JAMES ROBERT DEAL ATTORNEY PLLC
PO Box 2276, Lynnwood, Washington 98036-2276
Telephone 425-771-1110, Fax 425-776-8081
January 10, 2012
Darby DuComb, Lawyer Engel Lee, Lawyer Seattle City Attorney’s Office
Read online at: www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/the-fluoride-maze
Dear Darby & Engel,
I am writing to follow up on our meeting on January 9. Thank you for giving us over an hour of your time.
If you have questions, please email us or call us. Each of us knows different pieces of this complex puzzle.
Our contact information is:
Bill Osmunson, WASW president, cosmetic dentist, public health graduate, email@example.com, 425-466-0100
Audrey Adams, WASW board member, mother of autistic and fluoride hyper-sensitive son, firstname.lastname@example.org, 425-271-2229
Dr. David John MD, WASW board member, physician and science advisor, published author in numerous peer reviewed scientific journals, email@example.com
Scott Shock, P.E., civil engineer and constitutional liberty organizer, firstname.lastname@example.org
Alli Larkin, WASW board member and water commissioner, email@example.com
Golda Starr, WASW board member, President of www.FluorideDetective.com; firstname.lastname@example.org (not at the Jan 9 meeting but available to advise) social worker, suffered near kidney failure drinking Everett water, had to move to Sultan, now drinks well water and has recovered most kidney function
Dr. Richard Sauerheber, PhD, email@example.com professor and science advisor, published author in numerous peer reviewed scientific journals.
James Robert Deal Lawyer Fluoride Class Action president James@Fluoride-Class-Action.com 425-771-1110
I too once thought that fluoridation was a great thing. People I respected said it was a great thing. They were trapped in the fluoride maze. I was trapped with them. We have all been trapped in that or other mazes, and it can be hard to find our way out. I tell the story of how it took us sixty years to escape from the tetraethyl lead maze. The exits are blocked with barriers such as endorsements by government agencies, or the doctors and dentists we know and trust.
Studying the subject of water contamination gives people a headache. It is hard to put the pieces together. It is hard to understand how something so harmful and illegal could have persisted for so long. You wonder if we are just imagining all these bad things about fluoridation. You wonder which side is telling the truth. If we are saying that the pro-fluoridation people are dupes and deceivers, you wonder whether we might instead be the dupes and deceivers.
The feeling is called cognitive dissonance. It is like listening to music written in an eastern scale our ears do not know. Critics of fluoridation just sound all wrong because they are saying something dramatically different from what you have heard all your life. This is why the Big Lie technique can be so effective. Ironically, the bigger the lie, the easier it is to maintain it and for longer periods of time.
As attorneys for the city, what is your place in this issue? What obligation do you have to study it? If your non-attorney political bosses tell you not to waste too much time in looking into it, will you object to such an instruction? Will you tell the politicians you work for that they ought to allow you to make a thorough study of it, to pay attention to this issue instead of pretending it does not exist? Would you advise them that they should put this issue should be on the agenda instead of ignoring it?
Who is qualified to make decisions about such things? Another city council we approached said this is a science question, that they are not scientists and cannot function as a science court, and therefore that they in some sense cannot make a decision on the subject, but must instead rely uncritically on a medical doctor they consult behind the scenes, who is an unquestioning and unstudied supporter of water fluoridation. Because you are lawyers and not scientists, are you incompetent to judge whether there is harm being caused by the lead, arsenic, and fluoride added to our water?
I say that the evidence is so overwhelming that anyone with an open mind can see it. The pro-fluoridation people have even admitted that harm is being done, that 41% of children 12 – 15 years old have dental fluorosis, with 8.6% suffer from mild fluorosis (white spots and some brown spots with up to 50% of enamel impacted), and 3.6% suffering from moderate and severe fluorosis (white spots and brown spots and sometimes pitting and chalky teeth and up to 100% of enamel impacted).
To the pro-fluoridation people, the disfigurement of 41%, 8.6%, or 3.6% of our children to different degrees is an acceptable casualty rate, a reasonable price to be paid to achieve a dubious reduction in caries, which they admit to be at best only an 18% to 25% reduction.
The pro-fluoridation people have even admitted the irrationality of fluoridation. Their own studies say that any positive effect of fluoride is topical and not systemic, yet they persist in advising that we should drink fluoride.
Isn’t the flat-earth stupidity of fluoridation so obvious that city attorneys are qualified and therefore ethically obligated to advise Mayor and City Council that the only prudent thing to do is to declare an immediate moratorium on this strange custom?
Why do I say that an immediate moratorium be put in place? 1) Because there is already overwhelming evidence that harm is being done. 2) Because the burden of proof should be shifted to those who claim that fluoridation is safe and effective? 3) Because doing anything else is merely compounding past negligect of this issue. I have been sending notices to Seattle and Everett since 2008.
If you see violations of civil law, do you have some obligation to point them out, and to whom? I refer to violations of the Washington law which requires that fluoridation be done only with NSF 60 fluoride. The fact that the NSF 60 standard is not being followed, so the NSF 60 standard is no standard at all. And therefore the fact that there are no approved fluoridation materials, and therefore that fluoridation is not legal – at least with the materials available.
Would you report such violations to the Seattle City Attorney? County Prosecutor? Attorney general? US Attorney? Who would be obligated to give notice that the law be followed and to a bring civil action if necessary to stop fluoridation?
There is another plain violation of civil law. 21 CFR 310.545 requires that any anti-caries drug which contains hydrogen fluoride be FDA certified before it can be used.
Everett and Seattle silicofluoride contain hydrogen fluoride.
The above federal regulation includes a list of the most dangerous of all chemicals in paragraph a and includes hydrogen fluoride as one of them and then says of such toxins:
…based on evidence currently available, there are inadequate data to establish general recognition of the safety and effectiveness of these ingredients for the specified uses.
Hydrogen fluoride is so extremely toxic that express FDA pre-approval is required before it can be used to prevent tooth decay. Regarding HF this regulation says:
Any OTC drug product … containing any active ingredient(s) as specified in paragraph (a) of this section is regarded as a new drug within the meaning of section 210(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), for which an approved new drug application under section 505 of the Act and part 314 of this chapter is required for marketing.
Would you report such violations to the Seattle City Attorney? County Prosecutor? Attorney general? US Attorney? Who would be obligated to give notice that the law be followed and to bring a civil action if necessary to stop fluoridation?
The hydrogen fluoride regulation is unenforced, overlooked, or just plain ignored. If it were enforced it would result in a ban of water fluoridation with silicofluoride because silicofluoride is composed of and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride.
Let’s take this further. If you see violations of criminal law, do you have some obligation to point them out, and to whom? I refer to the waivers of all liability by the fluoride producers. The fact that the fluoride producers and resellers all obtain NSF 60 certification for their fluoride. The fact that the NSF standard requires that toxicological and health studies be done and makes loud and numerous assurance regarding the safety of fluoridation. The fact that such toxicological and health studies are in reality not being done. The fact that Seattle is tricked into spending probably around $600,000 per year on this ineffectual and harmful toxic waste drug, one which does not meet the required NSF 60 standards. The fact that fluoridation materials definitely cause quick harm to fetuses and babies and cause slow harm to the rest of us.
Again see www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Sham.
Would you report such violations to the Seattle City Attorney? County Prosecutor? Attorney general? US Attorney? Who would be obligated to prosecute such potential RICO Act violations?
Would you advise the Mayor and the City Council to switch sides in this unbalance fight where rich corporations pay congressmen to get “their people” appointed to federal regulatory agencies which in turn use their positions to support fluoridation and hire rich dental college presidents to hire rich unstudied dentists to propagandize this snake oil?
Seattle can go a long way towards immunizing itself from liability by moving quickly to protect its citizens by declaring an immediate moratorium on fluoridation, by taking the lead in bringing class action and mass toxic tort actions against the deceivers who poison people for profit.
James Robert Deal, Attorney
WSBA Number 8103
PS: Note that I am not on the Washington Action for Safe Water board and that I speak only for Fluoride Class Action.