Clint Griess 0:00 Hello everyone, and welcome to the January 2014 International fluoride free teleconference. Folks are showing up from all over the place. I see we have participants from Seattle, we have Minneapolis.
Someone from Nashville. Looks like Otto was represented Austin, Texas we have someone from Quebec. Someone from Chicago. People are showing up in math. As we speak, we've got someone from San Francisco, Tulsa
JL from San Francisco 0:48 Dallas,
Clint Griess 0:51 Rochester New York. Welcome. Welcome to everyone. This monthly event brings together fluoride free activists from all over the world. By sharing information and experiences with each other, we increase our effectiveness in ending water fluoridation in our local communities. My name is Clint Griess, and I am honored to be your host today.
Thanks to everyone who's on the line today, your participation makes these teleconferences a success and a hearty welcome to everyone who is listening on the audio recording as well.
Here we are at the beginning of 2014. Happy New Year to all May this year be a turning point on ending fluoridation worldwide and for good. Today's teleconference is the sixth monthly installments of this interactive conversation. Interest in this unique format continues to grow, as is shown by a continued increase in attendance.
Today's teleconference will kick off the new year in a bold way. We will hear a presentation by Michael Conant florid action network's special projects director on the Hidden History of community water fluoridation. He will demonstrate beyond question that there has been a systematic suppression of evidence about the effects of ingesting fluoride by powerful interest and over several decades.
We also get a report from Austin, Texas, where hunger strikers are protesting Austin City Council's avoidance of the topic. Today is the 14th day of their strike of their strike on the steps of Austin City Hall. We will get an update from those who have taken this brave and bold approach to getting their local officials to give the question of water fluoridation the attention it deserves.
And of course, we'll be hearing from you as well. We will have many opportunities for you to speak up and speak out, including an extensive q&a period with our main presenter Michael Conant. Finally, we will end the teleconference in a couple of hours, and you will all have a chance to stay on the line to be put into small groups. For those of you who wish to get to know other activists and have a chance to talk in a smaller, more personal setting. Michael has some important documentation to share today. And during his presentation you will be able to watch online as he broadcasts images of these important documents from his computer to view them, please Crikey. Please click on the screen sharing link you received in either your registration confirmation email or your your reminder email from yesterday. Download and run the applet on your computer. You may need to adjust your security settings to allow this
You're all invited to interact with each other as well on Facebook throughout our event today. Join the conversation on today's event page. Simply search for international Florida free teleconference on Facebook and then click to the events section to find today's events
so I want to start off with a quick question to find out how many newcomers we have today. So, if you press one on your keypad, I will be able to to get a word from you that you are a first timer if this is your first time attending the international Ford free teleconference please press one on your keypad now.
Wow, okay, great welcome. Welcome the International Forestry teleconferences, community of activists from all over the world sharing information and experiences that will contribute to everyone's effectiveness in their local campaigns. Welcome one and all. Okay, so we have 17 newcomers, but it's 18. Newcomers and 56 lines total of folks dialing in later I'm going to do an exact attendance to find out if people if they're more people, you know, for example, couples or small groups listening on the same line will know exactly how many people are here today. So let's go to Austin, Texas, activists they're holding a hunger strike until the artificial fluoridation of Austin's drinking water is halted and the measure is presented in writing to from the Austin City Council. From their Facebook page, Austin fluoride hunger strike, we learn that the city of Austin still continues an artificial water fluoridation policy that was put into place in the 70s when referendums and initiatives were still allowed in Texas. The decision was made based on upon studies released from prominent agencies of government and backed by major dental and medical associations in the country. Today, many are aware of the controversial nature of artificial water fluoridation, and the question of its efficacy. Austin City Council has been presented multiple times with harms of artificial water fluoridation and has failed to act in the interests of the public's health and right to self ownership. We the People hold this mass medication lacking informed consent to be unconstitutional, inhumane and criminal to the point that we feel a hunger strike is an order until the policy is repealed beginning December 30 2013. If the policy has not been repealed, the hunger strike will commence on the steps of City Hall and continue until the Austin City Council has taken such an action. And the measure is presented in writing. Today, we are grateful to have Nicolas Lucia and Jason Needham from Austin to update us.
Well, welcome, Nicholas and Jason, are you? Can you hear me? Yes.
Unknown Speaker 8:45 Can you guys hear us? Yes, go ahead.
Nicholas 8:51 Hi, thanks for having us on.
Clint Griess 8:54 Yeah, tell us about what's going on What motivated you to get started? And how are you feeling? How are you operating? How are you doing?
Nicholas 9:02 We're actually pretty exhausted. The weather's been pretty erratic here. We had the coldest nights on record, I think last week. And that was, I think our first week out there. And now with our 14 day we're really run insane. And we actually have an announcement to make that we've actually brought the hunger strike to an end today, just due to really lack of communication with city council. And we felt that we've made a big enough presence now that we can move on with the local referendum movement that we become aware about called Home Rule. And with 20,000 signatures, we can get it on the ballot this November.
Clint Griess 9:42 Well, wonderful. Congratulations.
Nicholas 9:45 Thank you. Thank you.
Clint Griess 9:47 So the really bold and brave move i i personally moved by what you guys have done there. It may not be appropriate for everyone to take the same steps you have but it's completely consistent with the problem. Omar dealing with
Nicholas 10:02 Yeah, we completely felt the same way. We really just felt it. It was far too long. You know, this should have been stopped back in 1999 when the CDC admitted that the only benefits came from topically applying fluoride to the teeth. Excuse me, and not systematic, systemic ingestion. Excuse me.
Clint Griess 10:23 Well, there so there you were, for 14 days without food, is that right? That's correct. And you took your stand on the steps of City Hall.
Nicholas 10:34 Right, we're out there 24/7. They wouldn't actually let us on the property after 10pm to sleep, were forced to sleep on a metal grate on the sidewalk. And when the rain came, that's what forced us in last week for three nights. And getting back out, say the rain came back through again. And we both had kind of pretty much come to our wit's end with it and push it as far as we felt we could safely and so we called it today. Yes, I'm
Clint Griess 11:02 sure you've got lots of reaction from the public. As they saw you there on the steps. What was it like?
Nicholas 11:10 There's a lot of good support. A surprising thing was the lack of local media that came out. We sent out a press release 10 days prior and notified the City Council of the same and we really received very little to nothing. The alternative media Info Wars came out and gave us about a week's worth of coverage last week, which was great. But the traditional media, the newspaper here, the Austin American Statesman, none of them came out. We actually just got a picture in the Austin Chronicle, which is kind of a magazine weekly that comes out from the entertainment district here more so.
Clint Griess 11:48 Wonderful, wonderful. And this is Jason on the line to Yes, he's right here. Hello. I didn't want to just want to hear your voice. Anything else you want to add?
Nicholas 12:00 I just want to say thanks for all the support. It definitely helped us get through longer, a longer period of time.
Clint Griess 12:11 Incredible so are you eating today?
Nicholas 12:15 We're just actually partook in some Vietnamese via here at a local restaurant.
Clint Griess 12:20 Okay, okay.
Nicholas 12:22 It's a live Vietnamese broth.
Clint Griess 12:25 Wonderful, wonderful. I hope you are all healthy and well for the 2004 2014 is we have a lot of work to do, everyone. And thank you very much for taking a bold stand and showing us the way.
Nicholas 12:40 Thank you very much for having us. Thank you.
Clint Griess 12:43 You are welcome. Okay, turning now to our main presenters. Many of you know Michael Conant from his work with the Florida Action Network.
A second generation fluoride fighter Michael has contributed a great deal to the worldwide resistance to forced mass medication known commonly as community water fluoridation is video presentation. 10 facts about fluoride that came out early last year is a highly credible production and contain a distillation of the best most pertinent facts any activist can use immediately to influence others. Most recently, Michael has been following up on the famous work of journalist Christopher Bryson and his seminal work, the fluoride deception. Everyone is familiar with the adage about repeating history? Well, with facts on our side, we can end the cycle of insanity that is kept 400 million people worldwide under the effects of one of the most top toxic substance known. Welcome, Michael. Thanks, Clint. Yes, welcome.
Michael Connett 14:02 All right. So shall we begin?
Clint Griess 14:06 Yes, I want to start with with the 10 facts. You know, this production was a real gift to me when I thought, an amazing production. Could you tell us a little bit about how you came up with the concept, you know, how you determine those exact 10 facts and what it took to produce the video?
Michael 14:27 Yeah. There's a real need for us to have more and more concise, sort of summations of the problems with fluoridation. And to be honest, we've struggled with that over the years. I think if you know with the Florida Action Network and me particularly often our focus has been in digging up information and putting it up. Know for everyone to be able to access but I'll Other times the information is pretty technical or just a lot of, you know, you know, a lot more details and stuff and most people probably could use. And so I saw one of the comments for this conference was someone from new Harvey from New Jersey talking about the need for, you know, a much more, you know, for more effective flyers and things like that, and I completely agree. And, you know, we want to, you know, we certainly intend to continue to try to develop more polished information to break this otherwise encyclopedic issue down into some more basic points and the 10 facts video was was was going in that direction was trying to take, you know, really focusing on the irrefutable points, you know, and staying away from more contested issues and going towards the fat you're as if it's 10 facts that we can say with confidence are facts. And that was the point that really kind of break it down into, into basic their basic facts or basic points, but they're also very important. Now, obviously, this, I mean, I just watched the video again, for the first time this week, for a while, and I could see we, we clearly need a shorter video, and I hope that we will do that, you know, we need a five minute version of that. So there's always there's always room for improving the materials that we have. And so I see this all as a process of continuing to refine and develop our informational materials to make them more effective in communicating with people who don't really know much about the issue. And you know, and that's something that we want to do fan wants to do. And, and I know that communities working on this, and groups working on this on the grounds are always doing that. And so anyway, so the 10 fax video was just about trying to really get some of the basic information in a more digestible format.
Clint Griess 17:17 Well, yes, we absolutely succeeded in that. And we live in a time where video is, you know, one of the most powerful means of communicating with people. And it's, your production is clearly, you know, professional, and with the graphics and everything. Can you tell us a little bit about the production of it, like how much it costs? I think you used a professional outfit to help with the production of it a little bit about the story of how the making of?
Michael Connett 17:46 Yeah, well, it's it's a really long story. So I probably don't know if I can do it justice here. I can say that it took a probably far too much time. I was, you know, I was working as a law clerk, so a full time job during the production of this, and I was essentially working full time on the video as well. I was working 90 hours a week for about two months on it. And so it was quite a production. I worked with a number of different graphic designers. I worked with a videographer that I've worked with for many years Kevin Hurley from Burlington, Vermont, who does great work. But I also was working with people that I contracted with through Craigslist, I actually put ads on Craigslist for people who could help design various like during the video, you'll see lots of different animated graphics and I don't know how many people I work with on that, but it was probably somewhere in the ballpark of six or seven or eight different maybe even 10 different graphic designers. And each of those animated graphics, it's amazing how much time it takes just to make something that lasts five seconds or 10 seconds on the screen. And and also I worked with videographers to go get footage of the phosphate industry in New Orleans sorry in Louisiana in Florida, as well as to depot's where they distribute hydrofluorosilicic acid, including in St. Louis, and in a place in Connecticut. Most of that footage I didn't use for the video so I actually have some pretty nice footage of the phosphate industry that we you know, at some point we'll be using and it's some pretty good material. But it was a it was really exciting. Again, it took a lot of time to produce that video. And, but that's sort of the gist of it like there
JL from San Francisco 20:06 Clip? Yes, yes. How about the budget?
Michael Connett 20:12 The budget was jeez, I never really tallied it off total, but it was, I would say in the realm of $10,000, or maybe less, seven, seven or eight, I don't know, it was it was a lot of money. And in part, to be honest, it was things, some trial and error on our end, on my end, that, in hindsight, you know, if I did the project, again, I could have avoided you know, you know, it's, it's, sometimes it's, you know, it was, you know, it was a, it was a learning experience for me. And, like I said, there's things I would do differently if I did it again. But I think I think you know, it, I think it does serve the practical, and I think it does, it is useful. I think it could be better. But like I said, it's always a process of, you know, a process of just getting better and better material. And I just see it as a, you know, our next video, we will be better than that. And then anon the line, you know,
Clint Griess 21:19 yes, yes, I'm very happy with what you've produced. And we're all learning together. That's the motivation behind this teleconferences. We all get to share our experiences. And so now people are learning what it takes to produce such a video. So let's have some fun with our participants today. The 10 facts you selected are tight. They're, they're highly relevant. And as you said they're unassailable. So what I like to do is together with the folks on the line today is to run through to do a soda soda quiz, and find out just how good we are with our with our fluoride facts. So if you are out there, and you you want to take a stab, or I'm gonna see if we can come up with all 10 together, raise your hand, and I'll call on you put you on the line. And then you can say, say one or more of the facts, and we'll see if we can get through all 10 of them. Who wants to who wants to start with the first one. Just press one on your keypad. And I'll give you the mic and see how many fluoride facts you can come up with. All right, let's go to JL in San Francisco.
JL from San Francisco 22:42 Yeah, go ahead. Oh, that 97% of Western Europe does not Florida. Okay.
Clint Griess 22:55 Most countries do not fluoridate their water Fact number one. Okay, who's got Fact number two or any of the other another? Other facts? Just press one on your keypad. We want to hear what what facts are relevant to you. Which ones have stuck to you?
Okay, doesn't look like anyone wants to play just yet? Or is there someone else? Okay, there's one other person at least from Toronto. Go ahead.
Janet Nagel 23:32 fluoridation is people treatment while chlorination is water treatment.
Clint Griess 23:38 Okay, let's see that would be fluoridation is the only medicine that is intentionally added to the water. Back number eight. Is it Alice earliest? That's Alice. Thanks, Alice. Okay, who else wants to play? Okay, Jill Julian from Australia. Go ahead. Yes, I
Unknown Speaker 24:09 hope you can hear me okay. Yes, go ahead. Fluoridation has never been proven safe for consumption.
JL from San Francisco 24:18 Aha. That's right. So let's see.
Clint Griess 24:26 Which fact is that that is
Michael Connett 24:30 I would say that comes within Fact number three, which talks about fluoride systemic effects, how it affects more than just the teeth. And that the research to demonstrate the safety of fluoridation and low level fluoride exposure has never been so I think that we fall under Fact Number.
Clint Griess 24:53 Fact number three fluoride affects many tissues in the body besides teeth. And also Fact number seven fluoride supplements have never been approved by the FDA. That's the United States Federal Drug Administration. Okay, thanks. Who else wants to jump in? Thank you, Doug. Go ahead from Los Angeles.
Doug from Los Angeles 25:19 Can you hear me? Yes. First of all, I have a question is the screenshare currently operating or not?
Clint Griess 25:29 Now, when we get to some documents that that Michael has for you, in terms of the suppressed science, we'll move to that. Okay.
Doug from Los Angeles 25:38 Do we need a password for that or not?
Clint Griess 25:41 The link doesn't require a password. If you just did you receive a link and have you clicked on it?
Doug from Los Angeles 25:45 Yeah. And it just says, It's not operating right now. So that's why it's curious. But okay, good. I just want to say it's pretty easy to cheat on this quiz. You just go to the fan site and look up the 10. You know, but I my favorite is fact number six for infants fluoridated water provides no benefits only risks. That's my favorite one.
Clint Griess 26:05 Yes. For infants, fluoride provide no benefits, only risks. With stated is so precise.
Michael Connett 26:16 And I should note there and dog was the one who got this. And Doug, thank you for sending it to us. But in that fact, I referenced a letter that Doug was able to get from the CDC, because dog asked, I think Senator Feinstein, or for your boxer, editor boxer in California for this, you know, if the CDC had any evidence that fluoridation was beneficial to infants T during the first six months of exposure, and the CDC is response to boxer I think is actually quite notable because they, they say we have no evidence of a beneficial effect during this time span. So it's a nice way of just demonstrating that, then the only thing that the infant is going to get is a risk. There's no benefit, even the CDC said it. So I thought Doug, Doug, thanks for getting that letter. And I think it's something that we should probably use more of in our campaigns.
Doug from Los Angeles 27:19 Absolutely. Because this is what the authorities do not want parents and doctors to know, they do not want this information known. And they do everything they can to suppress this information. Anyway, that's it for me, I guess. Go ahead.
Clint Griess 27:35 Thank you, Doug. Thank you. Okay, let's hear from Audrey in Seattle. Well,
Audrey Adams 27:45 I am doing Hi, I am doing this from memory. And I don't remember what number it is. But I was very appreciative when I saw that part of the one of the 10 facts was the effects on the vulnerable population. I happen to be the parent of a 28 year old with autism, that can't even shower for five minutes without a massive migraine in our Florida Water, and I know a number of other people that are falling in that same category. And just appreciate that, that it's those vulnerable populations that are not being forgotten when we argue against water fluoridation. So thanks. Yeah,
Michael Connett 28:31 I would add to that i i agree that that's such a that's a critical point that I really think just bears repeating over and over again, you know, the fluoride paradigm has always been focused on the average, the the healthy, and it permeates all of the science, including the whole Iowa fluoride study that's been going on for the past 1520 years. They focus on wealthier populations, well nourished populations, and boy presents risks to these populations, but the biggest risks are going to be to those people who have some kind of health condition that might increase their susceptibility to various environmental toxins and, and other things like kidney disease being critical. And one bit of history that I think is, is to law as as often lost, that needs to be reclaimed, is what happened to people on dialysis in the 1960s and 1970s. The science there is absolutely rock solid, and it bears repeating. And that is that they weren't filtering out the Florida Water back in the 60s and 70s in those dialysis units. And then the studies found that they were suffering crippling, painful, very painful bone disease because of the use of fluoridated water. You In those dialysis units, they were getting diseases like osteo of Malaysia, which is a softening of the bones that leads to spontaneous bone fracture, and suffering really painful joints and bones. And that whole history is just gone. It's just gone. And we don't even know how many people were damaged by that. But you know, when they say fluoridation has never harmed anybody. That's right. They're the quickest way to come back and say, Well, what happened to those dialysis patients back in the 60s and 70s. And it's just the forgotten the ignored the ignored susceptible populations. And today, you know, another another component of this issue today, of course, is if you look in United States African American community, where you see much higher rates of dental fluorosis than you do in the white community. And so I agree with Audrey, the we, we need to move it we we need to bring attention to how fluoridation disadvantages, the most disadvantaged in society. And they say it's a social justice issue, and it absolutely is a social justice issue. For those people who have for some reason, susceptibilities to environmental toxins. Glenn, are you still with us?
Clint Griess 31:32 Yes, yes. Yes. Thank you very much. Fact number 10. is disadvantaged communities are the most disadvantaged by fluoride. Thank you, Audrey from Seattle. Let's hear from Leslie in Minneapolis.
Leslie from Minneapolis 31:47 Well, that was my main one that that disadvantaged people because that's who I'm working with, primarily, the sponsor of our legislation is a black senator. And we've got a lot of interest from the black community, but they put some blocks in front of us. You know, this black community gets a lot of grant money from a lot of different places. So we've been getting stonewalled a little bit. And we haven't found out the source of the stonewalling, but when we do we'll share that with you. But the disadvantaged community has gone undercover as of recently.
Clint Griess 32:25 Yeah, yes. And in the video 10 facts about fluoride. The fact 10 About disadvantaged communities is the last fact and it takes up quite a bit of time on the video. well deserving of all that time. So thank you very much. Okay, let's leave Thanks. Let's go to Giel in Danville, Quebec. Good afternoon,
Doug from Los Angeles 32:50 good afternoon, morning or good afternoon for everyone. I'm just going to point out that the fluoride is not an essential nutrients, there's no need, you could have very good to eat without being exposed to fluoride. So there's no physiological function for fluoride in the body. There's no enzymes that depends on fluoride to work.
JL from San Francisco 33:14 Okay, that's,
Michael Connett 33:16 that's right. And that's the point that I make in the fact where I talk about fluoridation being the only medicine that we add to water. And in making that point, I, you know, respond to the common claim by proponents, that fluoridation is just like adding iodine to salt or vitamin D and milk, which is premised on the notion of faulty notion as Gio is just pointed out, that fluoride is a nutrient which is not. And so I think that is a really critical point, which, which helps to demonstrate that fluoridation is a form of medication. It's not merely a supplementation of something that we need, like iodine, it's something that we don't need at all, and that some people think might be helpful for us. And so I do think that that is a critical point.
Doug from Los Angeles 34:14 In that point to fluoride in Canada is not classified as a source of the nutrient product they're using in water is classified only as a water treatment chemical, which does not treat the water, but it's not classified as a source of nutrients, or a drug or a nutrient as a food, because it's not the pair in sanitary condition nighter so they cannot consider that substance in any other classification for food or drug or nutrients whatsoever. And that's a very important legal aspect.
Clint Griess 34:55 Yes, thank you. She'll be like Okay, let's get some more voices in Hear. Thank you very much. Let's see Wendy from Atlanta. Go ahead, Wendy.
Unknown Speaker 35:08 I was going to talk about the fact that 40% of adolescents now have fluorosis.
Clint Griess 35:17 Back number five 40% of Americans show signs of fluoride overexposure.
Unknown Speaker 35:24 Yeah, my own husband has lightly if I judge it, and his, his sister has it as well. Yeah,
Michael Connett 35:33 and that's, you know, it's amazing how many people have fluorosis and don't even know it. I I spoken with people who had their use white patches on their front teeth. And their dentist told them that it was because they didn't have enough fluoride that it was a sign of fluoride deficiency. And it's, it is rather remarkable how much misinformation there is on that. And, and that's why I think showing photos of fluorosis is important because it's a lot of for a lot of people that will be a really quick way to make the issue very tangible.
Unknown Speaker 36:16 Yeah, my sister in law's is still getting treatments as an adult from her dentist. I told her to stop and I'm using a photo of her teeth in my meme for fluorosis.
Clint Griess 36:31 Wow, and, and everyone, everyone's instinctually saying to that, if you can see it on your teeth, you know that it's affecting other parts of your body.
Unknown Speaker 36:42 So yeah, she's having trouble conceiving a second child. And that could be part of it as well.
Michael Connett 36:51 And you know, even even if we just even if we just consider fluorosis and cosmetic effects, as we as the ADEA, and others upset, even if we did this, if you look at the science over the past 20 years, about how children and their parents perceive dental fluorosis, this it's been consistent, that my so called mild fluorosis, if it appears on the front two teeth, is highly objectionable. children and their parents have consistently said, I would get cosmetic treatment if my child or if I had teeth, front teeth with mild fluorosis. So, you know, the whole word mild, is really a misnomer. It's a really significant blemish. And so and that can cause a lot of stress, psychological stress to the person who has it on their front teeth. So that's something that we should be keeping in mind as well. Yes.
Clint Griess 37:58 Thank you, Wendy. from Atlanta, we got three more facts left, give you a hint. Is, is fluoridation a natural process? Anyone? Let's see. Let's hear from Janet in Greensboro by Janet
Janet Nagel 38:22 high? And the answer to that is No, it's not a natural process. I've been. I don't know how articulate I can be. But what I've been noticing is that all of these facts that have been raised so far, are examples of why fluoridation is wrong. And that the this seems to me the thing that really stands out, or is the most basic essential thing about fluoridation is that it's unethical. I don't know if that's one of the facts that's listed. Although I have seen Michaels Michaels video. I don't I don't recall that. But it seems to me. Another thing that I heard recently is it's the 50th anniversary of the of the Surgeon General's report on smoking. But for many years after that, the the tobacco industry kept raising questions about the science and so it was debated for a long time. And the effect on the public was that it was not clear whether smoking was really safe or not. And I think that when we talk about the science, we kind of perpetuate in people who don't you know, are not involves they think we'll all there is a debate about whether it's safe or not, because the proponents are always putting forward their phony claims about safety and, and efficacy. So I wonder if and I know that there have been court cases and all kinds of things as far as the ethics are concerned. But I just wonder if there's a way of emphasizing that more. And these the all of these adverse effects are just examples of why it's unethical to impose this medication on entire populations with Yeah,
Michael Connett 40:46 yeah, I think that's a really good point. I think that's a really strong point. And I'm obviously guilty of, of talking a lot about the various, you know, details and scientific aspects of the debate. But I do think that you're right, at the end of the day, you don't need any of the science. Because yeah, there's a fundamental principle that says that it's the patient, not the doctor that has the right to the head, the decision about what medicines they're going to take. And so what I'll what I'll often say to a dentist, if I'm, you know, having a discussion with them, is that, listen, you have every right, to, you know, suggest to your own patients that you think that fluoride might be good for them. But, but that that's, you know, that's for your office, and that's for your patients, but the water supply treats everyone in the community, and not everyone is your patient, and that just goes beyond the province of a dentist. It's, you know, it's, it's, you know, everyone has the right to make their own health care decisions. So whatever the science is, it's ultimately not that it's ultimately not important to that question. Yeah, I
Janet Nagel 42:04 think that's I don't know if that can be an effective approach. The other the other thing that occurs to me is right from the outset, said they, they admitted that it would cause fluorosis they've admitted from the beginning, that they were going to cause harm by doing this. Yeah. And I think another thing that that that we could hit on.
Clint Griess 42:35 Wonderful, this is great. Yes, the ethical question is completely trumps any scientific fact one way or the other and the it has been an effective, it has been very effective in my personal experience with working with individuals that I've met to bring up that point. So we just got two more facts ago. And I think I'll just go ahead and save them. The fact number nine ingesting fluoride provides little benefit to teeth. So all of this expense and all of this debate, and yet the actual impact on teeth is if at all little. And then Fact number two, fluoridated countries do not have less tooth decay than non fluoridated countries. That should be enough to settle it right there. So do you want to make any more comments about the 10 facts, Michael, before we move on to the next part of the presentation?
Michael Connett 43:42 No, I think that's probably good. All right. Thanks
Clint Griess 43:45 to everyone who, who played along. So Michael, tell us a little bit about you know what started you just recently, looking into the holes in Chris Bryson's work. And the kinds of efforts you had to go to where are you what dusty boxes and libraries you had to seek through to find this information? Tell us a little bit about just like the background of it.
Michael Connett 44:18 Yeah, well, ever since I got involved with fluoride, which is back in 2000, I have been collecting, you know, all the documents I get, I scan them, I put them on my computer. And I've really assembled over the years a pretty massive sort of online like electronic library of the documents that I have, which is principally published documents, published studies. But in November of this year, I was working on a paper, which unfortunately, has been I've had to take some time off of because of this flash drive project. But I was working on a paper that was kind of doing a critical analysis of the early read research on fluoride in the United States, the early studies saying that fluoride was safe for bones was my particular interest. And in doing that, I there I was reading through Chris Bryson's book. And there were several references to several studies, unpublished industry studies, that I, I, for a long time, I wanted to get my hands on, I wanted to read them for myself. And so in November, I arranged to, to look through Chris's documents, which was eight large boxes of files. And I went page by page through them. And as I was doing that, I realized I just needed to be scanning these I, you know, I, there's too much in there, and I just wanted to have a record of it. And, you know, I just, I just knew that it needed to be accessible in a more readily available way than just, you know, these eight boxes in, you know, in a warehouse. And so I just, you know, went through and I scanned about, I think, in total, around 6000 pages from Bryson's, Bryson's material. And, and then, you know, I kind of had an idea that, Oh, maybe we can make all the scanned documents available to you know, for, you know, just online and for fans, supporters. And so we came up with this flash drive idea where we were going to take the documents and we're going to make them available in a in a little flash drive that people could get. And so that then I went ahead and I went ahead and I went to various archives across the country, I went to the National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland, where I went through the H trendily Dean collection, I went through the roots boy hairs collection that John small collection in the C Everett Koop collection. And I went to the National Archives in College Park, Maryland. And and I went to the National Archives and Morell lands a lot of different archives across the country. And we also had fan supporters in Madison, Wisconsin, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who did some great work for us getting documents from various archives there. And Clint, is my screen now viewable by the participants? Yes. Okay. So you can see here the sources of documents. This is a complete source. So the Chris Bryson's papers job grip is papers, which by the way, are now at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. freedom of information requests that fan has issued over the years. Here's the National Library of Medicine documents. And also I had the pleasure of going to the Robert A k whole collection of University of Cincinnati. And here are the various Wisconsin
collections, the Buell Foundation, which is the foundation that supported Gerald Cox's rat study back in the 1930s. Sylvia nusach, who is a fan supporter was very generous with her time to go there and copy records for us. And then we have we I went and spent quite a considerable amount of time combing through the Department of Energy's open net online archive, and got some documents from the nuclear testing archives in Las Vegas. So I'll show folks here, the documents as I've assembled them, this is the material that we've released on the fan flash drive, and which we will be posting all of these on the fan website. Once we've created this interactive database that we're currently working on. It's going to be a pretty it's going to be a pretty awesome addition I would say to the to the website, it's really going to take the history of fluoride and make it radically more accessible than it's ever before Ben. So here are the 10 folders. You'll see here industrial interests, which focuses on the floor I polluting industries and how they influenced the discourse in the science on fluoride, with a particular emphasis here on the Kettering Institute, which was funded by all the big fluoride industries from Alcoa, the phosphate industries, US Steel, Monsanto, DuPont, they were all funding the Kettering Institute to do studies on how fluoride affected human health. And here you'll see our list of the study that the Kettering Institute did you know, for their sponsors for the industrial sponsors. And here is the flooring lawyers the documents on the floor And lawyers, which make for interesting reading. We can talk about that later. So that's the industrial interests folder. Here is the national security folder, which looks at the US bomb program, which includes the Manhattan Project from the early 1940s. And then the Atomic Energy Commission, and looks at their interest in fluoride, which was very substantial. And you'll see here here are documents related to the fluoridation and dental dental components of the US bond programs interest in fluoride. You'll see here that here are the doc documents related to the hazards that fluoride pose to the bomb workers by industry, here are documents related to Harshaw chemical documents related to Dupont. You'll see there's quite a quite a few in there, including the deep water litigation that really concerned the water department quite a lot in the 40s. And just you'll see there's just a lot of material in here this is these are other documents related to the hazards posed by fluoride to bomb workers. And so that's national, some of the documents in national security and then here's the water fluoridation folder, which I broken down by timeline. So here are documents related to the discovery of delicate cirrhosis. Documents dealing with the Public Health Service and fluoride from the 30s to 40s. And on and on anyway, well, I won't go any further. But you can see here there's there's just a lot of material here. Really rich amount of history that is organized in what I hope to be a pretty intuitive and easy to navigate structure. And I would just say one other thing is if you'll see here, this folder, which I think you'll be, I think a real interest of people is a folder of the train of transcripts. And it goes to the 1944 hearing on cryolite before the Food and Drug Administration, which is a real rare gem, but I kind of have do a lot of digging to find by you'll see testimony from the likes of Gerald Cox. You'll see testimony from H trendily. Dean, and Robert K ho all supporting the cryolite standard where they were going to increase the levels of allowable pesticides on food. Here's the transcript for the Manhattan projects 1944 conference on fluoride toxicity. This makes for very interesting reading.
And worth checking out. Here is the transcript of the first meeting on the Newberg fluoridation experiment. And this is the meeting where h trendily Dean, who is known as the father of fluoridation stated that he thought that fluoridation was too risky to be to do, he did not think that it was advisable to proceed with fluoridation at that time. And his testimony again is very interesting. Here is his famous 1951 conference where the dental directors got together to talk about how to promote fluoridation. And there's a lot of really crude discussion about the public relations, strategies to use. Here is the full transcript of the 1952 congressional hearing on fluoridation, where a lot of interesting stuff about fluoridation, basically the proponents having no real evidence on the safety of the measure, and that the experiments were just that human experiments without adequate informed consent by those being experimented on. And 1954 congressional hearing and, and on the line. So there's a lot of really interesting transcripts in there. But so anyway, that's a sort of overview of the types of documents that we have and some of the material. Now, I'll just now go into some of the actual findings of these documents. And of course, there's just too much to talk about, you know, to really do justice to here. But I see this here today sort of scratching the surface a little bit. And, Clint, I should say that if people have any questions, or if anything I say is unclear, that you know, for people to raise their hand and ask a question, and I'm that I think would be an option. helpful way to proceed, I'd be more than happy to answer questions as they arise, you know, rather than waiting all to the end, so if people do have questions, you know, feel free to ask them now, and I'll do my best to answer them.
Clint Griess 55:16 All right, so if you have a question, at any point, raise your hand. And we'll see if we can weave your question in at that, at that at the moment, we will have, you know, if it's something a matter of question of clarification, in the moment, please raise your hand. Otherwise, hold your questions till the end. And just want to let you know, Michael, that not everyone on the call, is also watching your screen. We do have 40 people, which is like two thirds of folks are watching online, but not everyone. So just keep that in mind as you're going through. Okay.
Michael Connett 55:51 Okay, good. That's good to know. I thought, Okay, that's good to know. So let me make a conceptual distinction. To begin with about two distinct questions that can be asked about the early about some of these early documents. One question to be asked, is ultimately the million dollar question. Which is, why did Florida why did why did they begin fluoridated water? Why did fluoridation begin? And then there's a separate question, which is, was the early studies or so called studies on that demonstrated the safety of fluoride and the effectiveness of fluoride? What was that? Was that science? Was it? Was it valid? Was it was it legitimate? What's the credibility of that early science? And, ultimately, I think the documents are most damning with respect to the latter question. And as, as I will talk about in a bed, the one thing that documents demonstrate is that there was a pattern, a really systematic pattern of data suppression. And this pattern was, you can see it, not only in industry, but also in the Public Health Service in the government, that there were very similar patterns. And so you'll see if you compare
Unknown Speaker 57:43 the unpublished
Michael Connett 57:47 memoranda on the health studies that were being conducted, and you compare those unpublished discussions with what ultimately ended up getting published, you will see a lot of discrepancies. Really interesting discrepancies. And the discrepancies always go in the direction of showing less harm, less reason for concern in the published studies. So, there is so that that, to me, is the issue that I am pursuing and with several journalists, and my hope is that we are that we're gonna get a story published in a national outlet here in the United States that deal with this data suppression issue. So I'll return to that in a few minutes. But let me just,
Clint Griess 58:52 Michael, let me just interrupt you before you move on. There's a question or comment from your father Paul Connett.
Dr. Paul Connett 59:00 Oh, hey, dad. Here. Yeah, Michael, I just thought one of the exciting things that you put on this, in this flash drive that I think it's a different sort of opens up a different, a different area of information is that you've put John Cahoon John Coons PhD thesis, and it's been a dream of mine that that would be publicly available. And for those who don't know, jonka, whom was the former principal Dental Officer of Auckland. In New Zealand, he promoted fluoridation avidly both as a director, a dental director, and as a counselor, and then in 1980, based upon a world tour, he found the evidence the evidence that he was being given behind the scenes is the fluoridation wasn't working. There was no difference between the tooth decay and fluoridated communities known loaded communities, he found the same thing when he returned to New Zealand where he looked at all the statistics and they do complete statistics in New Zealand. And eventually he came out in public against fluoridation, and he spent the rest of his life fighting it. And after he had left his dental pursuits, he actually went back to university and did a PhD thesis. And that PhD thesis is on the whole history of fluoridation in New Zealand. And, and in it, he shows, amongst other things on amongst many things, as he shows that the first trial, which launched fluoridation in New Zealand, Hastings Napier was a fraud. And he produces the evidence for that. So for anybody listening on this call from from New Zealand, you will now have access to this absolutely incredible PhD thesis. And of course, there are probably many other things like that. So I just wanted to make sure that people realize that this isn't just the very distant past or industrial documents. They have some very important academic papers as well.
Michael Connett 1:01:12 Yeah, and I would say that in addition to I'm going to show here, other PhD dissertations and books that we have. Here's John Calhoun's thesis. We also have
Clint Griess 1:01:24 Michael, would you mind, Matt? maximizing your screen? I think it will help.
Michael Connett 1:01:29 Oh, sorry, yes. How do I do
Clint Griess 1:01:32 that? In the upper right hand corner of the window is a little double arrow, double headed arrow, click on that double headed arrow in your Word document,
Michael Connett 1:01:46 or the word? Oh, you mean I see right here. I see. Well, let me let me go back here. And so can you see that Clint?
Clint Griess 1:01:59 Yes. It's just that the, you know, as much as you can see, it's a little bit smaller than that for the rest of us. Okay, well, so
Michael Connett 1:02:07 anyway, that's I'll just skip that. But yes, we have a lot. We have the ED Grace 1973, PhD dissertation, and other PhD theses as well. And also, it's not just as my dad was saying, it's not just old history, when it comes to. We also have great material from the 1980s. About the corruption of the Surgeon General, when you look at the the the altered recommendations of the Surgeon General's panel, on the non dental effects of fluoride, we have all the documents showing corruption at the EPA, when they weakened the standard for fluoride in drinking water in 1985. We have all of the material on the NTPs cancer starting in the early 1990s. We have great material, by the way, and Don McCauley from Ireland, sent me some fantastic material on the cover off in the 2000s in Ireland, on the infant for the problem of adding fluoridated water to infant formula, some really great material there, as well as some gray material from what fan uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act on the Harvard bone cancer study in the 2000s. Some really good material there. And so the this is, this pattern of data suppression isn't just limited to the 1940s and 1950s. It goes from the beginning of the flow of fluoridation all the way to the current time. And it's a consistent pattern where the awkward, inconvenient, troubling questions about fluoride don't ever find like they often are filtered out and don't find their way into the published final document that the public has access to. And so really, that's been the area that I'm most interested in, is exploring those discrepancies, and exploring the reasons for those discrepancies. And because in my view, it really raises questions about the credibility of some of the key published material that has been cited ad nauseam for demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.
JL from San Francisco 1:04:39 So
Michael Connett 1:04:41 let me I guess I'll quit. How are we doing on time?
JL from San Francisco 1:04:47 We're doing good. Yes.
Clint Griess 1:04:50 You're doing great. Keep going.
Michael Connett 1:04:52 Okay, so I'll just make a few points here about some of the I think factors to consider to the in the in the question of why did fluoridation begin? What were the interests at play? And the first interest, I think, from the very beginning, is that the aluminum industry, particularly Alcoa, which knew that it was sitting that it was facing a great deal of liability for exposing workers and communities to fluoride. The out Kawa latched on to the notion that a pre existing notion they didn't invent it, but there was a preexisting notion dating back to the late 19th century, that fluoride might somehow be good for tea. And this was a notion that developed because fluoride was found in tea. And for some scientists, and some people thought, well, maybe fluoride is needed or essential for tea. And shortly after, it was discovered in 1931, that fluoride cause dental fluorosis, you have the Alcoa scientist, suggesting, and as in this letter right here, from Churchill, Alcoa, suggesting that fluoride is probably not harmful at one part per million, and may be positively beneficial. So right from the beginning, Alcoa latched on to this notion that fluoride good for teeth, it's not just does it you know, don't worry so much about dental fluorosis, it's actually good for teeth. And then you have this great letter that Chris Bryson dug up from Gerald Cox where Cox who was the first scientist to ever to ever publicly propose adding fluoride to the water 1939 Cox says here, that the first time I ever gave fluorine a thought, was an answer to a question of Dr. Francis C. Frary, who was at that time and until about three or four years ago, director of research for Alcoa and Frary asked me if are finding that that that that there was less that there was a nutritional factor that was reducing tooth decay in rats. It was prairie that suggested to Cox but that was caused by fluoride. So here you have the scientist who first proposed adding fluoride to water state. That the that his that he The reason the basis for him considering fluoride was a suggestion by the research director of Alcoa. And I think that's a interesting, historic fact. So we have the out we have the aluminum industry that latched on to this notion that fluoride was good for teeth and encourage scientists to really pursue that line of inquiry. And then we have in the 1940s. We have the US bomb program that was using massive, massive quantities of fluoride, and exposing workers and communities to very large amounts of fluoride. It took a keen interest in understanding how does fluoride affect human health? And to help answer that question, they wanted to understand how Floyd was metabolized by the human body. And on that front, they were very interested in water fluoridation. And you can see here, I'll pull up this one document here. Okay. This is the new bird. This is a Manhattan Project new bird file, which is new bird was the city in New York that was doing it first, one of the first fluoridation experiments. And this was a letter from Harold Hodge, who was the chief toxicologist for the Manhattan Project to Stafford Warren saying, Here is a copy of the current file relating to the Kingston Newberg study. And he says, if desired, I would be glad to come down to your place and talk this problem over. And you can see here that the the the the Manhattan Project was keeping very, very close tabs on this Newberg experiment and here are the they're spending their own money on doing the study the Manhattan Project was and that's interesting, because if you look at
the criteria that the Manhattan Project criteria for what research it would fund, it was African Warren made it clear that the research must be essential to the present war effort. And so, so the Manhattan Project criteria for funding research was isn't immediately imperative for the war effort. And I think that makes it even more that makes it interesting. Why wasn't Manhattan Why did the Manhattan Project find fluoridation? Something that they wanted to, to fund and study? Why would preventing cavities and children qualify as something that was immediately imperative to the war effort? I think that's a question that historians need to grapple with a bit further. So other factors in in why fluoridation began, are the dental profession Peter Myers in Germany has, has been keen on this aspect of the issue, which I found a document that would further support it. But there was the dental profession was concerned in the 1940s, that the government was going to push for a socialized form of dental care. And this was because the, there was so much tooth decay in the United States, and there wasn't enough dental manpower, to, to treat everybody. So some, most people back in the 40s didn't have any dentist that could treat them. And the dental community was concerned that the government was going to begin, you know, interest, you know, maybe providing more dentists to treat these people, which would have then reduced the profits of the dental, you know, they would have sort of interfered with if you'd like the monopoly of the dental profession. And so fluoridation was an attractive option, in that it would at least create the appearance of having a method of reducing tooth decay that didn't involve the government getting in the way of the dental profession and their their kind of monopoly in their profits, if you will.
Clint Griess 1:12:31 Michael, that is, that's explosive information. We actually have a dentist with us who wants to chime in. Would that be alright. Oh, absolutely. Jim Maxie, from Tulsa, thank you for joining us. You're welcome.
Leslie from Minneapolis 1:12:46 Yeah,
Jim Maxie from Tulsa 1:12:47 I'm just for well, overwhelmed by the amount of information he's got. I've started this for years. I'm finding all kinds of new things today. One thing that is not documented, and when I say documented what it will come up as no documentation because there's this illusion that if a dentist's graduation, dental school is knowledgeable about water fluoridation, and that is not so if you'll check transcripts of dentists, there's no such thing as a water fluoridation course on any transcript. And the Oklahoma University Dental School now teaches a course in water fluoridation and the school refuses give me information on it. But what I found out is it just basically teaches the pro fluoride stuff, all the stuff that we're battling. And so I think dentists can be very easily when asked for his credentials can be proved that they don't know anything about it. They're not taught in middle school. And the studies that he's referring to the way I refer to these pro Foreign Studies is that as are all scripted, and sculptured, they, you know, they're just manipulated. One other thing is this word safe that's being used. I testified at that 1985 EPA hearing, and I will received a report to the Surgeon General and the way they defined safe is that it doesn't produce any adverse health effects. But when you look at how they define adverse health effects, it's things like death and gastrointestinal hemorrhage and gastrointestinal irritation, crippling fluorosis. And it's true that fluoride doesn't cause any of those things. So therefore, there's no adverse health effects. But the things that are adverse health effects, like thyroid problems, contributing to cancer, fluorosis and all that none of that stuff is included in the definition of adverse health effects. So it's just a tremendous amount of word spin that's going on to manipulate people into believing that stuff is good, right and wonderful.
Michael Connett 1:14:41 Yeah. Well, Jim, thanks for your comments. And also, Jim, thank you for sending me the material that you sent me over the past couple of weeks, including Dean's cross examination in 1955. And so I thank you for your work that you've done on this issue, or you're welcome. Thank you all and So here's a here's a letter that I got from John fresh. Now John fresh was this really really zealous, enthusiastic dentist, who in the 1940s really led the effort to fluoridate Wisconsin. And I think there's we there's still a lot to be learned about why John Frisch got so involved that he did. But this letter is a letter that he wrote after the American Dental Association issued an editorial that was very critical of fluoridation. Many of the people on this call are probably familiar with that editorial. But the ADEA came out strongly against water fluoridation, saying that there was too many risks, and not enough evidence of benefits. And John fresh was furious at this editorial, and there's a back and forth that I have between him and the ED board. But here John Frisch says, Why explain explains why he is as upset as he was. And he says, there's definitely more danger in the ADEA is attitude and bringing the profession of dentistry under a socialized system than in any other thing. And so he's basically, you know, suggesting here that there that there are reluctance to endorse fluoridation is is is increasing the danger of the dental profession being socialized. So here's more he has more comments on that here. But it's something to consider as another factor in the in why fluoridation began, I like to call it a perfect storm, you have a perfect storm of various interest groups, including the sugar industry, that all sort of saw their self interest being served by having this magical panacea, fluoride being added to the public water supplies to reduce tooth decay. And speaking of the sugar industry, I will throw up one little document. And I'm sure there's there's a lot more, but I'll just show up one. Here is a letter from one of the Michigan dentist saying that the Kellogg Foundation, which was the sugar lobby group, was helping to fund the grant was trying was helping to fund the first fluoridation experiment in Grand Rapids, Michigan. And so we have the Kellogg Foundation, very interested in seeing this fluoridation experiment, be successful. So the sugar industry had its had its skin in the game as well. So anyways, that's those are some of the factors, I think that we need to look to, to understand why fluoridation got off the ground. Now, let me turn to this question of data suppression. And I'll just just give a few examples. Again, these are just a few examples, because we don't have time to go into them all. And I will note again, that I am working on trying to. And my hope is to get this story of data suppression covered by a journalist. And with fluoride, you can never count on the study. You never can count on media coverage until you actually get it. But I do have two interested journalists. And my hope is that we will be able to get a story out. So let me just give a couple examples of data suppression. Here, the Bartlett it for many people will probably recognize the Bartlett Cameron study. This was a really foundational study in the United States for demonstrating the safety of fluoride for the bones and for general health. And this study was first conducted in 1943.
And then a so called follow up study was done in 1953. And it the study was done on two communities in Texas. One community had high levels of fluoride in their water that was Bartlett. They had eight parts per million fluoride. And the other community Cameron had only 0.4 parts per million Moreover, now, till this day, the only study that we have access to is the study that the Public Health Service published in the 1950s. They have never released to this day, the first study that was done in 1943, never published. But what we do have is we have, Dean, we have we have, and I wanted the documents that I got, we have internal correspondence within the Public Health Service, talking about the findings of the 1943 study. And in this internal correspondence, they talk about a number of things that never found their way into the 1953 study, including a very, they were very concerned about the that they were finding a relationship between fluoride exposure and cataracts. Cataracts being the damage to the eye. So I lens changes in the Bartlett community in the high fluoride community. And as dean of H trendily, Dean stated to the Newberg committee in April 1944, the Public Health Service was finding the same relationship between fluoride and cataracts. In the other high fluoride communities that it was studying, which included several communities in South Dakota, and Idaho. And Dean even presented he gave the data and I'll pull that up right now, here. Hold that up. So, Dean here says, in Bartlett, Texas, you had eight of 49 individuals with moderate or severe cataracts. And in Cameron, Texas, the low fluoride community, there was only one person out of 26 individuals who had an Hua, who had moderate cataract not even severe. So that was a pretty big difference. And as Dean says, We just checked the eyes out of Britain and King Hill to other high fly communities. And again, we found what seems like a relatively high incidence of cataracts. So as Dean says, the fact that you leave Bartlett, Texas and go off to South Dakota and pick up another place that has been using it for 40 years fluoride, and they show that same high incidence, then you go across to another high fluoride community, and see it again, at least indicates that you must go into this a lot further to see you know, what kind of relationship exists you. So Dean was very concerned about the cataracts. Now, what does the 19 that what what do we see in the published study that we got in the 1950s? No discussion of cataracts at all. But what you do see, which is kind of curious. What's kind of curious when you look at the cataract data
is the camera though the low fluoride community, in the published study, has more cataracts than the high fluoride community. So somehow or another in 10 years, the situation dramatically reverses itself. Now, maybe that actually occurred. But there should have been some discussion to explain why we would see such a dramatic reversal in the data. But there is no discussion in the published study as to why there is such a dramatic discrepancy. And of course, because the Public Health Service never published the early study. They didn't have to explain to readers why there's this big discrepancy. Because no one even knew that there was a cataracts problem to begin with. And that right there is the dynamic that you see, in a lot of the early studies, because they never published the early material. They never had to explain in the published document, why the published findings wore the way they wore I'll take here's another example from this Bartlett study. In here, talks about he was asked, were there any blood changes in the people who had bone changes from the fluoride? And Dean says yes, a little, there was some quote in those patients who had osteo sclerosis, the hemoglobin values average two grams less per person than in those which did not have evidence of osteoporosis. Now, he goes on to say that the average level of the hemoglobin was no different between the two communities. But in the people who had fluoride bone changes, the, the hemoglobin levels were two grams less. Well, in the published studies, again, no reference to that is in there at all, if they're completely silent, the only thing that the published study talks about is that the average level of hemoglobin was no different between the high fly community and the low fly community. So this awkward, inconvenient troubling little fact is completely airbrushed out of the published documents. So so that is the that right. There are several examples from the from the famous Bartlett's study. And I would say one other thing on the Bartlett's study, and that is, the Public Health Service always has said that the it was always planned, they said to do a 10 year follow up, that they began in 1943, with the intention of returning in 1953, to find out how these people's health, you know, was changed over 10 years. But if you look at the documents from 1940s, there's no reference to this being a 10 year study, all of the discussion makes it seem like this was they only intended to do a 1943 study, and there was no intention of a 10 year follow up. So. So I say that, by way of emphasizing that 1943 study really was just buried and suppressed. And there was not an intention to do a 10 year follow up. So anyway, let me go on to one other example. Again, I could go on longer, but I know we have a time issue. But here's another example of what I think looks to me to be a quite an interesting example of data suppression, which has never before been recognized. So this is actually a new finding. And the cataract has a lot of new stuff in there. But this right here is really just been off the radar screen to date. And again, this is the government now we're not talking about industry, although there's a long I mean, there's, I should say upfront, there is some really, really and if people want I can go through some of the examples of the industry suppression but there's very overt industry suppression of data. But let me talk now about one other example of government suppression of healthy
JL from San Francisco 1:28:15 so this is
Michael Connett 1:28:19 a another study from the 1940s. That was on a community with six parts per million, not eight parts per million, but six parts per million. And row home Go is a whether you're anti fluoride or pro fluoride call wrote called rowhome is widely considered the seminal scientists on fluoride toxicity. rowhomes you know, had its famous 1937 study on fluoride where he was very thorough and everyone respects roe Homas as an as a real expert on the issue of fluoride toxicity. Well, in 1945, rowhome had the opportunity to visit the United States. And he met with a number of scientists at the Public Health Service. And one of the people that he met with at the Public Health Service was a man named James Hawkins. And as rowhome stated in a an essay that he wrote in 1946, in the this essay was in Danish, but Chris Bryson had it translated
JL from San Francisco 1:29:37 into English.
Michael Connett 1:29:40 rowhome states that, I can mention that James W. Hawkins from the Public Health Service has recently completed X rays of a large population in the United States, where the drinking water contains six milligrams of fluoride For one liter drinking water, we notice the word we so it's Hawkins and rowhome. Research the radio grass, and found a numerous cases of typical osteo sclerosis. He noticed that it wasn't as severe as a sub fluorosis that he found in the cryolite workers. But see is notice his words, we researched the radiograph and found numerous cases of typical osteo sclerosis. Well, I can tell you this, there is not a single mention in any any published document ever do this study by Hawkins on a six PPM community. There's never there's not a piece of that study anywhere. The only the only study that we hear about on skeletal fluorosis and when communities with high levels of fluoride is the Bartlett I mean, the key study is the Bartlett study from Texas, which was eight parts per million. But here we have a six parts per million study. And there's no reference to it in the literature, but row clearly references a study on six parts per million. Now. Dean, let me pull up. Let me pull something up here. And again, if anyone has any questions of what we've discussed so far, please feel free to chime in now. And we can go over those.
Unknown Speaker 1:31:39 Let me
Clint Griess 1:31:43 Yes, Michael, pretty soon we're going to take a little break, so I can get some feedback from our folks about the teleconference in general. And then I'm going to ask you to help us digest this information in terms of our activism and what we can do with it. So let's hear one more example. And then we'll do that. Okay.
Michael Connett 1:32:07 Okay. And I'll just say here. So at the Newberg meeting in 19. In April 1944. Dean talks about the bone changes, but they were finding at the eight parts per million. And Dean was asked, Do you have any reason to believe Dr. Dean from your presence studies, that we may find some toxic effects at low concentrations, and Dean responds, we don't know what we will find even in the low concentrations. We have found some bony changes in aid. So he said, eight parts per million, and Dr. Assets, eight parts per million Dean responds, Yes. Now we will have to keep on going down further to see where this thing runs out. So what Dean is saying there is we're finding bone changes at eight parts per million. We're going to continue going, we're going to continue studying communities with lower levels of fluoride to see where the bone changes stop occurring. Now, incidentally, one of the start, one of the communities that Dean discusses in this meeting is a community in South Dakota, Britain, South Dakota, which has six parts per million fluoride. So D makes it clear that they wanted to study these lower level these communities with lower fluoride levels to see where the bone changes stop the current. Now we have Cole rowhome, two years later, saying that he studied the X rays of a community with six parts per million and found numerous cases of osteo sclerosis. With that study, there is not a piece of that study anywhere in the scientific literature. And so I will know and close with one interesting cryptic comment from Frank McClure, who was a public health cert Public Health Service scientist who did a lot of the early research on fluoride and McClair. Let me get this out. McClure in his 1970 book says something which I think is quite interesting. He says quote, the touchy unyielding problem of suppression of data and withholding of information was bound to arise and the implications could reach high levels in the federal government. Now, interestingly, McClure had no problem publishing his studies on fluoride in 1940s, which his study He's all found no effect on fluoride at all. And his studies also said that they were published with the permission of the Surgeon General. So McClure received permission from the Public Health Service to publish his data. But it seems that James Hawkins never received permission for him to publish his study, which found bone changes at levels that McClure would have said was perfectly safe. So, again, these are only a few examples. But they illustrate what I believe is a pervasive pattern in not only the government research, but also the industrial research on how fluoride affects human health. And, you know, over the coming months, we we at fluoridation network are going to do our best to draw attention to these documents. Because in my view, they're important, because these early studies, were the foundational studies that established the so called safety of fluoride for the population. And if those studies, if they were selectively presenting the data, if they were not telling us the inconvenient data that they were collecting in private, it raises fundamental questions about the integrity and credibility of the foundational science that launched the whole paradigm. That is water fluoridation. So I think it's important for us to understand the the, the the, the the credibility problems with these early studies, and we can establish the credibility problems by comparing the unpublished material with the published material. And with that, I'll stop now. And I'd be happy to answer questions when we get them.
Clint Griess 1:37:19 Wow, wow. Well, thank you very much, Michael. I don't know if people are like me. But as I hear this information, I'm at once very concerned and upset. But at the same time, I know that knowledge is power, and I am glad to be learning about the history as it truly is. I'm gonna take a few minutes here to engage with the participants about the international teleconference. First, I just want to get an accurate count of the people who are on the line today. So some people are sharing a phone using speakerphone, for example. And there might be a couple of you or more in a room together, so I wouldn't know exactly how many people are listening in. So please use your keypad. Now to let me know. If you are, if you're alone on your phone, don't press any key. So I'm putting your hands down now to listen to my instructions. If you are alone on the phone, you don't need to press any button. But if you are plus one, then hit one on your keypad. If you are plus two, that would mean three people in total, hit two on your keypad. If you're a plus three, please enter three that mean you have four in the room.
JL from San Francisco 1:38:40 up to plus five.
Clint Griess 1:38:43 This is going to tell me exactly how many people out there I know that there are people sharing lines and this is going to give me so there's one case where there's a plus five, is that correct? Sandra in Austin, are you in a room with six people? I'm gonna give you the mic for real quick? Yeah, we are. Yes, we are. Six people total. Yes, six people total. Welcome. Thank you all. Okay, so that helps with the accurate count. So the other thing I want to ask you all about is the topics for the future teleconferences in the year 2014. So, you know, I'm committed that the teleconferences be an essential component in an overall organizational strategy for everyone here in your work to end fluoridation. So I'm just going to ask if there are requests from people if there are topics worthy of dedicating an entire teleconference to that you'd like to hear. If you want to chime in out with some ideas, please raise your hands by pressing one on your keypad. What are the topics that you'd like to hear from? Hear about in depth? Okay, Thomas in Newark, please go ahead.
Thomas from Newark 1:40:18 Yeah, I'm curious as to know what information would be appropriate to give dental students because they have to come out of their brainwash out of dental school. What do you have to say about that?
Clint Griess 1:40:30 Yes, well, that's a great topic, dental school. brainwashing. I'm just now taking ideas for future teleconferences. Okay. I'm sorry. I just think that's perfect. Thomas. Thank you. What about Doug in Los Angeles? What do you say?
Doug from Los Angeles 1:40:52 Yeah, I think legal topic could be lawsuits against fluoridation or fluoride products. Sort of a history of the legal struggle against fluoridation.
Thomas from Newark 1:41:04 Okay. Okay. Perfect.
Clint Griess 1:41:09 Dr. Paul Connett.
Dr. Paul Connett 1:41:12 Yes, I think what I'd like to hear more about and I'd be happy to do it myself is we could end fluoridation tomorrow, if the EPA Division of Water was to do an honest margin of safety calculation with the endpoint of most concern, which in my view, has to be lowered IQ, lowered IQ must rate higher in importance than severe dental fluorosis, which is what they're currently saying, is going to be the endpoint. So I'd like to have a get involved with a margin of safety discussion, and why it's so critical that we get this across to a large number of people in wherever in Washington, and put the pressure on the EPA to do an honest job. So that's the first thing I have to suggest. The second thing I have to suggest, is that you have another program in which people and this may be a few months from now, having got the flash drive that Michael is talking about, share what they've discovered, I know what's made the most excited. And, and the third thing, which is related to that, as a now I'm a retired professor, but once upon a time I actually did it for a living, I would have just been over the moon. If I had something like this, this resource that I could give to graduate students or even undergraduates, and let them go, right, you know, rip through this thing. It's like putting the kids into a library and saying, find, find a research topic, find something new here. It's just, from what I can gather from what Michael has said, and what I already knew. It's a treasure trove waiting to be opens. So I hope that people out there say no or professor at university or a dental professor you already mentioned, put get this flash drive in their hands and let them see what a resource it is.
Clint Griess 1:43:17 Thank you think thank you. Okay. Leslie, from Minneapolis. What do you say would be a good topic for a future call?
Leslie from Minneapolis 1:43:24 Well, when I traced back little ways to 1967, when a Republican legislator put this forward, if that was done today, Homeland Security would be on the case, charging a terrorism putting this poison in a public water supply. So I'd like to look at the idea of why this wasn't a terrorist act committed in 1967 to fluoridate the water. I know, they might argue a bit and say, well, it was legislation that was passed as well. The whole idea behind this was a terror idea.
Clint Griess 1:44:02 I like the interesting angle. about that a little bit. All right, thanks, Leslie.
Leslie from Minneapolis 1:44:07 There's today if somebody if you want to tinker a tamper with the public water supply. I mean, they're very worried about that kind of stuff. I know security has been increased in many of these places, whether it's nuclear storage or water treatment plants in places like that. So just an idea.
Clint Griess 1:44:24 Very good. Very good. Okay. JL in San Francisco.
JL from San Francisco 1:44:29 Hello quints. Great Call so far. Okay, great. Really great. Well, yeah, one call to be specifically devoted to the legal aspects of the fluoride battle, as in any lawsuit. Yeah, lawsuits, and also, perhaps a program on messaging where we really run through all the different fundamental messages and where they lead Have might be a great thing for us to really get our national movement, you know, moving in coordination,
Clint Griess 1:45:06 absolutely understand the importance of that. Thank you JL from San Francisco. Let's see, let's take, I want to hear from one more person. And then you know, I invite you all to send an email to me with with your ideas of because the number of people now or, or there's too many to touch on today. And I really thank you for your feedback. I need to hear from you. I need to know what's important to you what's valuable to you. And I want to bring it to you in real time when it matters to you. So, in addition to being together every month is also one of the huge values regardless of the topic, we do just get a lot of out of being together. And I thank you all for coming together today. So let's just hear one more idea from Karl in Hinesburg. Vermont, please What would you like to hear in a future teleconference?
Karl from Hinesburg, Vermont 1:46:00 I'd like to know, basically, what government studies have been actually done on fluoridation who financed them, and where they perv
JL from San Francisco 1:46:10 peer reviewed. Okay, great.
Clint Griess 1:46:15 All right. Thank you very much, again, everyone who's got your hand up. Thanks for those who did share. And for those who didn't, please send me an email with your ideas. That's for everybody. I'm very interested to hear what's important to you what you recognize is essential in your campaigning. So then, I also want to ask for support for future calls. The costs for the first two months of the teleconference were covered by Florida Action Network. And I thank you again for getting us off the ground. And then we were sustained for the the next two months by a clean water California. So for approximately $150 Each month, we can offer this interactive teleconference service, and provide a recording of the event and other related documentation. Is there anyone out there today who would like to sponsor a monthly teleconference, you can pledge today any amount, and your contribution will guarantee the continuation of this special monthly meeting. So I'm asking now, if there is anyone who, whether an individual or a group would like to promise to pay as a as an A pledge, and then I can get you contact information how to do that pledge today. You know, this call does, it's a, it's a marginal cost. However, as a matter of principle, I want this teleconference to be self sustaining. And so as a way of confirming that the teleconference itself is providing value, that you might then assume that it would be reflected in people's willingness to contribute financially. And again, it's not a lot of money. So if you would like to make a pledge now, please raise your hand by pressing one on your keypad, and I will call on you. Thank you very much, Jim. Jim and pulsa Yes. Would you like to pledge to financially support the teleconference?
Jim Maxie from Tulsa 1:48:25 Yes, I would. I didn't quite get the figure they said. $150. Is that what you're talking about? Yes. Okay. Yeah, I just need to get how to how to get a check to the or whatever. And I'll get your $150
Clint Griess 1:48:37 Thank you very much, Jim. I will contact you by email and follow up with details that in that way. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And Virginia in Clearwater, Florida.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:49 Yes. Hi. Are you there?
JL from San Francisco 1:48:51 Yes, go ahead.
Unknown Speaker 1:48:53 Oh, hi. God bless everyone. Happy
Virginia from Clearwater, Florida 1:48:55 New Year.
I'm so thrilled to have been on the conference. And I'm planning to become a lot more active this coming year. I'd like to right now I'm kind of struggling. But I'd like to offer $20 As a minimum for this verse next month, and then I will be increasing that donation. Was that what are they called? Pledge?
Clint Griess 1:49:23 Yes, but thank you, Virginia. I will contact you.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:27 Yes, if everyone could pledge even $20 I think we'd have it covered, wouldn't we?
Clint Griess 1:49:33 That's for sure. That's for sure. I love that attitude. All right. Thank you so much for Janelle be in contact with you. And now Karen from Nashville. Sorry, Karen. Go ahead, Karen.
Unknown Speaker 1:49:47 Yes, I'll play
Unknown Speaker 1:49:48 250
Clint Griess 1:49:50 All right, Karen. Hey. Very kind. Thank you. So that'll do it for today. In terms of a feedback and conversation, let's get back into the topic at hand we have? Well, to be honest with have very little time remaining in our two hour conference in very rich conversation. What I want to do is have the conversation now be directed toward how do we use this information? Okay? That's the facts are plainly there playing the document, these documents are irrefutable. And the conclusions we can draw about a systematic, systematic problem is clear. So the question is, here we are working in our local communities, and sometimes at the state level or international level to get fluoride out. Let's have a conversation about how this information can be used to how can we take this information and make a difference in our local communities? So Michael, if you have specific instructions, or anyone who has some ideas about how you would you do plan to use this, how you're going to implement it, how you're going to put the information that you gain today into effect? Please go ahead. And Michael, your microphone is wide open?
Michael Connett 1:51:14 Well, I'm ready to start by saying that I feel bad that we don't, we haven't had time for Quest q&a. And so I'd be happy for anyone who wants to stay on the line after the call is done, to answer specific questions. So who so are people who are interested in staying on the line and having those questions, I'd be happy to answer them. And I'll just begin with response to your question, Clint, I would say that. What can we do with these documents? Well, the first thing is, there's no rush here. On this, there's no rush for people on the ground with these documents, as people will find whoever got the flash drive, there's a massive amount of documents in here. It's gonna take a while to wade through it. But the key thing is for for fan, to get a news organization to cover the story. Because that's going to be the way I think, to kickstart it really to put it to put it on the map. And so it might not happen, we might not be able to pull it off. But that is I don't think people should be thinking, Okay, let's, let's get these documents tomorrow and run and run to, you know, the local journalists and do something with it. I think, for now, in the immediate future, I think it's more about getting the documents and, you know, reading through and learning more about it. But I think the first key thing is for fans to get this covered by the outlets that should be covering it, which is the national press. And so that's where I see the first thing to be done. In the meantime, people can be learning the material on their own. And there's a lot for those who are interested in the research side, those who want to dig deeper, there are a lot of interesting leads, that needs to be pursued further, and we can talk about that later, perhaps.
Clint Griess 1:53:27 Great. That's, that's awesome. So, so continued research, and and then this information couldn't make the news if we can find the journalists willing to publish it. But in the meantime, it's not as though we're assuming people are going to take these documents and run down and start, you know, screaming from the top of the hill. Do you know about this information? In fact, that would be inadvisable?
Michael Connett 1:53:50 Well, I think at this point, because what I mean, my concern is we don't want to, like, we want to have the climate conducive for news organization to feel like it has an exclusive, you know, and so we're working, I am working with two journalists who have expressed an interest in this, I'm going to be supplying them information. And hopefully, they will, they will publish it. So I think for now, on our end, it's more us becoming familiar, you know, familiarizing ourselves with the material. And, and beginning the process of doing that. While fan works to get the media coverage
Clint Griess 1:54:32 to start with. Wonderful, wonderful. Yes, you know, the information is valuable to me personally, already, I've gained so much just because it helps me understand the terrain in which we're dealing. You know, I came into this I guess I can say pretty naive to think about how it would what it would take to change the status quo and your information is actually helpful to me because it explains so much about how Oh, it has been so challenging to get even, you know, get the press to report on it to get City Council's or county commissioners to look at it. So in a way, it's actually reassuring that we're not crazy, you know. So thank you very much for that. I'm going to make an announcement for the next chord free teleconference. In February, it will be on the second Sunday, again, at the same time, which is February 9, that's actually February 10. And Monday down under. But for everyone else, Sunday afternoon and evening in the United States and Canada, and you'll be seeing a registration link for that with the follow up email that you received from this call with a link to hear the recording. And so they're actually two people with their hands up. So let's go ahead and hear from them. And then I'll do a poll and see how many people actually want to stay on the line, in which case we will we'll just continue. So But first, let's hear from Janet in Greensboro. Go ahead, Janet.
Janet Nagel 1:56:02 I just want to say I, Michael, I agree with you totally that it needs national news coverage. And I see a strong parallel between what you've done and what Edward Snowden did. And I think it's really significance significant to the government malfeasance here, and which, of course, we could go back to William Marcus, and when he blew the whistle, and didn't get the kind of press coverage that he should have gotten.
Clint Griess 1:56:41 All right. Yes, that was a pretty cool acknowledgement of your work, Michael. Okay. So let's, I would take them. Go ahead.
Michael Connett 1:56:54 I would just say that I appreciate I really appreciate that. I think, to me, I, you know, to me, it's all about the free flow of information. And as you said, the power of information. And we, we lose, to the extent that information is buried, we win to the extent that information is on earth. And so, it, you know, I hope that this project will facilitate more information become becoming part of the public domain, which is where it always belongs. And so that's, you know, it's, there's, like I said, there's been a pattern of data suppression. And I only, I can only hope that we will see more. And I'm hoping we're gonna see whistleblowers, you know, I have a feeling there's a few whistleblowers out there. And I'm hoping that we're gonna hear from some whistleblowers, and that could, you know, some Edward Snowden 's, if you will, and that, you know, maybe that could just, you know, speed things up a
Clint Griess 1:57:55 bit. We just need our Glenn Greenwald. Okay, so it's actually top of the hour. And so in respect of time, I do want to ask if people want to stay on the line. And Kelly, I do have that you have a question or comment. So hang out, hang in there. But in the meantime, I'm asking you, if you want to say as a large group and keep this because construct constructive conversation going, please raise your hand by pressing one on your keypad. I understand if after two hours, you may need to go but this is such a great topic. If you want to stay on please press one. Okay. So looks like about half of you want to stay on the line. So let's do let's continue the conversation as a group. The recording will be made available. So if you need to hang out for whatever reason. You can catch us on the recording. So let's carry on with with the conversation at past two hours. You guys are amazing. So Kelly from from London, Ontario. Please. Kelly, can you hear me?
Janet Nagel 1:59:18 Oh, I must push the button by mistake.
Clint Griess 1:59:21 You're on?
Janet Nagel 1:59:23 I don't have a question. I must have pushed the button by mistake. Oh, I
JL from San Francisco 1:59:27 see. Okay, sorry.
Clint Griess 1:59:29 No problem. No problem. Any questions out there from anyone who are any comments about how the lady thing about about the information you've received, how to digested what to do with it? Okay, let's hear from Dr. Joyce. Young. Where do you Where are you calling from?
Unknown Speaker 1:59:48 I'm calling from Cape Cod, Massachusetts. I'm a naturopathic medical doctor with an area of expertise of environmental medicine. Asking the question what are all the hundreds wasn't chemicals and air, water, food and consumer products during the pokes. And what I would like to see is I would like to see a whole teleconference on detailed systemic health effects. And one of the reasons that I'm really interested in this is in the memory of my 92 year old mother, Dorothy Radomski, who lived for 88 years in Chicago, drinking the fluoridated water. She sustained severe severe skeletal fluorosis, she was bent over at a 45 degree angle. And I think that she sustained severe, severe systemic problems through the years.
Clint Griess 2:00:48 Yes, okay. Great. I really appreciate your chiming in there. And we're, yeah, we're all looking at fluoride in conjunction with a variety of other toxins in our environment.
Unknown Speaker 2:00:58 Thank you so much. It was wonderful.
Clint Griess 2:01:01 Okay, wonderful. Thanks for the feedback. Next, let's hear from someone I've never met. But I'm so glad you're on the call today. Kathy. Kathy, justice from proposes skirts, Springs, Colorado.
Leslie from Minneapolis 2:01:17 Hello, welcome.
Kathy Justice 2:01:18 Well, thank you. It's always been my contention that that people love their animals. And if we can get it to people, so many people that I've talked to they don't relate what is happening to people, to their animals. And if we can get this information to the animals and in light of the recent editorial, and now in the most recent journal fluoride, the manuscript by Dr. Sauer Hieber, showing the result of fluoride consumption on racehorses, which is a multibillion dollar industry. If we can get this information to that group of people. I fell who are looking at the dollar signs coming up of their racehorses, either winning or not winning because of their consumption of fluoride. That could be a major step in seeing the end of fluoridation.
Clint Griess 2:02:23 Absolutely, Kathy, thank you. And I've taken a note too, that that could be a very good topic for a future teleconference. And if you want to see what the effects of fluoride in water is, when it's ingested by horses, you can go to YouTube and watch poisoned horses. Vary, it's not pretty. I'll just tell you now
Kathy Justice 2:02:48 that I would like to say, and I mentioned this to Paul in 2010. When we spoke together and in Denver, that we have a horse still he turns 28 This year, who consumed fluoridation fluoridated water all his life until it ceased in 2005, who we never thought was smart. We just thought he just didn't have the gray matter to be a normal horse. And in 2010, after the year, the several years of him not consuming fluoridated water, his mind started coming back. And now he is an extremely smart horse, which he never was before.
Clint Griess 2:03:31 Oh, that's good news. You can recover. That's good news.
Kathy Justice 2:03:34 How many people with Alzheimer's are being, you know, giving the the diagnosis of never returning to normal brain function?
Clint Griess 2:03:43 Yeah,
Michael Connett 2:03:46 I think Kathy, thanks for calling. And thanks for the work that you have done, really pioneering work and calling attention to the risks that fluoride poses to animals and your horses. You might be interested, I just it reminded me that one of the strands that I was falling and going through these documents was fluorides effect on dogs. And I think we have here an issue that really, I think can be we really could expand upon because dogs are getting and I'm showing on the screen here a study from the 1980s that looked just dogs are getting a lot of fluoride, not just from for a water but from the dog food. Because we have you know things like bone meal and things that have very high levels of fluoride going into dogs into dog food. And, you know, we have conditions in dogs like a lot of hypothyroidism. We have a lot of arthritic pain problems in dogs today osteosarcomas. In dogs, we have a lot of health problems in dogs that have been linked to fluoride exposure. And I think that there is a very real possibility that fluoride exposure is in fact, a key cause of some of the health problems that we're seeing in dogs. And so I just thought I'd also mentioned a document that I'm showing here on the screen. And it's, and it's not, I don't mean to even suggest that this is a major document that would be, you know, explosive or anything, but I think it's a telling document nevertheless. And it goes to the character, a little bit of who, of Robert Kaiho, who is a key industrial scientist who really was absolutely critical and seminal in establishing the so called safety of fluoride exposures for workers and the general public. And it's a letter from a woman who, or I guess, I'm assuming it's a woman, but it's a letter from someone from an animal society to the Kettering Institute in 1958. And it says that the letter talks about how they've been receiving complaints of dogs screaming at the Kettering laboratory. And the woman says, I know animals are used for research, which may be necessary, but I am hopeful, they are put under anesthetics when undergoing painful experiments, thanking you for any consideration given to these helpless animals. And Robert Taiho. And when you read Robert Cahills letters, you will see that this guy, arrogance would be I mean, this guy was really a, quite a piece of work. As many of you probably know, it was Robert Kaiho. That was response largely responsible for getting lead added to gasoline for over 50 years, which was probably the worst one of the worst environmental toxic disasters that we've had in the past century because it damaged so many children's brains. But cayos response to this person was my dear anxious person. And he goes on to really, really, really put this person down and really talk about how important the work that they're doing is on the dogs to society, and that any illness and pain that they're inflicting on these animals is needed for humanity. Well, I mentioned this, because the dogs that were screening at this point in time, were screaming because they were being injected with fluoride. And it'd be one thing if the Kettering Institute actually published the findings of these dogs being injected with high levels of fluoride, but they never did. So the documents show that they were doing a long study on determining how much fluoride it took to kill a dog. And they did a lot of studies on this. And they talked about the difficulty of restraining these dogs to get blood measurements because the dogs are struggling for their life, as they say in the sorry, that for the poor quality of this particular document. They say in these experiments, much difficulty was experienced in taking blood samples because of struggling by the dogs. And they another document here
which is as for a number of reasons struggle, desire to abolish stress effects difficult, you know that they were having difficulty obtaining blood samples from the dog. So the dogs are being injected with lethal doses of fluoride. They were studying the effects on the dog's hearts, the dog's blood sugar levels, and finding some interesting things. But not one data point that you're looking at in these documents, not one of this was ever published. So they were poisoning these dogs, the dogs were screaming and pain, neighbors were complaining and to respond in a kind of high and all mighty fashion that these studies on the dogs are necessary for the welfare of humanity. And yet the Kettering Institute buries the study and never published it. Wow.
Unknown Speaker 2:09:35 Amazing. heart wrenching heartless people.
JL from San Francisco 2:09:41 Well, goodness,
Clint Griess 2:09:48 let's move on just the same to another listener, another participant from this time in Hutchinson, Kansas. Deanna, please go ahead.
Unknown Speaker 2:10:01 I excuse my voice. As you can tell, I'm sick. I wanted to make a couple comments that throughout my I don't know, 16 years of working on fighting fluoride that I struggle with our shift are the shift of burden of proof on those of us who are trying to stop or prevent fluoridation, versus the so called authorities. And so I think that we need to continue to work on that. And I see in our new floor fighters, sometimes they're just so excited with their new information. And I would caution them to not assume that all politicians, or government agencies are pro fluoride are against them that to approach them with honey. And they might go get a lot more done and find that there are people out there, particularly now after all these years with what's fan out there that are more open to the idea that there is a problem with fluoride. And then my last, and my question is for Michael. I have many health issues. But a few years ago, I discovered that I had a severe vitamin D deficiency. And despite me being an outdoors person, and I wondered if I mean, his research, if he found anything that connected fluoride and vitamin D, because I know that it seems to be an escalating problem. And when you have vitamin d3 deficiency, it can mimic other illnesses, and you often are misdiagnosed. Thank you.
Michael Connett 2:12:31 Thank you, they Deanna. I would, I would agree. First off on your first comments about, you know, I've went the documents I've been talking about tonight, you know, do go to, and I do believe that there was some, you could say, you know, some less than honorable actions taken in the early days of fluoridation. And, you know, and that there, you know, there was some, you know, we are dealing, you know, especially in the early days with some some degree of corruption. But that said, we also, it's clear that, you know, I there's a lot of people who promote who support fluoridation who do so in absolute good faith, and really just truly believe that it's a it's an effective way to prevent tooth decay. And so I think the Anna's point about approaching people on this issue with with honey is important because a lot of people are just really just completely believe that they're supporting a very, very important public health measure. And, and, and most of the people promoting and supporting fluoridation are doing so in complete good faith. So I think that's important to keep in mind, and that we have a, you know, that we have, you know, just are very tactful in the way that we speak with people who aren't yet aware of or convinced about the problems with fluoride. But in terms of Danna, your second question about vitamin D. The The only thing that I am familiar with that I've seen in the literature is the fact that vitamin D deficiency will very likely make someone more susceptible to suffering harm from fluoride exposure. In fact, in the 1970s John Mary a, at the National Research Council of Canada, and his colleague, Dyson they, they believe that fluoride exposure increased the metabolic requirements for calcium magnesium, and I think they might have said vitamin D as well. And by that they mean it's the more fluoride you have, the more calcium you need, and the more magnesium you need in order to, to maintain good health. So I would so I don't know, I have never seen anything to suggest that fluoride could cause a vitamin D deficiency. But I think there's good reasons to believe that someone with a vitamin D deficiency would be potentially more susceptible to fluoride toxicity, particularly with respect, I think to the bones.
Clint Griess 2:15:45 Thank you. Thanks, Dan, for that great question. And comment? So let's see. Let's get some more voices in here. Harvey, where are you calling from? From New Jersey. Oh, welcome.
Unknown Speaker 2:16:05 Thank you enjoying your program very much. A few things that maybe you haven't emphasized, which I think we might consider. One thing is fluorides placed in the halogen spectrum, the fact that it's selected chemically, more stronger than any of the other halogens. And the only important one being iodine. Fluoride displaces iodine. And it is a major factor in hypothyroidism for that problem for that reason. And they're also Florida has had well, let me put it this way, the lesser, less strong halogens have had effects, which have been documented. And I'm sure that fluoride is worse. For instance, Colton Frederick's, who was one of the original Radio Health gurus could make arthritis and some people come and go, just by feeding them chlorinated water, or taking away and giving them pure water, he could make their arthritis come and go. Now, if this is the case with chlorine, fluorine is a lot stronger, and then chlorine. So there should be some evidence to that fact. And some of these facts have not been brought out. So hypothyroidism major factor. Now, the most important fact that I wanted to bring out was though, that, in my opinion, from my standpoint, locally, trying to get organizations getting people involved, and getting the town's involved and realizing this problem is that it doesn't matter if we have 100 or 100,000 pages of documentation, this has no effect on our ability to relate to a local town board. And this is what I've been trying to get from fan for years is a kit, which shows us how to organize a meeting with a town council how to get the politicians involved in this, and how to get simple points across that directly hit them. Now, if we can do that, all these 100,000 pages really, they're in material, what we need is, is simple direct, in half by 11, three fold that we can send out to everybody. Now we sent over one of my group sent out over 100 letters to Trenton, New Jersey, and was somewhat helpful, at least we hope it was in eliminating fluoride two years ago, now it's coming up again. So we have to start another program, I need help in getting this program started. So whatever we can get work out from that angle would be greatly appreciated.
Michael Connett 2:18:34 Yeah, and hearty thanks for your comments on that. And we, you know, it's for I just by way of background, no fan really started. You know, I was there as the beginning 2000 I created a website. And we really begin and, at first and really to be a clearinghouse of information on fluoride. And sort of the model that we had was we were collecting and getting the information. And that was our and then it was up for the local communities to take that information and use it as they thought it would be best for their community and to digest it and present it in a way that was going to, you know, to be to resonate most effectively with their CO sort of constituency. But, you know, that's sort of where we sort of came from our sort of model. But you're you're totally right, in that, you know, the sort of voluminous information that one could get in the flash drive. At the end of the day. It's not what you need to convince on the practical level, the your city council person or whatnot. And that we do there is a need for better, more polished, concise material. And you know, We've tried, we've tried to do that we've taken steps to create better material on that front, you know, we have the brochure that goes to the 10, fax video, we have other shorter materials, but we still in my I'm still not satisfied with that we need a one page, you know, very polished pamphlet, and something that is both compelling and accurate. And that's the big challenge is to be punchy, to be, you know, to grab someone's attention, but to not, you know, cut corners, and, and speak in ways that are overstating the case. And that that's always the the big the big challenge, and it can be done. And we and I know groups are already doing it on their own. But I take your comment, Harvey that we have, we still can do better on that. And we do though, and I'm not sure if you've looked at it. But on our website, we have a Take Action section, which you can get to by clicking on the top right of the screen, you'll see it in blue, a link called take action. And there are campaign director Stuart Cooper has, you know, compiled a lot of suggestions and points for how to sort of, you know, work on the fluoride issue from on the local level, the state level and whatnot. So there is material there that provides more concrete practical advice for the activists in the trenches. But But I do acknowledge we have more work to be done fan can do a better job giving more polished, concise information, but also at the end of the day, it's always going to have to be the local community, you know, really doing the legwork in terms of getting fluoride out of communities, water supplies, you know, our you know, what, we provide the information as accurate and best we can. And our hope is that people take that information and run with it. So but I appreciate your comments, Harvey.
Unknown Speaker 2:22:11 Okay, thank you very much for your help.
Michael Connett 2:22:18 Clint, we have any other questions.
Clint Griess 2:22:22 Yes, I was just saying thank you very much. And that poll your, your your line is open to if there's something you want to say?
Dr. Paul Connett 2:22:30 Yes, I just had an idea. And it was, it was catalyzed by the comment from the doctor from Cape Cod. She wants to know about the systemic effects of fluoride. Well, one of the great pioneers in the world on systemic effects of fluoride, and particularly the effects that she believes is hat are happening before you even see dental fluorosis. And certainly before you see Skeletor versus is Professor AK Sheila, from India. And with this marvel of cyberspace and Internet, and so on, I would recommend very, very strongly that we have a que Sheila on the program. She's extremely articulate. And he sees had years and years of research of looking at patients in India, who, before as I said before, the manifestations of these visible forms of fluorosis, there are these non hard tissue effects and she spoken beautifully in a conference that we had that fan organized in Toronto or Mississauga, outside Toronto, in 2008. And I could certainly help you get in contact with her, Clint, I think she would very much satisfy what that doctor from Cape Cod. wanted to hear.
Clint Griess 2:24:04 Thank you. Awesome. I'll take it. Okay, thanks, Michael. Let's see. Let's hear another voice. Marlene from Sonoma County, just north of San Fran. North from San Francisco. You have the microphone. Go ahead.
Unknown Speaker 2:24:30 Thank you. I've been working on this really hard for the last year and the question that's always being asked me is who's got the deep pockets behind us? Who are the people that are funding the pro fluoride move now and we have a couple of answers to that but but I'd really like to know more about it. I think Delta Dental is one and they make some fluid nation equipment. And I know the Pew Charitable Trust is behind it. And I don't know if all their money comes from the Pew family or not. But anything you can say about the money behind this is really important. And then the other thing I wanted to point out is our local newspaper will not publish any anti fluoride information when Paul Connett was here. There was no news story about it and no news story that it was going to happen. We spent $2,200 for an ad when Bill Asmussen came, and it was not covered, nor did they have a news item about it before it happened. And that there's I don't know how to fight that one.
Michael Connett 2:25:50 Well, those are two excellent questions. And I'll speak first, to your first question. Is it morally? Right? Yes. So the first question is really a question that we have only scratched the surface of a fan. And it's something that screams for some real good shoe leather journalism? You know, we need it because we really don't, you know, it's very hard to get the answer to that question. But your question is, where's the money coming from that comes through Delta Dental, and the Pew Foundation? And why is Delta Dental so keen on promoting fluoridation? Why is the Pew Foundation so into it? And it's, it's very difficult to to, to answer those questions. Because there's, you know, unless we get someone to get internal documents, and we just don't have, we have very little in the way of internal documents. You know, one of the one of the one of the good things we have with this documents that I've assembled here for the flash drive, is, you know, we have internal documents, we have the internal correspondence, we have the unpublished data, and that, then you can really start to understand the politics when you when you have that here with the Delta, dental and pew, we don't all we have, is there a glossy, no the glossy veneer of their brochures, you know, so, you know, so it's difficult to answer the question. But you know, I would say, you know, I think one thing, too, I'm particularly interested in the relationship between pew and the Procter and Gamble, and to until look at the role that maybe some of the toothpaste companies might be playing behind the scenes. Because when I say I don't think that they are the only or even perhaps the most significant factor, but I think they might be a factor today. And I say that because if fluoridation is ever found to be harmful, if it's ever accepted that fluoridated water is causing damage, the toothpaste companies are sitting there on a mountain of liability. Because the amount of toothpaste that kids are swallowing is going to be in the realm of how much toothpaste people swallow from fluoridated water. So toothpaste companies are probably paying somewhat close attention to the developing science on fluoride toxicity. And they have every interest in the world of maintaining fluoride glaspie happy smiley image. So that's one interest to be thinking about. But in terms of Delta Dental, you know, it's, we really need more research. We need someone we need someone to attack that problem with complete vigor. I mean, someone who needs to be digging into documents and finding documents, because we really are starved of good, solid information on that front. And it's it really is important and imperative that we get. This is why we need an independent journalist to really tackle this issue to get involved and, you know, not just accept the same old same old blahs a path that virtually all mainstream journalists are prepared to accept on this issue. We need some digging belief beneath the surface. Because we know there's a lot of sketchy politics in the early days of fluoridation. And that's because we have some of these internal documents that we need to start Getting that under the current, the current situation. And so anyway, that's to make a long story short, I think your question is raised as a huge issue. And I, I want I don't think I need to comment on your second question, because I think everyone realizes and struggles with that same issue of, of trying to get the mainstream media to take this issue seriously. And.
Clint Griess 2:30:36 Hello, Michael. Looks like Michael, probably accidentally dropped off the line. So we'll carry on he, let's hope that he dials right back in. In the meantime, I can tell you that one of our participants, has forwarded me a link to an interesting website. I haven't looked at it in too much detail, but it's in response to how do we make a difference locally. It's called the Center for self governance. And the URL is T as in Tom and as a Nancy C as in Charles S, as in Sam G as in gold.org. And it looks like they have classes and video instruction on how to affect change in your local area. So I will include that link, along with other information in a follow up email to today's call, which you can expect to receive tomorrow at the latest. And let's see, we can continue our conversation. Just the same because I know many of you out there have helpful advice as to how we can use the information that we've learned today to make a difference in our local communities. So if you are if you are Michael's back now.
Michael Connett 2:32:14 Yeah, back. Sorry, Clint. The phone got cut off for some reason.
Clint Griess 2:32:18 I'm glad to hear we're glad to have you back. We've got a couple more questions from folks. So let's hear from someone in Los Angeles, California, Doug, go ahead.
Doug from Los Angeles 2:32:34 Yeah, I want to take advantage of the fact that Mike is now a lawyer. Can Can, Mike, can you explain the judge's decision in this case recently happened last year where some lawyers took up the case of some parents whose child got severe fluorosis or pre bad fluorosis, at least from drinking fluoridated bottled water, and then the lawyer sued the corporation that provided the bottled water. But they lost through some kind of convoluted legal decision. What if you could explain that to us?
Michael Connett 2:33:06 Good question, Doug. And I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't yet I am familiar with the case, but I haven't read the opinion. So I don't actually know. On what basis it was thrown out. But I one thing I would note dog is actually I'm going to be I am an attorney, and I'm actually going to be moving to California. And the end of February.
Doug from Los Angeles 2:33:33 We're part of California,
Michael Connett 2:33:35 south of Los Angeles actually was great. But you know, and I hope to so anyway, I do hope to be doing some fluoride related litigation in the coming years. But on that question, Doug, I have to plead ignorance.
Doug from Los Angeles 2:33:57 Okay. Well, we're about the what about the other legal case? Are you familiar with the Israeli Supreme Court? legal decision? I've read a lot about that. When I read the decision itself. To me, it was actually defeat for our side, because they dismissed the case saying that, well, they're going to stop fluoridation. Anyway, it sounds to me like the Supreme Court of Israel said, Israel supposed to stop fluoridation anyway, so we don't even have to decide about this issue. So therefore, you lost, you know, get it.
Michael Connett 2:34:25 I don't read it that way. Dog. I read it as an it's nice. It's a little I should say that it's a little dusty in my mind, but I thought that the Supreme Court's decision, I think was quite valuable, because because it was it provided an interpretation of the existing regulations and concluded that based on the Ministry of Health recent do decision to remove it to make a long story short, the Ministry of Health decision last year to say that communities will no longer be required to fluoridate their water in Israel. The the way, the Ministry of Health enacted that decision, the Supreme Court determined that it removed the authority of any existing water supply to fluoridate their water. So I think that the Supreme Court's decision was valuable because it shows that the Israeli Ministry of Health didn't just end mandatory fluoridation. It ended any authority for any water supply in Israel to fluoridate their water absent new legislation to give them the authority to do that. So So I think, I think it's actually it's quite, it's quite significant. Now, that doesn't mean that the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, maybe they will go ahead and establish new powers that will allow water authorities to fluoridate if the local community so decides. But as it stands now, that Supreme Court decision indicates that no community in Israel can fluoridate their water even if they want to, wants this recent Israeli Ministry of Health regulation is goes into effect, which is this summer. So as of this summer, no community in Israel should be able to fluoridate the water.
Doug from Los Angeles 2:36:41 Great. Thanks, Mike. Thanks for that, appreciate it.
Clint Griess 2:36:46 While we're on the subject of case law, there is a website that everyone should know about, called fluid law.org, which apparently is a is a production of the Center for Disease Control, and it is a database of all case law in the United States related to fluoridation. And that address, again, is fluid law.org. Do you have anything to say about that in the existence of such a website and how it serves, you know, municipalities in justifying their continuation of fluoridation, or even how we as activists could use it in our to our advantage? Well, yeah, I
Michael Connett 2:37:29 think that, you know, the people who created fluid are, you know, they are pro fluoridation. But I do think that it's a database, it's quite useful for us. And in fact, if you go to the Florida fans website, if you go to our researchers page, which you can get to by clicking on the researchers link in the top right of the screen, you'll see that we have a call the state database, and that state database links, like for each state, you can go to that state, and we will have a link to the fluid database for that state. And so basically, what so it's a quick way of learning, but what are the legal? What's the law in your state with respect to fluoridation? Some states have mandatory fluoridation, whatnot. And so the fluid database is valuable, because it will give you the precise law. That is that that dictates how fluoridation can be removed in your state, how it can be begun. So yes, I do think that the fluid database is useful for us to know what the legal obstacles are in any given state.
Clint Griess 2:38:59 Great, thank you. Yes, I will include a link again to this website for everyone in the follow up email. You know, there's this expression in a number of the case laws I saw there in that happen to take place in California. It says it must be a legalistic term, but it says thing, it says in many of the cases that the court held that the additional fluoride to the water supply was a valid exercise of the city's police power. So long as it was not unreasonable or an abuse of discretion, so to do Could you translate that for us?
Michael Connett 2:39:35 Yes. So um, for me, let me start by saying that in the United States you know, we have a federal system. We have a system of the federal government is a government of limited powers. It can only do what has been split physically authorized for it to be able to do under our Constitution. And its ability to pass laws for things like the general good, are quite circumscribed in the Constitution. And, but that's not the case with states. States have this broad power under what you correctly call the police powers. And police powers are basically a it's a it's a term that refers to the power of the state to protect the health and welfare of its people. And so it gives its, it's a power that's very broad in nature. And it's a power that's far, far broader than anything the federal government could do, at least as our as envisioned by the constitution. So in under the Constitution, it would be very difficult for Congress to force everyone to have Florida Water. But for states, they have more leeway and power to do that. So that's, that's what they're getting at with police powers.
Clint Griess 2:41:27 Okay, that helps. That helps very much.
Michael Connett 2:41:31 There, there is, of course, a conflict between the state's power to protect the health and welfare of its people with the individual's constitutional rights to be free from force medication. And there is, you know, unfortunately, in the United States, courts have been, have accepted, essentially hook, line and sinker, the proponents characterization of fluoridation as not being a medication, or not being a forced medication. And so it's been today, it's been, no one's been able to, to be able to prevail on a claim that fluoridation is force medication, which is a violation of one's due process rights under the federal constitution. But my hope is, at some point in the future, we can make that argument and prevail on it, because the post states police power cannot overcome an individual's due process rights under the federal constitution. So there's a limit to the police power. And so it's something that, you know, maybe at some point, a court will accept, but as it stands now, courts have not accepted that argument and accept that fluoridation is within the police.
Clint Griess 2:43:07 Well, thank you, I'm, I'm hearing that there is some hope in there. So that we, you know, thank you. And also, you know, I really do see a need for a future teleconference where this is the subject. So, Susan, in Anchorage, you've been very patient. And I welcome you to the microphone, please go ahead.
Susan Canaan (Anchorage Alaska) 2:43:32 Hi, I'm known as a whistleblower in a particular situation in Washington, DC, although I live in Anchorage right now. I was working with the experiment that involves lead pipes in the DC area, and they had a crisis back in 2004. And they went through a whole research project to find out how much you know, let it come out these pipes and a lot more coming off. And the government leads us to believe because they're all in compliance with what they call the lead and copper rule. And why I'm mentioning this is because I want to reinforce Michaels concept of suppression of data. And I have come on record publicly saying the data is misrepresented and manipulated in the research project and in the compliance sample, inlet pipe. And of course, the lead pipes and the fluoride issue client at hand and somehow or other. Throughout my life history. I've also become fluoride burdened with many medical issues that have to do with that maybe even by my presence at the water treatment plant there in DC, but I want you to know that I filed Inspector General reports of EPA when they would not follow up with it. And right now, the compliance samples that are coming out of DC, I believe are severely manipulated and in words they they don't come from houses or flood pipes. I really don't believe that they do. But anyway, I just wanted to commend this whole teleconferencing, getting things out, but is that a newspaper person ever wants in another Voice on data manipulation and the quality of our government in, in trying to get at the truth of a particular issue, they better give me a call. And I'm trying to get a call Connick to come up to Anchorage. And we're trying to get together scheduled for that. But then the it's hard to get the troops going on the ground floor. And I've been listening to all the different comments, and it's all very, very helpful in terms of, I really want to reinforce the comment about using little bit of honey, you know, because I think it's tough to get anybody here when you when you're rude. But those are my comments.
Michael Connett 2:45:37 Well, Susan, thank you so much for those comments, I actually would be, you've definitely piqued my interest with your background on the DC situation. And I would love to learn more about it. So I mean, I'm as you probably already have, you know, maybe a summary of your experience. But I would love if you could email me at some point, with more information about that, I would be really interested to learn about it. You can if you want, you can reach me my email is Michael, at fluoride alert.org. And, you know, at your convenience, I would just be really interested to learn more.
Susan Canaan (Anchorage Alaska) 2:46:20 Okay, very good. And I'd even entertain a quick phone call, you know, that would help to sometimes to just get the generic out. And then I've got plenty of documents I can send control didn't ever research the lead in the water issue at all in any when they go say, hey, we want to solve the lead problem, we got it all as a kid. So if they don't even check the water, or that the house is on lead pipes, and they're finding out that the lead pipes is still a serious contributor to the blood lead in the children. And in those areas where the water is actually fluoridated, as well as lead pipes, it brings more lead into their blood as well. So the the two issues are kissing cousins there. And this this idea that our governments are too naive to believe too much of what they tell us. And they're not looking into anything like my case is very difficult for the whistleblower, because it doesn't do much for your job. Of course, you know, being a whistleblower, but I think, you know, the call for more whistleblowers. I've been talking to young students trying to you know, inspire that but it's not not really pleasant job corps to go I, I call it the Appian Way. 6000 crosses, all the way to the fluoride debate issue. But you know, something needs to be done. I think the truth needs to get out and you guys are doing a great job with it.
Michael Connett 2:47:37 Well, thank you, Susan. And when you can just email me, email me your phone number. And I'll try to give you a call early this week, because I would like to follow up on that. Well, very good.
Clint Griess 2:47:50 Wonderful. Thank you, Susan. Okay, so that pretty much will be our call for today. Everyone has been just wonderful. I want to thank you again, Michael, for your hard work and preparing today's presentation. And for your your ears and fans continuing work is having just enormous global impact. And thanks again to our hunger strikers in Austin, and thanks to everyone who showed up today, and everyone who helped make this teleconference a success by promoting it amongst your networks. Our next teleconference, again is going to be in February, on the ninth Sunday, at the same time. And so for everyone who cares too, you're welcome to stay on the line, what I'm going to do is break up the remaining people who stay around to into small groups of three or four so you can get to know each other on a more personal basis. And you can talk about any topic that you like related to the fluoride issue. And with that, you know, just wait for a couple of minutes you can stay in conversation as long as you like is if and whenever you're finished, just simply hang up. And I wish you all happy new year and blessings for a prosperous and healthy year.
Unknown Speaker 2:49:14 Thanks, Clint.
Clint Griess 2:49:16 Thank you goodbye.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai