Preface
Charlee Eades was likely the only individual besides myself who was in attendance during the March 2013 Durham board of health hearing who was not paid or affiliated with the state and city government. Therefore her eyewitness account to what happened that day remains crucial evidence as to what deceptions & techniques were used by the government to disseminate false information among the Durham County Board of Health in order to mire their critical thinking and produce the current recommendation to continue drugging the City of Durham’s public drinking water.
Since she can not attend the city council work session tomorrow, where this fallacious recommendation will be officially rendered by Gayle Harris to the Durham City council, she has penned her own appeal, published below, and I will hand deliver it tomorrow. It is an important and worthwhile account from a different perspective than my own which should be seriously considered when trying to understand how it is that the Powers That Be continue to indoctrinate the agents of our government to keep poisoning all of our public water resources.
My Appeal of the Board Of Health’s Recommendation to Continue Medicating Durham’s Water
Mr. Bell & Durham City Council members,
I am writing you because I am unable to attend Thursday’s public meeting due to work obligations, but want to issue my full support of the appeal of the Durham Public Health Board’s recommendation to continue the practice of water fluoridation.
I have personally attended numerous “DPHB” board meetings over the past year and the March 2013 Ad Hoc “expert panel review” where I witnessed an unfair and rather extreme bias towards pro-fluoridation. It is bothersome to me that my avenue to address what I consider to be a very serious health concern is handled with clear cognitive bias. As I am sure you are aware, this meeting was held with the pretense that no public comment would be allowed & if one was to speak out of turn, a police officer was positioned in the room to escort any such citizens out of the building. Video Evidence Below:
With the blatant and reprehensible threat to the First Amendment aside, I am writing specifically to make you aware that the panel of 5 experts in fields related to the fluoride issue (only 4 were present to comment) pledged, unabashedly, in favor of fluoridation.
Each of these experts were either employed by or provide direct consultation to the state of North Carolina and the City of Durham. This is especially problematic because there was no one present or rather, no one present who was allowed to speak, that could provide an independent or alternative viewpoint, which at the very least, would tip this purported “review” out of the territory of being painfully biased.
Furthermore, panel expert Amy Keyworth, a Hydrogeologist, answered questions from the DPHB with research regarding water exclusively collected & studied for the NC Private Well Program. I find this odd considering this is a public policy directly affecting the public water supply. Why would statistics on the private well program illustrate any meaningful data for the DPHB to consider? The testimony delivered by Mrs. Keyworth is moot for it’s complete lack of relativity to the debate. However, because no expert was present to debate and give credibility to the facts presented at this meeting, many opinions went unsubstantiated.
For example, in response to a question fielded by Board Member & Ad Hoc Committee Chair Dr. F. Vincent Allison, DDS regarding the form or source of fluoride used by Durham in its public water supply, Mrs. Keyworth stated clearly that naturally occurring “fluoride” was used. This is patently false and you must certainly agree as this information is sourced directly from Durham’s Department of Water Management. Durham actually purchases hydrofluorsilicic acid from PENCCO chemical company, and this is stated on your own website! More concerning was that seated beside Amy Keyworth was Vicki Westbrook, Assistant Director of Durham Water Management, who never corrected Amy’s fallacious statement. I would hope she knows the precise chemicals purchased with public money to use for public consumption, since it is a highly corrosive material requiring increased safety regulations, and especially given that Ms. Westbrook was present this day as an expert to clarify and verify matters regarding the Water treatment standards and procedures.
In the absence of facts, a citizen, Corey Sturmer, thought it was pertinent to correct Mrs. Keyworth as this is information critical to the DPHB in its review of the fluoridation policy which it intended to further recommend to the City Council. Mr. Sturmer was met with several gavel knocks and a swift escort from the room & ultimately the building, for correcting an “expert” who was delivering obvious disinformation to the DPHB.
I remained in the room following this disturbing display of supremacy and was disappointed to see the deterioration of the discussion from science and ethics based to outright slander of so-called “alternative viewpoints” or as “expert” Dr. Rebecca King so eloquently put it “You know you can’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
If only I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that phrase to “debunk” or detract from a legitimate argument.
This poor attempt to dismiss all research hosted online, because it may serve to shape the debate against this policy, is a relic of the technologically illiterate. If we apply this sentiment evenly, then the information displayed on Durham’s own municipal or governmental sites could be deemed invalid as a proper source.
It is simply unacceptable that Durham believes a one-sided debate will deliver the satisfactory “due diligence” review, as announced by Mr. James Miller at the beginning of the panel, mind you only moments before telling everyone that those who “spoke out of turn” would be escorted away by a policeman, like a criminal.
This is not elementary school or reformatory school, this is my life and my body being discussed and I implore my elected and un-elected officials to take these matters seriously, not for themselves, but for the public good.
An appeal of the DPHB ‘s recommendation is necessary to ensure all relative viewpoints are represented and that all opinions are counter-weighted. Two members of the panel were dentists with backgrounds in both pediatrics & public health, but no one was there to speak to the effects on the human body comprehensively. Is it not remiss to believe the fluoride we consume only touches our teeth before being swallowed- when it is in fact absorbed by your bones & organs?
Dr. Timothy Wright said that the Harvard studies showing a decrease in IQ among grade-school age children who ingested fluoride in China [Harvard, 2012] did not “pan out.” No specific reasons were ever stated as to why these studies failed to “pan out” but also no Board Member pushed Mr. Wright for clarification or more information whatsoever. The Harvard study was completely dismissed from that moment on, as were other studies that found negative side effects to water fluoridation. Those others, Wright vaguely said, “didn’t pan out” either.
I have to tell you that the reason I ultimately excused myself from this meeting was due to comments made by Dr. Rebecca King in response to a question from Dr. Nancy Short, DrPH, MBA, RN, on how to “Deal” with citizens who do not support the practice of medicating people against their will. Dr. King scoffed “Good Luck” and stated “these people will never be satisfied because they will always have something to complain about” and “bad information” from various “internet sources” to support it. King was dismissive of all information she deemed “alternative,” “independent,” or not in concurrence with the ADA, CDC or the NC Board of Public Health, despite never providing a specific “bad” source. This sweeping disrespect of citizen’s who seek change in public health policy was so offensive to me that I left.
On top of demonstrating a clear cognitive bias towards the practice of fluoridating unsuspecting citizens, despite recent and developing research to the contrary, it is also important to highlight that the city has no issue stifling the public from voicing complaints, enforcing dejection from public meetings due to free speech no less and outright disrespect of its citizens with a “majority rule” mentality.
In all of the meetings that I have attended, never have I once witnessed a discussion about the cost of mass fluoridation compared to the cost of toothpaste and toothbrush for those in dire need. If money is to be spent, it should be spent wisely and with the health of the populace at the forefront of your minds. Durham City Council and the DPHB has displayed thus far a blatant disregard for all citizen complaints and has instead supported a biased review of the available information, all while failing to even discuss the financials.
I pledge support to Mr. Sturmer’s Appeal of the DPHB recommendation to continue this unethical practice. The Durham City Council has an obligation its to citizens to conduct sound & unbiased reviews of its practices and to ensure that such reviews are welcoming to public debate, as should be mandated. It is simply impossible to condense an argument against a policy of this nature and magnitude into 3 minutes for you, our civil servants, to digest and scrutinize. What a shame it would be in years to come to find out that the IQs of the children in Durham have decreased just as those in China and could have been avoided had fluoride been applied only topically, as it is intended, and not via the public water supply. Will you think back to the pesky citizens who warned you and wonder why did we not avoid it all together? That’s only a hypothetical though- what about for all of the mothers who use Durham’s water to mix with their baby’s formula? Should they not at the very least be warned that the CDC has found the levels of “optimal” fluoride currently maintained in Durham will directly increase the child’s risk of dental fluorosis (mottling of tooth enamel)? This information could have been communicated to the Durham Public Health Board during its review of the practice had they allowed citizens to speak without fear of dejection by an officer of the law.
I thank you for your time and for your consideration to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Charlee G. Eades
