Politics Video Transcript
Welcome to Truly Right View Politics
Let The Truth Be Told!
Are you ready to hear the real truth unfiltered by bias media or government intervention?
Subscribe to the Truly Right View YouTube Channel
Subscribe to the Truly Right View Rumble Channel
well a federal court has finally ruled that fluide poses an unreasonable risk to our health so then why the hell is it still in our drinking water will the incoming Trump Administration finally put an end to all of that we sure hope so partner at Siri and glim stead the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the water uh food and water uh watch versus the EPA uh lead attorney on that was Michael Conan he’s the one responsible folks if you’re watching this if you want to know who the man is that really drove this into the ground and stopped the EPA from doing this trying to lead this Crusade about getting the fluoride out of our water that’s this man Michael conet now joins us for a deeper dive discussion on fluoride and the uphill battle with the government nice to see you Michael welcome to the show thank you Clayton thank you for having me on well we’ve been following the story for a couple of years here on the show and as this court case unfolded um and of course now we have the we have the resolution we have the federal court ruling that fluide does pose an unreasonable risk to our health we first of all just your reaction to that were you shocked that they agreed with you uh by the time the ruling came out I wasn’t shocked because we had two trials in this case and the way the evidence came in the nature of the expert testimony and the kinds of questions that the judge was asking throughout the trial I did think we were going to win the case now if you ask me seven and a half years ago when we first filed the case whether I thought we were going to win to be honest I would have said no I I I I would have thought it was going to be too much of an uphill battle but by the end and and just the nature of the testimony I did feel pretty confident that we were going to Prevail you talk about the nature of the testimony what were some of the most compelling arguments against fluide in our drinking water that you heard you know through through from the witnesses that were brought to the stand right and and to be clear this case focused on one adverse outcome of fluoride exposure and that’s effects on the brain particularly the developing brain and so the testimony at trial was really focused on that but I think the most compelling testimony focused on the vulnerability of the brain during the prenatal period during early infancy the fact that there is no effective bloodb brain barrier to keep chemicals out the fact that fluide gets through the placenta we know there’s going to be access to the brain in utero and you couple that with these Birth Cohort studies that have been funded by the National Institutes of Health here in North America that have now consistently found that fluide exposure during pregnancy is significantly associated with reduced IQ in children and at trial in this case we had the Good Fortune of being able to call as experts the scientists who were publishing those NIH funded Birth Cohort studies I think their testimony was given a lot of weight by the court so the NRC found that lipids and phospholipids and protein content have been shown to be reduced in the brains of laboratory animals subsequent to fluoride exposure correct that’s what they’re saying here yes and the CDC agrees with that finding um yes as a summary of the hazard and that was really the headline wasn’t it Michael which fluoride linked to lower IQ in children and that hit that hit hard and that hit probably parents hardest when thinking about growing up I would go to elementary school in Pennsyl and get those little pink pills in the back of the room they would give us in a little cup and every morning we had to have we had to take these fluoride pills before before school started in kindergarten and first grade and so forth you had to take your fluoride pills and to think that I think that was lowering my IQ or thinking that’s lowering the IQ of these children is just devastating yeah and one of the things we did get on the record in this case is I had the opportunity to depose the Centers for Disease Control um through what’s called a 30 B6 deposition where the CDC had to put forward a representative who would defend cdc’s position on fluoridation and it was a lengthy deposition and one of the things I asked the CDC about was how does fluoride actually work to help teeth okay because when we started this program and the reason you were taking those pills Clayton is because the public health imunity back when we started this program believe that you needed to swallow fluoride you needed to ingest it and the earlier in life you ingest it the better that was the premise of adding fluoride to Pills and adding fluoride to drinking water well when I deposed the CDC official he admitted under oath that the predominant benefit of fluoride to teeth whatever that benefit is comes from topical contact with the out side of the tooth when the fluoride’s in the mouth not when you ingest it so CDC recognizes and accepts that fluoride’s predominant mechanism for preventing tooth decay comes from fluoride’s topical contact with the outside of the enamel correct predominantly that’s where the benefits are yes okay and he also admitted based on that that there’s no benefit at all at all from a child receiving fluoride in the womb or a child receiving fluoride in infancy the first six months of life because there’s no teeth there’s nothing to apply topically right and so that admission I thought was significant because at the same time the evidence is showing that that’s the period of greatest risk to the brain if you’re being exposed in utero if you’re being exposed through infant formula in your first few months of life that’s when the brain’s most vulnerable to fluoride’s adverse effects and yet the CDC was admitting in this case under oath that there’s absolutely no benefit during that period of life so from a risk benefit standpoint it makes there’s literally no benefit to offset the risk to the brain did they know this were they hiding it were they fully aware of this and you knew that they were hiding this or did this was this sort like a revelation from the CDC wow we didn’t we didn’t realize this was so damaging and it actually doesn’t do anything H well you know floration really should have ended by the 1990s at the latest and that’s because in the 1990s the CDC first admitted finally that you don’t need that that the predominant benefit is topical it’s not systemic which is what they had believed for decades so once we knew that once we knew you don’t need to swallow this stuff for the only benefit it provides namely prevention of cavities once we knew that I think the US really should have moved away from water fluoridation at that point in time because when you add fluoride to water you were going to swallow it period that’s what you do with water you swallow it right and and so we really should have moved away from fluoridation at that time now the case for moving away from fluoridation today is much more compelling when you start seeing these studies finding real and serious risks including to the brain including to the bones and whatnot so once you have a risk now from swallowing this why are we still adding it to the water of over 200 million people here in the US it’s a great question you’ve spoken about the the suppression of the scientific research around fluides health effects um why do you think this suppression occurs number one why are they trying to hide this and how can it be prevented well that is something that I have spent a lot of time researching in National Archives and in various for quite a while looking at the uh a longstanding pattern of data suppression both from industry um as well as the government the question as to why is a is a more difficult question but certainly I I think federal health officials since the beginning of this program water of Water fluoridation and this started in the 1940s federal health officials have ultimately seen their role as promoting FL not as sort of being the sort of independent umpire to assess the risks and the benefits so the government has really been in a promotional posture as opposed to a more independent one and I think that’s been a disservice to the public except the public looks to the government to say just tell us like it is like give us the good give us the bad so that we can make an informed decision as to how we want to use fluoride and instead what we’ve seen time and time again is the government curates the information and only gives us the stuff that makes fluoride look good all the time without the risks so I do think we’ve had a the government the federal health authorities have done a real disservice to us the public in how they’ve communicated on this issue talk about transparency what can the public do you know public private do to push for greater transparency in the scientific research related to Public Health like what are your hopes and dreams for the incoming Trump Administration um under the offices of RFK Jr and others and some of these other attorneys who we now seeing that are going to be part of the administration as well well I think the first thing and I think you know Robert F Kennedy has talked about this and I certainly hope that the new Administration will follow through and that is you know RFK talked about wanting to inform the public and provide information to the public about the current state of knowledge on water floration and I think that would be an important first step like the it I think it would be ex very appropriate for the Department of Health and Human Services to communicate to municipalities and to the public that hey we thought you needed to swallow this stuff now we know you don’t most countries in the Western World don’t fluoridate their water and and their cavity rates have gone down just as much as here in the United States and there’s there’s peer reviewed scientific research linking of fluoride to increased bone fractures to arthritis to neurodevelopmental disorders you know it’s time for us to to move away from systemic fluoride juice I think if the new Administration simply conveyed that information to the public that would be a really important first step towards transparency and with transparency better decision making at the state and local level is it safe to call fluoride a toxin oh absolutely unquestionably neurotoxin bone degeneration arthritis um I would imagine well probably o Osteo osteoporosis if it’s bone degeneration as well uh it’s it’s hard for me to wrap my head around in the United States we’ve been doing a lot of segments lately about you know how the government is just tied so deeply into these into these companies that make a lot of money off of keeping us sick keeping us uh you know hurting us and it’s really really uh disturbing uh whether it’s in you know the processed food industry or otherwise um why do we have fluoridation in our water like can maybe educate our audience as to why in the 1940s we even started this and how was it you know how was it pushed to the American people at that time I sometimes describe the early politics of floration as a perfect storm of special interests um there was several at issue first you have the sugar industry that was heavily promoting and funding Research into fluoride because from from the sugar industry standpoint they wanted to see a way of tackling tooth decay which was a real problem in the US at that time they wanted to find a way to tackle tooth decay without limiting sugar intake right so they had a they had a vested interest there and they acted on it and there’s a lot of historical documents to show that so you have the sugar industry second you have the American Dental Association and why would the American Dental Association this Trade Organization of dentists why would they be promoting fluoridation well certainly there’s certainly dentists un questionably thought it would be a good thing I don’t doubt that I don’t doubt the good intentions are there but there was an Institutional interest with the Ada and that is at that time in the 1940s there was a movement to socialize medicine to socialize Dentistry or to at least bring about more Universal Health Care Universal Dental Care and as you may know the American Dental assoc American Medical Association strongly opposed efforts to socialize medicine right well the American Dental Association did the same thing they did not want to see the government getting involved with the provision of dental care right it would cut into their Monopoly and fluoridation was an attractive policy for them because it was a way of appearing to do something about tooth decay that didn’t challenge this privatized Dental Care system that was leaving millions of people without any care so you have the private dental interests that had a a stake in this and then you have um back then a very significant factor is Big Industries like the aluminum industry chemical industry steel industry fertilizer industry which were being besieged by lawsuits on fluoride pollution communities that were being poisoned from air pollution and water pollution with fluoride and these industries were very involved in funding research on fluoride research that you know painted a very Rosy picture of fluoride being safe at low levels because these industries had a real interest in demonstrating like don’t be scared of the fluoride pollution it’s actually good for you right so you had a Corruption of the science from industry and I think industry like the aluminum industry particularly was promoting the idea of fluoride actually could be good for you at low doses so I think you have those three main institutional interests at stake um in the early days of fluoridation now how is this fluoride still in our water today I mean is it at the municipal water level that there’s giant jugs of fluoride that just get every day dumped into the water supply yeah it’s a it’s a local or state decision some states mandate fluoridation in every Community um but most States you it’s a local decision the fluoridation chemicals themselves are shipped um there well the source of these chemicals is primarily the phosphate fertilizer industry which is mostly located in Florida and uh fluoridation chemicals is are basically liquefied air pollution you have an industry the phosphate industry which has had a longstanding problem with fluoride pollution because when they make the phos when they when they um when they process the phosphate ore it it generates a bunch of fluoride gases which they have to trap in air pollution control equipment called wet scrubbers and that and that basically adds a water to these gases which creates a compound called hydrofluorosilicic acid okay if you dump hydr floristic acid on cement it’s going to burn a hole right through the cement it’s a very corrosive toxic waste product of the phosphate industry what they do is they Barrel it up and ship it around the country for water fluoridation but and then we drink it we and then we drink it oh my God so yeah this is so they this is how they’re able to get away with their pollution essentially or the the the offshoot of their the processing it’s like we we don’t know what to do with this extra stuff let’s just dump it in the drinking water and have Americans drink it it’s a brilliant strategy yeah the the solution to pollution is dilution because if they took hydrofluosilicic acid and they dumped it in a river that would be unlawful if you dump it in the ocean that would be unlawful there’s there’s particular there’s specific regulations that um prohibit the disposal of of hydr floristic acid and fluoride chemicals into the environment but if you meter it into your water supply at this Con this so-called optimal concentration then it’s a product it’s not a waste and we pay for it you know we actually pay to add this chemical to our water supply right I should mentioned Clayton that over the past 15 years or so we’ve seen a real uptick in the amount of fluoride chemicals that are coming from China as opposed to our own phosphate industry here in the US and there is a lack of transparency and clarity as to what industries are generating those fluoride chemicals and you know what if any quality control there is on those chemicals but a lot of communities now are getting their fluoridation chemicals from China oh amazing and so again this water now so it’s in our drinking water we’re cooking with it we’re making pasta with it we’re filling up our kids water bottles they’re going to school and at the end of the day there’s no topical benefit because you’re not using it on a toothbrush you’re just ingesting it and swallowing it so we’re essentially helping this phosphate industry to dispose of their pollution by giving it to our children in the drinking water that’s right I mean you have I mean the CDC takes the position that even at the low levels of fluoride that you get in your mouth from drinking fluoridated water that that has a topical benefit that’s the cdc’s position you’re swishing your teeth all day long in a low level of fluoride and that has a topical effect okay but you got to ask yourself does it make sense first of all to add a chemical to the drinking water that doesn’t treat the water because to be clear fluoride does not treat the water like chlorine treats the water it kills the bugs you can drink from your tap and not get sick right that’s a good thing okay with fluoride you’re not treating your water you’re treating the person drinking the water to prevent cavities okay so first off does that make sense do we want to do that still you know use the water supply as a vehicle for for delivering a medicine or a drug and then second does it make sense to add a drug to the water supply that you don’t need to swallow that’s topical only especially when the risks come from swallowing it so it is a really I mean I think I think it’s the writing is on the wall it’s pretty clear that this is a backwards policy it’s a relic of kind of cold war medicine and most of Europe has already recognized that most of Europe has already reject rejected fluoridation 98% of Europe does not add fluoride to its water the US is an outlier there and that’s one of the things that you know kind of amuses me and frustrates me with a lot of the media discourse that we see right now after RFK announced his intention to advise against fluoridation is the media acts like that’s this crazy idea whereas most of the western world has already done it like most of Europe already ended floration right but we treat the idea here in the US as if it’s a fringe idea if it’s it’s if it’s crazy you know and I think that that is a disservice to the public well and of course the criticism of him on that multiple issues you know food poisoning most of Europe you know you’re not allowed to have red dye you know compare a Hein ketchup bottle in Europe to a hind ketchup bottle in the in the United States and you’ll see all sorts of different ingredients in the United States version high fructose corn syrup things that are outlawed in Europe um but he’s he’s somehow a conspiracy nut for wanting us to not have all of these chemicals that have been outlawed in most of the western world it’s it’s really really shocking and it’s unbelievable to watch them the Mockingbird media uh push this um what what’s your sense of how long it’ll take to get this out of our drinking water I mean we now know the results we know the risks associated with this very minimal benefits if any to our to our teeth and all seems to me the the risks uh the pain associated with arthritis and uh you know neurotoxin links to our to brain development and all of these things far outweighs any kind of benefit to our teeth how long do you think it’ll take for them to remove it nationwide well the court issued its order on September 24th ruling that fluoridation presents an unreasonable risk of IQ loss and since that Court’s order we have seen dozens of communities already either end fluoridation or begin the discussion to end fluoridation so local communities have been taking action and when RFK came out with his statement in early November that led to you know even more communities taking action Naples Florida um which serves 300,000 people uh just uh voted last week to end its floration program uh the Florida Surgeon General Dr Joe lpo has just advised all Florida communities to end this practice he’s called it a public health it’s he he called it public health Mis practice um oh Public Health malpractice to continue floration so we are seeing action at the local level and but we also um the court ordered this is an important point the court ordered the EPA to take action to address the risk okay and so the EPA is now under a court order to begin a rulemaking proceeding and in this rulemaking proceeding the EPA has an obligation to do something that will eliminate the risk so what do so how do you eliminate the risk posed by adding fluoridation chemicals to drinking water I think the most direct and obvious and only effective way to do that is to is to ban fluoridation and the EPA has the authority to do that the EPA has the authority under the toxic substances Control Act to issue a nationwide ban on fluoridation and that would be if the new Administration wants to take real action to protect the public from fluoride from excess fluoride exposure the clear simplest most bulletproof way of doing that is have the EPA under this court order issue a nationwide ban and that’s what I’m certainly looking for the new Administration to do it has the authority it’s right there there’s no question about it EPA can ban this practice and if it does so the US will follow the path of the vast majority of Europe which has already done it have you gotten a lot of blowback from the phosphate fertilizer industry because what are they going to do what are they going to do with all this extra fluoride that they’ve been dumping in our drinking water once uh once this stuff gets banned well you know the phosphate fertilizer industry if it’s been you know it if it’s been involved in anything in the past few months has has HIIT its tracks pretty well there’s not a a sort of public footprint if you will but the phosphate fertilizer industry is a notoriously dirty industry as anyone in Central Florida will know and what they currently do with their excess waste is just dump it into these they call them these gypsum stacks these massive mounds of waste slurry and the and the top of these Mounds they have these acidic ponds Laden with uranium radium Arsenic and a whole range of toxic compounds in including fluoride so if they can’t sell their fluoridation chemicals to water municipalities the first line of action they will take is just dump more of that fluoridation chemical into their acidic waste water ponds that sit on top of the gypsum Stacks god well I was just about to buy a time share condo next to a gypsum Pond I’ll make sure that I don’t do that in the future um Michael I’ll get you out of here on this which is lawsuit um now that we know and you there’s this connection and uh is the government shielded for from a massive amount of maybe class action lawsuits or or individual lawsuits against whether it’s the Ed know EPA or CDC or even local municipalities like they’ve known about this they’ve been aware about this the lowering of IQ in children arthritis osteoporosis all sorts of health problems uh do you anticipate any massive amounts of lawsuits here well it’s it’s it’s always difficult to sue Federal officials okay in any kind of personal capacity or even institutional capacity for a policy so I don’t see uh lawsuits against the EPA or CDC for them doing something you know to address past wrongs okay but I do think there is a potential for lawsuits against local water municipalities for putting people at risk with this program so um I have not yet done the I haven’t begun any such lawsuits I there’s certainly been a lot of inquiries about those kinds of cases um and so I think that that’s something you may see in the in the years ahead is and not only against you know the Water Authority for adding the chemical to water but also the companies that are selling the chemicals that are being dumped in the water I think you might see some some cases against those companies um now there is also a potential for lawsuits against um companies that Target young kids with fluoride products and by young kids I’m talking preschoolers and toddlers and there is uh a number of companies that have grossly IR responsible marketing practices where they are presenting like fluoride adult strength fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash as candy so like parents are buying bubblegum flavored watermelon flavored candy flavored fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash which is very can be very serious for a child to swallow and cause problems and they’re packaging like it like it’s candy and I think that there is a real potential there for lawsuits against those companies for exposing people to signific to children to significant risks finally you know what can people do I mean I I I’ve stopped using we don’t use any fluoride toothpaste in our family we use fluoride free toothpaste and have for a number of years um and back when we lived in New Jersey we had like a reverse osmosis system installed in the house because of really terrible water New Jersey has some of the worst water I think in the country uh so you had lead you have you know High chlorine issues fluoride all of that stuff so just for have you know drinking water in the house we had a reverse osmosis system but I think it was like $2,000 or something so it’s not it’s not cheap and Americans are hurting right now can’t afford installing $2,000 reverse osmosis systems in everyone’s houses around the country so what can people do to try to avoid this stuff well first um on the brida filters and the pure filters um and refrigerator filters um will not remove the fluoride so that’s the first thing people should know because those filters use an activated carbon technology which does not remove fluoride to remove fluoride you need to use a more robust filter like a reverse osmosis right you can get whole housee filters that use a deionization uh technology which can be effective um but as you know these filters are ex expensive you know they’re not you know like a brda they’re more expensive and that’s one of the problems with fluoridation is it’s they they target low-income communities under the premise that oh they need dental care and the premise that adding a cheap industrial chemical to the water constitutes dental care which I think is rather insulting but when you target low-income communities with floration you really deprive them of a choice because many families will not be able to afford a filter that can remove fluoride but I would also add Clayton for those who do want to reduce their exposure um another option is to um purchase spring water which you can get delivered to your house and like five gallon jugs um that has the benefit you don’t have to worry about the particular filter technology or replacing the the cartridges which I personally like I don’t want to have to think about have I replaced my cartridge like the last six months and stuff like that so that’s that’s something that you can look at as well and you can always call the company before you begin ordering you know the water and find out what the fluoride level is you want your fluoride level below 0.1 parch per million or 0.1 milligrams per liter and I definitely want it below 0.2 so I I I’d use that I’d use that as a rule of thumb um and that’s your by by by removing fluoride from your daily main source of of water that’s your that’s like the most important way of reducing your exposure but as you alluded to earlier when you adding fluoridation chemicals to over 200 million people’s water you are contaminating a whole bunch of processed foods and beverages that are made with that water like cocacola sodas juices beers so just because you’re removing the fluoride from your own water you’re still going to be exposed to fluoridated water when you drink that coke or you drink the beer because so many of these bottling plants are based in urban floridated areas right so that’s a problem that is really hard to avoid because these products don’t aren’t labeled so you can’t go to the store and say you know does this drink is it made with fluoridated water it’s not going to tell you that and that’s one of the reasons that we can’t just rely on individual action like you know buying yourself a filter or or spring water we need some form of policy action here because if we don’t have the policy action you’re going to be exposed to floridated water virtually every day through your processed foods and beverages so I guess the message of this holiday season is don’t drink water don’t drink just drink tequila that’s the only way be able to protect yourself anymore oh yeah that’s that’s why we need Federal action here absolutely at the top you know people can go and get these Primo water 5 gallon jugs which you know we have in our house too you can go to Walmart and Home Depot and Lowe’s they sell them right in the front there you can get the big jugs put them on a thing or you can have them delivered to your house um I guess it just comes down to economics if it makes sense for you and your family how much the price of those is compared to how much you’re spending on you know your home drinking water so yeah it’s a tough situation but thank you for your incredible uh bravery and fight on this I mean we wouldn’t be here without what you’ve been able to do and you and your team so thank you for this thank you for the fight and thank you for educating all of us about this we really appreciate it Michael well thank you Clayton I appreciate um the opportunity to come on here
Experience Free Speech
Welcome to the Conversation on Free Speech!
Welcome to Truly Right View!
We’re here to explore real, unfiltered truths—unswayed by media bias or government agendas.
What do you think? Are you ready to hear insights you won’t find elsewhere?
👉 Subscribe to the Truly Right View YouTube Channel | Rumble Channel and join our community dedicated to open dialogue.
What Does Free Speech Mean to You?
In today’s world, where tech giants and news outlets hold so much influence, is free speech at risk?
From silencing certain viewpoints to heavy censorship, the freedom to speak without fear is under threat.
Tell us your thoughts:
- Is free speech still a right everyone enjoys?
- Do you think we’re protecting it well enough?
🔍 Let’s dive into the heart of this discussion. Add your voice below!
Will You Speak Up or Stay Silent?
In the end, the future of free speech rests in our hands. We can either stand idly by as it is eroded by corporate and governmental overreach, or we can take action to protect and preserve it.
Will you speak up for your rights, or will you allow them to be taken away piece by piece?
The choice is yours.
Subscribe to the YouTube channel and the Rumble channel for Truly Right View today, and support our patriots shop together, let’s ensure that free speech remains the bedrock of our Constitutional Republic.
