end of the article), citing Austin, Texas as only one of many major cities that have stopped using fluoride, but the city council only recorded it without any action or comments. 

In Windsor Canada, after hearing their health officer give the same "there is no evidence against fluoride" speech last week, the city council had the director of the Canadian chapter of the International Medical Geology Association give her evidence that was against fluoride this week.  They've been without fluoride since April 2011, and in this week's meeting they unanimously voted a moratorium on having fluoride ever added to their water.

Wanting to join the other eleven states that have state-wide fluoride mandate, New Jersey has passed their state-wide legislation out of their Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee with a vote of 7-1-2. It now heads to the Senate Budget and Appropriations for further review. 

And last but not least, here's an update about another group who weighs in against the FDA's NDI guidelines by asking this very pointed question against the alleged "spiked supplements" issue causing this controversy. Atrium Innovations, carrying brands for Douglas Labratories and Garden of Life, "...We question why, after 17 years, FDA has promulgated such stringent guidelines, as we do not believe that a consumer safety crisis exists to merit such action by the Agency..." 

My question is why is it proponents for fluoride can accept "scientific" evidence for fluoride, when it's been proved to be flawed at best, but just can't accept that there's scientific evidence against fluoride? 

Proponents for fluoride continue to say that any scientific evidence that's against fluoride is "flawed at best" -- hummm.... one of my staff members with a master's degree in behavior disorders has mentioned that psychologists call this "projection," where the guilty person doing something project what they're doing on to somebody else, usually an innocent person, to get the focus away from themselves, which causes mass confusion until the facts finally surface.

My question, based on that thought, is this what fluoride proponents appear to be doing against fluoride opponents, using their own flawed research problems as something to project on to the other side?  It seems to be the only logical reason why proponents can continue to uphold the flawed studies as their "proof" that fluoride is good while at the same time accusing the opponents as having flawed studies or no studies. 

What do you think?

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Detailed Analysis of 1994 DSHEA - Dispels FDA Myths

Harvard professor, Dr. Cohen, is still making public appearances about his concerns with DSHEA and "spiked supplements" not being regulated enough.

In response to him, two authors at American Botanical Council (ABC) published a detailed analysis of DSHEA - you can read a short article about it here:

 And you can read their detailed analysis and conclusions here:

A new paper published by the American Botanical Council (ABC) attempts to dispel the ‘puzzling’ and pervasive ‘myth’ that the US dietary supplements trade is unregulated.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Your Food Has 180 Times More Fluoride Than Your Water!

Dr. Mercola interviews Jeff Green, National Director for Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, on the below video link.  Together they reveal how much fluoride is on our non-organic food through the use of fluoridated pesticides! 

Story at-a-glance

  • One of the primary sources of fluoride exposure is not fluoridated drinking water but non-organic foods, due to the high amounts of fluoride-based pesticide residues on these foods. Non-organic foods may account for as much as one-third of the average person’s fluoride exposure
  • Foods particularly high in fluoride include non-organic fresh produce, breakfast cereals, juices (particularly grape juice), deboned meats such as lunch meats, and black- or green tea (even if organic)
  • Fluoride has the ability to affect other chemicals and heavy metals; in some cases making them even more harmful than they would be on their own. For example, when you combine chloramines with the hydrofluorosilicic acid added to the water supply, they become very effective at extracting lead from old plumbing systems, promoting the accumulation of lead in the water supply
  • Studies have shown that hydrofluorosilicic acid increases lead accumulation in bone, teeth, and other calcium-rich tissues. This is because the free fluoride ion acts as a transport of heavy metals, allowing them to enter into areas of your body they normally would not be able to go, such as (crossing the blood-brain-barrier) into your brain

FDA Using UN-Approved Drug in Fluoridated Water - Lawsuit Filed in California

Here's another California surprise on fluoride--this one's got some good potential in getting the facts out there!  I just found it on one of the prior article's online links -- 

Last August 9, 2011, 4 citizens of Southern California, "on behalf of themselves and the general public," filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 11-cv-01765-JLS-BLM).   (My emphasis below are in bold black)--The lawsuit alleges that The Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of the Southern California,

" allegedly using an unapproved drug to fulfill its water fluoridation program...alleges that MWD is injecting hydrofluosilicic acid into the water supply for the purpose of treating disease and dental caries. It also alleges that hydrofluosilicic acid has never been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (as) approval for the treatment of disease or dental caries.

"The MWD's use of an unapproved drug to medicate plaintiffs and other persons in order to forcibly treat disease and dental caries without their consent violates the Constitutional rights of these citizens and violates the Food and Drug Administration Act," the lawsuit states. 

"The industrial-grade hydrofluosilicic acid that the MWD uses is a byproduct of fertilizer production and should not be confused with different fluoride compounds, such as calcium fluoride or sodium fluoride, that are naturally occurring or already approved for certain uses, according to the complaint.

"Fluoridation is typically accomplished by adding one of three compounds to the water: sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, or sodium fluorosilicate -- none of which are FDA approved either, according to  Jeff Green, National Director for Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, and a spokesperson for the plaintiffs.

"MWD has chosen to medicate the plaintiffs with an unapproved drug without their consent that is not produced with controlled manufacturing practices and consistencies in impurities, and analyses of hydrofluosilicic acid indicate contamination of the unapproved drug with dangerous impurities, including lead and arsenic, and varying amounts of cadmium, mercury, beryllium, and other contaminants," the lawsuit states.

"The plaintiffs claim that MWD made public declarations that it intended to add fluoride to the water to safely and effectively treat and prevent dental disease, and then, "in a classic bait and switch, selected and initiated use of an unapproved drug to fulfill that intention," according to the complaint.

"The plaintiffs are not seeking monetary damages but are calling for the product to be thoroughly evaluated and approved before continuing to expose consumers without their consent, according to their attorney, Kyle Nordrehaug.

"This case does not challenge the public policy of fluoridation," Nordrehaug stated in a press release.

"It does challenge MWD's bait-and-switch tactics of orchestrating statements by them and their down-line distributors of water to individual consumers when MWD knew that the actual drug product that they deliver had never had a toxicological study performed on the health and behavioral effects of its continued use until 2010, much less approval for MWD's perpetuation of absolute health claims."

"Green agreed, noting that agencies such as the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency -- which gave up oversight authority for direct water additives in 1988 -- have not said that fluoride is safe and effective, but rather that the policy of water fluoridation is safe and effective.

"So we could not, in court, go after the public policy," he told "So if we win this, it doesn't stop them from fluoridating with another substance. It only goes after the selection of the particular product, which has never been proven safe and effective. MWD has made claims that the process is safe and effective, but hydrofluosilicic acid has never been proven safe and effective."

"The lawsuit also contends that hydrofluosilicic acid is more harmful than sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, or sodium fluorosilicate, Green added.

"The MWD declined to comment, noting that it is still reviewing the litigation."

What do you think?  This gets right to the heart of the matter, doesn't it?!!  Anybody know what the update is on this lawsuit?  

Friday, February 3, 2012

Calif. Dental Assoc. Pulls Funding on Fluoridation

Did you know about this one?  Kind of ironic sounding, isn't it?  The State of California has a statewide mandate for all cities with 10,000 or more households to put fluoride in their water as long as they receive funding for it from an outside entity.  

The town of almost 60,000 people in Watsonville, in Santa Cruz County, just lost their funding from the California Dental Association.  The estimate for installation, operation, maintenance, etc., was almost $3 million, and the California Dental Association didn't have that much, so they decided to pull their funds to use in another city needing a lesser amount. 

The people of Watsonville are happy about it because they'd already voted not to have fluoride in their city's drinking water.  Their city was then sued by their local public health officials for voting fluoride out, it ended up in appeals court, and after 10 years ended up in the California State Supreme Court that upheld the state mandate. 

As Watsonville reluctantly prepared to have fluoride put into their water, then the California Dental Association pulled their funding - oh darn!  The mayor was relieved to have it behind them now, but proponents for fluoride swore that they'd continue to seek funding from some where.   

If you notice, the Santa Cruz Sentinel newspaper gave their editorial comment in the article about there "not being any research" that supported the opponents of fluoride.  Plenty of comments from residents below the article were giving weblinks to help the newspaper staff "find" the research and read it.

What's your opinion on a state-mandated fluoride??  And what's with California's state-wide fluoride mandate requiring the funding to be from an "outside entity" instead of being from the city providing the fluoridated water?