In this post, I have collected a series of articles that clearly shows the fraud that has been orchestrated upon us all. The fraudulent safety standard, does not take into account other health affects from water fluoridation. This information has been suppressed, allowing people to believe that fluoridation is safe and effective, when in fact that is the furthest thing from the truth.
I am assuming water fluoridation standards for other countries rely on the safety standards set by the USA EPA. Water fluoridation is an experiment that originated in the USA and eventually exported to other countries. It is still an on going experiment as it was never completed.
Here are excerpts from a few articles, showing how the fluoride scam has been propagated on innocent and well intentioned doctors
This study was planned to last 15 years…….Only five years into the experiment, fluoridation was declared a success in Newburgh and before permanent teeth of children born into the experiment had erupted yet. Researchers found that children had no ill effects from drinking fluoridated water. However, any child who was sick two weeks before the physical check-up was excluded from the examination thereby excluding the very children who many have been having side effects to fluoride. Adults who drank the experimental potion were never even studied…..
“Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.”
– EPA scientist, Dr. Robert Carton (Downey, 2 May 99)
Dr. Robert Carton, Ph.D, former Environmental Protection Agency Scientist (20 years), Food & Water Journal, Summer 1998
“The level of fluoride the government allows the public is based on scientifically fraudulent information and altered reports. People can be harmed simply by drinking water.”
“When you have power you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that’s been working in this world for generations. And there are a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions.”—Dean Burk former head of National Cancer Institute Research (interview on the Owen Spahn Talk Show, San Francisco, June 1972)
Richard G. Foulkes, B.A., M.D.
Box 278, Abbotsford, B.C., V2S 4N9
I am Dr. Richard Foulkes. I am an M.D., a health care administrator and former assistant professor in the Department of Health Care and Epidemiology at the University of British Columbia, Canada. I was, also, in the 1970’s, a special consultant to the Minister of Health of British Columbia and commissioned by the Government to study the health care system of that province.
During that time, I experienced what I know the committee is now going through. I, too, was approached by senior appointed members of the public health, dental and medical establishment. They promoted the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation as enthusiastically as any pharmaceutical company representative. They presented studies and endorsements from major organizations from the World Health Organization down to the federal and regional level.
I know now that I was presented with what has been called “the tainted truth.” (1) The studies that were presented to me were selected and showed only positive results. Studies that were in existence at that time that did not fit the concept that they were “selling,” were either omitted or declared to be “bad science.” The endorsements had been won by coercion and the self interest of professional elites. Some of the basic “facts” presented to me were, I found out later, of dubious validity.
We are brought up to respect these persons in whom we have placed our trust to safeguard the public interest. It is difficult for each of us to accept that these may be misplaced.
Read the remarkable true story,
“WHY I CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT WATER FLUORIDATION”
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. JOHN COLQUHOUN … Dr. John Colquhoun, being first duly sworn on oath and with personal knowledge of the information contained herein, …
“Doctoring” of Data
7. I was shocked to discover, when the statistics were sent to me, they revealed
no such benefit. In fact, in most Health Districts the percentage of children
who were “caries-free” was higher in the non-fluoridated areas than in the
fluoridated areas. I disagreed sharply with my superiors’ action in circulating
a document, “overview of fluoridation statistics,” which omitted the above
information, disgracefully “doctored” the remaining statistics, and claimed
that a marginal benefit existed.
8. When, in addition, I discovered that dental fluorosis prevalences (a sign of
fluoride toxicity) were much higher than expected in fluoridated areas, I
publicly changed my stance on fluoridation in 1983.
9. I have continued my research, which gained me a Doctor of Philosophy
degree in 1987, and appointment to the post-doctoral position of Honorary
Research Fellow of the University of Auckland. Last year (1992) I became
editor of the Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research
(Fluoride), a position which provides a good overview of fluoride research
in different academic disciplines
SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT IN THE FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER REGULATION by Robert J. Carton, Ph.D., Vice-President, NFFE Local 2050
August 19, 1991The fluoride in drinking water standard, or Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL), published by EPA in the Federal Register on Nov. 14, 1985, is a classic case of political interference with science. The regulation is a fraudulent statement by the Federal Government that 4 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of fluoride in drinking water is safe with an adequate margin of safety. There is evidence that critical information in the scientific and technical support documents used to develop the standard was falsified by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency to protect a long-standing public health policy. EPA professionals were never asked to conduct a thorough independent analysis of the fluoride literature. Instead, their credentials were used to give the appearance of scientific credibility. They were used to support the predetermined conclusion that 4 mg/l of fluoride in drinking water was safe.
Ethical misconduct by EPA management included the following: they ignored the requirements of the law to protect sensitive individuals such as children, diabetics or people with kidney impairment. Contrary to law, they made the criteria for considering health data so stringent that reasonable concerns for safety were eliminated. Data showing positive correlations between fluoride exposure and genetic effects in almost all laboratory tests were discounted. By selective use of data, they fit science to the desired outcome. They reported to the Administrator data demonstrating that dental fluorosis was an adverse health effect, but then hid this information from the pubic when the Administrator decided to call dental fluorosis a “cosmetic” effect. The National Institute for Dental Research had warned EPA that admitting dental fluorosis was an adverse health effect would be contrary to the long standing policy of the Public Health Service that fluoridation at 1 mg/l is totally safe. EPA had already admitted in the Federal Register that objectionable dental fluorosis can occur at levels as low as 0.7 mg/l……
The 2008 NSF Fluoride Fact Sheet makes the following representations:
“The NSF Joint Committee … consists of … product manufacturing representatives. … Standard 60 … requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminations in the product. … A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects. … NSF also requires annual testing and toxicological evaluation …. The NSF standard requires … toxicological evaluation.
Moreover, there is evidence which would hold up in a court of law that the suppliers of fluoridation materials are not doing the toxicological studies because NSF is waiving the requirement that they do them. NSF official, Stan Hazen, admitted under oath that toxicological studies were not done or available. See a transcript of a California deposition ( pages 22-25 and page 67) in which Hazan said:
NSF failed to follow its own Standard 60 procedures, and because we had no tox data on the HFS, then that was — we discussed again how the tox — toxicology department fulfills the Standard 60 requirements by relying on the individual MCLs for the — for the different elements within HFSA.
They failed to perform the tox studies as there are none, as confirmed by Health Canada and relied on the MCLs for water fluoridation which turns out to be a fraud. This is confirmed also from the articles included on this page.
The Stan Hazan deposition can be read by following this link:
There is more evidence that the suppliers are not providing the toxicological studies and that NSF is not requiring them. You can read the detailed proof at this link:
For a product to be certified by NSF as conforming to ANSI/NSF Standard 60, the concentration of a contaminant, where the product is diluted in water, should not exceed one-tenth of maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) allowed by Health Canada or the maximum concentration level (MCL) allowed by the EPA in the United States.
The EPA Maximum Contaminant Level for fluoride is 4.0 ppm, and one-tenth of that would be .4 ppm. See:
Corruption and Fraud at the EPA
Enemy of the state
Robert Carton PhD: In April of 1985 I was in a mall in Washington and a friend of mine who was writing the fluoride drinking water standard stopped me. He was really frustrated because he wanted to set the standard at 2 milligrams per liter. He thought that was easily justified, but they told him they wanted 4 milligrams per liter. He was called to the director’s office and told what he was going to do. So he had to go back and alter scientific document to support the higher number. So the Fluoride Drinking Water Standard was originally intended to be half of what it is now. I found out after much investigation that it actually should be much lower. When he told me this, that he was being forced to lie, basically, I got really interested and I thought this is something we need to run up the flagpole and draw people’s attention to and maybe we can get a change of climate in the agency. To do something about this we started writing letters to the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. It totally ignored us. We never received responses to anything. It was as if we didn’t exist.
Corruption and Fraud at the EPA
Robert J. Carton, Ph.D.
July 28, 1995
Truth suppressed by fraud and intimidation
The Big Lie has been maintained by outright fraud and the persecution of scientists attempting to speak the truth. In 1990, Dr. William Marcus, a senior scientist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was fired for exposing a coverup in a government study showing that fluoride causes cancer. In 1992, EPA ignored the union representing all 1200 scientists, lawyers and engineers at EPA’s Headquarters, when the union provided evidence of scientific fraud in the development of the fluoride in drinking water standard.
How the truth is suppressed
The powers that be work overtime at maintaining the Big Lie with some fairly simple, but effective techniques: outright fraud and coverup, and intimidation and persecution of scientists and other professionals who dare to speak the truth. One of the best examples of the use of these techniques can be found at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C.
In 1990, Dr. William Marcus, senior toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water at EPA, was fired for publicly questioning the honesty of a long-awaited government animal study designed to determine if fluoride causes cancer. Upon examining the raw data of the experiment, Dr. Marcus found clear evidence that fluoride causes cancer, and suggested that a review panel set up by the government to review the data had deliberately downgraded the results. He was vindicated in December of 1992 when Administrative Law Judge David A. Clark, Jr. ordered EPA to give him back his job, with back pay, legal expenses and $50,000 in damages. EPA appealed, but the appeal was turned down in 1994 by Secretary of Labor, Robert B. Reich who accused EPA of firing Dr. Marcus in retaliation for speaking his mind in public. Reich found among other things that EPA had shredded important evidence that would have supported Dr. Marcus in court. The original trial proceedings also show that EPA employees who wanted to testify on behalf of Dr. Marcus were threatened by their own management. EPA officials also forged some of his time cards, and then accused him of misusing his official time.
Other EPA scientists, have attempted to get the truth in the open without success. In November of 1991, Dr. Bob Carton, Vice-President of the union representing all 1200 scientists, engineers, and lawyers at EPA headquarters, presented the Drinking Water Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board of EPA with evidence of scientific fraud in the preparation of EPA’s fluoride in drinking water standard. (reference) No follow up to verify these accusations was ever made.
Six years earlier, Dr. Carton became aware of a coverup, when the person responsible for writing the justification for the fluoride in drinking water regulation confided in him that he didn’t believe a thing he was writing. In other words, the regulation was a lie. Then the regulation writer said: “well, that’s the way they want it.” In other words, he had to follow orders. Rather than lose his job, or his next promotion, he produced what his superiors wanted.
Dr. Carton convinced the professional union to take fluoride on as an ethics issue. The union attempted to join the National Resources Defense Council in a lawsuit against EPA in September of 1986 with a submission of a detailed brief to the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC. The court refused to allow the union to join the suit.
Robert J. Carton, Ph.D.
2455 Ballenger Creek Pike
Adamstown, MD 21710
Biographical sketch of Dr. Carton
Dr. Carton is an environmental scientist who worked at the Headquarters of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 1972-1992. Most of this time he was engaged in performing risk assessments on toxic chemicals; evaluating the literature on such high priority chemicals as asbestos, PCBs, arsenic,and hexachlorobenzene. He wrote the first regulations for controlling asbestos discharges from manufacturing plants, and developed guidelines for environmental assessments for new sources of water pollution. In 1980, he helped organize the union of professionals at EPA and was twice elected president of that union. In 1985, as a union official, he became aware of the fraudulent nature of the EPA standard for fluoride in drinking water, and fought for seven years to expose it. In 1987, he led the union attempt to file an amicus brief in the court case brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council against the EPA challenging the standard for fluoride in drinking water.
“Why EPA Headquarters’ Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation.”
The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C.
The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride’s only effects were beneficial – reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.
Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have “funky” teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn’t have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it.
We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group. The union has published on this initial involvement period in detail.\1
Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards ofgene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results.
Comments on Reevaluating the Fluoride in Drinking Water Standard
Robert J. Carton, Ph. D.,
Vice-President, Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE)
Drinking Water Committee of the Science Advisory Board of the Environmental Protection Agency. Arlington, VA, Nov. 1, 1991.
My name is Dr. Bob Carton, I am Vice-President of Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees. Our union represents the 1100 scientists, lawyers, and engineers at EPA Headquarters. We are the professionals who are responsible for providing the scientific basis for EPA’s regulations. We have an obviously important stake in ensuring that the scientific process used in assessing risks from chemicals is sound and that those who conduct this assessment are not forced or coerced in any way into supporting predetermined conclusions.
In this context, I am here today to alert you to the fraudulent nature of EPA’s previous efforts on fluoride and to request that you take an active role in insisting that EPA conduct an unbiased, in depth investigation of the risks posed by exposure to fluoride, not a whitewash as occurred in 1985. Let me explain to you what happened in 1985.
The fluoride in drinking water standard, or Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL], published by EPA in the Federal Register on Nov. 14, 1985, is a classic case of political interference with science. The regulation is a fraudulent statement by the Federal Government that 4 milligrams per liter (mg/ 1) of fluoride in drinking water is safe with an adequate margin of safety. There is evidence that critical information in the scientific and technical support documents used to develop the standard was falsified by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency to protect a long-standing public health policy.
EPA professionals were never asked to conduct a thorough, independent analysis of the fluoride literature. Instead, their credentials were used to give the appearance of scientific credibility. They were used to support the predetermined conclusion that 4 mg/l of fluoride in drinking water was safe.
Ethical misconduct by EPA management included the following: they ignored the requirements of the law to protect sensitive individuals such as children, diabetics, or people with kidney impairment. Contrary to law, they made the criteria for considering health data so stringent that reasonable concerns for safety were eliminated. Data showing positive correlations between fluoride exposure and genetic effects in almost all laboratory tests were discounted.
By selective use of data, they fit science to the desired outcome. They reported to the Administrator data demonstrating that dental fluorosis was an adverse health effect, but then hid this information from the public when the Administrator decided to call dental fluorosis a “cosmetic” effect. The National Institute for Dental Research had warned EPA that admitting dental fluorosis was an adverse health effect would be contrary to the long-standing policy of the Public Health Service that fluoridation at 1 mg/l is totally safe. EPA had already admitted in the Federal Register that objectionable dental fluorosis can occur at levels as low as 0.7 mg/l.
EPA management based its standard on only one health effect: crippling skeletal fluorosis. In setting the safe level at 4 mg/l, however, they ignored data showing that healthy individuals were at risk of developing crippling skeletal fluorosis if these individuals happened to drink large quantities of water at the “safe” level of 4 mg/l. EPA’s own data showed that some people drink as much as 5.5 liters/day. If these people ingested this amount of water containing 4 mg/l of fluoride, they would receive a daily dose of 22 mg. This exceeds the minimum dose necessary to cause crippling skeletal fluorosis, or “20 mg/day for 20 years” as stated by EPA and the Public Health Service. This situation is made worse by the fact that there are additional sources of fluoride, such as toothpaste, tea, mouthwash, etc. Even more unsettling is the fact that there is no sound scientific basis for the 20 mg/day threshold. The threshold is probably lower.
There is evidence, ignored by EPA, in a preliminary study by Dr. Geoffrey Smith, that exposure to fluoride at 1 mg/l in drinking water over a long period of time may calcify ligaments and tendons causing arthritic pains, and may be partially responsible for the alarming increase in cases of repetitive stress injury.
EPA management also relied upon a report from the Surgeon General which they knew was false. This report claimed to represent the conclusions of an expert panel (on which EPA was present as an observer) when in fact the concerns of this panel for the effects of fluoride on the bones of children, for its effects on the heart, for dental fluorosis, and for the overall lack of scientific data on the effects of fluoride in U.S. drinking water were deleted. There is a report in the press that these changes were made without the knowledge or approval of the expert panel.
EPA accepted the falsified report from the Surgeon General’s office and asked a contractor to turn this into an “assessment.” The contractor dutifully collected only literature that supported the report. The report was submitted for public comment, but was never altered to incorporate the volumes of information sent in by world class experts, and by ordinary citizens who had taken the time to look for all of the appropriate literature. Any opinions contrary to the report were dismissed. It can truly be said that there is no final report, because the substance of the public comment was virtually ignored. What we have is actually a “Draft” stamped ”Final“!
After the regulation was published, NFFE Local 2050 spent a great deal of energy attempting to get this issue resolved. We did not want any part of such a charade. In 1986, after numerous letters to EPA management which were ignored, NFFE Local 2050 prepared an amicus brief in an unsuccessful suit by the Natural Resources Defense Council to overturn the fluoride regulation. Our message began to be heard in August of 1988, when Chemical & Engineering News, a weekly magazine of the American Chemical Society, published a 17 page feature story on the fluoride issue, focusing in part on our union’s efforts. In 1989, with prodding from Mr. Reilly’s staff, we had an exchange of letters and some productive meetings with Mr. Bill Whittington, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, who unfortunately has now left the Agency.
In one of these letters, we detailed for Mr. Whittington, our recommendations for conducting an assessment of the risks from fluoride exposure. We grouped them into three categories: (1) focus on the scientific endpoints the law requires us to examine which the previous effort did not, (2) bring in scientific experts from around the world who have published extensively on various aspects of the risks from fluoride exposure, and (3) create an independent scientific assessment committee with no conflict of interest to peer review the report. We also recommended that all of this should be done under the direction of EPA scientists with expertise in the various disciplines that an understanding of fluoride risks requires: carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, metabolism, etc.
We would like you to take these recommendations seriously. We do not need another exercise in political expediency. And we do not need to see EPA scientists attacked by their managers, as is now occurring , because they reveal unpleasant facts . A number of recent publications in prestigious journals show there is overwhelming evidence that the aged population of the US is experiencing a significant increase in hip fractures as a result of the reckless practice of fluoridation. The senior toxicologist who brought this and other negative information on fluoride to the attention of EPA management is being threatened with dismissal.
It is about time that science prevailed on this subject, and past errors were corrected. This will not happen by using the so-called “Frank Young” report or the National Academy of Sciences to review his report. This will only result in the same whitewash that emerged from the Surgeon General’s office. The NAS has already indicated that they will produce the party line, even if they can’t substantiate it. In a recent series of letters between the NAS, Ms. Darlene Sherrell, and Sen. Graham of Florida, the NAS was forced to admit that it could not document the derivation of the chronic effect level for crippling skeletal fluorosis. As already mentioned, crippling skeletal fluorosis is the single health effect upon which the fluoride in drinking water standard is based.
EPA should reconsider their current plans to duck major responsibility for assessing fluoride risks and should let EPA professionals do the job that the American public who pays their salaries expects of them. The seriousness of the coverup on this issue requires that we go back to square one, evaluate the primary literature and let the chips fall where they may. A budget commensurate with the size of this task needs to be developed, even if it means going to Congress for a special appropriation. We ask Your support in ensuring that the above recommendations are taken seriously.
NFFE Local 2050
Washington, D.C. 20013
LISTEN HERE – PART 1 Dr. Robert Carton, former EPA scientist, 12/20/99
Robert J. Carton, Ph.D.
J. William Hirzy, Ph.D.
National Treasury Employees Union,
««Go»»»»» The Cover-up at U.S.E.P.A.
As stated in the NAEP Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice for Environmental Professionals, the “keystone of professional conduct is integrity…” This means that professionals must be responsible for the validity of their work, which must be conducted without “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation or discrimination.” They must not put professional judgment aside in order to twist facts and/or conclusions to give a client, or a superior, a desired outcome. Further, professional integrity does not stop when a report is signed. There is a continuing responsibility for seeing that a report is not misrepresented by others, or altered to change its data or conclusions.
Environmental Professionals at EPA Headquarters
In 1982, all of the non-management scientists, lawyers and engineers working at EPA Headquarters, in their own declaration of independence, decided to organize into a union that could bargain with the Agency over conditions of employment. The organizing committee believed there were so many outstanding grievances with management that the only way to get resolution was by forming a Labor union. According to the Civil Service Reform Act, the Agency must recognize and bargain with a legally constituted union, whereas it can ignore other employee groups, no matter how thoroughly constituted or well-intentioned they may be.
Our grievances with the “King” (at that time it was the “Queen”, EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch) centered around the misuse of professional services, creating an unethical climate that served politics, but not truth. Management was enamored with the idea that “management rights” included, among other things, mandating the “arranging” or “rearranging” of scientific facts so they support predetermined conclusions. Management acted as if the only moral duty of employees was the duty to obey 2 – even in spite of the results at Nuremberg.
Sometime in the middle of April, 1985, just one month before the proposed RMCL was published in the Federal Register17, private discussions with key personnel involved in the drafting of the new regulation began to surface some serious ethical problems. It started with a chance meeting between one of the authors (Carton) and a professional from the Office of Drinking Water in a hallway of the East Tower of Waterside Mall, EPA’s headquarters. When we saw him in the hallway, he looked disgusted, so we asked him what was going on. He said he was writing the fluoride regulation and didn’t believe a thing he was writing. He had to carry on, however, because it was his job. To put it another way, it was his duty to obey. There was also the unstated understanding which all employees know, that if you buck the decision you may end up with a poor performance appraisal or worse. Years later one professional, who blew the whistle on the downgrading of results in the animal cancer study of fluoride in drinking water, was fired, although later rehired after a protracted court battle.18
When the fluoride regulation was published, its author did protest with an unsigned, tongue-in-cheek “press release” that was circulated among the staff.
United States Environmental Protection Agency scientists take court action against EPA for failing to protect public health
Important scientific and technical considerations were ignored when the Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL) for fluoride in public drinking water was set
As of April 20, 1998, EPA professionals are represented by the National Treasury Employees (NTEU) Union, Chapter 280.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT __________________________________________ ) NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Civ. No. 85-1839 v. ) ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and ) LEE M. THOMAS, ADMINISTRATOR, ) ) Respondents. ) __________________________________________) consolidated with ) SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ) ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civ. No. 85-1854 ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________________)
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
“We’ve got a network of evil in this country that we can’t hide from any longer.”—Fluoride the Aging Factor by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis