I’ve been away and otherwise occupied and am disgracefully late to write about the May 18 meeting of the Austin City Council’s Public Health and Human Services Committee.  So I’ll let the above video
(courtesy of Jack Cook,’s You Tube channel) speak for itself apart from these few comments: 

We had a great turnout, with the smallish Boards and Commissions Room packed and the crowd spilling out into the hall and, eventually, Council chambers, to watch the session on TV screens.  This was an extreme rarity if not a first in the United States:  establishment fluoride promoters facing real experts in something close to a debate format.  Our representatives:  Austin dentist Griffin Cole, DDS and our special guest, Paul Connett, Ph.D. Connett, director of the
Fluoride Action Network, presented a powerful case against water fluoridation, while their opponents:  Delton Yarbrough, DDS, an officer of the Texas Dental Association and family practitioner Cecil George, MD, both of Fort Stockton, made a weak showing by comparison.  The question occurs, too:  why all the way from Fort Stockton?  This is Austin.  Is there not enough brain power here to argue the pro-fluoridation side?   Apparently not.  More likely, there’s simply no one around foolish enough to want to try.  I admit to having felt a twinge of pity and embarrassment for the hapless pair, who obviously had no idea how behind they were in the science or what formidible expertise they were going to encounter in the persons of Drs. Connett and Cole.   Dr. Philip Huang, the Austin/Travis County Health and Human Services Department’s characteristically complacent medical officer, stumbled over a question, and Jane Burazer of the Austin Water Utility offered no input at all.  All in all, a morning to remember, even including a jaw-dropping moment or two of unintentional humor.  It was a good day for truth.  The question is, will truth translate into proper action on the part of the Council? 

Councilmember Laura Morrison, absent for a family emergency, did not send an aide, but we trust she will review the proceedings thoroughly, as Committee Chair Randi Shade has assured us.  

And now: sit back and enjoy the video.     

                                                         Our youngest supporter:  Nova and her 
                                                         mom travelled all the way from Kyle to
                                                         attend the meeting


  1. Austin is doing so well in bringing the issue up. Sadly the so called professionals rarely are professional when it comes to fluoridation support. At best most know the short list of talking points if that. Dentists just repeat how they can tell when looking at people. They see dollar signs from damaged enamel maybe? Many even refuse to admit it exists or what it is caused by. Informed cosent does not exist by design. This begs litigation for damage and teeth is the are just the beginning. What we can easily see.
    Then dentists have the mercury issue of putyting 40 plus tons of mercury inpeople heads each year in the US. This is a crime also they refuse to warn patients of.

  2. Had time to listen to 3o minutes. The pro fluoride clowns are worse then most. Sort of sad when they tell you to ignore the claimed science and just trust them because they can tell what you need. Then the mention that 10 mg was a toxic dose but then mention people do not really drink even 8 glasses in the real world. I am a high water user and often drink 2 gallons and sometimes more in a day because I work outside in the heat.
    But babies drink more per body weight at 2.5 oz per pound say all the experts. That is 1 gal per 100 pounds and 2 per 200. That is what Paul is talking about with mothers milk often 200 times less fluoride then city water at .8ppm. 250 less at 1ppm. Is it a surprise the CDC said 41% with dental fluorosis for 12-14 olds in 2005 data. Notice the youngest have double the damage as the older who were poisoned decades ago. The study went up to age 39. Beltran when asked said older people had less now younger had more as I mentioned to him. The trend has shown huge increases in fluorosis by the CDC own data. Who is fooling who ? These are con men to be kind. Criminal is more accurate. How can dentists be such smucks so often. Yoder K.M. showed when tested only 14% in Illinois got the basic fluoride science correct- 17% in Indiana then after 3 years of remedial education 25% got the facts right. These people are too smart to be that stupid by accident- This a blind faith thing or something else even worse. Litigation against the ADA is required–They still support mercury as safe in our mouths. They rarely warn their staffs of the extreme risks they are exposed to. Of course they can lose their license to bring up the risk to patients. After the 2003 lawsuits they can at least be honest outside the dental office and not lose their license. Hal Huggins fought this for over 2 decades and it cost him over 2 million to be honest. And he lost his license in the end. The surgeon general in 1863 banned all medical uses of mercury. By 1864 William Hammon had been court marsalled after every state AMA worked to recind good judgement. Mercury treatments gave severe damage to many for decades after- No cure ever- just different injury forever.
    So this was the best fluoridation experts they had. So very sad. Was this supposed to be about science or not? Use it if you have it. Claim it all supports you but show not one study. Circus clowns could do a more credible job.

  3. Natural fluoride water often has huge amounts of other minerals like magnesium as mentioned and calcium. This ties up and bonds to fluoride and is more protective to teeth then the fluoride so gives a false impression it was the fluoride. The Dean 21 city study used the fraud(trick) as it really was a study of over 128 cities but the ones with high other minerals showed some decline. It was not the fluoride. Also examiner bias or variablity is often larger then the benefit reported and was never controlled in any of the early experments. Thus results are invalid or at least suspect. This was a prove fluoride good program with no room for honest reporting. Those who pay get the result ordered in almost all studies. over 90% for drug companies and less then 50% when third parties with no vested interest.
    No CDC report has ever reported on delayed eruption which is the way the data is faked like in the 1986-7 data. A shift of the cavity curve by one year. No real decline -just a delay reported as small benefit 19% in 5-7 year olds in the Carlos burnel study. A total fraud as no benefit existed. The Austrailian data shows a full 2 year delay. Huge thyroid malfunction affects far more then teeth- just ignored by CDC,ADA,AMA.

  4. The guy with the walrus mustache (Dr. Cecil George) was quite rude to one of our members who tried to approach him after the debate.  They knew they flubbed it!

    And why all the way from Fort Stockton?  That’s my question!

  5. Daytona Beach changed the charter which said fluoridation at 1ppm was wholly without risk. Only a benefit. This was what had been voted on the first time. They wanted to by stealth change it to follow the state health department guidelines only. The city manager under questioning by the only anti fluoride commissioner refused to admit any reason they needed to change the charter. They already had fluoridation for decades. The only logical reason was for future litigation prevention. They do not claim it safe now as they had before.
    The plant manager had also in a letter stated that water that meets all the requirements of the SDWA is not always safe for all individuals, nor is it intended to be. He stated I should consult my medical advisor and consider bottled or point of use filter. Also mentioned any sensitive person should also.
    I got to debate DDS Michael Easley outside the chambers after the 6-1 vote. His mindless pawns by his side(six in all). All he really did was say I did not know what I was talking about. Then he did admit 4ppm and above would be a risk. So I asked him about the over 400 schools and cities that the EPA allowed at 4.0 4.6 and 4.9ppm. They gave the whole list in 4 states in 1993. His only comment was it had been ended. My comment was they had been willing to do it knowing the risk. Informed consent does not exist.
    Easley is Oral health Florida but was in California 3 years ago and said of anti fluoride people. ‘Nobody drags anyone to a water faucet and makes them drink. Dig a well. Move out of the country’ I asked for his dismissal but was told the quote was out of context. I then asked what context it was proper in for a public employee.
    They serve their own ends not the public and ignore those the injure.
    Maybe the Atlanta Black issues will be noticed in the home of the CDC. Blacks and Hispanics are the reason given we need this public policy to equalize health. Sadly they are just double damaged with no benefit either.
    Paul did a great job. Austin has many who can do a quality job the the title to boot. I love Neal Carmen when he is in the take no prisoner mode.
    The two fluoridation rubes did come across like ignorant clowns who did not study for the test. They winged it like a college kid after a all nite drunk binge. The commission should have felt insulted by their lack of professional response. Real peer reviewed data instead of saying trust us and ignore them because you know us. They should have been laughed out of the room as a personal insult and waste of time to all. Very typical of many dentist comments I get.

  6. Watching the entire video gave me great concern over Randi Shade. Her prior comments bore out. She is positive their is benefit from ingested fluoride by her comments- or at least not willing to believe the facts other then the CDC says it is great. She labored to dose vs rate issue of the water looking for a trade off point that was safe for all while not losing the benefit. Again ignoring no ingested benefit exists shows current data.
    I see no way at present she will support ending fluoridation unless she changes her mindset. She believes she must protect this program for the poor- no matter how much they are damaged even if their is no proven benefit. She is not ready to even open her mind to the data.
    Simple fact is many kids are toxic from food, other beverages and dental products before the first tiny sip of tap water.
    They seem to ignore the baby formula mentioned and 85% is mixed with city tap. Some even use .7ppm Nursery water because they mistrust the city water. Most parents still have no clue babies should not have formula with tap water. Few Health departments ever mention the CDC and ADA Nov 9 2006 egram from the ADA. Even the dentists and doctors mostly refuse to warn of this issue. Foolish blind faith has them trusting their emotions.
    Screwing the public by refusing informed consent.
    Ask the clowns to show one single study showing a mechanism of systemic benefit. The CDC admitted it was not primary in the 1999 MMWR. The data shows it most likely is ZERO. They did not admit that. Over 2 dozen research papers clearly show very small or no systemic benefit.
    The latest German data now shows any topical benefit is 10 to 100 times less then prior theory. They had never actually measured the thickness of fluoride hardened enamel. Another fraud exposed. Also the fluoride bomb tooth is the hollow rotten tooth that falls apart but looks sort of ok. Brittle enamel causes cracks and amalgam fillings split the tooth over time resulting in crowns.
    This will be a uphill battle with Randi in charge. Good luck.
    Did she even notice no actual studies were given proving benefit. No double blind study has ever been done ever on man or animal showing benefit.

  7. [url= ???? ?????????? ???? [/url][url= ?????? ????????? [/url][url= ????? ?????? [/url]
    ??? ???? ???????. ??? ???? ???????.?????, ? ?? ??? ????? ????????
    [url= ?????????? ? ?????? [/url]
    ????, ????? ? ????? ?????????????. ? ?????? ???? ???????? ??? ??????? ?????.?????? ?? ????????? ????????? ???? ?? ??????????? ?? ????????? ????? ???????.?? ???? ???? ????? ????????.???? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ?????????? ????????.
    ?? ????? ?? ???? ????????! [url= ???? ?????????? [/url]
    [url= ?????????? ? ? ??????????????? [/url][url= ???? ???????? ???? [/url]
    [url= ?????? ?????????? [/url][url= ? ???????? ????????? [/url]
    [url= ????? ?? ???? [/url][url= ? ?????? ????????? ??? ????? [/url]
    [url= ?????????? ? ?????? ????? [/url][url= ????????? ??? ???????????? ????? [/url]

    [url= ?????????? ? ???????? [/url]
    [url= ????????? ?????????? [/url]

    [url= ????? ?????? [/url][url= jnf d hjcnjdt [/url][url= mail ru ???? [/url]
    ????????? ????? 1947? ???.??? ???????? ?????????? ?????????.???? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ??????, ? ? ????????????? ????????? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ???? ???????????.? ???????? ???? ? ?????????? ??? ????????-????????.???? ????????? ??? ? ???. [url= ?????? ????????????? [/url][url= ?????????? ???? [/url][url= ???? ?????????? [/url][url= ????? ?????? [/url][url= ??? ?????????? ????? ?????? [/url]
    ? ???????????? ?????. ? ???????????? ?????????? ?????.??? ??????????????, ?? ??????? ??????, ??? ????????? ? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ????.??????, ???, ??-??????, ??? ???????????? ?, ??? ??? ?? ???????????, ???? ????????? ?????, ? ??????? ????????? ?????? ????. [url= ?????????? ? ???????[/url][url= ?????? ??????? ???????? [/url][url= ????? ? ?????? ???? [/url][url= ????? ?????????? [/url][url= ??????? ??? ????? [/url][url= ?????????? ???? [/url]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>