I WANT TO WRITE A RESPONSE TO THIS INACURATE PRO-FOUORIDE BRIEF. I NEED YOUR HELP
It is riddled with errors, and I need to point them out.
Please help me pick it apart. I have some good stuff about kidney disease and lead. I need something about how bad arsenic, any arsenic, is bad.
It is best to find authoiries in the 2006 NRC Report, because its credibility is very high. Or any article by one of the Twelve who wrote the 2006 NRC Report. Instant credibility, and that means judicial notice. The Court can take judicial notice of clear scientific principles at any point, even on appeal.
The Washington Dental Service Foundation (WDSF), Washington State Dental Association (WSDA), and Water Fluoridation Science Committee (WFSC) filed an answer to the IAOMT Brief. It includes page after page of scientific arguments, issues, and scientific documents not presented to the Trial Court, including fluoridation endorsements from numerous agencies, and a lengthy article entitled “Water Fluoridation and the Environment,” by Howard F. Pollick. If the opposition is bringing forward scientific information, then the Nine Amici should be allowed to do so as well.
I must add that the above Answer written by WDSF, WSDA, and WFSC is riddled with illogical and unscientific statements regarding lead and kidney disease.
Regarding lead:
To illustrate: The Brief acknowledges that almost half of tanker loads of scrubber liquor contain a little arsenic and a little lead. They say there is already some arsenic and some lead in the water coming from other sources, so it is acceptable to add a little more. Fluoride dissolves pretty much everything, including lead. New pipes, fittings, and solders contain lead, and old ones contain up to 30% lead. Lead solder for use in plumbing was not outlawed until 1986, so this might explain why lead continues to show up in water fountains in old Seattle schools, at levels up to 1,600 ppb, 80 times the EPA MCL of 20 ppb. See Appendix D attached, “Lead-Tainted Water in Seattle Schools Stuns Parents,” Or click on http://www.seattlepi.com/health/180495_leadwater02.html.
I am looking for the article that says that lead levels are generally higher in children who drink fluoridated water.
Regarding kidney disease this is what I would say:
Even a healthy kidney can only excrete 50% of fluoride consumed, so it accumulates in us all and in the kidney. A weakened kidney stores fluoride it cannot excrete, furthering the downward death spiral. 2006 NRC Report page 140.
See summary of scientific literature done by Carol Clinch, “Fluoride and Kidneys,”which cites to page 140 of the 2006 NCR Report.
https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/carol-clinch-2009-fluoride-and-kidneys.pdf
Carol Clinch, “Fluoride and Kidneys,” cites to page 140 of the 2006 NCR Report, which says:
In patients with reduced renal function, the potential for fluoride accumulation in the skeleton is increased. It has been known for many years that people with renal insufficiency have elevated plasma fluoride concentrations compared with normal healthy persons and are at a higher risk of developing skeletal fluorosis.” National Research Council. (2006).Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p140.
Carol, why don’t you write a draft brief on this subject?
I have been told that lead levels are higher in the systems of kids that drink fluoridated water. II would like to present an amicus brief on that subject.
See the Clinch article:
https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/carol-clinch-2009-fluoride-and-kidneys.pdf
Read the poor response to the IAOMT Brief here:
Almost every sentence of this document is wrong or misleading or based on incorrect assumptions. That’s why I want to write a new brief reviewing the quality of the writing in that brief.
Read my IAOMT Brief here. All the Appendices are here too:
http://www.box.net/shared/iedafn1jr7
Read the City’s motion to strike the IAOMT Brief here:
Read my defense of the IAOMT Brief here:
https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/response-of-nine-amici-to-motion-to-strike-iaomt-brief-2-19-10-final.pdf
So write your own draft brief. It does not have to be long. It is best if it covers just one subject. Or just send me articles with paragraphs that introduce them. That constitutes a brief. It is never to late to introduce scientific arguments into a legal-scientific case. Why? because science is a form of law. It falls within the category of “natural law.” It is analagous to a dictionary. It is never too late for a judge to look up a word in the dictionary, or a concept in the encyclopedia, or to take judicial notice of convincing science.
The weekend is here, so spend it writing!
The writer of the poor brief says on page 5 that at the low levels of concentration, fluoride is a water additive, not a drug. I need to rebut that.
I am also looking for an attorney who can sign the man briefs that are starting to come in. The Supreme Court has a sort of quota on how many briefs one attorney can write.
So use my format on previous briefs and put your content into it.
Come on guys, the Supreme Court hearing is on Tuesday the 23rd. I would like to hand deliver a stack of new amicus briefs. Actually, I think that we can submit briefs after the hearing.
This is the final reply of the Nine Amici to the City’s motion to strike it. Use it as your template. Send me an e-mail, and I will send it to you in word so you can edit it easier.
0 Comments