The first email came in at 10:36 AM. The second one arrived at 3:00 PM. It was May 27. First JMU, and then CNU, were announcing COVID vaccine mandates. In the space of a few hours, the truth set in, that in 21st century America the Commonwealth of Virginia was coercing two of my children, on pain of expulsion from their University, into taking an experimental non-FDA-approved medical treatment with significant safety issues, with the stated goal of preventing a condition with 99.997% survivability in their age group, to protect a population for whom the same treatment is available free of charge to any who want it. It was a metaphorical kick in the teeth. I knew there were Ivy League schools that had mandated the vaccine, and Notre Dame. Maybe a few others. But that was just madness, a remote catastrophe, like a horrible train wreck you see on TV and think “It’s not going to happen here.” But it did.
I posted a few sentences on my Facebook page about it. I was still processing it, but I needed to just say what happened. I closed with a bitter observation: “We've become a nation of scared rats. It's quite likely this is only the beginning.”
One of my friends responded that I needed to gear up to fight this, and enlist others in the cause. He rattled off a list of things I could do. “Go to the mattresses. It will be quite an education for your kids, too”, he said. As I drove to work, I resolved quite firmly that I would not do any of those things. That would take over my life, and I needed my life. I thought of the family and work responsibilities that were already pressing in on me. There isn’t time for something like this. Maybe someone else will fight it. Maybe the mitigations won’t be so bad. I gotta hurry to make that 10:00 meeting.
That evening, I ended up on the CNU parents’ Facebook page, debating the science, decrying the attack on our children, and defending our freedom. To their credit, the admins let us have the debate, censoring posts only when people got ugly or political. The next day, I wrote a long letter to the Dean at CNU and posted it in the Facebook group. I asked the Admin to lock the thread, knowing that the salutary arguments were already out there, for anyone with eyes to see them.
But in the course of the debate, I had bumped into a few parents. We were messaging each other privately, asking what we should do. By the start of the weekend, I had just over a dozen parents in my chat. Everyone was distraught and feeling powerless, but no one was about to give up. These were all Moms in the chat with me. Most or all had supportive husbands who were 100% with them on the issue. But I was hanging out with the Mamma Bears who weren’t going to stand for anyone threatening their children. I was starting to think that staying out of the fight wasn’t really a viable option.
On Saturday, I decided to create a Slack team and move the discussion there, where we could structure it a bit and enjoy a richer interface. The Mamma Bears came right along. None of them had used Slack before, but they picked it up quickly. A few more joined us, and in a few days we had 26 people in the group. I really appreciated the mutual support, but 26 people against the rest of the world didn’t seem like very good odds. But then we started discovering that we weren’t alone, that there were other groups like us out there. And that changed everything.
I discovered a CNU parents group on Facebook, dedicated to opposition to the mandate. I messaged the admin and told her about the Slack group, and we immediately started working together. Within a few minutes, she was on our Slack team and I was in her Facebook group, and the members of both groups eventually started mixing as well. Meanwhile, I had previously gone to the JMU parents page and been very disappointed about the lack of critical response from the parents. There were only three comments on the post about the mandate, all of them just asking why they didn’t get the email. But now I had discovered a JMU parents Facebook group also opposed to the mandate, and I learned from them that the admins in the regular parents group had been aggressively censoring all posts speaking out against the mandate. I should have realized. But once again, there was a two-way transfer. The admins joined the other groups immediately, and the members began merging as well. We also discovered a Facebook group opposed to the mandates that wasn’t specific to a school, with university parents from all over, but mostly in Virginia. Again, a two-way transfer of admins and members ensued.
The Slack group was growing, and a few of us formed a leadership team to organize and focus our efforts. Just when we thought we might get a handle on it, there was another inflection point in the gathering of parents. UVA and Virginia Tech announced their mandates within a few days of each other, and almost instantly there was a flood of parents, which grew even larger as various other Virginia schools announced mandates also. The fat was in the fire. Many of these schools had anti-mandate Facebook groups too, and their admins discovered our Slack team and wanted to know if we could handle the influx. “Of course we can”, we replied, taking some liberties with the definition of “handle”.
Two weeks after thinking it was me and a dozen Mamma Bears, there were 325 members in the Slack group and multiple hundreds of parents in various Facebook groups, organizing for mutual support and action against the COVID vaccine mandates. The membership in all groups continues to increase and will likely be much greater by the time you read this. Facebook groups serve somewhat different purposes than the Slack group, and there are people who for various reasons only join one or the other. So we decided against consolidation of the groups, and instead we’re maintaining close cooperation through the leadership and broad mutual engagement among all the members. We’re raising funds, educating one another, coordinating letters to universities and health authorities, exploring various avenues of legal protection, exchanging ideas about obtaining vaccine exceptions and maintaining our children’s freedom during the mitigation regimes to be levied on the refuseniks, and much more.
One of our members introduced us to Marsha at Virginia Freedom Keepers, and so we’re discovering others who’ve been engaged in this same fight in a broader context than COVID. We’re learning that the assault on medical freedom was already here long before the madness that descended on the world in 2020. We’re not activists by temperament or desire, but we’ve been activated by the attack on our freedom. And now we’re learning that we are not alone in that either. The path to activism is not what I thought it was.
As I reflect on the groups that have spontaneously formed around this issue, there is one aspect of them that strikes me as extraordinary. Their need for leadership is purely functional—someone has to organize and focus the efforts. No one needs to be led in any other way. These parents are coming to us highly-educated on the facts, able to frame the issues fluently and cogently, clear-eyed about what is actually at stake, and committed in the depths of their minds and hearts to stand firm against the blind ambition of a public health regime that has lost its way.
But the outlines of a larger battle are clear in everyone’s mind as well. The relentless drive to give the COVID vaccines to younger and younger children warns of a catastrophic sequel, with mandates for the children likely to follow if we fail to oppose what is being done to adolescents and young adults. The regime of control is insatiable. To acquiesce in the usurpation of freedom over our own bodies, to surrender the bodily integrity of our children to the whims of the state, is to embrace the unthinkable. There is a dark and foreboding land on the other side of that Rubicon.
Thus we stand in the gap. Activists neither in temperament, desire, experience, nor skill, we are tutored by that greatest of all teachers, necessity. I rejected the mantle of activist because I needed my life. Now I realize that I must take up that mantle for the very same reason. And I am just one of many who have learned this sobering, but salutary, truth.
Concerned parents across the state of Virginia are reaching out as they receive letters from their local school boards about NEW immunization requirements.
These letters are demanding their children be injected with several immunizations for rare illnesses. These immunizations come with incredibly high rates of permanent adverse reactions, chronic illness and death.
In 2019 Delegate Hope, who has long standing ties to the pharmaceutical industry, was the patron of HB1090. This bill removed the legislature from the processes of adding to the school requirements and handed the power over to an unelected group of bureaucrats. This bill succeeded and goes into effect this summer.
Thousands of parents across the state actively opposed this bill by calling non stop, emailing, testifying and protesting. Not one member of the community spoke for this bill at anytime. Prior to the final vote the Governor called any democrats considering opposing it to his home for breakfast and ensured they would further the bill. Each one that promised to oppose this bill changed their vote after this breakfast. Almost every Senate Republican opposed this bill. One brave Democrat Senator abstained from voting. Prior to legislative session Governor Northam made a lucrative deal with a pharmaceutical company and has since worked diligently to further their influence and profit in the state.
Mandates are contrary to liberty and freedom. Mandates violate bodily autonomy. Mandates of liability free products remove all incentive for companies to make safer products.
The Supreme Court has ruled the vaccinations are "unavoidably unsafe."
In Virginia we have a facade of informed consent. Parents are given a VIS that has very limited information. True informed consent shows all aspects, consequences, risks and benefits.
Informed consent is an essential component of the Patients Bill of Rights, and must include the ability to decline. Informed consent and ability to decline without punishment is a human right.
Religious exemptions are still valid. Join the fight to oppose ALL mandates, secure liberty and ensure freedom.
Watch Virginians for Safe Technology's Communications Director Jenny DeMarco and Radio Frequency expert Mary Bauer talk about their new national wireless enforcement campaign with the National Health Federation!
Right now, as congress and the Biden Administration focuses on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, they'e simultaneously expanding the wireless broadband infrastructure at a staggering rate. These two goals are in direct conflict with one another because the Communications Technology (CT) industry is one of the largest polluters of GHG.
As it stands, the CT industry which includes wireless devices, cell towers, small cell facilities, cloud computing, data centers, and more is projected to use 51% of the world's power by 2030 - and the resulting GHG from fossil fuels will increase pollution exponentially; not to mention the detrimental impact of wireless radiation on our health, animals, plants, and all life on earth.
Our elected officials are voting to put pressure on farmers to give up agricultural land for reforestation and carbon sequestration, yet the telecom industry is getting a free pass from any industry mandates or accountability for CO2 reductions. Instead, the American Jobs Plan bill is slated to award the wireless industry at least $65 billion and there are 28 federal bills to further deregulate wireless broadband across the United States, including on federal land (think national parks). This is extremely concerning because ZERO of this money has been set aside to address any sort of enforcement or controls regarding the maximum permissible exposure limits to radiation, the carbon emission levels, and impact on public safety, our environment, cyber security, property values or privacy.
It’s never been more urgent to get protective radiation enforcement legislation passed in congress because the stakes are higher than they've ever been before. To help Virginians for Safe Technology and the National Health Federation build this grassroots effort, fill in your contact info in the enforcement and mitigation proposal below to trigger an email to be sent your US Rep & both Senators!
It is imperative to consider the serious legal, ethical, humanitarian and future societal changes related to the ‘vaccine passport’. Actions and legislation towards the implementation of systems that would validate an individual’s COVID-19 Vaccination status, AKA “COVID Passports” must be addressed.
COVID passports would be unprecedented, likely illegal, and contrary to the
principles and laws supporting privacy, freedom of assembly, individual choice in
how one’s health and wellbeing are created and sustained, bodily autonomy and,
not the least -- the impact to the loss of one’s liberty through a draconian division
Nothing could be more clearly singular in thinking than creating a (universal) system that demands that the whole ‘world’ meet the one metric of ‘proving health via vaccination’ than demanding a need for a global technology (likely digital – block chain) in order ‘prove’ the existence of one’s health status via a ‘passport’ preceded by the ‘uptake of the vaccine’.
“Global/Universal Digital Technology Mandated”
The concept of the COVID Passport introduces and demands evidence that others have participated in this effort – therefore – the need for a singular (universal) ‘smart technology’ to ‘prove receipt of the COVID-19 ‘vaccine’. The outcome, without going any further -- will have the effect of creating a tiered ‘health’ system and societal structure that will disenfranchise anyone who approaches health in a manner inconsistent with current dogma.
The obvious challenge – the COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ do not prevent infection or
of the ‘vaccinated’ versus ‘unvaccinated’ across societies.
and new legal rulings be needed to enforce the compliance of separating the vaccinated from the unvaccinated? How many adults will lose their jobs because the decline to participate in the one monolithic ‘health’ model?
prevention of transmission.
the World Health Organization (WHO) noted that “...there was not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee
A serious point of fact is that on April 24, of 2020,
Will police powers
the accuracy of an ‘immunity passport’ or ‘risk-free’ certificate’.”   The WHO position has not changed as of this date.
Segregation and Discrimination
It is also important to stress, the ‘one’ solution imposed within this argument is that there must be a system in place whereby one can only associate with other ‘like vaccinated’ people verse freely associating with others - -while living a fully healthy life outside of one’s vaccination status.
This either-or (only two choices) choice is antithetic to the very existence of human behavior, thinking and endeavors. There is not, nor will be a ‘one’ society whereby all are in agreement on how to create and sustain health. There has never been, nor through the imposition of a technology, a ‘one’ method to determine “health”.
Any actions towards this end will have long-lasting detrimental, chaotic and dangerous effects on humanity. This will cause tremendous upheaval between individuals, societies, competing belief systems, and societal modes of maintaining health. In other words – this won’t end well.
Precedent and Some additional points to consider:
• Virtually all existing U.S. vaccination requirements for schools  , U.S. citizenship, the Military, and health care workers contain exemptions for medical reasons, or reasons of religion or conscience.
vaccines from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) , Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health and Human Services (HHS), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)    and the manufactures are all clear that an EUA vaccine is optional.
. Language around these EUA
The business-customer use case for required vaccinations currently does not
entity would legitimately validate this PHI (the COVID passport) would be the actions specifically intended to be protested by HIPAA: Obtaining consent from the individual and transmitting, reading, and possibly storing PHI.
o The Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information (“Privacy
Rule”) establishes, for the first time, a set of national standards for the protection of certain health information. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) issued the Privacy Rule to implement the requirement of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”).1 The Privacy Rule standards address the use and disclosure of individuals’ health information—called “protected health information” by organizations subject to the Privacy Rule — called “covered entities,” as well as standards for individuals' privacy rights to understand and control how their health information is used. Within HHS, the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) has responsibility for implementing and enforcing the Privacy Rule with respect to
voluntary compliance activities and civil money penalties.
exist. As mentioned above, current vaccination requirements are limited to
schools, military, healthcare workers, and those applying for citizenship. And
these requirements have readily available exemptions. There is no precedent for
a place of business, an airline, a sports arena requiring vaccinations upon entry
with no accommodation for exemptions. While there appears to be demand for
the passport in industries such as the airlines, there is still much debate as to who
‘infrastructure’ to maintain such a global endeavor
made for the need for serious scrutiny behind demands for such efforts as
disagreement among nations and states with regard to how to build the
financial and economic control is embedded in these efforts.
It is also clear that there is much
. There can also be a case
individuals without COVID-19 antibodies as physically impaired and limit their
could not be reduced with reasonable accommodation
could be proven, employers must then provide accommodations such as working remote. Further, the guidance stated that the employer must provide reasonable accommodation for an employee unable to receive a vaccination due to disability, sincerely held religious belief, practice or
observance.” Finally, the guidance specifically pointed out the current EUA status of COVID-19 vaccines.
COVID Passports would, by design, coerce  individuals to be vaccinated in order to function in normal society. Coercion, tactics designed to ‘incentivize’ and to advantage one group over another is illegal.
The Covid Passport would be an unprecedented overreach and a massive infringement of individual liberty. And, as already stated – it has the very real potential to create a caste system and it could likely precipitate great civil unrest by favoring the vaccinated while discriminating (police force) against the un- vaccinated.
. In the event this
Please do everything within your power to ensure individuals continue to have the right to make their own private healthcare decisions.
COVID Passports: Contrary to HIPPA and existing US Domestic Vaccination Requirements
The purpose of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 is to define and protect the privacy of your Health Information and its intent was to cover entities who could potentially have access to your information.
Determination of your Vaccination Status by a business or entity would require transmitting and reviewing the PHI.
• And even more dangerous, HIPAA requires the individual to be given the opportunity to consent to their PHI being exposed. In a COVID Passport scenario, refusal to consent could mean denial of entry, service or even employment. All - an unprecedented violation of civil liberties.
HIPAA – if at all -- should clarify the definition of what can be considered Covered Entities and by extension, Business Associates, so that when a Public Health Emergency is declared by the Department of Health and Human Services (or government entity) -- a patient’s private PHI and civil liberties are protected as per the original intended laws.
See inserted notes and:
 https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/what-do-immunity-passports-and-vaccination-certificates-mean-covid-19- restrictions
 In April, the World Health Organization (WHO) cautioned against the use of immunity passports saying: “there is not enough evidence about the effectiveness of antibody-mediated immunity to guarantee the accuracy of an ‘immunity passport’ or ‘risk-free certificate’.” It recently confirmed that this
position has not changed.
 https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/immunity-passports-in-the-context-of-covid-19  https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exemption-state-laws.aspx
 https://health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Health-Readiness/Immunization-Healthcare/Clinical-Consultation- Services/Exemption-Guidance
 https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/federal-law-prohibits-employers-and-others-from-requiring- vaccination-with-a-covid-19-vaccine-distributed-under-an-eua/
 https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo- laws
 https://institute.global/policy/digital-identity-missing-piece-governments-exit-strategy  https://institute.global/policy/architecture-containment-getting-gold
 https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/coronavirus- mandatory-vaccinations.aspx
 US Bases in California: Mandating the RT-PCR and experimental COVID vaccines also violates California State law (CA Health & Safety Code § 24172). 10 Federal and State law on this matter rest on the first principle of the Nuremberg Code requiring that the human subject be “so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress or other forms of constraint or coercion.”  https://www.hipaajournal.com/hipaa-and-hitech/
Example letter to object to covid vaccine clinics
To Whom it May Concern,
I am writing as a (who are you).
It is of grave concern to me that the (CHURCH/SCHOOL/PLACE) is considering hosting a Covid 19 vaccine clinic. I am currently reviewing the many of the numbers of death and injuries attributed to these liability free medical products, and the numbers are sky rocketing.
A huge concern is pathogenic priming. In every previous attempt to develop a Corona category virus vaccine all of the subjects initially developed antibodies. When they were later exposed to the virus they all died of cytokine storms within a short time because the antibodies they developed turned on their systems.
There is significant concerns about the mRNA vaccines being tested on aborted fetal cell lines. Another concern is that the mRNA alters the current natural mRNA and changes the “messaging” to cells. The long term effects of this are unknown but even lead scientists at Gavi and Pfizer are predicting that it will be catastrophic.
I would be grateful to discuss this with you further and provide the data and studies that support this information.
I urge you to provide full and complete informed-consent to anyone considering taking these medical products. This should include;
1. These products are liability free for manufacturers.
2. They were tested on aborted fetal cell lines.
3. The federal government has paid out over 4.6 billion in vaccine death and injury since 1986, and Harvard studies show that only attributes to less than 1% of the total numbers of death and injuries.
4. These products were not animal tested, but in very similar previous animal testing all subjects died within the year.
5. These products have no long term studies, have not been study to see if they cause cancer and were not studied in diverse populations or on those with chronic illness.
6. These products are experimental and not FDA approved. Long term effects are completely unknown.
7. Manufacturers claim that vaccine will not stop transmission, but hopes to lessen symptoms if contracted. The same thing can be achieved with high doses of vitamins D&C.
8. Initial licensing requests for the mRNA products have them listed as gene therapy, not immunizations.
For a virus with a survival rate of 99% in all age categories these experimental products are likely more dangerous then the illness itself.
Please, decline hosting a clinic. It is imperative that your (members/clients/base) know these details and do not feel any coercion to participate.
Example Letter to send to school boards in Virginia
Dear Superintendent and School Board Members,
Today, Parents and Virginia residents, focused on possible COVID-19 vaccine mandates as a condition of in-school and/or virtual learning, release a letter to Virginia School Supervisors, Superintendents and School Board Members, to include associated Virginia Board of Education (VDOE) members. Specifically, this release applies to a possible mandate of products that have Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).
The EUA Statute authorizes the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to declare a health emergency and authorize the use of drugs, treatments, or other products that may be beneficial but have not yet been demonstrated to be safe or effective and are thus only available for use under the EUA. The federal COVID EUA was declared by HHS Secretary Azar on April 1, 2020 and includes numerous authorizations for a wide range of products, none of which are fully approved, and all of which may be offered only on a voluntary — not a mandatory — basis.
These products include tests for SARS COV-2 and experimental injections for COVID-19, such as the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots, and the Johnson & Johnson recombinant vaccine.
There are substantial known and unknown risks associated with using any EUA product, including in the context of COVID. EUA products are, by definition, experimental and investigational; anyone administering or receiving an EUA product is participating in a medical experiment. That is precisely why EUA products cannot be mandated.
Among the key product types authorized for COVID-related EUAs are:
1. devices, systems and procedures that may detect the possible presence of some viral material in a person (i.e., “tests” or “RT-PCR tests” or “antigen tests” or “antibody tests”);
2. wearable devices that may have some effect on reducing transmission (i.e., “masks” or “Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)”); and
3. two different manufacturers’ mRNA injectable drug treatments delivered via two consecutive shots (i.e., “vaccines”).
4. one manufacturer’s recombinant single-shot vaccine.
For these — or any other EUA products — to be distributed and used, disclosure documents published by the FDA for each product must be provided at the time of distribution to all potential users, detailing the potentially significant risks and benefits associated with use of that specific product. Additionally, extensive protocols are required by federal law for assessing the effectiveness and safety of EUA products, while also protecting users’ medical health, privacy and other guaranteed rights.
Please find the letter below as it pertains to our concerns.
Parents of children in Virginia schools are aware that there are several discussions across the State of Virginia addressing a need (possible mandate) to add COVID-19 products and shots as a condition of back to school in-person and/or virtual attendance. Further, there are indications that amount to de facto mandates as a mechanism of coercion or compliance – such as threat of job loss or losing classroom access. These concerns are also detailed in this letter. De facto mandates are illegal.
The purpose of this letter is to help you to understand the science, law and policy as summarized below. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to open safely, legally and ethically.
As the world learns to navigate COVID-19, opening schools safely is of paramount importance and in everyone’s best interest. Broadly, we have learned some school districts across the US intend to mandate frequent Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing  on students and, when investigational COVID-19 vaccines are available to children, intend to mandate students and employees be vaccinated as a condition of attending school. This is a trend that is increasingly becoming evidenced in Virginia.
Protracted school closures have created an educational and mental health emergency amongst students, due to learning loss from remote learning and isolation from their peers, canceled sports, cultural activities, religious gatherings, jobs and other support systems. More than one year after the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic, one of the worst consequences may not be directly caused by the virus, but rather by school closures, isolation and lockdown measures that have sent the suicide rates surging significantly among children in the U.S. and other countries. 
Since the pandemic began in March of 2020 and schools closed their doors, reports of suicidal thoughts, attempts and cries for help among children have increased significantly across the nation, according to numerous studies.
There are ways to open schools safely. Many schools are opening without testing or vaccine requirements. We invite you to learn more about how Alsea School Superintendent Marc Thielman opened schools in an Oregon county in Fall 2020 without incident. 
Mandating products approved for emergency use violates federal and state law since Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) means the products are investigational and experimental. Federal and state laws are very clear that mandates are illegal for EUA products. Both the RT-PCR test and all COVID vaccines are not FDA-approved; they are only available under an EUA.
The right to fully-informed consent has roots in the Nuremberg Code, which states the consent of the individual is “absolutely essential.”5 If an intervention causes greater harm, is ineffective for the stated aim, and illegal, as such you must re-evaluate implementing the proposed interventions as a condition for students to return to in-person learning.
Below we address the issues with this approach in four sections:
1. The law surrounding Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA), under which both the RT-PCR and COVID investigational vaccines are being used on the public;
2. Peer-reviewed science regarding
1. (2a) The RT-PCR test, demonstrating that it is not a diagnostic tool and cannot determine if someone is sick or infectious, and;
2. (2b) Emerging issues with the investigational COVID vaccine;
3. Creation of on-campus COVID testing and vaccination centers; and
4. Your institution’s real legal liability should you proceed with any plans to mandate investigational testing protocols or vaccines.
Note that while vaccine manufacturers may be shielded from liability by 42 USC 300aa-11 and 42 USC 300aa-22, your institution is not protected.6
You are hereby officially on notice that if you illegally or irresponsibly mandate products on students or public-school employees, we may have no recourse but to take legal action. As an example, Children’s Health Defense has initiated a related suit in New York against the NYC Department of Education and Mayor de Blasio for arbitrary school closures and coerced PCR testing as a condition to in-person learning privileges.7 (Aviles, et al. V. de Blasio, et al. 20-CV-09829 (PGG))
(1) Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA): Illegal to Mandate Products Under EUA
PCR testing and COVID vaccines are not fully licensed products. They are EUA products,8 which by their very nature are legally considered investigational. As these are experimental medical products, it is unlawful and unethical for schools to mandate either the RT-PCR test or any currently available COVID vaccine. Federal law confirms explicitly that an EUA product must be voluntary because the federal statute requires “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”9
Federal and State laws on this matter rest on the first principle of the Nuremberg Code requiring that the human subject be “so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress or other forms of constraint or coercion.” This is a bright line that cannot be blurred.
Of note, specific laws such as the US Federal Regulations, notably the National Research Act [Title II, Public Law 93-348],11 Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research [45 CFR 46]12 and revisions of various regulations, rules, and laws ([21 CFR 50]13, [21 CFR 56]14, [45 CFR 46 Subpart D]15, [10 CFR 745]16, [45 CFR 46 Subpart B]17, [45 CFR 46 Subpart D]18) specifically and permanently guarantee that all persons in the United States are entitled to exercise the right of informed consent to accept or to refuse to enroll in any medical experiment.
The CDC admits that it is illegal and unethical to mandate PCR testing in schools.19 Moreover, the States, and therefore public schools, cannot mandate the PCR test or COVID vaccines because the FDA and courts have found the federal preemption doctrine prevents states, and therefore public schools, from going outside the bounds of the Emergency Use Authorization law.20
This was also confirmed again last year at a CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting in August 2020, where ACIP Executive Secretary Amanda Cohn, MD stated:
“I just wanted to add that, just wanted to remind everybody, that under an Emergency Use Authorization, an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandated.”21
In conclusion, the law is clear that States, and therefore public schools, cannot mandate experimental products and are preempted from mandating an EUA product.22 The soonest the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech experimental vaccines could be considered by FDA for full licensure (in adults only) is when the trials are expected to conclude, on October 27, 2022 and January 31, 2023, respectively.
(2) The Faults with RT-PCR Testing and Emerging Dangers of the COVID Vaccines
The FDA may someday grant full licensure to the RT-PCR test and some COVID vaccines. For now, these products are approved for investigational emergency use only, as described above, so the problems with the reliability of the test and vaccine efficacy and safety are not technically relevant to the illegality of mandates.
Since the FDA may grant full licensure at some point, which may make it legal to consider mandating them, we must also advise you of the medical and scientific issues that make school mandates dangerous to the health and safety of the educational community under any circumstances.
Below we detail (a) documented issues with the reliability of the PCR test; and (b) COVID vaccine science showing no disruption of person-to-person transmission, concerning safety data, and other issues regarding COVID vaccines and children.
(a) Issues with PCR Testing as a Condition for In-person Learning or Teaching
In the event that Virginia tries to enforce PCR tests as a stipulation and requirement to return to school, with the penalty of withholding access to in-person education if testing is not completed, we remind you that the CDC has declared mandatory PCR testing unethical and illegal.
The RT-PCR test does not confirm infectiousness. The tests cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments (live or dead nucleotides).
Food & Drug Administration (FDA) guidance states the RT-PCR test must only be used in the presence of symptoms. As such, the RT-PCR should never be used on healthy people, and should only be used in a clinical setting combined with an exam by a licensed medical professional.
On July 17, 2020 and updated on July 20, 2020, the CDC recommends a symptoms-based strategy for testing, meaning only those with symptoms should consider being tested.23
The EUA for the Roche PCR test states “positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status.”24
The Roche EUA also states “positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses.” Any positive PCR test is unconfirmed if the patient is not also tested for flu, pertussis, tuberculosis, or many of the other 1400 human pathogens associated with symptoms similar to COVID-19. Skipping this standard differential diagnosis results in confirmation bias, attributing all symptoms like cough or a fever to COVID.
Since the RT-PCR test Cycle threshold (Ct) in the U.S. is set too high – at a Ct of 40 – it can amplify a low viral load and be erroneously conflated with infectiousness.25 On January 21, 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) further clarified that “careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed. The Ct needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different nucleic acid test (NAT) technology.”26
Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institutes for Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health, acknowledged in July 2020 that a positive RT-PCR test above a 35 Ct is meaningless.
(“[I]f you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more, …the chance of it being replication-competent are [sic] miniscule. And we have patients – and it’s very frustrating for the patients as well as for the physicians – somebody comes in and they repeat their PCR, and it’s like 37 cycle thresholds, but you almost never can culture virus for a 37-cycle threshold. So, I think if someone does come in with 37-38, even 36, you got to say, ‘You know, it’s just dead nucleotides, period.”27
Anthony Fauci’s “Dead Nucleotide” Statements
The primary issues that must be called into question is that there will be many that don’t have the ‘disease’ yet may still test positive for the presence of viral fragments based on the flawed testing and kits, inconsistent assay and lack of standardization across labs around the world. Further - Anthony Fauci recently referred to the ‘viral fragment issues as the “dead nucleotides” problem.
Dr. Fauci: “Right again, a good question and what is now sort of, uh, evolving into a bit of a standard that if you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more that the chances of it being replication competent are minuscule so that if somebody and you know we do we have patients and it’s very frustrating for the patients as well as for the physicians somebody comes in and they repeat their PCR and it’s like 37 cycle threshold but you never if you almost never can culture virus from a 37-threshold cycle so I think if somebody does come in with 37 38 even 36 you got to say you know it’s just it’s just dead nucleotides, period. – Anthony Fauci (This Week in Virology, July 17, 2020)
In fact, 97% of PCR positives are false positives if the cycle threshold is higher than 35. A critical review of the seminal Corman-Drosten study which established PCR testing standards concluded:
“In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detect signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”28
If you only read one reference in this entire letter, it should be the above to the Corman-Drosten Review: www.cormandrostenreview.com. This paper describes in detail most of the shortcomings of the PCR test that is driving the fear of SARS CoV-2, the virus said to cause the symptoms called COVID-19.
Returning to the most egregious problem with the RT-PCR test, a scientific literature review study by Tom Jefferson MD found specific Ct values correlate with infectiousness or lack thereof, and suggests that a Ct of 35 is still too high: “The inability of PCR to distinguish between the shedding of live virus or of viral debris, means that it cannot measure a person’s viral load (or quantity of virus present in a person’s excreta).” In the review, all tests with Ct >30 resulted in non-infectious specimen. Jefferson also stated “weak positives (those with high Ct) are unlikely to be infectious, as a whole live virus is the prime requirement for transmission, not the fragments identified by PCR.”29
The RT-PCR test being set at a Ct of 40 in the United States is indeed far too high and creates what has been termed a “casedemic,” disrupting all of society but especially children’s education and mental health. We do not think Virginia public schools should consider furthering this problem by requiring a test that the scientific community has found to be utterly unreliable.
Even if RT-PCR tests do gain full licensure someday, Virginia schools would need to certify to the students, staff and family the following, before our education system is further disrupted by a test that delivers a majority of false positives and doesn’t measure infectiousness:
1. Provide all students and staff with fully informed consent and advise them of their right to decline taking a test, and the right for asymptomatic students and teachers to be in the classroom. In other words, testing must be voluntary.
2. Refer symptomatic children and staff to their primary care physician for voluntary testing and treatment. Students and staff can return to in-person learning or work when they are symptom-free or have quarantined for the recommended 7 to 10 days.
3. The primary care physician must rule out – via antibody or PCR testing – the other human pathogens that can cause symptoms similar to COVID-19.
4. For any tests run on a student or staff member by the primary care physician, confirm the RT-PCR Cycle threshold is 28 or less, since that is the highest Ct with proof of replication-competent virus.
5. Confirm with a DNA or RAT test that the presumptively ‘positive’ sample is positive and not just picking up dead RNA fragments or background noise by using Sanger sequencing on every potentially positive test, and then confirming any potential positives with a human cell culture to verify the existence of replication competent virus. If the sample is unable to be cultured, then the individual is not infectious.
6. Demand that the test report includes viral load information, and not just a binary reading.
7. Per the 1/21/21 WHO guidance, perform a second test if the first one is positive.
8. Do not rely on antigen tests which are also fraught with issues of false positives and false negatives.
Current CDC guidance on testing in school settings states:
If a school is implementing a testing strategy [i.e., testing healthy and sick, not based on symptoms,] testing should be offered on a voluntary basis. It is unethical and illegal to test someone who does not want to be tested, including students whose parents or guardians do not want them to be tested.30
Please also keep in mind that according to the CDC, schools should be the first to reopen and the last to close.31
Given the above, the best course of action for the CDE and Districts is to ensure that sick students stay home, as has been the policy for pre-COVID times. There are already many other evidence-based protocols in place to allow safe return to in-person schooling, such as: hand washing, temperature-taking, suggesting sick students stay home until symptoms have resolved, classroom disinfection, and improved HVAC systems. Students should not be the victims of an experimental test, which will lead to a furthering of the Educational Emergency and even more social isolation that leads to mental health issues and suicide.
(b) Children are Not Asymptomatic Vectors; Science Shows COVID Vaccines are Risky
It is well-accepted that children have a statistically zero chance of dying from COVID. The CDC shows the K-12 mortality rate from or with COVID is .00003.32 Any intervention, especially one that is prophylactic, must cause fewer harms to the recipients than the infection. Since children have the lowest death rate from COVID infection, the cost-benefit of administering to children an investigational vaccine with emerging safety issues is especially difficult to justify. Therefore, it is clearly irrational to vaccinate children with a COVID vaccine to protect them from death.
Given these facts, an unfounded theory has emerged to use students as pawns who, if vaccinated, could somehow stop transmission to teachers and school staff. However, the data show: students are not asymptomatic carriers, they and teachers have far lower rates of COVID diagnosis than the general population, and the vaccine does not prevent person-to-person transmission.
Contrary to popular opinion, asymptomatic transmission is unfounded. Students are not disease reservoirs and are clearly not COVID vectors. The School Response COVID Dashboard shows that students and staff are among the least likely to be diagnosed with COVID. Compared to the positivity rate of 8.1% in the general California population in the most recently available data period (12/13/20), only 0.56% of California students tested positive for COVID, and the staff positivity rate was only 1.46%, even though teachers are daily interacting with students. This proves it is a significant mistake to assume children are asymptomatic vectors.33 In fact, in Germany, students are valued as the “brakes” to COVID transmission.34
A recent CDC-funded study in Wisconsin concluded no staff members were infected by children, and transmission rates were very low:
In a setting of widespread community SARS-CoV-2 transmission, few instances of in-school transmission were identified among students and staff members, with limited spread among children within their cohorts and no documented transmission to or from staff members. Only seven of 191 cases (3.7%) were linked to in-school transmission, and all seven were among children.35
You may be surprised to learn that Sweden – the country that famously did not lock down – had an excellent outcome among children. “Despite Sweden’s having kept schools and preschools open, we found a low incidence of severe Covid-19 among schoolchildren and children of preschool age during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Among the 1.95 million children who were 1 to 16 years of age, 15 children had Covid-19, MIS-C, or both conditions and were admitted to an ICU, which is equal to 1 child in 130,000.”36
A meta-analysis of 54 studies on transmission amongst almost 78,000 participants found that only 0.7% of cases attributed to “household transmission” could have spread from pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic carriers in the household.37
Additionally, a study among 10 million residents of Wuhan China demonstrated that asymptomatic transmission was non-existent.38 Among 300 possible carriers, “virus cultures were negative for all asymptomatic positive and re-positive cases, indicating no “viable virus” in positive cases detected in this study. All asymptomatic positive cases, re-positive cases and their close contacts were isolated for at least 2 weeks until the results of nucleic acid testing were negative. None of detected positive cases or their close contacts became symptomatic or newly confirmed with COVID-19 during the isolation period.”
In contrast, a widely-quoted CDC-endorsed study claiming 59% of cases were due to asymptomatic transmission enrolled no subjects and is merely a mathematical model.39
In a 2020 Health & Human Services press conference, Dr. Fauci stated “even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks.40 The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there’s a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.”
Given the statistically zero COVID death rate in children, the low rate of COVID positivity in children, and the lack of asymptomatic spread, there is absolutely no case for the vaccination of children to protect them or others from COVID.
Should COVID vaccines become fully licensed in the future and still be (inexplicably) under consideration for schoolchildren and staff after reviewing the above, we explain below how the COVID investigational vaccines do not prevent person-to-person transmission and are fraught with mounting safety issues as reported in the media, in the V-Safe App (used post-vaccination by study participants,) and in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS.) Most significantly, the investigational vaccines have not been tested in children.
(c) No “immunity” and those ‘vaccinated’ can also become infected and transmit – Now What?
Since the COVID vaccines do not prevent person-to-person transmission, it is irresponsible to think this medical product could somehow protect adults by vaccinating children.
Among other scientific data and research – Virginia Educators and decisionmakers are directed to the results of the Moderna and Pfizer clinical trial results and the official data used to obtain the EUA. Regrettably, there has been a significant amount of misinformation on the meaning of the “95% Effective” statistical results. It is critical to stress that the protocols from Moderna and Pfizer did not choose ‘death’, ‘hospitalization’, ‘cessation of transmission’ or ‘prevention of infection’ as their primary efficacy endpoint. Stated differently, these categories were not included for measurement and no data were submitted for EUA approval based on these categories. The final trial data reported the ‘efficacy’ results of symptom reduction. This is key!
In other words, a proper interpretation of the results must clearly state that one would have a statistical chance of 95% ‘effective’ (relative risk terms used in the trial data) of having a symptom reduction. The key statistical terms that must be understood are here:
| Absolute Risk (AR) | Relative Risk (RR) | Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) | Primary Efficacy Endpoint
In sum: A Statistical Chance of having a Symptom Reduction Does Not Equal “Immunity” post ‘vaccination’.
Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted in October the goal of COVID vaccines is to provide personal protection only, not to prevent death, or person-to-person transmission. Fauci said he and his colleagues would “settle for … the primary endpoint to prevent clinically recognizable disease.”41 Moderna Chief Medical Officer Tal Zaks stated “our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission, because … you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable,” citing the need for a five-to-ten times longer trial length and even higher costs.42
Through April 09, 2021, 2,602 U.S. deaths43 have been reported after COVID vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS.)44 There are almost 68,347 total COVID vaccine reactions reported to VAERS so far, including 5,074 reports for hospitalization-required adverse events. A CDC-funded study at Harvard Pilgrim concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported” to VAERS, a passive reporting system. Therefore, it is reasonable to multiply any reported events by 100 to approximate the actual number of deaths and adverse events after any vaccination. In fact, the COVID vaccine serious injury rate, based on the December Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting covering the first five days of COVID vaccination is 2.8%.47 Note that all approved COVID vaccines require two doses, so these data are mostly based on one dose. In the trials, the second dose was much more reactogenic, so we expect the serious injury rate to be much higher after the second dose.
In addition to these government-documented safety issues, hundreds of catastrophic injuries – like life-threatening anaphylaxis and a bizarre shaking syndrome – and deaths have been reported in the media and on social media.48 While there have been recent attempts to dismiss deaths that have occurred within minutes to hours after vaccinations, it remains imperative that these are investigated. These vaccines use brand new mRNA technology with known complications — and we can certainly anticipate many more unforeseen complications.50
In fact, today there are about two dozen vaccines in use in the United States and another 66 have been withdrawn, most for safety issues, such as LymeRix, RotaShield and DTP.51 These fully licensed vaccines were judged as safe with government approval. This shows a vaccine withdrawal rate of 73%. If three-quarters of fully licensed vaccines are withdrawn, the probability of a warp speed experimental vaccine being withdrawn is far higher.
We urge you not to put schoolchildren in harm’s way with an untested new technology in a quixotic attempt to prevent them from being asymptomatic vectors. COVID vaccines are more like a high-risk prophylactic drug that might only benefit the recipient, not anyone around them. There is no place for medical mandates, especially not for interventions that only provide personal protection. That is an individual choice. As mentioned above, manufacturers enjoy full liability protection when people are injured or killed by vaccines. The school district does not.
(3) On-Campus COVID Testing and Vaccination Sites
The CDE and some public-school districts are contemplating or attempting to create COVID testing sites on school campuses. For all the reasons stated above, there should be no such sites established on any Virginia public school campuses or school properties. While voluntary community or school testing might initially seem benign, these sites could easily be converted into vaccination centers for students, staff and the public. Again, because of the experimental nature of the vaccine, this too would be highly inappropriate.
(4) School District and Department of Education Legal Liability
In summary, mandating EUA products is illegal. Further, mandates do not allow for informed consent.
Relying on the RT-PCR or any other investigational testing product will lead to over-diagnosis and avoidable harms to many students and staff, including a discriminatory system where those who test negative can move freely while those who do not wish to be tested or those who test positive – even falsely positive – are denied their rights to an education and to work.
Those who are forced to learn remotely do not have equal access. Remote learning disadvantages the poor: some may not have a fast internet connection, and students may not have a quiet room with a computer to learn away from family distractions and household/neighborhood noise. Requiring students and staff to take an investigational vaccine with known safety issues is reckless and will cause injury and death for which school districts and the VDOE will be liable.
It is our sincere hope that the quorum that represents the Virginia Educators would never seriously consider such mandates.
We respect your position and fully appreciate your duty to educate children safely. The individual parents and Virginia residences that have raised these concerns will follow up with you to ensure you understand both the law and science. We aim to help you make the right decisions for the children of Virginia.
Concerned Parents across Virginia
 Usually conducted via nasal swab.
 (Decl. Varma ecf 19 P.43.)
 ” 21 USCS § 360bbb-3 (“Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies”).
 US Centers for Disease Control (September 2020), August 2020 ACIP Meeting – COVID-19 vaccine supply & next steps. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/videos/low-res/acipaug2020/Covid-19Supply-NextSteps_3_LowRes.mp4 (@1:14:40)
 See e.g., Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 570-71 (2001)
 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/disposition-in-home-patients.html and https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isolation.html
 TWiV 641: COVID-19, Video interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci, This Week in Virology, 4:22-5:10 (Jul. 16, 2020), at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE
 https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-07-13/german-study-shows-low-coronavirus-infection-rate-in-schools and https://theweek.com/speedreads-amp/925304/german-researchers-argue-children-may-act-brake-coronavirus-infections
 Usually conducted via nasal swab.
Natasha is a registered dental hygienist and advocate for medical freedom and informed consent. You can find at @empoweredmamamovement. For more in depth information on fluoride research and updates on the ongoing fluoride lawsuit against the EPA, visit www.fluoridealert.org
The implementation of community water fluoridation is considered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to be one of the “top ten public achievements of the 20th century” (Pollick, 2014). Fluoride’s vital role in preventing tooth decay is praised and promoted in the dental profession and taught determinedly in dental and dental hygiene schools. Some may conclude that with both the government’s support and implementation of water fluoridation as well as the heavy emphasis that is placed on fluoridation by the dental community, it would seem absurd to question such a miracle substance. However, fluoride has been shown to not only fail to meet the claims of reducing caries and decay, but has also been linked to many major health concerns such as interfering with thyroid function, decreased fertility, lowered IQ, premature birth and low birth weight babies, and more.
The first city to be introduced to community water fluoridation was Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945 (Pollick, 2014). Since that time, water fluoridation has become a standard for cities throughout the United States, with over 64% of the U.S. participating in the program (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016). Ethically, it is argued that community water fluoridation contributes greatly to the core value of justice and fairness, ensuring that all people have access to such a preventative measure.
water fluoridation is a breech of informed consent
But the question must be asked: is community water fluoridation truly ethical from a healthcare standpoint to begin with? Informed consent is a major legal and ethical concept that is required of healthcare providers. By definition informed consent “is the process by which the treating health care provider discloses appropriate information to a competent patient so that the patient may make a voluntary choice to accept or refuse treatment” (DeBord, 2014). By treating water with medication in the form of fluoride, the government is violating an individual’s right to consent to this mass medical treatment of water. Swedish pharmacologist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, stated: “In modern pharmacology it’s so clear that even if you have a fixed dose of a drug, the individuals respond very differently to one and the same dose. Now, in this case, you have it in the water and people are drinking different amounts of water. So you have huge variations in the consumption of this drug...it’s against all modern principles of pharmacology’’ (National Health Federation, 2010).
the oral-systemic link
The status of one’s overall health can be related to his or her oral health. Oftentimes dental professionals are the first to notice signs of vitamin deficiencies, illnesses, and diseases such as diabetes or AIDS which manifest themselves in the oral cavity. However, when asked about fluorosis and the significance of its presence, dental professionals answer that fluorosis is a cosmetic discoloration of teeth due to excessive fluoride. The CDC states that fluorosis is simply “a change in the appearance of the tooth enamel” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). If the oral health of an individual is truly a window to their overall health, as is often said in the dental community, then perhaps the presence of fluorosis is indicative of a greater problem than simply the discoloration of enamel. It is contradictory to think that the overconsumption of fluoride that is manifesting itself in the teeth is not having an affect on the remainder of the human biological system. In his journal article A Surfeit of Fluoride?, Dr. Geoffrey Smith posed the question: “Are we to regard dental fluorosis as nothing more than a cosmetic aberration- something akin to freckles? Or is it possible that dental fluorosis is not an isolated subclinical symptom, and that plasma fluoride levels which can damage developing tooth cells may also endanger other cells and their enzyme systems in the body?” (Smith, 1985). Smith also compared the presence of fluorosis to what is known as the Burton line, a bluish-black line visible on the gingiva when chronic lead poisoning is present. He suggests that just as the Burton line is a clear indicator of chronic lead poisoning, fluorosis is an indication that fluoride poisoning has occurred in the body (Smith, 1985).
evidence of the ability of water fluoridation to decrease decay is lacking
Despite many claims, evidence and analyses fail to present a correlation between fluoride consumption and decreased caries rates. According to the World Health Organization, the mean number of DMFT (Decayed Missing Filled Teeth) per person in Sweden and Denmark, neither of which fluoridate their water or salt, was 0.8 (Malmo University Oral Health Database, n.d.). Alternatively, the United States and Australia, both of which have a high percentage of community water fluoridation, have a higher DMFT number of 1.19 and 1.0, respectively (Malmo University Oral Health Database, n.d.). To account for potential health and social differences between these countries, these trends were also found to be true within the United States from data collected by the National Institute of Dental Research. This analysis found that of 39,207 children surveyed in the United States, there was no statistically significant difference between the decay rates of permanent teeth in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated communities (Yiamouyiannis, 1990). Despite the implementation of community water fluoridation in the large majority of the United States, dental caries remains the most prevalent chronic disease in the United States in both children and adults, with 92% of American adults having had caries in their permanent teeth (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, 2014).
the harms of fluoride: decreased iq, thyroid issues, premature birth, and more
Of greater importance than the lack of correlation between fluoridated water and dental caries prevalence are the many harmful effects that fluoride may have on the human body. A 2005 study found that children in India who were exposed to 4.37 ppm fluoride levels exhibited low levels of free triiodothyronine (T3), a hormone that is essential for proper functioning of the thyroid. Researchers found that the fluoride competitively binds with iodine, thus interfering with the synthesis and obstruction of thyroid hormones T3 and T4 (Peckham & Awofeso, 2014). While fluoride levels of 4.37 ppm are well above what is recommended in U.S. community water, the concern is still valid as to the safety and non-consequential claims of those who advocate fluoride. Another study found that 54% of children who exhibited dental fluorosis also exhibited irregular thyroid hormone levels. Those who were exposed to fluoride but did not exhibit dental fluorosis still had “well defined hormonal derangements” when exposed to fluoridated water levels ranging from 0.14-0.73 ppm. (Susheela, Bhatnagar, Vig, & Mondal, 2005).
Surprisingly, the American Dental Association was aware of some of the potential problems that fluoride could present. In 1944, just one year prior to the introduction of community water fluoridation, the ADA denounced water fluoridation stating: “We do know the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3.0 parts per million of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spondylosis, and osteopetrosis, as well as goiter, and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances in applying what is at present a doubtful procedure intended to prevent development of dental disfigurements among children” (Anthony, 1944). Anthony goes on to conclude that although fluoride may initially appear attractive to treat the mass prevalence of caries, the lack of knowledge of it’s effects creates a potential for harm which would far outweigh the potential for good (Anthony, 1944).
Perhaps one of the more well known and groundbreaking studies regarding the toxicity of fluoride is an analysis done by researchers from Harvard School of Public Health and Chinese Medical University which presented strong evidence that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development of children. Researchers found that data gathered from 27 published studies performed over the course of 22 years suggested that there was a correlation between children who were exposed to high fluoride levels and lowered IQ. This research “suggests that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that cause toxicity in adults” (Choi, Sun, Zhang, & Grandjean, 2012). Additional research has demonstrated similar correlations. Over 200 animals and human studies have found evidence of fluoride negatively affecting intelligence, ability to learn and remember, neurobehavioral deficits such as impaired visual-spacial organization, and impaired fetal brain development (Fluoride Alert, 2017).
A.K. Susheela is a researcher at the forefront of fluoride toxicity research and has published over 80 articles on the topic. Susheela found that when fluoride was reduced in 2,500 anemic children and adolescents, 81% of the children in the study exhibited “corrected” anemia and normal red blood cell counts within six months (Susheela, Gupta, & Mondal, 2016). Susheela suggests that this correlation between ingested fluoride and anemia plays a major role in preterm births and low birth weight babies due to fluoride’s ability to decrease production of red blood cells. In addition to a decreased production of erythrocytes, her research has shown that fluoride causes premature death of red blood cells. In one of Susheela’s studies, 90 out of 205 pregnant women with anemia were told to avoid fluoridated water and other fluoride- containing products. At the end of the study, the sample group had considerably better body mass indexes, indicative of better absorption of nutrients. The majority of them also exhibited increased hemoglobin counts. Lastly, of the women who were told to avoid fluoride, 32% of the group delivered before 37 weeks, whereas 50% of the women in the control group delivered prior to 37 weeks. These findings are of particular interest due to the long term mental and physical effects that preterm birth may cause, as well as the abnormally high number of preterm births in the United States (MacArthur, 2013). Various studies have also found fluoride to contribute to decreased total fertility rates (Freni, 2009), sperm toxicity, and impaired fetal neurodevelopment (MacArthur, 2013).
a biological mechanism to protect against fluoride
It is unreasonable to think that the addition of fluoride, which has no known metabolic function in the body, is not an essential nutrient, and is not found in significant quantities in human breast milk (Stegeman & Davis, 2015) can be added to water with no consequence to the natural mechanisms of the human body. The human body through evolution and/or divine design was made to function properly, and has done so for millions of years. The addition of fluoride is not necessary, nor is there adequate research to support the infiltration of fluoride into the bodies of millions of people. Evidence of this can be seen in results that were found by coincidence at Yale University’s Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Microbiology and bioinformatic researchers were studying types of noncoding RNA called riboswitches which help control gene expression. During their research, a new riboswitch was discovered for which the researchers could not pinpoint it’s function. By accident, the team received a contaminated fluoride-spiked chemical sample which allowed them to determine that this particular riboswitch was associated with fluoride. It was concluded that this fluoride-sensitive riboswitch is one of the few riboswitches that is present in both bacteria and archaea. According to researchers, what this widespread occurrence suggests is that cells have developed “an ancient biological system... to deal with fluoride’s toxicity” (MacArthur, 2013).
national research council believes fluoride may need