Although this is coveted as a wonderful bill that is needed in the US so that drugs and medical devices can be fast tracked, if you read the nearly 1000 pages it is clear this is dangerous bill that is has the best interests of the Pharmaceutical industry at heart, NOT its consumers.
Another Choice for Immunization?
New video series shows how to protect against disease with No Pricks
Washington, DC – We attended a conference recently and learned about an emerging new alternative in disease protection called “HP” – short for “HomeoProphylaxis”. Around here we like to refer to it simply as a “Smart Choice”, because with all the debate around vaccines and questions regarding their safety, an alternative free from such concerns is most welcome.
The “Smart Choice” is being used by millions worldwide – no surprise, given it is non-toxic and highly effective. Fortunately the organizers of the conference filmed it for a series of presentation videos and have made each available to CFH supporters at a reduced rate – $13.95 vs. the usual $39.95. There are also several presenters, including leading U.S. vaccine rights attorney Alan Phillips, and leading medical researcher Neil Z. Miller, who share some little known and eye-opening facts vaccine science and law.
To learn more and see a preview of all the speakers, click on the screen image below or visit the HP WORLDWIDE CHOICE STORE. To get your Citizens for Health discount, enter the promo code CITIZENS35 when you make a purchase before February 14. A bonus: 10% of what you spend is donated to CFH!
We think we can all agree we’re due for a Smart Choice – now it looks like we have one, and another way to preserve our health freedom.
Please take a moment to share this information with anyone interested in an alternative to vaccines – spread the word on health freedom!
[For access to HP, or if you’re a healthcare provider and want to add HP to your practice, please contact Cilla Whatcott by visiting www.WorldwideChoice.org. Program access is also available through www.HPWWC.org.]
Just the (Vaxx) Facts Ma’am! Get the Truth About Vaccine Choice in an All-Day Internet Radio Marathon
Greetings Health Freedom Champions!
Our friends and allies at the Natural Solutions Foundation have asked us to spread the word about a day-long event dedicated to the truth about vaccine choice and to giving you the tools and information you need to make informed decisions about maintaining the health and wellness of you and your family.
On May 1, 2015 Veterans Truth Network and American Freedom Network will join forces with the Natural Solutions Foundation to present MayDay! Vaccine Truth Internet Talk Radio Marathon. (It will also be streamed live on American Freedom Radio, www.AmericanFreedomRadio.com, thanks to Danny Romero).
Take advantage of the Natural Solutions Foundation’s Health Freedom Portal to listen, chat and share. Join CFH Chair Jim Turner and other leaders in the fight for health freedom such as Rima Laibow, MD; Sherrie Tenpenny, DO; and many others. Following the event an ebook will be available that will contain articles and audio files as well as the entire bibliography.
Friday, May 1, 2015 8:00 AM to Midnight, all times Eastern:
Then use those insights to take action! Check out this list of state bills threatening your health freedom regarding vaccinations. Make your voice heard NOW!
Bookmark http://drrimatruthreports.com/mayday-mayday-your-rights-and-your-lives-at-risk, so you can check on updates as more amazing experts are added to the schedule.
What do you do if you’re the great and powerful American Dairy Industry and you want to make a major change in U.S. Food and Drug Administration food-labeling regulations, only to have your proposal met with an uproar from consumers? Well, you can then try and soft-pedal the actual aim of your petition – with a little help from your friends at the FDA of course!
Last Monday the regulatory agency posted a page at its web site to address the “confusion” on the issue. This new ‘education’ page, headed “FDA wants your opinion on dairy-products labels,” attempts to explain what the petition is all about by including a lot of rhetoric from the dairy industry itself – for example, “reduced calorie” labeling is “unattractive to children,” and updating the milk standard “would promote honesty and fair dealing.” The page then asks the public to offer comments on such questions as whether the proposed change will create an “increased burden for consumers” who want to know what their milk might be sweetened with.
So what’s behind the FDA’s transparent attempt to defend the petition against being ‘misunderstood’ by consumers? The answer can be found in the trade pub Food Business News, which quotes International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) spokesperson Peggy Armstrong as saying that the petition has “drawn some negative feedback due to misunderstanding” – an apparent reference to more than 33,000 negative comments on the petitions filed at the site.
Now granted, there has been a good deal of confusion about the purpose of this petition, which attempts to change the “standard of identity” for milk (and certain other dairy products). But one thing is clear from the responses – the fact that many people don’t want either the FDA or the industry to “mess with our milk,” as one writer put it, and just intuitively don’t seem to like the idea of “aspartame” being connected with “milk” in the same sentence.
But while supposedly attempting to dispel whatever “confusion” may exist over the petition, neither the FDA nor the IDFA have bothered to inform us about what the really big story here is – one that I wrote about at the end of last month.
As I noted then, the most alarming consequence for parents should the FDA approve the petition — and what’s in it for the dairy industry — is that by changing the standard of identity for milk, in effect the FDA will now be granting permission for aspartame-sweetened flavored milk to be offered in the National School Lunch Program and the National School Breakfast Program, which it is currently not.
Existing regulations mandate that these two federally supported nutrition programs must include meals that offer eight ounces of milk. And that milk must be the kind described in the milk “standard of identity.” By changing that standard, I was informed by Cary Frye, IDFA vice president of regulatory affairs, it would mean that artificially sweetened milk would then “meet the definition” required to potentially be served up to more than 31 million kids a day.
The “confusion” alluded to by the FDA stemmed from many people’s mistaken belief that aspartame is not now allowed in milk, and would be under the proposed change, The fact is, however, that nothing currently stops manufacturers from adding aspartame to flavored milk to their heart’s content – just as long as the front label contains some additional words to “signal the presence of artificial sweeteners” such as “reduced calorie milk” or “no added sugar” or perhaps even “dairy beverage.” And that’s where the new identity standard would come in, both knocking out the restriction against allowing artificially sweetened milk in those school programs and eliminating the front label “signal” (although aspartame would still be listed on the ingredients label).
But even if you don’t understand all the technical aspects of what a “standard of identity” is or the basics of food labeling laws, the thought of every child who participates in the National School Lunch or Breakfast Program being offered aspartame-sweetened milk on a daily basis should be enough of a reason to add your comments on this petition before the May 21 deadline. You can click here to go to the FDA site and tell them what you think.
Besides protecting kids from being served a neurotoxic chemical in their milk at school, it’s a chance for you to help “educate” both the FDA and the dairy industry in the kind of standards that consumers expect them to maintain.
Scandal Widens, Calls for Hearings Grow as New Revelations Highlight Science in Conflict with Officials’ Statements on Water Fluoridation Safety
Part 1 of a Series, By Daniel G. Stockin, MPH
Following the Hurricane Katrina formaldehyde trailers fiasco and the Washington D.C. lead-in-drinking water disclosures, now yet another scandal provides evidence that what is said and done by public health experts may not be as important as the reasons behind what is left unsaid and undone.
Enter Fluoridegate, a multi-faceted scandal unfolding while simultaneously a growing number of cities and water utilities have halted water fluoridation or are considering legislation to end it.
City officials in Milwaukee, New York City and Phoenix have recently discussed ending water fluoridation. Quebec and Calgary in Canada, College Station in Texas, and Pinellas County in Florida have ended it, along with numerous smaller cities and agencies.
“I think there are safety concerns and fiscal concerns causing people to rethink fluoridation,” says Wally Babb, a former Georgia water plant operator reveling in the cities’ actions, since he was fired in 2008 for his stance against fluoridation.
“But I also think prosecutors and investigative bodies are going to be very interested to ask why certain groups and individuals did not share key information about fluoridation risks,” he says.
“If any scandal ever deserved a series of investigative hearings, this is it. This is going to call some very high level people on the carpet.”
Prominent Washington D.C. product safety attorney James S. Turner concurs.
“The evidence is shocking,” he says. “It’s time to put some of the key players under oath in Fluoridegate hearings.”
The developments point to a central question: Did a group of vested interest federal and private sector officials collude to use the public health infrastructure to control what the public hears about fluoridation and divert attention from increasingly bad news about harm from fluorides?
For those still unfamiliar with the developments, here are some of the deeply troubling questions of Fluoridegate.
Controlling the Discussion and Talking Points
Water fluoridation is the long-standing practice of adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water to help prevent cavities. For decades, Americans have been told that the practice is entirely safe, though controversy about fluoridation safety has never completely disappeared.
In 2011 a Freedom of Information Act request asked for the names, titles, and job descriptions of all persons past and present inside the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that had input into CDC’s decision to support fluoridation. The request turned up a disturbing fact: CDC’s Oral Health Directors, acting alone within CDC for more than 35 years, had sole input and control in deciding to support fluoridation.
The revelation raised obvious questions. How were CDC’s dental professionals, with expertise in oral health, competent to assess new research and make statements about possible harmful outside-the-mouth effects from fluorides? Why did CDC not seek assistance and input from its own cancer, diabetes, and minority health professionals, and from toxicologists in its sister organization, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry?
Were improper influence and the Oral Health Division’s close ties to the American Dental Association with its long history of denying harm from fluoridation the reasons CDC continued to deny any outside-the-mouth harm?
Interestingly, a letter from ADA had protested that it was “very disturbed” about a proposed reorganization in CDC that would downgrade the status of the Oral Health Division, folding it inside another unit. In explaining that ADA had “come to value its relationship with the (Division of Oral Health)” and describing the two organizations’ “close collaborative relationship,” ADA listed water fluoridation as its number one example of collaborative efforts with the Division.
Was it collaboration…or collusion?
With the information disclosed by the Freedom of Information request, actions by CDC were now seen in a new light. CDC had continued to offer stout assurances that more than 60 years of “extensive research” had proven fluoridation to be safe. But in 2006 the prestigious National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies of Science issued a 507 page report on fluorides that documented a long list of fundamental, basic-in-nature whole-body research that had never been performed.
Had CDC officials been lying in saying that extensive fluoridation safety research had been performed?
CDC had also issued a widely-circulated statement that fluoridation was one of the 10 great public health achievements in the 20th century. But in a 2008 article in Scientific American, John Doull, chairman of the NRC fluoride committee, stated, “…when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on.” He also stated, “The thyroid changes do worry me.”
Cleverly calling fluoridation one of 10 great public health achievements had worked public relations wonders. It had preemptively diverted many from a deeper investigation of fluorides. But the NRC report and other developments would bring fluorides back under the microscope.
Unnerving Information for HIV, Organ Transplant, Diabetes and Kidney Patients
In addition to dismaying information about thyroid concerns, buried within the voluminous NRC report were other unnerving admissions such as this statement: “More research is needed to clarify fluoride’s biochemical effects on the brain.”
The technical jargon and size of the report are daunting, but readers willing to wade through it learn that consumers are ingesting uncontrolled amounts of fluorides through their water supply without our scientists knowing what this does to our brains.
Because fluorides deposit cumulatively in the bones over time, the report also says it is “paramount” that research be conducted because bone marrow is where immune cells have their genesis. It points out that research could be conducted to determine “what percentage of immunocompromised subjects have adverse reactions” at various levels of fluoride in water.
News of this is understandably alarming to organ transplant patients and persons with HIV/AIDS or congenital immune diseases, but there has been little or no communication of the concerns about fluoride immune system impacts to these groups.
The NRC report also listed diabetics, kidney patients, seniors, children, outdoor workers and other groups as “susceptible subpopulations” that are especially vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides.
What was done with these startling statements in the report? Had they been quickly acted on and formally distributed by federal officials to affected stakeholder groups such as the National Kidney Foundation, the American Diabetes Association, thyroid health advocates, HIV support groups, child health groups, etc? If so, the groups were uniformly and strangely quiet about receiving it. And why did the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and CDC’s parent health agency take nearly five years, and until EPA was threatened by a fluoride fumigant lawsuit, to issue a tepid recommendation to slightly lower the level of fluorides in drinking water?
Was the fix in because the dental industry, water agencies, and other groups would face tremendous legal liability if fluorides were now admitted to be potentially harmful? And were CDC and other groups working to “spin” the NRC report, to do damage control?
Fluoridation advocates cited statements within the report that its purpose was not a specific assessment of water fluoridation, implying that the process of studying fluorides produced no information useful in assessing fluoridation safety. This tactic backfired because it is akin to saying that efforts to put a man on the moon did not produce information useful for other spaceflight programs. Plus, the report designated certain groups as “susceptible subpopulations” without respect to what concentration of fluoride was in their water.
Again, the question: Did a group of vested interest federal and private sector officials collude to use the public health infrastructure to control what the public hears about fluoridation and divert attention from increasingly bad news about harm from fluorides? This is where Fluoridegate hearings will come in. Both federal and state agencies and attorneys general will find numerous avenues of fertile investigation.
Harm to Minorities: the Issue that “Has the Potential to Gain Traction”
One of the key areas for investigation will focus on fluoridation promoters’ actions concerning disproportionate fluoridation risks and harm for minority groups.
For example, why did CDC fail to openly inform the black community of news that blacks are disproportionately harmed by “dental fluorosis,” a permanent and in many cases disfiguring staining of teeth that indicates childhood overexposure to fluorides? CDC continued to not openly share the information with minority advocacy groups even after The Lillie Center in Georgia presented a detailed fluoridation ethics complaint to CDC citing the omission in 2007.
And the issue of harm to black citizens continues to grow. In an April 2011 letter, leaders of the American Dental Association requested assistance from U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Howard Koh to help deal with concerns raised by civil rights leaders Ambassador Andrew Young and Rev. Gerald Durley. The two courageous black community leaders had publicly issued letters calling for a halt to fluoridation. In the ADA leaders’ letter to Dr. Koh they explained why they were seeking his assistance to address the concerns Young and Durley had raised about fluoridation safety for minorities.
The letter from ADA leaders stated: “We believe that this issue has the potential to gain traction.”
Gain traction? Fluoridation advocates had long scoffed that fluoridation opponents’ arguments were unfounded. In fact, they said, fluoridation was especially helpful for minority and low income populations, helping eliminate oral health disparities. So what was there about the issue of minorities being harmed by fluoridation that could possibly gain traction?
Could it be that there is substance to the concerns? Does fluoridation in fact disproportionately harm minority populations?
Here we find more grist for Fluoridegate hearings. Studies and other information on fluoride exposure levels and harm had never effectively or formally been presented to minority leaders until recently, by fluoridation opponents.
For example, a fall 2009 study published in the Journal of Public Health Dentistry documented that black children are ingesting significantly more fluorides in water than white children. And CDC released information in 2005 documenting that blacks and hispanics have disproportionately more dental fluorosis than whites. CDC’s statistics were found deeply buried in the very last of 23 dizzying data tables in an article in CDC’s August 26, 2005 “MMWR” publication.
The news spread. Martin Luther King Jr.’s daughter Bernice King spoke out against fluoridation on a radio program. Her cousin, Alveda King, spoke out against fluoridation on her blog. And in the summer of 2011, the League of United Latin American Citizens passed a resolution opposing fluoridation.
Let the Litigation Begin
As part of its efforts to support community water fluoridation programs, the American Dental Association had published a long list, a compendium of organizations that had lent their names as endorsing fluoridation. Dozens of national and international health advocacy, government, and professional organizations were on the seemingly impressive list.
But now it appears that organizations on the list may be named in legal actions. Citizens and decision makers relied on the organizations’ listed names in deciding to buy-in to fluoridation. Very telling will be the groups’ responses to a simple question: Did your group do its own research into potential fluoridation risks prior to allowing your name to be used on ADA’s list, or did you provide a courtesy endorsement of fluoridation without doing your own research?
The list of persons, groups, companies, and agencies that may be sued extends beyond the organizations in ADA’s compendium list. It includes almost anyone that should have warned users of fluoride products of various concerns related to fluorides. Water utilities, bottled water providers, toothpaste sellers, government agencies, nonprofits and industry trade groups, and numerous other individuals and groups may find themselves in the lawsuit cross hairs.
Washington DC toxic tort attorney Chris Nidel said this: “I think when we look back we’ll ask why Fluoridegate didn’t surface earlier. There are serious concerns about possible conflict of interest and heavy editing of information being fed to the public about fluoride risks and impacts.”
Two fluoride-related legal cases were filed in 2011 in Maryland and California courts. Both cases encountered significant, but not unexpected challenges. It’s still early in the process of developing various types of fluoride litigation, but given the now-strongly growing interest in pursuing legal actions, the future looks to hold many fluoridation and fluoride-product-related cases. The sheer number of potentially harmed citizens — persons with dental fluorosis, kidney patients tipped into needing dialysis, diabetics, thyroid patients, etc — numbers in the millions.
Concerning upcoming legal cases and hearings, perhaps most delicious to long-time fluoridation opponents is the prospect that for the first time, key officials in government and private sector agencies can be put on the witness stand and directly questioned about harm from fluorides.
A few interesting questions may be: Why are we warned to spit out pea-sized amounts of fluoridated toothpaste, but we were told we can ingest the same amount of fluoride when it comes in a large glass of fluoridated drinking water? How can it be safe to drink as much fluoridated water as we’d like? And why haven’t Americans been told that fluorides accumulate in the pineal glands in our brains?
In 2008, the National Kidney Foundation’s board of directors quietly issued a new position statement on fluoridation, causing NKF’s name to be removed from the ADA’s compendium list of fluoridation endorsers. But why did NKF not openly announce its new statement? Was it because NKF had been a recipient of grant monies from the CDC and did not wish to risk the ire of CDC officials? Did NKF risk the health of its own constituents, most of who today do not know that the National Research Council has designated kidney patients and diabetics as especially susceptible to harm from ingested fluorides?
Affecting Our Babies and Even Our Pets
Many Americans do not know that for one-time, acute exposures, fluorides are known to be slightly less toxic than arsenic and slightly more toxic than lead. But even with longer-term, lower level chronic exposures, the risks are real, especially for babies and other groups that are particularly vulnerable to harm from fluorides. The NRC report stated that on a body weight basis, infants and young children are ingesting 3-4 times the amount of fluorides as are adults.
On another front, what is fluoridated water doing to our pets and horses? This issue has received little attention until recently, but given Americans’ deep protective instincts for their pets and horses, the issue threatens to become an enormous one in its own right. News of the deaths of the fluoridated water-poisoned horses of Colorado resident Cathy Justus is quickly spreading. A growing number of stunned pet and horse owners are educating themselves further about fluorides before they continue to provide fluoridated water for Fido, the family feline, or a beloved horse.
There are so many facets to the Fluoridegate scandal that it will not be surprising if a number of attorney generals, district attorneys, politicians, investigative journalists, philanthropists, and others make their mark uncovering the harm done and the names of those responsible. Fluorides are an equal opportunity offender, so it is also not surprising that both Democrats and Republicans are joining the calls for Fluoridegate hearings or for a halt to fluoridation.
What are the other key issues? Will there be sacrificial lambs among those subpoenaed for Fluoridegate hearings and court cases? Who will point fingers at each other to try to escape blame?
Part 2 of The Questions of Fluoridegate will delve further into the numerous swirling questions.
Daniel G. Stockin, MPH, is the former manager of the EPA Western Regional Lead Training Center. He is a career public health professional with a background in toxics assessment and hazardous materials management. He is known internationally for his work at The Lillie Center Inc., a Georgia-based firm working to end water fluoridation. He may be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org
© 2012 The Lillie Center Inc. This article may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without modification.
By James J. Gormley
A strong message, but a much-needed one for our schools, hospitals, doctors, courts and social service agencies.