To: Darlene Sherrell
Subject: Investigation re: Fluoridation ...NAS/NRC/IOM ... Dietary Reference Intakes
From: John Hammell
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 10:06:15 -0400

All Webmasters, Please post!

Everyone: Please forward widely and complain about this to your Senators and Congressmen and Codex rep (, if you live outside the USA, complain to your elected officials and Codex reps.

FDA: Dr.Yetley, please read Sherrell's information and respond to it. Please comply with the law and remove the NAS paper from the table at Codex as Congress has requested (see below).

IAHF LIST: Call your members of Congress via Switchboard 202-225-3121, get name of aide who handles FDA issues. Get their email address and forward this to them calling this to their attention!! Ask that they examine the letters from Congress to FDA which demand that FDA REMOVE the NAS paper from the table at CODEX. See below for more info.

Darlene: Your investigation into the NAS's unscientific fluoride data is much appreciated. I am forwarding it on to Beth Yetley of the FDA ( as well as to FDA Commissioner Jane Henney ( with the renewed demand that FDA immediately comply with the written request from 5 members of Congress (see under letters from Congress) that they WITHDRAW the unscientific paper "A Risk Assessment Model for Establishing Upper Levels for Nutrients" from the table at the UN's CCNFSDU (Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Use) as the 10mg UL for fluoride was clearly fraudulently derived, and FDA is clearly attempting to spread this dangerously unscientific data world wide which will cause skeletal fluorosis on a global scale, as well as make people docile. The UN's Millenium Assembly in NYC is fast approaching September wherein they plan to announce that henceforth we're under world dictatorship courtesy of the Rockefellers and the Drug Cartel.

A Congressional Oversight hearing on the Codex vitamin issue is clearly needed to expose not only this bad data, but also the fact that FDA attorney Melinda Plaisier is lying to people regarding the Federal Statute which allegedly protects our dietary supplement laws from Codex harmonization. Anti FDA Attorney has challenged Plaisier's interpretation of the statute, which is clearly a loosely written Pandora's box that leaves us wide open to being screwed in a trade dispute as the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body can force us, under threat of trade sanctions, to harmonize to CODEX, which includes to this unscientific 10 mg UL on fluoride.

In September, the UN will convene a huge Millenium Conference wherein the intend to announce that henceforth, national sovereignty is to be a thing of the past, and from that point on, we're to be under world government run by the UN. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The effort to fluoridate all of is is part of an effort to make us all docile in the hope that we'll "get in line" and not THINK about their efforts to enslave us. The Life Extension Foundation has exposed additional NAS incompetence/fraudulence through an article by Bill Faloon. Faloon reviewed a 500+ page NAS paper which selected ignored a slew of positive studies about vitamins, focusing only on negative ones, and drawing unjustified conclusions. See

At 05:58 AM 5/27/2000 -0400, you wrote:
Re: Fluoride ... Images demonstrate error by DRI committee

Please note that in 1990, when NAS/NRC/IOM still believed it would take as much as 20 to 80 milligrams of fluoride daily for ten to twenty years to cause crippling (phase 3) skeletal fluorosis, they considered 1.5 mg/day to be an "adequate" intake, with the "tolerable upper intake level" set at 4 mg/day.

As you know, in 1993 NAS/NRC lowered their estimate of the crippling dosage to 10 to 20 mg/day. Logic would dictate that the corresponding adjustment to the "tolerable upper intake level" would also move in the same direction -- downward. Instead, because of undue influence by industry representatives, the DRI committee is attempting to set the standard at 10 mg/day ... 250% higher than it was.

Presumably because of concerns over increasing dental fluorosis, it has become necessary to deny increases in fluoride intake from unprocessed -- as well as processed -- agricultural products (food), and not just dental products and fluoridated water.

These increases make water fluoridation counterproductive. Therefore, these increases must be denied in order to protect current policy.

The DRI committee has calculated their "adequate intake" figures using a factor of 0.05 where it should have been 0.02. By using this tactic, it can be made to appear that current intake levels in fluoridated areas are the same as they were in the 1940s, with the exception of dental products which were not available at that time. This is UNTRUE. It is a smokescreen to create a false impression of safety, as well as the promised benefit.

Monsanto's influence, through Ian C. Munro (CanTox ... science and policy advisor for the pro-fluoridation, pro-industry American Council on Science and Health) is evident when one compares the original data published by McClure and the puny portions taken out of context by the DRI committee in an attempt to rewrite history.

The phosphate fertilizer industry is interested in this issue because of their toxic waste disposal problems, as well as worker health issues. Other segments of the agricultural chemicals industry are also interested because of consumer acceptance issues.

I am attaching image files to this email so that you will be apprised of the fraudulent "Adequate Intake" figures published by NAS/NRC/IOM in their 1999 Dietary Reference Intakes ...

I trust they will help in your investigation of the handling of the water fluoridation issue by the various agencies involved.

Darlene Sherrell
Woburn Post Office
St. George's
Grenada, West Indies
473 443 3713 MORE DETAIL ON DRI