Clint Griess 0:00 Hello everyone, and welcome to the May 2015 International fluoride free teleconference. My name is Clint Griess. And I'm going to be your host today. Welcome. Welcome to everyone from all over I see people dialing in from Seattle, New York City, Austin, Texas, Chicago, Illinois, San Diego, California, Cincinnati, Boston, and even someone from Australia. Welcome from so far away early morning tomorrow morning, to me here on the west coast of North America. We have got a great teleconference for you today. So much has happened since we last met. And we're going to break it down, get some, some advice, some interpretation, and get everyone empowered to go out into your campaigns. We are in fact a group of Florida free activists meeting every month, people from all over the world, sharing our information or inspiration with one another, to support each other in our local, regional and national campaigns to end artificial water fluoridation. This teleconference is being recorded, so you can listen later and share it with your fellow advocates. Really, in the last month, a number of events have transpired, some of which were a long time coming. The United States Department of Human and Health Services has lowered its recommended concentration of fluoride for tap water. And the Food and Drug Administration came out with a recommendation for bottled water. Well, as you know, these, these agencies of the United States federal government, the FDA, human and health services, and the EPA, have a big influence on public policy, and on the professions, various professions, as well as the media's attitude toward fluoridation, but not just in the United States, really all over the world. So that's why it's important for everyone to understand what's going on. And we are so fortunate, once again, to have the experts from the fluoride Action Network With us today to help us with their interpretations of recent events and to give us some guidance. Dr. Paul Connett is the executive director of fam. Ellen Conant is with us as well. She's the managing director, and Stuart Cooper, the campaign director of Phantom, all three are on the phone. Today, we're going to get a good lesson in history. And we're going to find out what these recent events really mean. We're going to learn how we activists have been right all along and, and then we're also going to hear what we can do about it, how this can help us in our local, regional and national campaigns. Before we get started with our presenters today, just want to let you know that you can join in, in a social context, in a couple of ways today, you can go to Facebook. And there's an event page for today's event. If you navigate to the international fluoride free teleconference page, there you'll find a link to today's event, it's another page. And on that page, you can post comments and questions together with others today. And engage. There's also if you'll notice it in your confirmation registration confirmation email, there's a link called Social webinar. And that's just an optional tool. If you care to, you can click that link, upload a picture of yourself. And then you can sort of see who's on the call and a picture of some of the people who are with us today. And then I also want to very important I want to ask you to refer to an email that I sent an hour or so ago that has several links to some important documents that we'll be referring to today. We'll go for Oh, perhaps an hour an hour and a half of discussion with our experts. And then we will have a question and answer period to make sure that you all get what you need out of this call. This is a monthly teleconference and I invite you all to make this a regular feature of your overall campaigning and activism each and every month.
So with that I'm going to introduce first Dr. Conant from the Florida Action Network. Go ahead and say hi.
Dr. Paul Connett 5:08 Hi. Hi, Clint. Hi, everybody. Yes, good. Go ahead. Well, I'm calling from England, near Cheltenham in Cheltenham. It's good to be here. Thank you, Clint, for organizing this. Again, I think what we've seen with the Department of Health and Human Services over the last couple of weeks confirmation of one concrete reality, and that is the highest at the highest levels of government, of our health professions. It's more important for them to protect this policy that they've been promoting and supporting for 70 years, then to protect the health of the American public, particularly, our children. And, and we've seen this happening for a long time. And it's taken the form, essentially of denying any health problem, other than dental fluorosis. So the mantra is, of course, that fluoridation is, is effective, it reduces tooth decay, and that there's no health effect that's been documented at the levels at which we floriday that show any indications of health.
And for a long time, that was made a little easier for them by the fact that they didn't do the studies. The Department of Health and Human Services didn't do the studies. The FDA has never regulated fluoride. So they neither for ingestion, so they neither did the studies, no got the drug companies or anybody else to do the studies. And also because the FDA does not regulate Florida as a drug for ingestion, they were not collecting any stories, any anecdotal stories of harm, which they normally do for any other drug. But with this latest development, what we see here is outright deception. We've got it in black and white, if you read and you've got the document in front of you, if you read the statement of the Department of Health and Human Services, explaining why they're dropping from a range of point seven to 1.2, down to the single value of point seven parts per million. If you look at the rationale for dismissing any other health effects, what you got is blatant deception. It's subtle, but it is deception. And I believe we now have come to the point that we must hold certain individuals responsible for that this is professional misconduct, it is a violation of their oath, they take an oath to protect the public, when they become these top officials, and then not and that they're scooping, or whether they do it directly or whether they have a public relations firm doing it for them. They are stooping to manipulating the science and describing the science in such a way that they are misleading the public. And there's only one reason for that they want to keep this practice going at all costs. And those costs now include the health of our children. Now, one of the documents that I have circulated and that this is the first time I've made this public, because I think it's now time to expose John Buka. Now, I don't know exactly what John bukas role was in 1990. He was certainly involved in a contracting or overseeing the contracting of the National Toxicology Program on a cancer study on animals that was reported back in 1990. And that was directed the NTP was directed by Congress to do that, because the stink that yummy Jonas and Dean Burke had created, with the many city studies showing an increase in cancer in the fluoridated cities a greater increase than in the non fluoridated studies. And and whether or not those those papers by yammie, Jonas and and Burke are absolutely solid is beside the point. The point was that Congress was concerned and order the MTB to do an animal study. And when the animal study came back, they found several cancers and they found a significant increase in osteosarcoma in the male rats, which was not surprising because previously, people had been most concerned about the effect in the males as far as osteosarcoma was concerned. And then there was a peer review so called Peer Reviewed panel. And I'm not exactly sure what role Buka played in selecting that panel, whether he was just a just a bystander at this point, or somebody else took over. But the fact is that they downgraded these some of these studies, to the point that they said there was only equivocal evidence that fluoride was a cancer and only for for Ostia, sarcoma.
And people very close to this, particularly Dr. William Marcus, complained, he wrote memos, saying he had a specialist in one of the rare liver cancers, who would swear that this liver cancer, the slide from the animal study was, in fact, liver cancer. This particular cancer he had invented, he had discovered this cancer. But this way, Marcus ended up losing his job over this. And this was all ignored. Now, another little trivial fact, is when this came out, and incidentally, Newsweek, it was cover page news in Newsweek, that this cancer study had been published. And it was widely thought at that time, that if this pans out that this would be the end of fluoridation, at this point, the American Council on Science and Health, the AC S H, and one of the founding members of that organization was Dr. Fred stair chairman of the nutrition department of Harvard, who was a paid lobbyist for the sugar lobby, who testified in Congress that sugar was a nutrition as a newt, very nutritious that Coca Cola was a nutritious drink, and cyber side with that he promoted fluoridation, avidly attacked anybody in public constantly who said otherwise, he was vitriolic. He was one of the founding members of the American Council on Science and Health. And this organization is an industry fund. It gets its funds from industry. And recently, Carol cough circulated a memo showing the various industries that support this organization. The fact is, they've never found a chemical that they didn't like, they like dioxins, they think that's perfectly safe. I think the only thing that said anything against IS is smoking, you know, a personal problem. So, bear that in mind, the one of the key players in this and we don't see them in public too much, but Ach, H A CSH. Many scientists around the country who promote fluoridation are members of this organization. Anyway, they, in 99 to 91 threatened legal action. If the EPA classified fluoride as a carcinogen. As a result of this animal study, they would take out legal action, they had a press conference and a press release to say that, so obviously, there were very strong concerns about this study. But as we know, the day was saved because the peer review panel downgraded some of the key cancers and just made it equivocal evidence. We're the same. John bucur is one of the authors of this report from HHS S, which confirmed the lowering of the recommended dose 2.7 parts per million. He is one of the authors. He is currently the NT at the head of the NTP national National Toxicology Program. And despite the fact that we were in negotiations with this man from an initiative started by a citizen down in, in Georgia, all of a sudden out of the blue in Egg Harbor in New Jersey, John Buka, is interviewed by a local journalist, and he comes out with the most preposterous statement. And this triggered the letter and you couldn't find this letter in those documents. And I read you some of it. Dr. Buka. We have never met but I've known your colleague, Dr. Linda Birnbaum, for whom I have the greatest respect both as a scientist and someone with the highest integrity for many years. Since the early 90s. Our parenthesis I worked with Linda on dioxin meta at many conferences, and she was very impressive, exposing dioxins toxicity. Carrying on with the letter I was both shocked and disappointed to read your comments on the fluoride IQ studies in the New Jersey newspaper, which will repeat it three times. And here's a direct quote. Some studies this is bucur Some studies have found lower IQs in children and villages in China and India who have been exposed to high levels of naturally occurring fluoride. But those levels start at more than 10 times the levels in fluoridated water. And there are also other explanations for the neurological defects, said John Buka, Associate Director of National Toxicology Program. So he says then is the Associate Director of the NTP program and National Institutes of Health.
Now, I continue if the reporter covered your comments accurately, it's hard to believe that you have carefully read the Harvard meta analysis. By choice if you can conclude that the levels of the studies start at more than 10 times the levels in fluoridated water. As you know, the level of fluoride in fluoridation program ranges from point seven to 1.2 parts per million and 10 times. Okay, I'm talking now 10 times those amounts would be seven parts per million and 12 parts per million. Then go on, I've attached the summary of the data of the levels of the Freud in the high Freud villages in 20 of the studies from the choice analysis, and I have excluded the study to remember choice looked at 27 studies. But for this table, I excluded all the studies for which coal was a source of fluoride, or for which no concentration data was given. Now, again, my lead it to Buka. Only four of these 20 Studies have a concentration above seven parts per million, and none above 12 parts per million. And even these are at the high end of a range of values. Overall, the mean of all 20 studies is 3.52 parts per million. That means this is me talking again, many are below the safe drinking water standard. In the United States, the current safe drinking water standard in the United States is four parts per million. So of these 20s is the average, the arithmetical average of these 20 studies is less than the so called Safe Drinking Water said you would think that would make most people's jaw drop in Washington, or in these agencies, and quite a number are below three parts per million. In fact, a table listing some of the studies in the toy analysis with a level lower than three parts per million was sent to him, Gerald steel in fact, Attorney Gerald still shared an email with Volker, which gave a table listing some of the studies in the choice analysis with a level lower than three parts per million. So it's particularly puzzling that you made the statement that you made, even if we stop at the mean value of 3.52 parts per million is clear that the study's offer no margin of safety, to protect all the children of the US drinking fluoridated water. Now I read a tap, this is me talking again, not the letter. It's well known in Toxicology that you need a safety margin of 10. Once you've established that some level causes harm, then you divide by 10. To get to a level, which you conservatively feel or say will protect all children, because you can't assume that the particular study you're looking at, in this case, a couple of 100 Chinese children, that that that range of sensitivity in those 200 children were the children have the same, essentially the same genetic same diet, same lifestyle, etc, could possibly cover the range of sensitivity for the whole population. So continuing with my letter, but as any toxicologist knows when confronted with a list of studies say this is not the highest level, which is of concern, but the lowest level, it is the lowest level that causes harm, which is the starting point in a risk assessment. And I then go on to point out that there was one study of point eight, eight. And if you look at the details of the Jiang study, there was some children with an IQ lowered at less than 1.5 parts per million. Now I'm going to paraphrase the praise the rest of my letter, because another thing that a toxicologist knows is that you can't compare concentrations. It's too crude, too simplistic to compare impacts on different populations based upon the concentration in the water, because you don't know how much water Those kids are drinking number one. And so it's the dose will vary. And also you don't know how much fluoride they're getting from any other sources. So to use concentrations, as
Booker did here, to make this argument that this was so high, it was not relevant to the American population drinking fluoridated water is outrageous. I mean, it's it's a failure of toxicology 101. So first of all, no appreciation, the need to apply a margin of safety. Secondly, no understanding that you can't compare concentrations. To do this, well, you've got to compare doses. And the third thing that I explained to Buddha when it came to comparing total dose, because that's what's going to harm you, that's what's gonna allow the kids IQ is the total dose of fluoride that they get in milligrams per day. Okay, not not milligrams per liter, that's concentration, it's, you have to multiply that concentration by the number of liters, they drink, to get the number of milligrams per day they get from drinking water, then you had to add the number of milligrams per day they get from toothpaste, and, and other sources. Now, the other bombshell I dropped on Bucha was that the Chinese children in these rural areas and in rural areas, typically, children are breastfed, and not barefoot buffalo fed. And that means American children will be on average, because a lot of bottle fed will be getting more fluoride than those children from, from the way that babies get their fluoride. And secondly, most of those children in rural areas are not using fluoridated toothpaste. So we've got concentrations, unhealthily close to the current range of point seven to 1.2 1.5 parts per million and less. And we've got the fact that those kids are not getting as much fluoride from bottle feeding and from Florida toothpaste, they're not being bottle fed, and they're not getting fluoridated toothpaste in, in the Maine. So that's the letter I sent to Boca. And we got a message from Linda Birnbaum that this was going to be corrected. But he never wrote to the paper to explain that he had made a mistake or the reporter, Miss reported him. All we got a few days later was another report in the same paper, essentially along the same lines. And this time, the offending phrase that the levels started at 10 times higher than the levels in the fluoridation program, the United States was just excise it's no longer there. So all he did was to save his rear end, save his reputation, save his credibility, if you like, without acknowledging to the people of Egg Harbor that they've been misled. And incidentally, they went on to vote for fluoridation, or the council did. He didn't acknowledge that they'd been misled in any way. The paper did not point out that this fundamental error had been made by this top official. So I'm sorry that that's long winded. But you've got here. The underpinnings of my charge for unprofessional behavior. Meanwhile, by the way, he never replied to me, it never replied to this letter, which was polite, it was courteous. I'm amazed that he never bothered to reply. Now, let us go to the wording. The wording in the statement that came out a few days ago from the Department of Health and Human Services. On I don't know which page it is, but you will if you search under IQ you under IQ, IQ and other neurological effects. This is the dismissal of this of concern. And I read you quite a chunk of this.
He said there were a number of responses expressed concern about Florida's impact on the brain, specifically citing lower IQ in children. Several Chinese studies considered in detail by the NRC review, reported lower IQ among children exposed to fluoride in drinking water at Main concentrations 2.5 to 4.1 parts per million milligrams per liter, several times higher. Several times higher than concentrations recommended for community water fluoridation they are they can be faulted again, or not referring to the difference in concentration and dose and not explaining that a margin of safety analysis should be performed. There they go on this is the Health and Human Services. The NRC found that the significance of these Chinese studies is uncertain, because important procedural details are omitted, but also stated that findings warranted additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence based upon animal studies, etc, that they pointed out the NRC called for more research. Now, here's the key phrase, this is what I think is unprofessional, written by probably written by a public relations entity, and the purpose is to mislead the American public on the IQ studies. In rural a recent meta analysis of studies, this is the choice study that I've talked about of 27 studies. In rural China, including those considered by the NRC report identified an association between high fluoride exposure. Now, the only thing they say about high fluoride exposure definition, i e, drinking water concentrations, ranging up to 11.5 milligrams per liter, point five parts per billion, and no a few studies subscores that it rages there is no toxicological.
Reason for pulling out 11.5 pulling out the highest number of any study, only two studies were above how to range note a range, which went up to 11 In one case, and up to 11.5. In the other case, out of 22 went there. And as I've explained before, and I explained to bucur that the average of all 20 studies was 3.52. And some of the studies were less than one there was one study at point eight, eight, there was another study, a Jiang studied less than 1.5, the average is less than the current safe drinking water standard. So pulling and as explained before, earlier, you if a toxicologist looks at a number of studies, and chooses the ones which are needed to establish a risk assessment, you don't choose the highest number, in the studies a highest concentration, or the highest dose, you choose the lowest, because you got to protect the whole population from this foolish practice, you check that you chose the lowest so they should have used either 8.8 or some suspicion of any church in the United States with lower iodine intake, you would choose point eight, eight if you if you weren't concerned about the intake, you would use Yang study which would be 1.5 parts per million, which of course is far too close for comfort to the range of point seven to 1.2 parts per million. Especially you can't control the dose. And of course, again, to continue this argument based upon concentration, rather than explaining that what you'd have to do is to calculate the total dose. So there you have it, you've got gross misconception missing deception of the American public, I think this is gross professional misconduct. I believe that people working at that level in a regulatory agency take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And that certainly would not oath would not include lying or misleading the American public. Now before I sign off and let some other people talk, there's also a section on carcinogenicity. And remember, I said that John Buka may have been involved in the, in the manipulation of the NTP study commission study on osteosarcoma, and down frailties. But here, they point out in the chase report. Several people wrote in and called attention to one study. Notice the emphasis one study that reported in between Ostia sarcoma, a type of bone cancer among young males and estimated fluoride exposure from drinking water based on residents. History The study examined an initial set of cases from a hospital based case control study of osteosarcoma and Florida exposure. Now, that, again, is outrageous. It's public relations spin. The key finding this is what we're talking about here is the baton standing. The study, the best instant study from Harvard, the key finding there was not that relationship, but the fact that it was the timing of exposure that was critical to in this study, the kids exposed in the sixth, seventh and eighth years to fluoridated water, had a five to seven fold increased risk of succumbing to osteosarcoma. It was the timing of exposure, which was unique to the VAs and study. And when her study was published, her boss Chester Douglas, of the dental school at Harvard, and why he should have been given any role in determining whether fluoride cause osteosarcoma being a known proponent of fluoridation. I have no idea. But that they go when she published a study and I apologize for all those who know all this, but it's important to have it on one page one time, he said,
he wrote a letter to the same journal where his study was published and essentially said, her study is a preliminary study. And my larger study will show that her thesis doesn't hold. And he promised his study for that year 2006, the summer of 2006. And we waited, and we waited, and we waited. And it wasn't until 2011, that the study came out. And there was no way. It was a shocking study, a lousy study, but there was no way that this study could do what He said He was going to do refute bassins thesis on timing. Because their monitoring of fluoride their exposure analysis of fluoride was bone levels, bone levels when the child was diagnosed with a disease or when the child died of the disease in their 20s. And there's no way you can use bone levels to determine what was the exposure was at this credit when mobility namely the sixth, seventh, and eighth years, but now go back to the language in the H H s report talking about this hymn study for 2011. This is the Chester Douglas rebuttal. The study examined the initial set of cases from a hospital based controlled study, osteosarcoma that's passing, finding some subsequent cases were published in 2011. This latest study, assess fluoride exposure using actual bone fluoride concentration are more accurate and objective measure than previous estimates based upon reported fluoride concentration in drinking water at locations and the reported residence history. The latest study showed no significant association between bone fluoride levels and osteosarcoma risk. This is a deliberate whitewashing of history a deliberate brushing, if you like, of this particular photograph, spinning public relations, public relations. And it is my contention that public relations should not be a tool of regulatory agencies. We expect that from the American Dental Association, and avid promoter fluoridation. We expect that from the American Council on Science and Health, that's representing industry, we now unfortunately, and sadly, expect it from the Pew Foundation, who for some reason, are supporting fluoridation. But we don't expect it for regulatory agencies that are paid at the taxpayers money. So that's my contribution to this discussion. I'll be very happy to answer any questions later on. But I think it's time to give Stuart and then Ellen a chance to to tackle some of the other issues and there are many there are many other issues. But thanks for your patience and listening.
Clint Griess 34:27 Well thank you Dr. Connett. For dialing in from the UK at 10pm Your local time and giving us your very well considered and and passionate analysis of these recent events. Thank you for your
Dr. Paul Connett 34:47 content. Let me just intercept here. A lot of times people use the word passionate and and when it's not you Yes, I know that you're very objective on This issue, but when the opponents use the words like passion, and emotion, that means that they're trying to convey to the public. And again, I know you're not doing this, but other people who they tried to convey that there's something wrong with the science. And I challenge anybody, anybody out there pro anti fluoridation to challenge any of the logic or the arguments or the science on what I've just told you. And I think it's important that you understand the passion here. I am extremely angry, extremely angry that this practice ever started. But I'm even more angry. What makes me passionate, is I think it's a serious threat to the United States, when we have health agencies and environmental agencies, like the FDA, like the CDC, like the EPA, like the H H. S, twisting the science in to support political science or the policy, rather than saying, this is a serious threat to the United States. And I'm passionate, because we've got to stop this gets larger even than fluoridation is larger even than fluoridation. One other thing I would add here, if we are right on these IQ studies, and we now have 14 IQ studies, and many animal studies, which shows that fluoride interferes with learning and memory, which would very much provide a biological rationale for IQ loss and children, if we're right, the last children in the United States that need their IQ lowers our children from low income families. And these are precisely the children that are targeted by fluoridation programs. And I wish the dentist would wake up here, wake up, if you are going to use this emotional argument that you have to have fluoridation to help poor kids, then please see that across the mirror here and see the mirror image of what you're saying. Because the very children that you would want to help for very good motivations are the very children that are being hurt if the sun is accurate, and the very least we we demand is that science here gets an objective review by regulatory agencies are not handed over to a public relations operation. That's
Clint Griess 37:32 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So yeah, we're gonna hear from Ellen Connett and Stuart Cooper. And then after that, we're gonna get some other voices, your voices question and answers. There's, I want to hear what you're passionate about out there. I'm passionate about principles of scientific integrity, and plain rationality. I get very passionate about these things, health and well being is of great concern to me. Thank you for sharing my passion. And I want to hear people's passion today. There's science is by unbiased and dispassionate as a matter of principle, but public policy we can get very passionate about. Okay, so, Ellen, and let's just say Hi, Ellen, and say Hi, Stuart, what Stuart Why don't you introduce to Ellen? One second. Can you hear me? Click on are you there?
Ellen 38:46 Hi, everybody. This is Ellen.
Clint Griess 38:50 Ellen, let me introduce you, Ellen. She is one of my personal heroes. And she's very articulate and perfectly a perfect activist. She's been on this for longer than it probably could be anyone on this call. And so she is indeed a leader. And thank you so much for taking your time to be with us today. Ellen.
Ellen 39:13 Okay. Yes, it this. This issue certainly riles us up. There's no doubt about it. Okay, just just to step back before the Department of Health and Human Services released its final guideline in April. Last month, point of oh point seven parts per million or milligram per liter to be used in fluoridation schemes. Before that happened just stepping back a bit. As most people know this. Fluoridation of the drinking water began in January 1945. When I was thinking about that today, I thought, my God had, we had World War Two was ranging. They started this project, when World War Two was still raging, before the Germans surrendered before the Japanese surrender. And before the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. That's when fluoridation began in January 1945 sort of takes your breath away a bit when you think of it like that, or kidney. One of the things that when they began fluoridation, they said it was to reduce dental caries. And they want you to In so doing, they also wanted to minimize dental fluorosis. So, the latter part certainly didn't work. But how they decided on the levels of fluoride to be used in these schemes was they, they graded it according to the ambient air temperature of each state. So the code the states would receive the highest level of fluoride, which were the range was point seven to 1.2 parts per million. And the warmer states would would get the lower levels. In this, this rotten public health scheme, they had the chutzpah to floor date indices individual schools throughout America. Not every state did it. But certain certain states did do it. They had their own on site, Florida Gator, that's what they called it a school for Gator. And it didn't check this fluoride into the drinking water in elementary schools. And I'll give you some of the levels that they used. In Vermont. They injected 4.9 parts per million of fluoride in the children's drinking water. In Alaska, they injected five parts per million in Minnesota, they injected 5.4 parts per million fluoride in the children's drinking water. This is how believing they work to do this. I mean, it really takes one's breath away. I actually wrote it up I saw online, Clint has sent around a link to it. So all of this was based on ambient air temperature. And schools were had much more much more fluoride put into the schools word assistant because one, they thought children didn't drink much water. So you had to get a bolus. And now it's when you could and and then of course, it was coordinated the temperature. But in the April document from HS HS, they said this, quote, recent data do not show a convincing relationship between water intake and outdoor air temperature. Recommendations for water fluoride concentrations that differ based on outdoor temperature are necessary. So for over 20 years, they shove this in elementary schools and their drinking water. But now in 2015, it's unnecessary. So it's a little bit of history. And it's a forgotten bit of history. You don't hear much about it. I think this school fluoridation program has come to an end, without any acknowledgement that it ever even happened at various schools. So you will see the schools that
were that I found, which was identified in the fluoridation census of 1992. And those levels are in that that link that Clint put online. That's that's one little bit of history on on the setting of these standards. And one other thing just going on after Paul about these IQ studies. When HHS came out last month and gave the final guideline, they gave the guideline and the only good thing about it was they reduced the level of fluoride going into water. That's the only good thing about it, but they did not just did not attest to the safety of fluoridation, what so ever, the safety still has not been considered. This is going to be done by EPA Office of Water. In 2011, they issued two reports substantiating the safety of water fluoridation, and at that very time they solicited public input on those reports. He said as well as many of you probably on the phone, we we put out very substantive responses to those two reports. So we have to wait until EPA responds to that and comes out with their final, final report. But in our responses in 2011, at that time, there were only 24 IQ studies that found a relationship between fluoride exposure and lowered IQ in children. Today, there are 43 studies. So just in the span of time, waiting for EPA to come back whether this is safe or not, or how they're going to explain it safe. We've had an extra 119 studies published, or if they were or if they were published, not necessarily in English papers fan hadn't translated from the Chinese publication. So it's a little bit of history there. Okay, that onto hh s, they did not determine safety. And they were really quite outrageous in certain aspects, particularly with what they said on IQ. Even at oh point seven parts per million in the drinking water, that breastfed infant will receive 175 times more fluoride in the breast fed incense. And HHS did not address that issue. They just didn't mention it. So we have to wait on that there's something wrong there. That doesn't seem right. You don't have to know much about anything but getting 175 times more something at this very young age needs to be addressed. And they didn't address dose, how much an individual drinks. So they had tempted to briefly address safety, but they did a damn poor job of it. And also on endocrine disruption, they tried to dismiss it. They didn't stay or tell the American people that the NRC report of 2006 for the very first time said that fluoride was an endocrine disruptor Oh, stop. And they in HHS and 20. Last month, they they just sort of tried to they didn't say that they so we don't see anything of that. They're not looking. So that's a very significant the endocrine disruptor is a big issue. The only issue that HHS scientists dental fluorosis. And one person said to me, Gee, why are they so interested in dental fluorosis they never weren't interested in before they always dismissed it. It's curious.
Clint Griess 48:03 Thank you. Thank you. So what you're basically drawing of string from the past, which continues today, a long history of deception?
Ellen 48:14 Well, you know, I think one thing we have to learn, I think, all of us if we have to speak the truth to one another. And we have to share the truth, what we know. And one of the things we learned about the Environmental Protection Agency when we were fighting sulfuryl fluoride was that there are two types of people in the agency, one of the scientists who try to do a damn good job for us. They do. There are some scientists who really do their job who wants to do a good job. But then there are other people who want what the Arts called the politicos. Now, very few people in America know about this, you have the politicos, and you have the scientists and the politicos want to, to make sure everything runs smoothly, and no one you know, no one's up ending the applecart. So. So HHS, I wonder if John Boucher is a political? Yeah, he's a very curious individual. And what he said was was not right, it was wrong. And one of the things is that in this same document that I referenced the fluoridation census 1992 which was published in 93, by the CDC Division of oral health in it, they list the naturally occurring levels in drinking water throughout America. They list the level that's being added to drinking water for fluoridation schemes, and they also list the naturally naturally occurring level and in HHS has report they said that to communities that have natural levels that oh point seven, naturally occurring, it's like 11 million communities 11 million people led a million people. That's a lot. And there's a lot of communities that have very high levels. Point 8.9 1.1, parking million 1.1 1.2, etc, etc. And I'm making a list of all these communities. I thought I could get it done by today. But it's a, it's really a very intensive job and I wasn't able to finish it. But I think everybody who has a group, when I finished this will put it in the fan bulletin and look at it. And the communities in each state should be informed as to what the naturally occurring level of fluoride is in their drinking water. Because if your level is now 1.1 part per million, or 1.2 parts per million, do you feel comfortable with that? Knowing HHS has dropped it 2.7. So it's a whole other avenue opening up and I will get those those that out to everybody, hopefully next week, or the week after it's just it's initially low effort. So that's about I guess that's about it. For me. Safety has not yet been D tricky. Chairman, we're waiting on EPA Office of Water. The infancy bottle fed infants, it's still unchecked to be a major issue. These IQ studies have not been adequately responded to the miserable issue with a school fluoridation programs that just shocking. So the whole basis of that being done is now been been dismissed that Oh, that wasn't even necessary. They said that last month, etc. So I guess that's about it for me if there's any questions?
Clint Griess 52:02 Yeah. Great. Thank you, Ellen. Do it. Okay. Thank you. You know, I was listening to your son on NPR Recently, because of this. And there was, you know, the very intelligent audience of NPR gets their news in this particular barely call it journalism. But Michaels, is very succinct and very clear in his in his position, and he does get a chance, which is rare. To state that we advocate the end of water fluoridation. 00 parts per million.
Ellen 52:50 Absolutely. It's inevitable. It's going to end we all know that. And they just dragging. They're dragging their feet on this.
Clint Griess 52:59 Yeah. You Yes. Yeah. So I do. I do. I do expect some great questions from folks. One thing I'm curious about, you mentioned, the fluorosis is one of the impetus is for, for the new announcements and the reduction of the concentration. But they also mentioned as a reason for why they're changing the number is because they noticed that people are getting exposed to fluoride from other sources, like fluoridated toothpaste, and for a mouthwash. And when I read it, it sounds kind of funny to me, because those things have been around since I was born. They're not new. And neither is the fluorosis I don't suppose it's new. So, you know, I see how we, the American public can be forgiven for starting to think that these agencies just move slowly. And that's just because that's the way big government is it's just slow, but there's these observations are not new. And so, you know, why didn't they come out with why not sooner? Why now, do you think? Same reasons, they say for the report coming out now. It's been around for some time, I believe.
Ellen 54:26 Yes, it has been. Well, what's interesting when they first came out, which was in January 2011. It was at a time when they were reassessing fluoride. And the first announcement in January was that EPA office of pesticides was going to phase out sulfuryl fluoride made by GAO, agro sciences, and we were very excited about that and two or three days later, the announcement came that HHS wanted to lower the level you And fluoridation schemes and EPA was getting is looking at the MCL and the MCL G. So it all happened that also they looked at I cry like they were doing all reassessment over fluoride containing ways we can be exposed through regulated things from EPA. So that's how it came out. Now, just last week, there was an announcement that Dow AgroSciences has sold off. So if you're on slide two, a company called Douglas Douglas products. And that was interesting. After they, I, it's very difficult not to have your language synced to the sewer on this issue. They didn't treat us very well here. They bought our Congress and they were able to cancel out, EPA has expressed a desire to phase out sulfuryl fluoride. But so who I don't know what's going on, I think they're going to bring this program to a halt and they don't know how to do it. They'll hurry. He said it best several years ago, they're riding a tiger and they don't know how to get off.
Clint Griess 56:15 Okay. That's one way to say it. Okay, thank you, the writing and Tiger and don't know how to get off. Okay, well, thanks, Ellen. I'm sure people are gonna have lots of questions for you. If you if you need to go, just go ahead and let us know. And are you okay? All right, so we're gonna introduce, we're gonna get to talk to Stuart Cooper. In a second, I just want to take a break from the action to talk about the teleconference itself. This is coming up to two years in a row. I am so happy for all the presenters that have come just like today with incredible commitment, incredible information, incredible spirit, every month experts from every aspect of this issue. I thank you for showing up today, the participants yourself. This is I was inspired to do this because I want everyone to get what everyone is learning in real time. So we can grow faster, be more effective in our campaigns, be more engaged, be more inspired. And it's working. There are people on this line today who are who make this clearly make this a monthly event. And I thank you for your persistence and your stick sticking to it with me. These, these teleconferences are free to attend. And I invite you to send out the invitations you receive for me to everyone you know there's a there's a movement here, and I'm glad to be part of it with you. If you feel that you want to support the teleconference, it does have a monthly expense of $150 a month through for the email exchange the document distribution and audio files. And so if you care to donate, there's a Donate button on all the input all the invitations that I send you the documents that are included in the invitation, so links I asked you to come to the conferences every month primarily but if you feel like it as well to to contribute financially, very appreciated. The Clean Water California has donated a significant amount I want to acknowledge them in a big way today. They covered the cost of three months to the teleconference. So that's just very good news. But I expect this teleconference to go on until the end of artificial water fluoridation. Okay, Stuart, you are becoming a dear friend to me since our meeting in Washington DC at the conference last year. I'm so grateful to have you today. You're going to give us some practical information gonna give us the powerful questions we need to start asking our elected officials to hold them accountable. You're going to stir us up with some action today. Right.
Ellen 59:31 Okay. You know what I can claim? I'll call Stuart. If you're on the phone,
Clint Griess 59:43 as he says dialed in, and I see that his microphone is on public. I think you might study on mute. There you go. No,
Stuart 59:53 I'm not on mute. Okay, can you hear me?
Clint Griess 59:55 We can now hear you. Welcome. Thank
Stuart 59:59 you. Such a great, yeah, thank you for having me. This is a great opportunity thank you to Clint for putting together this great teleconference. And I think that's why we hit it off so well because you're a go getter and you get the job done, and you do a great job. So thank you for, for putting this opportunity together. First of all, I say thank you also, to those people listening in the supporters a fan, you know, something that hasn't been mentioned yet that was in the report by HHS, was that in 2011, when they requested submissions from the public, they received almost, you know, over 19,000 submissions, these are letters and recommendations from the Public Information scientists and toxicologists. And you would say, 96%, of those submissions were in opposition to fluoridation not calling for a lowering, but just in pure opposition, and calling for the practice to end that was almost 18,500 were submissions, primarily from fan and fan supporters. So, you know, thank you, all of you for participating, it just gives you an idea, it shows you, you know, the impact we can have, because not only is that now on the record, forever, but also that may have actually, you know, those submissions may have actually caused HHS to respond to some of those issues that Ellen and Paul mentioned, they responded to like IQ and endocrine disruption, even though they did a poor job of it, at least now they're poor remarks, the poor response is on the record, for the sake of history. So years down the line, when we end this, you know, we can hold people accountable, based on what they they published publicly. So that's important. So I just want to make first of all, make some Bramston major points. And this is kind of how we should be looking at it as a movement, this HHS report came out. And clearly, if anyone reading it, I would say you should be evident that they're spinning, when it happens. It's just propaganda, the HHS PRESS RELEASE the report, the same time HHS report came out, the Surgeon General also put out a two page document about the report, but also simply just providing the talking points about the benefits of water fluoridation. And you see, it was essentially this systematic, just PR campaign of let's see how we, you know, look, we've called Central Florida since we've overexposed people, how can we spin it, you know, to make it look as if we were taking a science based, proactive approach, and just making a minor change, you know, evolving our policy with the latest science. That's what they that's what they're the perception they're giving, they're trying to give. And unfortunately, a lot of the media because there's no such thing as investigative journalism anymore. The media just sucked it up, and apparently, has been absorbing it with the exception of a few journalists, particularly Douglas main from Newsweek.
But most journalists are just sucking it up, hey, look, HHS has made a change for your, for your benefit. They saw a problem. And now they're resolving, when in fact, it's really just a reactive policy based approach, not science based, they're just supporting four nations a policy based approach to a growing problem that the ADEA and HHS have been aware of for at least 30 years. So that's really important to keep in mind. This has been well documented, well known the 403 forces epidemic has been going on. It's important to also point as part of that big PR campaign at the same time this report is released. Ada put out a press release. You know, the title was ADA applauds. HHS has moved, because, you know, they're they're, they're showing that they're evolving with the science. And then there was a talking point about why fluoridation is good, not responding to even what for us. This is why we should really be trying to reduce it. I mean, it's just complete spin. It's kind of like what, you know, when your child does something completely wrong. You know, and they come up to you and instead of apologizing, they say, Mommy, Daddy, I love you. You know, they're just trying to distract you from the real problem that has occurred. Now they're trying to pretend as if they're your friend, they're doing something good for you. When if you read the first paragraph, hey, wait a minute, we overexposed through the floor, I were meeting and also we're meeting that now. 41% of adolescents have dental fluorosis. Pa but this is good for you. Pass. So that's, that's how we should be looking at their spinning it in their way, which is completely absurd. And anyone reading it should be. This should be very clear. And we need to be making it clear to the general public that this is just an admission, official admission that their previous recommendation caused systemic systematic overexposure to fluoride for America's youth. Immediate now it's not even a question whether or not children are a bit overexposed by our by what was considered a safe and optimal level just two weeks ago. So it's an admission of guilt. How many companies If they came out today are Purina dog Chow, after 20 years, we've learned we've been killing dogs and over exposing dogs to toxins, hello, oops, well, we're gonna change that. I mean, how do you think the public would react, there'll be angry victims would try to get compensation, and the public would permit shut that company down. So why aren't people reacting the same way with this, it's an admission of guilt in my mind. So that's how we need to be kind of, you know, spinning and spinning, if they only have to spin it's just a pure fact. And that's how we should be approaching it, as this is an admission of overexposure. And secondly, kind of building upon that, another major point to bring up especially when you're in front of councils, and, and your average citizen, and next to you is your opposition, the Pro for fluoride lobby, and they're just thrown around a word dentists or doctors trust us. We're the experts. It's important, very important from now on the point out that opponents of fluoridation that's us, our whole movement, we've been right all along. And now they are essentially they admitted it. And now we must take it to make that very clear to everybody. We were you know, we said people were being overexposed. While the poor fluoridation experts, were still saying it was safe, who was right? I mean, fantasy things, 15 years. And people, you know, in opposition to fluoridation have been saying this, since the start of it. I think we should definitely concentrate on the fact that just you know, yesterday, these experts were saying 1.2 parts per million was safe. But today, it's now 1.7. So that just shows, you know, who was right, who was basing their recommendation to City Council's on the science, and it was basing it just on talking points and policy and propaganda. I think the line can be drawn clearly in the sand now. We were proven right, just by their own admission. Now, don't say that, you know, you know, you want to end. But the very point is, we have been saying that people have been overexposed, and we've been talking about the increase in fluorescence rates.
Another point that really needs to be made is who is liable for this mistake. Organized dentistry, public health, dentists, legislators who have made consumption mandatory water engineers, I mean, who is responsible for this? They've admitted that now 41% of adolescents, especially probably higher, but 41% of adolescence now have a permanent, essentially cosmetic disfigurement. And if you read their analysis analysis of it for us, they just call it very mild, barely noticeable white splotches. I mean, anyone who's ever seen people dental fluorosis, yes, some of them have white paint streaks. Others are, those streaks are outlined with tend to have yellow, or you know, some, there's some pitting going on. I mean, these are, they're not, it's not as nice and meaningless as it is or trying to spin it. And that's really crucial point. So you know, people have been harmed, and someone must be held accountable. As I said, if this was a corporation, or if this was any other scenario, we'd be holding this company accountable for over exposing, and causing a disfigurement and 41% of our lessons, millions of people. And so, you know, those are the major points, I think we really need to be jumping on when you're talking to the media, as you're talking to counselors, you know, remember, this is an admission of guilt on their part that 41% of the time before they've overexposed people. We were right all along. And they were telling you even a week ago that people weren't being overexposed, and one part per million was safe, draw that line in the sand. And lastly, people who is being held liable, who was ultimately responsible for the damage, and this is something that needs to be raised. And I'll get into that further as we get, as I talked about how we can kind of use this for their city councils. I want before we get into like, just like how we can use this The hard fact. Like I want to look at just you know, things you can do. When you're when you're talking to counselors, and you're talking to media representatives, and you're talking to other people who, you know, are just are interested in this or ask questions in regards to this. It's important to to let them know what has been left out of the HHS report. You mean, you heard a Paul discuss the inadequate response to the IQ information. And Ellen mentioned, the inadequate response to the endocrine disruption, the National Research Council talked about, but something that really point out is that the study is first of all, a few facts first, they use the least harmful endpoint essentially, instead of the most obvious ones. When they looked at effectiveness, they all use fluorosis. That's, I mean, that's, you know, they consider that cosmetic. So they rather than looking at, you know, the possible impact on IQ, or the thyroid or kidney patients or infants, I mean they looked at so looking at those things that would have definitely a lot more harmful than something that they classify as cosmetic. They looked at the least harmful, so what least harmful endpoint which their case was fluorosis. So their whole report is really just based on fluorosis without even taking into account the possible impact on IQ and thyroid and kidneys. Another point is they left out the impact on minorities. I mean, they yes, they said, hey, look for 1%, I listened to fluorosis, but even they're very much aware you can go to our fan website, we're all sexual environmental justice, there, that same data shows that those who are disproportionately disproportionately affected by fluorosis are minorities that was just completely left out of the documents. And that is, you know, if you live in a community that has a diverse population, that's something very important to bring up.
The other thing I want to mentioned, that's left out of support is, you know, oftentimes, I remember in 2011, when this was when they made the first recommendation before of lowering the first proposal, we may lower to this level, we have legislation in New Hampshire, and a legislator, you're, you're a lot of you're gonna get this as your campaign. They're gonna say, Oh, look, HHS already dropped the level from 1.7. Don't worry, we've got a you don't need to oppose this anymore. That should take care of all the harms. That should reduce infant exposure, they've resolved you that all of your concerns are gone. Now. You know, I can't tell you how many times I heard that. If people hadn't read the reports, they weren't familiar. They just saw the headline, no lowering the level. Now we're all set. Okay, the HHS has taken care of us, it's important to point out that even with this lower level, infants are still exposed to 175 times more fluoride in reconstituted formula than nature intended than what a breastfed baby would get. Even if the mother was living in high fluoride community, the press will still filter it out, because it's a tough, so it's important to let them know that infants are still going to be hugely overexposed to fluoride levels, is not going to make a significant difference. And it's also important to point out in combination with that, in combination with just sent me five times more slides, point out that just last year, the American Dental Association came out for the first time and started recommending that as soon as infants get their first tooth. I mean, you know, that's five months, six months, okay, you can't even get him like one or two a little earlier. But that's at least five or six months old. Give them fluoride toothpaste on a daily basis. Now, they say it's a tiny, tiny dab. But still, we're now exposing, you know, anything you put an infant's mouth, a pet age 100% of it will be will be swallowed, at least for the first few years. So they're now talking about completely increasing the daily exposure to six month old and above, with fluoride in just their own policy practice and with the toothpaste practice. So that's something that this report didn't even mention, the new ADA, you know, they said, Now children are B, we know all of a sudden children are being exposed to other sources. This wasn't even considered in that analysis. So, you know, we're talking about the continuation of this 406 epidemic, I guarantee you, as more read more data comes out, it's just going to continue to rise, it's not going to go down. So that's also left on the report, the new research on ADHD and hypothyroidism, you know, that's important to bring, you know, let that let your counselors know this, the report doesn't cover everything, especially the latest research. We have a lot of this low these government reports that come out. They're just so far behind, because you know, government runs slow. So other stuff is based on research from five to 10, seven, eight years ago, you know, this stuff isn't fresh, this isn't new, and that you need to bring that to the attention of your legislators. Another major issue that was not even raised in Clint actually talked about it a little while ago. But why did it take so long? They didn't even talk about the timing of it. They said, hey, you know, now we know people are being exposed to other sources. Rather than saying that 15 years, when fluoridation was started, the expectation was that only 10%. And most, you know, it'd be a failure of beat if more than 10% of the people got fluorosis. So, we knew it was 20% of adolescents and fluorosis in the 80s. That was see on the HHS had that data, they did the research themselves, they knew in the 90s that 30 I went back 20% went up to 32% that they react in the 90s. You know, we know that we learned in 2010, that in the 2000s that were the number one of the 41% and are now now and that was it from 2010. And now 2015 Before we actually get a final analysis, so you know, why did they do that explain why they took so long, and they don't actually say anywhere in there what an acceptable fluorosis rate is today, they just completely fail. What isn't acceptable for US history, it shouldn't be less than 10% Definitely, at least the very least, and why did they? Why didn't they respond over the past 2030 years as they saw the data coming in, going 20 32%? Now 40%. And now possibly, you know, it's probably closer to 60%. Now. So what is, you know, these are they just left that information out.
And another point that's that's that's really significantly is, why is a universal number, instead of a range like they had before, depending upon temperature? Before it was points to have a range of point seven to 1.2 parts per million, depending on the temperature regions if people are going to drink more and in a warmer climate. So now we just have one universal number. There was never any explanation as to why we stuck with one universal number, rather than you know, do they have data that that the people in the North, you know, were the only ones seeing an increase in dental fluorosis, whereas the south where they had the lower level, they didn't see for No, there was no explanation, which just tells me that they just picked an arbitrary number. And without concern for temperature variant. And without concern for, you know, where fluorosis actually is in the south of North, you know, that I just don't even understand where the where the range went, it just just now we have one universal number for everyone. Again, it's just another example of the government trying to pick a one size fits all, even more now. So but one size fits all medical treatment, or supplementation treatment for everyone. And that's just the science gets even worse. And the last point and Alan had pointed this out to remind legislators this report does not, has not the safety has not been determined. In our National Research Council 2006 Donot subgroups are being overexposed, they labeled for as an endocrine disruptor. And they call for action to lower the allowable levels of fluoride water. Nine years later, no, no action has been taken. So I would use this in combination with the new research that came out the ADHD, hypothyroidism, the IQ stuff, the new fluorosis rates that we, you know, they'll be emitted. And and say, Tell your houses let's safety hand nine years later, safety hasn't even been determined, we at least need more, if you're not going to end it, we at least have a moratorium on it until safety has been determined. And so, you know, this report hasn't saw hasn't answered all the pro fluoridation, you know, problems. So, you know, don't let your lip counselors or the media, interpret this for you and say, Oh, everything's solid. Now. HHS is on it, because they left out a lot. And we all know, it's devils in the details. So what's missing is, is the damning stuff. And that's why it's missing. So, you know, you asked how can we take advantage of this? How can we use this?
Clint Griess 1:18:01 Yeah, let's, let's talk about that in a sec is take a breath for our audience, to your, your fellow AI advocates are getting you guys recorded? I want that. No, I want to it's all it's Don't worry. It's all captioned recording. This is amazing. And I'm thank you for just shooting it out there fast. Because, you know, we can save the time that way, and it's now recorded, you know, I recommend every single person to go back and listen to stewards part that's gonna empower you in the information war, that this is the PR war, this is a war for people's hearts and minds. These are the kinds of salient points that can be very useful. Very, very useful in in your conversations, you know, and we shall not let anyone be fooled by this HHS document. I'm just like you when I read it the first time with with this a critical eye. Eye, it was immediately apparent that on so many fronts that this was not what it purported to be was not a document about my health, and well being. So thank you for for running through those various points. Now recorded and we're going to talk now about some specific actions people can take. What are the communications? What's the main message we're going to have when we go to our water boards? And when we go to our city council's what's what are the met with the messaging that's going to work best? Yes.
Stuart 1:19:42 Yeah, well, I mean, I think first people need to realize that, you know, this issue now that this has happened, I plan on this issue of water fluoridation coming before your city council in some way or another because even It's just, they just received a document or a letter from, you know, the State Department of Environmental Services, just letting them know they need to lower the levels, or letting them know that they're lowering levels. It'll be it'll, you know, that's how government works, communication, we'll get to everyone via a memo in some way. So this is coming before everyone's city council if you're, if you live in Florida community, and that means it's the perfect time to raise the issue. And it's not necessarily even, you're the one who's skating, it's, it's already being instigated by our federal government. So all you're doing is saying, Hey, listen, now that we're already considering lowering the level now, there's before you, now that they've admitted this, we did have a long talk about fluoridation. And so you know, people don't take advantage of this. Especially if you live in a community that has naturally fluoride, natural fluoride levels of you know, around point five, or maybe even higher, you know, this, there's no need, then you can really start a good conversation, your community, if you live in the south or near the Rockies, or in a mountainous area, where you generally have these higher natural fire levels, you can, it's much easier now to step in and say, Listen, you know, we're not talking about point five parts per million increase, now we're only talking about a maybe a 2.5 million increase. If you have a point five, and they want to increase the point that that's not even worth it in buying the chemicals and the infrastructure. So raise the issue, especially if you live in that environment. And, and, again, I'll go further and how you can do that. But also use this as you know, obviously, the media is covering it, but they're just, they're just absorbing everything that the press release is saying. And we need to put an end to that, you know, we're going to put out I'd like to put out a press release earlier this week, an example fan has written one. And we I think we can share with people and urge them, you know, and urge you guys to send it to your, your local municipality, put your organization's name or whatever at the bottom. But essentially, it raises the issue with our from our perspective, they've heard the HHS perspective, we want them to hear our perspective, we want journalists to at least ask some basic questions. And it's really important if you live in a community where you had a journalist who wrote about the has written about your campaign or has written about the issue, call them up. There's not an email doesn't go far enough. If you know the best way to build a relationship with these journalists, call them up and kind of raise these issues that I raised earlier, the stuff that was lacking and focus on I would I would say, focus on the emerging science, ADHD hypothyroidism, but really focus on fluorosis. I mean, I know that for us that may, you know, there may be 1000 reasons that you, you know, other than fluorosis that you want to seek fluoridation ended, but the HHS remember, he just just admitted, this is the one thing that they admitted to. So it's like you caught them that they've been caught, you know, so jump on it, pounce on that fact. Pounce and tumble them with it. You know, they're admitting it. Okay. Why are journalists asking? Well, what is the acceptable ferocious rate? You know, what are we going to do to compensate people? Well, how many people in our community of Breckenridge, Colorado have fluorosis? You know, you need to have journalists looking into these things, because you never know when they actually do and you call them up. And you mentioned that you mentioned it that this is an admission of guilt. You know, they essentially said they've overexposed people, maybe you find a journalist who goes out and interviews, you know, his sister has done a fluorosis. So he feels that he understands, he goes out and they do an interview and see cover the paper picture of someone with ferocious smiling and Breckenridge residents, blah, blah, blah, if that's what you're looking for. And next night, next thing, you know, people are saying, Hey, we might have that I'm angry. I want to know, I have someone to blame. And I want for our decent ended. I mean, I think they've said that they've they've opened up about grossest, so I think we should shove it down their throat, just like they've done with fluoridation. Yeah, they've admitted it. So now we shove it down their throat, and we make them credible, make them hold them accountable for it. So that's raised that issue with the media and I said, we'll put out a press release template that I'd like to that can kind of help you guys get started to make contact with your local media. But don't, don't just let this go away. Because in another few weeks, there'll be another story another riot or destruction somewhere in the world that will completely overshadow this. And we need to take advantage of this. So we did councils, something that I haven't talked to Paul or LM about this yet, but something that I would, I would like to see people do is,
you know, I'm going to get to the point where we go go to your council and ask for an end to fluoridation. But before you even do that, you know, every council, whether they you know, there's someone on staff or they have someone to contract with someone, they all have an attorney that offers legal advice to the city council. Essentially your city council is making decisions for you as a taxpayer. So they're not necessarily your attorney, but you can ask your counsel. Essentially, ask your counsel to find out if the town is liable for The damage caused by fluoride or the century fluorosis if you if you especially if you live in a community where the city itself has decided to start fluoridation, we live in a community that's mandated at the state level, then the city will likely say, no the state mandates that they're ultimately responsible. And then the state will say, well, it's HHS and EPA are responsible. That's fine. But especially if you live in a community where there is a local decisions made locally, just ask just after you ask your city councilor, either your city councilor directly in person, or maybe go during the public comment phase, and say, and ask them to find out, if you know, who is liable, is the talent actually liable. And don't come at it from his perspective of dental forest, if I'm angry, I'm gonna sue you guys. You don't want to make enemies. You don't want to do that. You want to come at it from a taxpayer perspective and say, Hey, I'm a taxpayer, you know, you know, I saw this new report come out. And I want to know, I mean, you know, are we susceptible to a lawsuit, you know, are my tax dollars potentially going to go to pay a settlement, the people who have fluorosis caused by your decision to fluoridate the water? Who is liable, and then go turn any responsible counsel, maybe not in the public side, but both turns? There's their counsel, and their lawyer and say, Okay, give us an interpretation on this. And I think that's important, because either that lawyer will come back and say, Yes, we can be held liable. And so that gives the city council and taxpayers a new reason to oppose practice. Or they say, they point the finger somewhere else. But we get if we get enough fingers pointing to state governments, legislators, certainly, obviously, then it becomes concerning. And if we get enough state, we're gonna get fingers pointing to HHS or EPA. I mean, we can raise those issues, we can say, hey, now people, now people need to be held liable. We have decisions from around the country, simply saying EPA is responsible. We don't even know who's liable right now. I would love to see what 100 different city attorneys from around the country think who's liable, who's responsible. We don't know who's responsible, who no one's take, no one takes responsibility for fluoridation. And that's the problem. So I think that's one step in the right direction. And, you know, and I think, as far as, you know, going through city council, make the points that I talked about before, you know, we were right, they admitted this, it's time to end the practice, look at the new science. And at the very least, you want to be you want to go to your community find out if your community already lowered the fluoridation level, the point seven in 2011, a lot of the ones that had unilateral ability to do that, essentially, can we think private water companies, or municipalities that don't have state or agency guidelines that follow? You know, they can just unilaterally change the flight level at the whim, or at the discretion of city council or the water department? Manager? So, you know, check to find out if your water was already lined out? You can you can call them or you can look at your latest annual water quality report. But find out and it's not the I'm getting an echo,
Clint Griess 1:28:20 echo. Yeah. People don't hear now.
Stuart 1:28:25 And, you know, find that out. And at the very least, even if you're interviewing Mr. Powell, it isn't in a position or they're not going to end fluoridation, where they oppose that, at the very least, you may have to need to be proactive, to get them just at least reduce the level the point seven, and also try to escape the infant infant fluoride warning, in my opinion, I mean, that's those are the things that we should be going for, especially, you know, especially in the state level, for instance, you're gonna find different scenarios. Some communities will have the ability to end fluoridation or not redundant or reduce it on their own, as we've learned from, from other residents and states, like I think New York is one of them. But there's a few other states where in state legislation or in, in state legislation, or even at the agency level, the regulations specifically say the optimal floor level is point seven to 1.2 parts per million. And these local water companies are essentially waiting for someone at the state house or state level or the state agency to change those regulations, and to change the state law so that you know, water companies are directed to lower the point seven, I mean, that's something that you know, it's important to, I guess, find that out. And that's as simple as writing to your water company and ask him letting them know, you know, lower the lower Why is your water company interested? The Council in urging them to at least lower the level to question fluoridation, and into florid warning. And let's see, jeez, we're fan I'm gonna put together earlier this week, and hopefully Klimkin distributed to all of you. But I'll put together kind of a template letter, you can send your city councilor, as well as your state legislator calling for an end to fluoridation and calling for them to get involved as well. You know, another idea I had is potentially with our state legislators, you know, not only especially in the states well, I'll just say this, I think another good piece of legislation as possible, and something we can bring legislators into by jumping on this fluorosis issue, you know, maybe it's time to urge your legislator to not only, you know, put it in different warning, and to lower the level, but also, you know, to call for HHS, your, your, your state's Department of Health and Human Services, to start tracking fluorosis, you know, start tracking fluorosis rates. I mean, whether it's in the third grade, that's over dental studies, or however they do, they're responsible for tracking medical epidemics and conditions, contagious problems. And diseases. I mean, the very least, somebody should be tracking this. And somebody should be the state, if a state's going to mandate it, especially, they need to take responsibility, and do it and ethical way, and not over expose people to it. And if they don't even know, if they're over exposing their own citizens, then they're failing. And so I mean, this is a great opportunity to raise that issue. fluorosis again, they remember meeting it, let's shut it down the throat. So I guess that's that those are the that's my overview. I mean, if you if you take what I said there, and then use those points, those talking points I said earlier, I think you should have some success in raising the issue at your local level. But I'm happy to answer questions.
Clint Griess 1:32:07 Yeah, we're gonna do questions now. So folks, if you want to, if you have a question for any of our presenters, raise your hand by pressing the one on your keypad. And I will call on you give you the public mic, and you can ask your question. Thank you so much, I think boiling it down to a logical argument here. One, they admitted their policy was wrong to their quote unquote, correction, still has no scientific basis. So it's not a true correction, that led to the mistake in the first place. And three, therefore, you cannot rely on them for public policy.
Stuart 1:32:45 Yes, and not only that, but and harm is still going to be done. Harm kWm. Yeah, so the infant exposure is still going to be there. And with the new ADA, toothpaste guidelines, we're not going to see a reduction. You know, and I, you know, as I said, you can't, they will, their credibility has gone. This has been something we've known about for 30 years, and they've sat on because of protecting a policy. That ticket very good
Clint Griess 1:33:12 question. Some, here's some, some folks from around the planet here. Let's see. I'm gonna go ahead and call. Neil Carmen from Austin. Go ahead.
Neil Carmen 1:33:30 Can you hear me? Okay.
Clint Griess 1:33:32 Yes, you're coming through clear.
Neil Carmen 1:33:35 Great. Well, and this is really outrageous that the federal government would again, you know, not end this harmful practice. I would just like to point out, I work for Sierra Club on a lot of environmental issues, air pollution, coal plants, refineries, incinerators. And so I deal with these kinds of problems just every single day, not just fluoride, but just I hear about it. And so the federal government, whether it's EPA, or you know, these other agencies seem to want to move at a snail's pace. And so I'm involved in a lot of legal cases just every day, working to get approvals. fund them, Sue, mostly EPA, and different groups that EPA so anyway, I guess my question for Stuart and Alan. Connect is, what are the next steps to take with Department of Health Human Services? I know that Gerald Steele, an attorney in Washington State had sent a like a petition letter. So is there any talk right now of actually filing some kind of federal suit? Because this looks like outrage. just unacceptable, illegal response to that petition, but I don't know if that was a proper administrative petition or not. So is there any talk
Unknown Speaker 1:35:12 about suing?
Clint Griess 1:35:16 Thank you. Who wants to take the question?
Stuart 1:35:22 Well, I know. I mean, I here's what, here's what I know. Right now, I know that there's a group. There's a group of fan representatives as well, Gerald steel and others, who have a dialogue going on right now with people in HHS. And, I mean, I think that's probably the best dialogue. The dialogue hasn't been great, but it's the best, it's probably been, maybe ever. So there are people talking? And yes, they haven't, I think they've asked us to submit some information to him. Because, you know, the follow their guidelines, and, you know, to raise an issue or a health concern, you have to essentially file a petition, and, you know, to get it even before them, even get them to review it. So I believe that that is being done, action has been taken. You know, I think if, if we don't get what we want, I think there's the threat of a lawsuit. But I don't I'm not the attorney. So I can't really provide many details on that. I mean, I wish I could provide more answers. I mean, I think, you know, ultimately, you know, every we get these questions a lot. You know, Stan gonna sue, what are we doing, you know, legal wise method, people need to, you know, keep in mind, most lawsuits are very expensive, they take a very long time. And, you know, sometimes you have to use them, you're gonna you're utilize that tactic. But in the meantime, we also need to be putting pressure on HHS and other ways, you know, not only through just grassroots, and just whopping a watchdog, but also working with Congress to hold them accountable and the least ask the important questions. But I wish I could be more helpful in the lawsuit aspect. I can tell you that dialogue right now. Yeah.
Clint Griess 1:37:17 Okay. Awesome. All right. Thanks for the question, Neil. And we're gonna go now to another ally Larkin in Seattle. Hi, Ellie. Can hear you yet? Maybe you're on mute?
Allie Larkin 1:37:42 Sorry, I was on mute.
Clint Griess 1:37:46 Yes, go ahead.
Allie Larkin 1:37:48 I'd like to thank you plant and Paul and Alan Ellen and Stuart for helping to fuel my fire here in Seattle, where propaganda has been taken to a new high. And I did post on international fluoride free, the new high of that happened in our Seattle Times by Dr. Tom lock, who was officer for Jefferson County Deputy health officer for Clallam. County, and chair of the Washington dental service Foundation Board, in his special that was just in the Seattle Times titled, like vaccinations, fluoridation is vital to public health. So that really upset me, especially when I read the article. And in in it, it says about the few districts is a few cities that don't fluoridate the water here, and it says that's because the decision to Florida is made at the local level. So anyway, is vice president of Washington action for safe water. I forwarded this link to our other board members in our group here. And I asked you think that we should submit a response to the Seattle Times about it. I just did that. And I've only had one response to that. And they said, No, you don't do propaganda with propaganda. So I have opened it up to what the President of Washington action for safe water and myself have participated in. And that is filing a notice of liability against the harm or from the addition of fluoride in the water. We have done this with smart meters here in Seattle. And we're into this process now. But since we started it, I don't know if this is why but three of the council members are not running for reelection. And the head of Seattle Public Utilities after 11 years is stepping down. So I put it out to the board and the others to begin a discussion about serving our Seattle City Council, who since I got involved in 2006, has not allowed us to speak in front of them about fluoride, because they're Rural. So if it's not on the agenda, you cannot speak about it. So we are now making appearances to committees like civil rights and neighborhood committees and that and that will be in front of one of the committees on Wednesday. But I think it's time to, rather than lawsuits since they're expensive to file notice of liabilities for the harms that they're causing.
Clint Griess 1:40:23 Okay, let's, let's hear from our presenters today. What do you guys think of putting these folks on notice for their liability?
Ellen 1:40:33 It sounds wonderful ally. I love it. I think I think it's very, very fine. It would be great if you could write this up, and we can share it in a bulletin. I like it. I think it can only be carried out if there's an act if there's a group in the community who can bring this forward? I think it's a great idea. Well, I
Allie Larkin 1:40:54 know that you've been using this in Canada and other places, but in Canada, they've actually had judges get up from their bench and walk out of the room when they've been served with these notices of liability. Because we have now gotten to the stage with the smart meters where we have placed the lien on them.
Ellen 1:41:14 Well, if it's legitimate, I think it's I think it's I think it's a good idea to even if it's a discussion hasn't been allowed within the city council meeting. This certainly will provoke it.
Allie Larkin 1:41:30 Yeah. We do have a meeting for our notarized signatures for our next action against the Seattle City Council on smart meters. And let me mention, I live in Des Moines, but Seattle, in the state of Washington is the largest distributor of fluoridated water and smart meters. So my attitude is we can stop it there, we can stop it from rippling out as it has, because Seattle also sells water to 18 other water districts. So I take legal action on them like that.
Clint Griess 1:42:07 Yes, yes, that's right. Or liable. If you are noticed, you are notice that you are liable.
Allie Larkin 1:42:14 What am I notice with a lien to cease and desist?
Clint Griess 1:42:19 Wonderful, thank you. What
Stuart 1:42:21 was
Clint Griess 1:42:23 on your hand?
Stuart 1:42:27 Yeah, if I just add something here,
Clint Griess 1:42:29 we yeah, we want to get a lot of voices in. We've got about 10 more minutes. So there's still some people with their hands up.
Stuart 1:42:34 Okay. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.
Clint Griess 1:42:38 That's fine. Just
Stuart 1:42:41 one thing, the liability I think is very important. You know, Mike, I think the notice of liability is important. But I would just urge people, maybe try the tactic of getting coming from as a neutral party and saying, getting trying to tactic of getting the local city council's attorney to offer an analysis for the City Council themselves about liability first, and then if they don't hear response, or they don't do anything, then maybe go with business liability. The only reason I say that is because as soon as you as a citizen, go before your city council's i Hey, guess what, I just served you all. Now there's a lien call for a cease and desist. Now, you're all personally held liable, essentially. You know, now you've just created your whole city council looks at you as an enemy. And then they'll never listen to anything you ever say. At the city town. That's right, even if you're right. So you're so the
Clint Griess 1:43:31 other night throughout first Yeah. And yeah, and it totally legal. Don't make any enemies. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Great advice. Okay. And thank you again, Ally. So let's see. We've got a lot of folks from New York City, something happened. The word went out more than we've had in the past. I thank you all from New York City coming. Let's talk to someone. I'm gonna guess you're a first time person on the call. Zana from New York City.
Dojena Grossman 1:44:00 Yeah, especially now Grossman from Brooklyn. Yes. I have a big question, actually, who makes money on adding toxic sodium fluoride to our drinking water? And if you've heard also another question, if you've heard about buying active fluoride compounds from China to add to our drinking water, I got some email on that. Very good. That was making money on that toxic. So we're making we've known about that for years. There's toxic habits
Clint Griess 1:44:38 get the answer. Thank you. Who's got who wants to help?
Stuart 1:44:45 Well, I guess I'll jump in there again. I mean, we know that obviously the phosphate fertilizer industry they've been manufacturers of this product, instead of having to remediate it as a toxic waste about at about $7,000 a tonne. This is according to I think bilharzia. You put this Sure, they're able to sell it for $1,500 a ton. So that's essentially $8,500 They're making with the for each ton. So that's, that's affordable. That's the actual manufacturers. They're the ones making the money. Obviously, the companies that produce the infrastructure, the special feed equipment, or making the money, the transportation industry, trucking railroad, and we have to consider 75% of America has its chemical in their water supply. It's being shipped either from Florida or from China. There's a lot of transportation costs. And just about every train, you see going by freight train, and lots of trucks, tanker trucks, we'll we'll be containing this product. So you know, those people are making money. And then you of course, have you, of course, have the Dental Association. You know, they don't necessarily directly make money from fluoridation. However. However, Senator Grassley, I think, years ago, asked the Dental Association to make public any private money, their their nonprofit, or their industry, industry guild received. And there's something like $7 million, you know, for the certification of ADA approved. And for research grants, and today's VA received over $7 million annually from dental product manufacturers, and the primary ingredient in almost all these products, for fluoride. So, you know, I mean, we're talking about, you know, this is some of the dental dental product manufacturers are selling, the giving, you know, 10 to selling as a primary ingredient the most, the best, most beneficial thing that they can, you know, they can provide, and they're giving money to Ada, who's been promoting fluoride through fluoridation. So that's somebody else who's making money. Geez, you know, those primary? Yeah, right. The sugar and delivery goes on early. Yeah, I mean, any, you know, it's, but it really you have to say, Who's lobbying. And it's really primarily the ABA and the dental dental field, because you have to realize a lot of these dental researchers, you know, they have their whole career is based on their research, and don't do research unless you have grant money. You don't get grant money unless your research fulfills the requirements of the people granting you the money. And if the people granting you the money, have a long history of promoting fluoridation, then I don't think your research is going to, it's going to turn against fluoridation. So you have a whole dental industry that is kind of making money off of this.
Molly from Chicago 1:47:34 Thank you very much for your answer.
Stuart 1:47:38 Yeah, but, again, it's hard to kind of go up to counsel say, Look, this is driven by money. Because you know, then we have to look like conspiracy theorists. So I just urge people to stick with the science, stick with the ethical questions, and stick with the point of you want to talk about money. Here we go. 99% of the floor just goes down, doesn't get drunk, don't get consumed to go download the tube goes on the toilet. And that's night, you know, that's a waste of public health resources. That's a waste of public health money that otherwise would have gone to something beneficial, just being flushed down the toilet. So thank you very much.
Clint Griess 1:48:13 Yeah, thanks for being on the call with us today. Hope. Hope to hear you again next month. And in month after that. Let's see. John from Tulsa, say hello. Can you hear me? Yeah, go ahead.
John from Tulsa 1:48:36 Okay. I'd like to ask a question to Paul and Ellen. Hi, Paul. Hi, Ellen. Is there as you know, I work for the city in the water and sewer department. I've written specifications for the fourth with acid contracts with suppliers. I can show all kinds of documentation of what's going into our water. Unfortunately, I've been restricted in my activities. I walk a fine line. I'm in the waste. I work personally and has for the last four years worked with wastewater Water Pollution Control. And I know that the ploy that gets flushed down the toilet goes down our drains goes through the whole sewer system. The concentration leaving our wastewater treatment plants going into our rivers and streams is essentially the same as what is being put in at the treatment drinking water treatment plant. My question is is there an avenue I can approach this from from the wastewater perspective, that angle that we can show damage from putting the arsenic which typically is in the it's essentially in all of our horseless gas shipments, anywhere from 35 to 5055 parts per million. Of course, it's diluted in the drinking water. But nevertheless, we have restrictions from the clean water act on what we can put back into the rivers and streams. And it do we have, do you have research that shows damage from putting fluoride back into the stream rivers and streams? I guess that's my, that's my question. Thank you, Ellen. So I guess it was Ellen wants to say he's on legis. Hi.
Ellen 1:50:47 I, I can't know of that research, all I'm aware of it's what do hers he said. Which I thought was ever so good with the arsenic contamination? I'll be it how ever small it is. In the fluoridation chemicals, is arsenic is a known human carcinogen. And on that level alone, we shouldn't be using these fluoridation chemicals, because one does whatever, right Ed, add it this way one would think I think the fight it on that level might prove have some success. You they always say this fluoridation cause cancer. And how build her the answer that is. Yes, it does. Because of that arsenic. We know the arts and it causes cancer, we just didn't know how many campuses closing. So other than that, I don't know the harm it's doing going down the drains.
Stuart 1:51:42 Your I could bring up just a couple quick points. I know. One, when they had the Portland battle, I don't have the information in front of me. But the issue did come up, because they have obviously jam and run and the salmon run in those rivers is very important. commodity. So that was a concern. There was research, it can't do the work contradicting studies. But there was research showing that the salmon the pH in the water is affected, the salmon are affected. And fishing in general are affected, too, I would say and so I would just urge you to look up that two years ago, new prime the biggest water company in New Jersey came out with a big document talking about the real cost of fluoridation and they revealed a lot because their water company and I we have that document maybe I'll be able to share with with cleansers and share with everybody but it they talk about how even because of the fluoride, the wastewater and we know it either water injection infrastructure is corroded at a faster rate because of the addition of fluoride. That's a known fluoride is corrosive. But the wastewater infrastructure is also lifespan, the wastewater infrastructure is also shortened. Because you have that same corrosive fluoride, the higher concentration in the water. So that's an additional cost. I guess the third component of possible harm that I've seen is I remember in New Mexico, Albuquerque, they were looking at, they were looking at reducing the fluoride in the water, because they already had kind of naturally high levels. And they put up this, the city's can conduct a survey of all their water wells around the city and outside the outskirts of the city. And a little further outside where the where they didn't supply public water. No, there's really cool map. But what it showed is that even where there was the public water supply stopped, were on the outskirts of Albuquerque. It was a decreasing level of fluoride, from where what they were injecting, put it from point seven what they were injecting. And I think the natural level is like in some parts point three. And it just ranged, the further you went from Sydney, the lower the level kept getting. And what that tells me, is that just what you you said, you know, you're you might be flirting in Albuquerque. And those people that are drinking water on the outskirts of Albuquerque may not think they're drinking any water with fluoride in it. But as we see no water fluoridation, I think you can make the argument that probably increases the fluoride levels of the water on the outskirts of the city, outside of Florida native community and impacts everyone's groundwater who lives surrounding a Florida community. And that's really Yeah,
Ellen 1:54:25 do it. So the first point you made on the salmon study from I think that was Oregon, Oregon or Washington State River. That was enormous quantities of fluoride entering that water from an aluminum company. So they were excessive amounts and that was a very serious effect. Very curious in serious effects on the salmon, where the salmon swimming upstream to spawn went the other way. When they encountered this fluoride is these high levels of fluoride. They went the other way was very curious. I recall what I can find out.
John from Tulsa 1:55:09 Okay. If you find Elena, if you find, if you look into that a little bit more, you see the studies in New Jersey might be, I'd be very interested in reading that.
Ellen 1:55:28 Try to find that and I'll find a study on understanding. We'll get that to you.
Clint Griess 1:55:36 Yeah, thank you very much, John. That's an important consideration that often gets overlooked the extent maybe
John from Tulsa 1:55:44 it may be a real stretch or real reach, but I'm looking for any any opportunity I can to to address it. Yeah, we take,
Clint Griess 1:55:50 we take that, as
John from Tulsa 1:55:53 I've been told, I cannot address it as an employee, because I'm in wastewater, and that's a water supply water treatment issue. Thanks very much. Very good information. I really liked the sound of the of the notice of liability. I think that maybe may have potential here as well. And I can speak with some friends, if you will, they'll I think she'll remain nameless, at this point, intelligent here that we may pursue that. Okay.
Clint Griess 1:56:26 Yes, John, thank you again, hope to see you last hear you next month. Let's see it's, it's not really the end of the period, original two hour period. And there are still folks with hands raised at sea, we have a few more questions. Does anyone any any presenters from fan? Would you like to stay on and answer one or two more questions? A couple more. Yeah, I don't want I can say, Oh, yeah. So let's see. I'm going to put all your hands down again, and ask that if you have a question that has not already been asked, and a question brief. It as soon as this question, answer period is over, I'm going to actually create a breakout sessions. For anyone who wants to stay on the line, you can have interaction with activists from all over, I'll break you up into small groups of three to four people. And you can just talk amongst yourselves about everything that you're doing in your area and share your experience and ideas. And so you have that available to you. Now, if there's anyone with a question. Go ahead and raise your hand. I'm going to say hello to Karen from Boston.
Karen Spencer 1:57:50 Hi, hi there, Clint. Oh, hi. Hi. Can you hear me? Yeah, go ahead. Okay. And make it quick. You know, it seems to me that the elephant in the room is that in 1999, and 2001, even the CDC, and HHS came out and said that it was predominantly top topical benefit rather than systemic. And that was based on science. So it was almost exclusively topical, and they had no no justification of any systemic reason. Then in 2010, and 2013, molar and Tao did studies, and they found the only scientific evidence for fluoride benefit is that it makes a cavity producing bacteria less sticky. And even the longitudinal studies out of the if that were doing out there in Iowa, I believe it is they said that fluoride ingestion is not necessary. So we have this history this century, from government and dental sources saying that there is no scientific evidence for ingestion being beneficial. And what do they have selective amnesia? How can we insert this back into the conversation?
Clint Griess 1:58:59 Yeah, great. Nothing missing from the from the recent announcement by the HHS. I mean, your your point is made well made. Is there a specific question you have for presenters?
Karen Spencer 1:59:11 Yes. How do we inject Jeff this back into the conversation? Because we're letting them frame the conversation for us? Say, Oh, we're going to dismiss the end fuckin and we're just going to ignore that science.
Clint Griess 1:59:25 And get it back into the conversation. Anyone have any comments about that?
Stuart 1:59:31 I mean, I guess I'll go get I would just just have IOC just as you did. I mean, you know, you'd have to raise that, raise that issue. You know, bring those bring those reports and studies to the attention of your counselors. And, you know, and to the media. I mean, that's, you know, there's points that we that we made earlier, but what was left out and our perspective on the issue and, and making our case. I mean, that's, those are great points. I mean, I thank you for bringing It was up because I, I pray I failed, even mentioned that myself of what was missing. And that is accurate. That's complete, you know, in their whole talk about effectiveness. And he talked about just what you're talking about how its effectiveness is topical, and not even systemic. And they fail to even mention that the report. So I mean, that's another case where you can bring up, hey, look, this is a case of them. Not in the report, you know, tell your counselor, you find where they put, you know, where they admitted that this is only topless in this report, they just failed to put it in. So it just shows propaganda.
Karen Spencer 2:00:35 Yeah, but I think the interesting thing is make this very, very quick, because I know people have time. You know, this report came out on Monday, the 27th. And then on Tuesday, the 28th, Massachusetts, published their directives to the Board of Health, which was a spin on the spin, which is even worse. On Thursday here in Rockport, Massachusetts, we had a Board of Health meeting with all the big experts coming down to to talk about it. And did they bring up once that the had been lowered, a newspaper was publishing full page ad saying anti public health, misinformation etc. They were notified that it had been lower the HSS has loaded it, they didn't report it. The the election was May 5, a full week in one day after this report came out. And this information was suppressed and did not get out to the public. That even the HSS had had had reduced it despite our efforts to get it into the press.
Clint Griess 2:01:34 All right, Karen, thank you for the report from your area. Very, very telling. And thanks for your question. I'm gonna get one more question in here. And then we'll be saying goodbye, except for the people want to hang out and talk in casual small groups one sec. Because I know that Molly from Chicago has some very important information for us. Hello, Molly.
Molly from Chicago 2:01:55 Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, great. You know, I just wanted to reiterate how important I think it is that we really go to our local Water Board's whatever they are, and get them to implement this new guideline immediately. You know, if we can do that, in most places, we can immediately see a 30% decrease in the amount of fluoride chemicals that are being consumed by, you know, our infants, by our elderly all, you know, by all the people that are affected. So, you know, I would urge everybody, right, when you get off the phone today to to send an email, you know, in the I just forwarded the one that Gerald Steele sent to us just saying, here's the new guidelines, when are we implementing? You know, in Illinois, unfortunately, despite the fact that I've been talking to them about this for a year. And despite the fact that our state changed the laws back into a couple years ago, when it was announced that this was potentially going to happen, we still have codes in place that are preventing the municipalities from actually implementing the new standard. And so I would suspect that there's a lot of places that have the same situation where it's going to take some work just to get them to implement this new standard. And I know it's not where we want to get, but it's a huge step in the right direction. And I think we should just be like all hands on deck to get this thing implemented as soon as possible. Because there's a drag on for years and without people pushing hard right now. So that's really just a comment more than a question.
Clint Griess 2:03:43 Yes, Molly. Go ahead, Ellen.
Ellen 2:03:47 It's a great comment. And I think we all need to be doing it and sending out a press release. Or, you know, I think it goes to the state legislature in many, many aspects, you can ask your representative, maybe given the language and asking to have it, introduce it into the state. State legislators.
Unknown Speaker 2:04:08 Yeah, in our case, we have this weird Illinois pollution board that that the Illinois EPA reports to on the subject, it's really it's a very convoluted and
Ellen 2:04:21 suspect
Unknown Speaker 2:04:22 structure. But, you know, there's clearly people that do not want this new standard to get implemented and want to make it get implemented as slowly as possible. And I suspect that is the case in many other municipalities and we just have to like pound hard right now to just be like, you know, this has to happen. And, you know, in some places, it might be very little effort to get the change to happen quickly, which would be great. But I just would really urge everybody to be on that right away. You know, it's a bear with short term results, hopefully, you know, as we will work on our long term strategy to eliminate it completely.
Clint Griess 2:05:04 Great. I'm posting your interaction, your email exchange. Who is this person in your local Illinois government?
Unknown Speaker 2:05:14 He runs. He's in the Illinois EPA, and he's over water. I don't have his information in front of me. But he's like the head guy. Oh, for the fluoridation.
Clint Griess 2:05:27 Great. Yeah. On on Facebook, on the event page for today's event on Facebook, you can see a lot of the links that were mentioned today, and I just posted Molly's email exchange. Her request is very simple. She wanted to know what's being done in Illinois to get the florid levels down to this new standard. And when this will happen, and she got a five paragraph response of just basically a bit of a runaround, I'm putting it here so you can all get an action and be not be surprised if you get something back. This is bureaucratic. Is this yourself?
Unknown Speaker 2:05:57 Okay. I think it's going to be in the states where they have state mandates, that it's going to be more work to get the changes. So I think that were there seven states that haven't mandated. Yes.
Clint Griess 2:06:10 Yes, thank you make sure you're, you're appealing to the to both local and state in those cases. Okay. So I'm going to actually, as much as I hate to draw close today. We'll all be together a month from now. And we're going to be tentatively we're going to be dressing document that was prepared by our one of our one of our participants today that was signed by the Erin Brockovich group. Some of you may have seen it, I'm going to be forwarding it to you all by email, with your invitation to join us the second Saturday of June, where we hope to get the signatories of this document, including Erin Brockovich herself, or at least her representative, and we're going to be investigating the this particular course of action. But thank you everyone for coming. If you just hang out on the line, just be patient for a minute. I'll let you know when the groups are broken out. But until we see each other again, I wish you all the best in your campaigns. Thank you very much to the presenters and all the people who asked questions and everyone for just showing up today. Have a great campaign.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai