Why the fluoridation of public water supplies is illegal

[Large Sarge]

http://www.naturalnews.com/028913_fl...chemicals.html


Why the fluoridation of public water supplies is illegal

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) Municipalities all across America are currently dripping fluoride chemicals into their public water supply, dosing over a hundred million Americans with a chemical that they claim "prevents cavities."

What's interesting here is that this biological effect of "preventing cavities" is a medical claim, according to the FDA. And as such, making this claim instantly and automatically transforms fluoride into a "drug" under currently FDA regulations.

This means that cities and towns all across America are now practicing medicine without a license by dripping liquid medication into the public water supply without the consent of those who are swallowing the medication.

If you or I did this, we would be arrested and tried as either terrorists (because contaminating the water supply is an act of terrorism) or felons practicing medicine without a license. So what allows cities and towns to get away with these very same crimes?

Cities openly violate state and federal law

Keep in mind that a medication can only be legally prescribed to someone after they have been diagnosed with a medical need. In other words, a doctor can't legally prescribe you some pharmaceutical unless he examines you and determines you actually need it. But fluoride is medicating everyone whether they need it or not, without any medical diagnosis whatsoever.

And that means those children or adults who already have high exposure to fluoride (from swallowing toothpaste or drinking fluoridated bottled water, for example) may now be exposed to too much fluoride from the added amounts in the tap water. Excess fluoride can cause serious health problems such as bone fractures and dark spots appearing on your teeth (dental fluorosis).

This does not appear to concern the proponents of fluoride -- people who believe they alone have the right to practice mass medicine without a license by dripping an unapproved drug chemical into the public water supply without the knowledge or consent of those who are being medicated by that chemical.

Every city and town in America currently engaged in fluoridation of the water supply is committing felony crimes. Town leaders who approve of water fluoridation are criminals operating in clear violation of FDA regulations, state medical laws and federal laws.

How to fight back

If you happen to see one of these town leaders at a town meeting, make a citizens' arrest and put them in handcuffs, then turn them over to the local sheriff.

You may also wish to write a strong letter to your state medical board and complain that your city or town officials are "practicing medicine without a license" by dosing your city residents with an unapproved drug.

If they insist fluoride is not a drug, tell them to read the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). (http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinform...)

There, you will find that the Act states:

The term "drug" means... articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.

Now, I don't personally agree with this definition of a "drug" but this is what the FDA claims it to be, and it clearly states that any item intended to "affect the structure" of the body is a drug.

Fluoride is intended to affect the structure of the teeth. That's the whole claimed purpose of dumping it into the water supply. Therefore, fluoride is a drug.

Furthermore, since it is a drug, it is ILLEGAL to dump it into the water supply, even if it were approved by the FDA to treat cavities (which it isn't).

Thus, every employee of every city or town that is currently dumping this chemical drug into the water supply is guilty of a felony crime and should be immediately arrested and prosecuted for contamination of the public water supplies as well as practicing medicine without a license.

Call your local police department and report these crimes. It's time to arrest these fluoro-terrorists who are illegally contaminating our public water supply with illegal drugs. Stop the fluoride madness.

"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." - Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.

Other resources to check out:
Fluoride Action Network
www.FluorideAlert.org

Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
www.NoFluoride.com

IAOMT (dentists opposing mercury)
www.iaomt.org{SubscribeHealthRangerBlock}

__._,_.___

[iOWNme]

I HIGHLY urge members to check out the link Sarge posted:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/


I just came across this site and was blown away. The amount of scientific data on the dangers is incredible. It is the dagger in the heart of the pro-fluoride group. There are IQ tests, info on fluoride as a pesticide, etc. I really found it to be worth a ton of good scientifically proven info on the subject of fluoridation.

Thanks Sarge! Yes this thread is a year old!



;D

[Serpo]

Fluoride is poison and the people that administer it are terrorists.

[Bullion_Bob]

Skip past all the street interviews at the beginning...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aTfyo0Xz_c

[Serpo]

Civil Rights Leaders Call for Halt to Water Fluoridation
April 14, 2011


http://fluoridealert.org/press.release.4-14-11.html

Press Release from Fluoride Action Network:
Contacts:
Daniel G. Stockin, MPH,
The Lillie Center, Inc.
706-669-0786

Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH,
Fluoride Action Network
Cell 425-466-0100 (Pacific Time)

Because fluoride can disproportionately harm poor citizens and black families, Atlanta civil rights leaders, Andrew Young and Dr. Gerald Durley, have asked Georgia legislators to repeal the state’s mandatory water fluoridation law.

Andrew Young, former U.N. Ambassador and former Atlanta Mayor, along with Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley, Pastor of Providence Baptist Church in Atlanta, both inductees in the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame, expressed concerns about the fairness, safety, and full disclosure regarding fluoridation in letters to the state’s minority and majority legislative leaders. (1,2)

Fluoride chemicals, added to 96% of Georgia’s public drinking water supplies are meant to prevent tooth decay, especially in the poor. Yet, 61% of low-income Georgia third-graders have tooth decay compared to 51% from higher income families - and 33% and 20%, respectively, have untreated cavities showing a dire need for dental care. (3)

“We also have a cavity epidemic today in our inner cities that have been fluoridated for decades,” wrote Ambassador Young.

Studies show that despite fluoridation, tooth decay is higher in blacks (4) along with fluoride overexposure symptoms - dental fluorosis or discolored teeth.(5)

Dr. Durley wrote, “The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences has designated kidney patients, diabetics, seniors, and babies as ‘susceptible subpopulations’ that are especially vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides. Black citizens are disproportionately affected by kidney disease and diabetes, and are therefore more impacted by fluorides.”(4)

Ambassador Young wrote, “I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies’ milk formula, do their babies not count? Of course they do. This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion. We must find better ways to prevent cavities, such as helping those most at risk for cavities obtain access to the services of a dentist.”(5)

Dr. Durley's letter to the legislators also says, “I support the holding of Fluoridegate hearings at the state and national level so we can learn why we haven’t been openly told that fluorides build up in the body over time (and) why our government agencies haven’t told the black community openly that fluorides disproportionately harm black Americans…“

An American Association for Justice Newsletter for trial lawyers describes potential fluoride legal actions based on personal injury, consumer fraud, and civil rights harm.(6)

In a letter to their state’s Health Commissioner, a bipartisan group of Tennessee legislators expressed their concern about fluoridation’s undesirable impact on babies and other groups.(7)

A bipartisan group of New York City Council Members has also introduced legislation to stop fluoridation in NYC. (8)

Daniel G. Stockin of The Lillie Center Inc., a Georgia-based firm working to end the practice of fluoridation says, “You can look for even more leaders and persons harmed by fluoridation to speak out now.”

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposes to lower water fluoride levels to alleviate the growing dental fluorosis epidemic. The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) submitted scientific evidence to HHS (9) indicating that fluoridation must stop completely to preserve health, documenting that:

• HHS has failed to consider fluoride's impact on the brain. Fluoride has been linked to lowered IQ in 24 human studies, and over 100 animal studies have reported damage to the brain.

• Infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated tap water will receive up to 175 times more fluoride than breast-fed infants. Infants 0-6 months old, the smallest and most vulnerable in our population, were completely excluded from risk calculations in HHS's proposal.

• African-American children and low-income children suffer from the highest rates of dental fluorosis, including the most severe forms of the condition. The HHS has failed to take any steps to redress this inequity, thereby making fluoridation an Environmental Justice issue.

Young stated, “My father was a dentist. I formerly was a strong believer in the benefits of water fluoridation for preventing cavities. But many things that we began to do 50 or more years ago we now no longer do, because we have learned further information that changes our practices and policies. So it is with fluoridation.”

Paul Connett, PhD, Director of FAN says "Fluoridation is unnecessary, unethical, the benefits wildly exaggerated and the risks minimized."

References:

1. Letter from Dr. Gerald Durley to Senator Chip Rogers, Senate Majority Leader, Georgia State Capitol, March 9, 2011. http://www.fluoridealert.org/re/durley-3-9-11.pdf (National Research Council info on kidney patients and others as fluoride-susceptible groups at
Page 350 (bottom): http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=350
Page 351 (top): http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=351

2. Letter from Andrew Young to Chip Rogers, Senate Majority Leader, Georgia State Capitol, March 29, 2011. http://spotsonmyteeth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Letter-to-Georgia-Legislators-from-Ambassador-Andrew-Young.pdf

3. Oral Health Status of Georgia's Children, Facts at a Glance. http://health.state.ga.us/pdfs/familyhealth/oral/OralHealthStatusofGeorgia%27sChildren.pdf

4. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. 2011. Advancing Oral Health in America. The National Academies Press. Prepublication. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13086&page=35

5. Beltrán-Aguilar ED, et al. 2005. Surveillance for Dental Caries, Dental Sealants, Tooth Retention, Edentulism, and Enamel Fluorosis --- United States, 1988--1994 and 1999—2002. MMWR 54(03);1-44. August 26. TABLE 23.
• See Table 23, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/s403a1t23.gif
• See report, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm

6. Nidel C and Stockin DG. 201l. Fluoridegate and Fluoride Litigation: What Law Firms Need to Know About Fluoride Toxic Tort Actions. American Association for Justice Newsletter, Vol. 18, No. 2, Winter/Spring.
http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/14815_14817.htm

7. Letter from Rep. Frank Nicely, et al., to Commissioner Susan R. Cooper, Department of Health, Nashville, TN. February 7, 2011. http://fluoridealert.org/tn.letter.to.doh.2-7-11.pdf

8. The New York City Council, A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the fluoridation of water, January 18, 2011. http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=828442&GUID=B1B850E6-5BB5-4CC1-9492-6E1070A72B31&Options=&Search

9. Blank T. 2011. Comments on Proposed HHS Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water for Prevention of Dental Caries. Prepared for the Department of Health and Human Services. Fluoride Action Network. February 4.
PDF submission: http://www.fluoridealert.org/dhhs.fan.submission.feb.2011.pdf
HTML format: http://fluoridealert.org/fan-comments.html

[iOWNme]

Here is an issue i never see brought up......

FDA has NEVER approved Fluoride for ingestion

http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2005/12/fluoride-never-fda-approved-for.html



Children’s sodium fluoride anti-cavity supplements were never found safe or effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They were never even tested. And the reason will astound you.


Sodium fluoride supplements are routinely fed to little children to prevent tooth decay. They are drugs requiring a dentist's or physician's prescription.

The below e-mail correspondence between this writer and the FDA shows that fluoride supplements were "grandfathered in" before the 1938 law was enacted requiring drug testing.

So, products on the market before 1938 were presumed safe by the FDA who allowed grandfathered drugs to be sold without any testing. Once a drug is on the market for any reason, doctors can use them to treat any disease or condition.

It gets even more incredulous.

Sodium fluoride was on the market pre-1938, but not to stop cavities and not for any medical reason. Sodium fluoride sold as a rat poison.

So, in effect, the FDA says - since sodium fluoride safely and effectively killed rats before 1938, the FDA considers it is safe to give to little children to prevent tooth decay.

Over 91% of U.S. fluoridating communities now use cheaper silicofluorides - another chemical never FDA approved, or safety tested in animals or humans but recently found to increase children's blood lead levels.

From a 1951 American Dental Association brochure:
"There is no proof that commercial preparations such as tablets, dentifrices, mouthwashes or chewing gum containing fluorides are effective in preventing dental decay. Unfortunately such preparations are being offered to the public without adequate scientific evidence of their value."


The following is my correspondence with the FDA:

-----Original Message-----
From: Suite1oh1@aol.com [mailto:Suite1oh1@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 7:10 PM
To: druginfo@cder.fda.gov
Subject: DrugInfo Comment Form FDA/CDER Site

Name: Sally

E-Mail: Suite1oh1@aol.com

Comments: I don't see fluoride supplements, which require a prescription,
listed on your approved drugs list. They are prescribed to children to
prevent tooth decay. Why aren't they approved? They aren't nutritional
supplements, so they can't be excluded.
Is it safe to give children drugs that haven't been FDA approved?

---

Subject: RE: DrugInfo Comment Form FDA/CDER Site
Date: 3/9/2004 3:56:03 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: DRUGINFO@cder.fda.gov
To: Suite1oh1@aol.com

Sodium fluoride has been marketed in the United States since before 1938,when the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) was enacted. The Act is the
basic food and drug law of the United States and is intended to assure the consumer that foods are pure and wholesome, safe to eat, and produced under sanitary conditions; that drugs and devices are safe and effective for their intended uses; that cosmetics are safe and made from appropriate
ingredients; and that all labeling and packaging is truthful, informative, and not deceptive.

With the passage of the Act, an approved New Drug
Application (NDA) was required for marketing any new drug product (drug products introduced after 1938), as the regulatory mechanism for ensuring
that all new drugs were cleared for safety prior to distribution. An amendment to the Act in 1962 required that, before marketing a drug, a
manufacturer also had to provide substantial evidence of effectiveness for the product's intended uses.

Drugs on the market prior to enactment of the 1938 law were exempted, or "grandfathered", and manufacturers were not required to file an NDA. The premise was that all pre-1938 drugs were considered safe, and if the manufacturer did not change the product formulation or indication, then an NDA was not required. However, once a manufacturer made any change to a pre-1938 drug, that drug was considered by the FDA to be a "new drug" and the manufacturer was required to prove that the drug was safe for its intended use.

The FDA is aware of sodium fluoride-containing products in various dosage forms that are currently marketed. At the present time, the FDA is deferring any regulatory action on sodium fluoride products that were marketed prior
to 1962 as long as the currently marketed product is identical to the pre-1962 product.

Any prescription sodium fluoride-containing product coming into the marketplace after 1962 that is not identical to the pre-1962 labeling and
that has drug claims, is subject to the FDA drug review process prior to marketing. Drug sponsors, generally manufacturers, develop new drugs, from
the earliest laboratory discoveries through various phases of animal and human safety testing as well as clinical testing for effectiveness and
appropriate dosing.

The FDA reviews data collected during drug testing at two key points: first, at the time the sponsor believes that the drug is ready for human testing and submits an Investigational New Drug Application (IND); and second, at the time the sponsor submits an NDA for approval to market the drug product. Before the FDA will permit testing of a drug in humans (clinical trials), the sponsor must provide us information in an IND
demonstrating that the drug is reasonably safe to administer to humans. The sponsor must also provide manufacturing and control data, a detailed plan for clinical trials, and the names and qualifications of the investigators who will be performing the clinical trials.

Not all oral vitamins are prescription drugs. If the preparation contains 1mg or more of folic acid, then it is prescription. They are indicated for a variety of reasons but mainly to maintain normal blood levels and,therefore, prevent a variety of clinical conditions associated with vitamin deficiencies. If a patient is already deficient, then they will need more than the RDA to replete body stores of the deficient vitamin(s). Certain inborn errors of metabolism require treatment with specific vitamins.

Thank you
Bd100
CDER Drug Information

---

-----Original Message-----
From: Suite1oh1@aol.com [mailto:Suite1oh1@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:29 AM
To: DRUGINFO@cder.fda.gov
Subject: Re: DrugInfo Comment Form FDA/CDER Site


Thank you for your very detailed answer.

Sodium fluoride supplements weren't tested as a decay preventative until the 1950's or 1960's. The sodium fluoride on the market before 1938 was sold as a rat poison. Were there any other medicinal reasons for using sodium fluoride before 1938?

Thank you.

Sally

----

Subject: RE: DrugInfo Comment Form FDA/CDER Site
Date: 3/18/2004 1:17:15 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: DRUGINFO@cder.fda.gov
Reply To:
To: Suite1oh1@aol.com


We don't have information on the medical uses of fluoride before 1938.


Thank you
bd100
CDER Drug Information



More info on Fluoride ingestion....

http://www.rense.com/general74/fflu.htm

http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=1116

http://fluoride-class-action.com/sauerheber-to-fda-11-17-10

[sirgonzo420]

yay for aluminum manufacture industrial toxic waste in the water supply!

[Son-of-Liberty]

The term "drug" means... articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.

There are those words again. There is quite a bit of legislation that refers to man as an animal and animals have no rights.