Thoughts on the article:
Although the article refers to the addition of fluoride as a “legacy”, I look at it as something the city was sold many years ago when there wasn’t the amount of information available that we are blessed with today. I would refer to it as something the city commission added many years ago with the best intentions, which has turned out to be a problem. Inertia has made it a “legacy”. The current mayor and city commission don’t want to hear anything that would force them to take another look at the issue and maybe make what they must consider a controversial decision, so their repeated response has been, “please, speak your allotted three minutes, then go away and leave us alone”.
The fluoride was actually added to the water in Grand Rapids in 1945, 70 years ago.
There are no “documented problems”, there are no clusters, because the effects of fluoride at the levels added to our water are cumulative. The kidneys only expel half of the fluoride they take in, so the rest remains in the body. Would you care to see documented problems? Change the level from 0.7 ppm to 100 ppm. Then you will see documented problems, which will be people dying all around you. See The Minimum Lethal Dose of Fluoride for a detailed explanation.
I’ve been painted by comments made on other articles, and by this article, as a “single-issue” candidate. In actuality, I probably have taken documented stands on more issues than the other three candidates combined. Yes, I originally got into this campaign because of fluoride, which I explained above and on the landing page of my website. But I have taken stands on Proposal 1, pay raises, federal takeover of police, body cameras, neighborhoods, and will be releasing my opinion on ShotSpotter soon. As I always say, don’t blindly believe me, go to the sources I provide and form your own opinion. If it agrees with my opinion, vote for me. If not, keep searching. Go to my opponent’s websites, if they have them, and see what they are saying about specific issues. Do they have at least one issue they feel strongly about? Or are they possibly “no-issue” candidates, just speaking platitudes, saying everything’s fine, we’re going to keep things going, there are problems but I know how to fix them, in essence, “trust me”? Again, do your research, formulate your own opinion.
I will give you something else to consider. I’ve received national coverage of my campaign, and many communications from people around the state and country about my campaign. There are many around the country that know more about the fluoride issue than I do, and are equally frustrated by their local government’s ignorance. What I am saying here is, you have an opportunity which most don’t, which is to vote for someone that has pledged to remove this toxin from the water system. Apparently, this is a rare chance which doesn’t happen in other places, and probably won’t happen again here soon, regardless of the outcome of this election.
And finally, yes, go to my website. Just look through the fluoride tab posts for 15 minutes so you get an understanding of what the articles are trying to tell you. Can you spend those few minutes and perhaps learn how you can help your family and friends? If you perform that simple task, you’ll probably be convinced, as I am, that it’s long past time for the “legacy” of fluoride to be put into the scrapheap of history.