Fluoride in Our Drinking Water: We Need the Facts to Make Informed Decisions

First of all, I want to apologize to those who have been patiently waiting for my article on this subject; occasionally giving me a nudge with a polite email.

There is just so much to write about in this often unrecognizable world we live in.  The wickedness has now made me certain that demonic possession is rampant.  The demons seem to be laughing at us through drag queens either reading to children in neighborhood libraries,  or like yesterday, one in NYC simulated an abortion – blood and all, and then turned cannibalistic when the drag queen drank the fake blood pouring from the plastic doll. “He” (I refuse to use politically correct pronouns and  if anyone has a problem with that, I will gladly go to jail) ended this satanic display by pulling the head off of the doll and licking the doll’s face.

All of this disgusting display was done with a song called “Cannibal” playing in the background. I don’t know who I am more disgusted with – the drag queens or the parents who gleefully bring their tiny tots into libraries and encourage their little ones to sit in the laps of these depraved and possessed humans. Most of these drag queens have been arrested for pedophilia in the past, but that doesn’t bother the parents of these children – not one bit.

Onto Fluoridation of our Water:

Years ago, when I first battled hypothyroidism, I began to research fluoride. I remembered how our dentist pushed this chemical on our kids. They even wanted our children to have “Fluoride treatments” which I finally stopped allowing the children to have.

Getting back to my research, I was shocked to find that most of the developed world did NOT add fluoride to the water supply. That sent red flags up immediately for me. Almost all of Europe does not have added fluoride in their water supplies. So, why did we have it here in America?

Then I began to read that the whole “Fluoride is great for your teeth” rubbish that we all believed – was not proven, and read many papers from scientists and doctors claiming that this was just not true.

We all know that fluoride is added to most all toothpastes.  You can get Tom’s of Maine toothpaste without fluoride.

Something a bit funny

I have absolutely no idea why this would stick in my brain as a young child – but it did.  I told my husband about this last night and we had a good laugh over it.

“Crest has been shown to be an effective decay preventive dentifrice, when used in a conscientiously applied program of oral hygiene and regular professional care.”

Now WHY would a child of 8 or 9 memorize that?  I haven’t a clue.

But the big selling factor of toothpastes back then was that they had added fluoride to the toothpaste.  Everyone thought that this was the greatest thing since sliced bread!

Many States and counties in America have given their residents the choice to fluorinate the water or not.  I believe that we have been indoctrinated with the lies about fluoride; so when it is put out as a referendum to be decided by the people, they balk at any change from the norm.

Back to Europe

As I said, most of Europe does not add fluoride to their water supplies.  I have read that Hitler used fluoride in the death camps to sedate the people. Of course, he used a much more concentrated amount; but I thought that it would be worth mentioning.  Rather creepy, don’t you think?

Bottled Water

My husband and I decided years ago to find out which bottled water had the least amount of fluoride and to only drink that. At first we drank Deer Park and for the last few years we drink bottled water from Wegmans.

Before this time, we used filters on our tap.  They did a good job of ridding the water of bacteria and other things that we would not want in our bodies. But we found out that the water filter – no matter how expensive, could not not rid the water of fluoride.

We read that the only way to do that is a process called reverse osmosis.  That would have been extremely expensive and that is when we decided to drink bottled water. You can actually look up online various bottled waters and find out how much fluoride they contain.

From scholarship.law.wm.edu

Compulsory Water Fluoridation: Justifiable Public Health Benefit or Human Experimental Research Without Informed Consent?

Most Americans are under the impression that compulsory water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure to fight tooth decay. Pro-fluoridation campaigns by the American Dental Association and the Department of Health and Human Services have ensured this perception, successfully obscuring the more disturbing reality that a significant number of leading scientists, medical and dental professionals, and educated members of the public continue to repudiate both the medical necessity and ethical legitimacy of compulsory water fluoridation.1 In truth, scientific evidence is steadily mounting against water fluoridation, with emerging studies showing that not only is fluoridation not effective at achieving the stated public health goal of combating dental caries, but also that excess exposure to fluoride contributes to a host of far more serious health concerns, particularly in the very population the public health measure was originally alleged to benefit: children.2 With growing evidence suggesting that systemic intake of excess fluoride is linked to dental and skeletal fluorosis, endocrine disruption, hypothyroidism, bone cancer, and lowered IQs in children, it is not surprising that hundreds of U.S. and Canadian cities and towns have now opted to either reject or cease fluoridating their water supplies, joining over 97% of Europe and most of the developed world in rejecting compulsory water fluoridation.

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced its intention to reexamine its currently allowed Maximum Contaminant Levels (“MCL”) of fluoride in drinking water.4 EPA’s decision was based on a 2006 report by the NRC, which considered numerous studies linking a variety of serious health problems with excess exposure to fluoride, and concluded that EPA should lower its current maximum contaminant levels for fluoride, in order to minimize the risks of severe dental fluorosis, bone fractures, and possibly skeletal fluorosis.5 The Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”) shortly thereafter recommended that community water districts lower their allowable fluoride levels to 0.7 parts per million (“ppm”), the lowest level in a range earlier recommended by DHHS.6 This recommended change sprang from DHHS’s recognition that original “optimal” fluoride levels were set without considering human fluoride consumption from other products, including fluoridated toothpaste and food and beverages made with fluoridated water.7

As of the writing of this Article, EPA has not yet come out with any revised MCLs, and it is doubtful that a recommendation to entirely eliminate artificial fluoride in the public water supply will come easily from a federal agency long in support of the benefits of compulsory water fluoridation. Regardless of the outcome, federal agency reconsideration of the safe levels of fluoride in the drinking supply already raises significant questions about the continued public health justification of compulsory water fluoridation.

Over the last sixty years, courts have been highly deferential to state and local governments challenged on compulsory water fluoridation, generally applying the minimal scrutiny of the rational basis test to uphold the practice as a legitimate public health measure.8 Yet even rational basis scrutiny requires that the public health measure be “reasonable and necessary to secure the . . . health . . . of the public.”9 But what constitutes an unreasonable public health measure? Is there a scientific tipping point after which an entrenched public health measure is no longer justifiable? A number of public health law scholars have suggested that existing public health laws be continually reevaluated in light of current scientific knowledge and evolving public notions of personal liberty and bodily integrity.10 Under one proffered system of evaluation, public health laws are only justified when public health authorities are able to demonstrate: (1) a significant risk to public health based on scientific evidence; (2) the intervention’s effectiveness by showing a reasonable fit between means and ends; (3) that economic costs are reasonable; (4) that human rights burdens are reasonable; and (5) that benefits, costs, and burdens, are fairly distributed.11 This Article argues that under this systematic approach, compulsory water fluoridation is no longer a justifiable public health measure and continued fluoridation schemes veer dangerously close to ongoing human research experiments without informed consent.

Read rest of article HERE

Brethren, I believe that what we have read here clearly shows that there is a problem with continuing the fluoridation of drinking water without definitive research and a coming together of scientists, doctors, dentists, and environmental experts; a cross section of professionals (who have no vested interest in fluoride) and finally make an informed decision for the benefit of the people of our country.

When a referendum has been done here and there in America, the people do not have the necessary information to make good decisions. I believe that the EPA should come out with a condensed booklet which is comprehensive and can be understood by the average American. This booklet should be mailed to every home in our country.  This is the only way that people can be informed so that they are able to make good decisions if a nationwide referendum is put to a vote nationally.

If this is just not feasible, then I believe that our government should make the decision to no longer fluoridate our drinking water to keep the public safe.

Of course, this decision would affect companies which sell toothpaste and mouthwashes which contain fluoride. I’m sure that a decision to end fluoridation of drinking water would have a tremendous impact on these companies; as the big selling point for their products has always been about fluoride.

Until then, we will drink bottle water.  I hope that this article has helped some of you to understand fluoride a bit better. I also hope that you will pass on this information to your loved ones.

This is definitely a topic that needs to be discussed across our nation.

How Can I Be Saved?

Shalom b’Yeshua









Whistle Blower is a Leftist Operative: Are We Shocked?

  Eric Ciaramella

Eric Ciaramella as a class of 2004 Connecticut prep student: He later moved on to Yale and the White House. Now he could be at the center of an impeachment storm.

Of course, we all knew that he had to be a Leftist and very well connected with the Democratic Left.  I received this story from a friend via email today.

I love Sebastian Gorka. Here is what he has to say about this guy:

From sebgorka.com

With the whistleblower’s identity finally revealed, his resume and list of connections should not come as a surprise to anyone. Having previously worked under John Brennan, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama, being a registered Democrat, and having repeatedly criticized President Trump in the past, he is everything we should have expected from the Deep State’s star mystery man.

And yet, Eric Ciaramella represents everything that is wrong with the Deep State. He has clear partisan biases, an undying and irrational hatred of President Trump, and most frighteningly, he has numerous connections to the most powerful figures in the Obama Administration. This is the essence of the Deep State at its core: Powerful and highly inter-connected in a web of anti-Trump figures from the intelligence community.

The so-called whistleblower’s covert interactions with Democrats ahead of his official complaint is representative of the Deep State’s deep political ties and unapologetic coordination with the Democratic Party. The Deep State and the Democrats go hand-in-hand, sharing their common vision of power and a desire to get rid of President Trump by any means necessary.

AMERICA First is the newest nationally-syndicated radio show in the United States, part of the Salem Radio Network. The host, Sebastian Gorka PhD., served most recently as Deputy Assistant for Strategy to the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, and is author of the New York Times bestselling book “Defeating Jihad.” His latest book is “The War for America’s Soul.” You can follow him on Twitter @SebGorka, on Facebook, and on Instagram @sebastian_gorka. AMERICA First is available on the iTunes podcast app, streams live at www.sebgorka.com, and is on YouTube. You can contact him here.

From realclearinvestigations.com

For a town that leaks like a sieve, Washington has done an astonishingly effective job keeping from the American public the name of the anonymous “whistleblower” who triggered impeachment proceedings against President Trump — even though his identity is an open secret inside the Beltway.

More than two months after the official filed his complaint, pretty much all that’s known publicly about him is that he is a CIA analyst who at one point was detailed to the White House and is now back working at the CIA.

But the name of a government official fitting that description — Eric Ciaramella — has been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not involved in the impeachment inquiry. Fearing their anonymous  witness could be exposed, Democrats this week blocked Republicans from asking more questions about him and intend to redact his name from all deposition transcripts.

RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public’s interest in learning details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office. Further, the official’s status as a “whistleblower” is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the president, one who has “some indicia of an arguable political bias … in favor of a rival political candidate” — as the Intelligence Community Inspector General phrased itcircumspectly in originally fielding his complaint.

Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.

Further, Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) left his National Security Council posting in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

“He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

Also, Ciaramella huddled for “guidance” with the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom Schiff’s office had recently recruited from the NSC. Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the impeachment inquiry.

And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government. “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015.  She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.

With Ciaramella’s name long under wraps, interest in the intelligence analyst is so high that a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill, and briefings have been conducted based on it. One briefed Republican has been planning to unmask the whistleblower in a speech on the House floor.

On the Internet, meanwhile, Ciaramella’s name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the president. The mainstream media are also aware of his name.

“Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is,” said Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and national security adviser to Trump, who has fielded dozens of calls from the media.

Yet a rare hush has swept across the Potomac. The usually gossipy nation’s capital remains uncharacteristically — and curiously — mum, especially considering the magnitude of this story, only the fourth presidential impeachment inquiry in U.S. history.

Trump supporters blame the conspiracy of silence on a “corrupt” and “biased” media trying to protect the whistleblower from justified scrutiny of his political motives. They also complain Democrats have falsely claimed that exposing his identity would violate whistleblower protections, even though the relevant statute provides limited, not blanket, anonymity – and doesn’t cover press disclosures. His Democrat attorneys, meanwhile, have warned that outing him would put him and his family “at risk of harm,” although government security personnel have been assigned to protect him.

“They’re hiding him,” Fleitz asserted. “They’re hiding him because of his political bias.”

A CIA officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine, Ciaramella was detailed over to the National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice president.

Federal records show that Biden’s office invited Ciaramella to an October 2016 state luncheon the vice president hosted for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Other invited guests included Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey and then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper.

Several U.S. officials told RealClearInvestigations that the invitation that was extended to Ciaramella, a relatively low-level GS-13 federal employee, was unusual and signaled he was politically connected inside the Obama White House.

Former White House officials said Ciaramella worked on Ukrainian policy issues for Biden in 2015 and 2016, when the vice president was President Obama’s “point man” for Ukraine. A Yale graduate, Ciaramella is said to speak Russian and Ukrainian, as well as Arabic. He had been assigned to the NSC by Brennan.

He was held over into the Trump administration, and headed the Ukraine desk at the NSC, eventually transitioning into the West Wing, until June 2017.

“He was moved over to the front office” to temporarily fill a vacancy, said a former White House official, where he “saw everything, read everything.”

The official added that it soon became clear among NSC staff that Ciaramella opposed the new Republican president’s foreign policies. “My recollection of Eric is that he was very smart and very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That was his thing – Ukraine,” he said. “He didn’t exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the president’s policies.”

“So I wouldn’t be surprised if he was the whistleblower,” the official said.

In May 2017, Ciaramella went “outside his chain of command,” according to a former NSC co-worker, to send an email alerting another agency that Trump happened to hold a meeting with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after firing Comey, who led the Trump-Russia investigation. The email also noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had phoned the president a week earlier.

Contents of the email appear to have ended up in the media, which reported Trump boasted to the Russian officials about firing Comey, whom he allegedly called “crazy, a real nut job.”

In effect, Ciaramella helped generate the “Putin fired Comey” narrative, according to the research dossier making the rounds in Congress, a copy of which was obtained by RealClearInvestigations.

Ciaramella allegedly argued that “President Putin suggested that President Trump fire Comey,” the report said. “In the days after Comey’s firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls for the standup [sic] of the special counsel to investigate ‘Russia collusion.’ “

In the end, Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no conspiracy between Trump and Putin. Ciaramella’s email was cited in a footnote in his report, which mentions only Ciaramella’s name, the date and the recipients “Kelly et al.” Former colleagues said the main recipient was then-Homeland Security Director John Kelly.

Ciaramella left the Trump White House soon after Mueller was appointed. Attempts to reach Ciaramella were unsuccessful, although his father said in a phone interview from Hartford, where he is a bank executive, that he doubted his son was the whistleblower. “He didn’t have that kind of access to that kind of information,” Tony Ciaramella said. “He’s just a guy going to work every day.” The whistleblower’s lawyers did not answer emails and phone calls seeking comment. CIA spokesman Luis Rossello declined comment, saying, “Anything on the whistleblower, we are referring to ODNI.” The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to requests for comment.

In his complaint, the whistleblower charged that the president used “the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.”  Specifically, he cited a controversial July 25 phone call from the White House residence in which Trump asked Ukraine’s new president to help investigate the origins of the Russia “collusion” investigation the Obama administration initiated against his campaign, citing reports that “a lot of it started with Ukraine,” where the former pro-Hillary Clinton regime in Kiev worked with Obama diplomats and Chalupa to try to “sabotage” Trump’s run for president.

Later in the conversation, Trump also requested information about Biden and his son, since “Biden went around bragging that he” had fired the chief Ukrainian prosecutor at the time a Ukrainian oligarch, who gave Biden’s son a lucrative seat on the board of his energy conglomerate, was under investigation for corruption.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff argued the whistleblower’s complaint, though admittedly based on second-hand information, amounts to an impeachable offense, and they subsequently launched an impeachment inquiry that has largely been conducted in secret.

The whistleblower filed his “urgent” report against Trump with the intelligence community inspector general on Aug. 12, but it was not publicly released until Sept. 26.

Prior to filing, he had met with Schiff’s Democratic staff for “guidance.” At first, the California lawmaker denied the contacts, but later admitted that his office did, in fact, meet with the whistleblower early on.

Earlier this year, Schiff recruited two of Ciaramella’s closest allies at the NSC — both whom were also Obama holdovers — to join his committee staff. He hired one, Sean Misko, in August — the same month the whistleblower complaint was filed.

During closed-door depositions taken in the impeachment inquiry, Misko has been observed handing notes to the lead counsel for the impeachment inquiry, Daniel Goldman, as he asks questions of Trump administration witnesses, officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings told RealClearInvestigations.

Republicans participating in the restricted inquiry hearings have been asking witnesses about Ciaramella and repeatedly injecting his name into the deposition record, angering Schiff and Democrats, who sources say are planning to scrub the references to Ciaramella from any transcripts of the hearings they may agree to release.

“Their reaction tells you something,” said one official familiar with the inquiry.

For example, sources said Ciaramella’s name was invoked by GOP committee members during the closed-door testimony of former NSC official Fiona Hill on Oct. 14. Ciaramella worked with Hill, another Obama holdover, in the West Wing.

During Tuesday’s deposition of NSC official Alexander Vindman, Democrats shut down a line of inquiry by Republicans because they said it risked revealing the identity of the whistleblower. Republicans wanted to know with whom Vindman spoke within the administration about his concerns regarding Trump’s call to Ukraine. But Schiff instructed the witness not to answer the questions, which reportedly sparked a shouting match between Democrats and Republicans.

Determined to keep the whistleblower’s identity secret, Schiff recently announced it may not be necessary for him to testify even in closed session. Republicans argue that by hiding his identity, the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it’s exposed.

Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, asserted the American people have the right to know the person who is trying to bring down the president for whom 63 million voted.

“It’s tough to determine someone’s credibility if you can’t put them under oath and ask them questions,” he said.

Added Jordan: “The people want to know. I want to get to the truth.”

In an open House Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) seemingly out of left field asked a witness about “Eric Ciaramella of the Obama National Security Council,” in what the Washington press corps took as a bid to out the whistleblower. He later told a Dallas radio station he knew the whistleblower’s name. “A lot of us in Washington know who it is,” Gohmert said, adding he’s a “very staunch Democrat” who was “supposed to be a point person on Ukraine, during the time when Ukraine was its most corrupt, and he didn’t blow any whistles on their corruption.”

The Washington Post ran a news story over the weekend critical of Republicans for allegedly trying to “unmask” the whistleblower, for attempting to do the job journalists would normally do. Last week, the paper ran an op-ed by the whistleblower’s attorneys claiming he was no longer relevant to the inquiry and beseeching the public to let their client slip back into obscurity.

For its part, the New York Times ran a story last month reporting details about the whistleblower’s background, but stopped short of fully identifying him, suggesting it didn’t know his politics or even his name. “Little else is known about him,” the paper claimed.

On Thursday, Democrats plan a House vote on new impeachment-inquiry rules that would give Republicans for the first time the ability to call their own witnesses. Only, their requests must first be approved by the Democrats. So there is a good chance the whistleblower, perhaps the most important witness of all, will remain protected from critical examination.  source

So I am going to be praying that this whole debacle blows up in the Left’s wicked  collective face.  But knowing that our God is in full control – I think it is prudent to just pray for God’s will to be done.

HE truly IS in full control.

How Can I Be Saved?

Shalom b’Yeshua