December 1, 1955
Mrs, August
Box 1 T. & C.
Sacramento 21, California
Dear Mrs. August;
I regret that my supply of Part 1 and Part 2 of the Hearings on The
Use of Chemicals in Foods and Cosmetics has become so depleted that
I am unable te comply with your request of November 20. Most of the
testimony on fluoridation of water was included in Part 3 of the
hearings.
I have no copies available of the hearings on the Wier bill, but they
can be procured through the Government Printing Office at a cost of
$1.50 per copy. The title of these hearings is "Fluoridation of
Water."
In response to your inquiries; Certain testimony indicated that
special clinical studies concerning fluoridation had not been made,
but statistical studies had been made the basis of conclusions re-
garding the safety of fluoridation. Also, testimony indicated that
various authorities differ on whether fluorine found naturally is
the same as the fluoride being added to the water. I am enclosing
the Committee Report on this subject.
Very sincerely,
James J. Delaney, Me Co
JJD/HC
November 16, 1955
Mrs. August
Box 1 Te. & Cy
Sacramento 21
California
Dear Mrs. August:
Although my supply of hearings is almost depleted, in response
te your request of November 10 I am enclosing 4 copy of Part 3
of the hearings of the Select Committee to Investigate the Use
of Chemicals in Foods and Gosmetics. The testimony of Dr.
Porterfield, to which you refer in your letter, may be found on
page 1072.
I am also sending an Index of the hearings so that you can
locate the fluoridation testimony, which is scattered throughout
the volume.
Very sincerely,
James Je Delaney, Me Co
JJD/HC
a ee
Nove 10, 1955
Box 1 T. & C
Sacramento, 21, Calif.
—<———
Congressman Delaney
Senate Building
Washington, D. CG.
Dear Sir,
Fluoridation is now being discussed in Folsom,
California. The editor of the Telegraph is inter-
ested in printing facts both for and against fluor-
idation, providing all statements can be backed upe
Printed in the Organic Gardening Magazine was
the following; "a few years ago a Congressional
committee was formed, headed by Congressman Delaney
to hold hearings on the subject of chemicals used in
foods, water and in the soil. Here is a bit of con-
versation that took place, 'Dr, Miller: The United
States Department of Agriculture made some examin-
ations as to what happened in brood sows. They ree-
ommended to the farmers that fluorine not be added
to the water or feed of brood sows because it did
something to the pigs that were unborn.'" The man
being questioned was Dr. John D. Porterfield. Can
you send us the findings of the committee on this
investigation? And may we print it?
Any other reports you could send on fluoridation
would be appreciated.
Thank You,
“ALL THE NEWS BY A DAMSITE”
P.O. BOX 218
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA
(4% 3
(/) 702
P.O. BOX 218
FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA
Nov. 20, 1955
Box 1T&C
Sacramento, 21, Calif.
Senator James J. Delaney
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator,
You sent to me on Nov. 16, Part 3 of the hearings
of the Select Committee to Investigate the use of Chem-
icals in Foods & Cosmetics. If it is at all possible,
I will appreciate very much if I may have Parts 1 and
2 of these hearings. Also the hearings on the Wier Bill,
HR 2541, May-54(House Committe Interstate & Foreign Com-
merce). If you can not supply these, will you please re-
fer my letter to some one who can.
I have read the part in the book on Fluoridation
several times, and would like to ask you a few questions.
I expect to engage in apublic disscussion of the issue,
and I wish to be as well informed as possible. It was
stated that the Medical Ass. & the Dental Ass. had made
no studies of their own, but was approving fluoridation
on the studies of others, is this still true? Have there
been any studies on pregnant women, older people, those
with kidney or liver trouble, or children with malnutrition
in regards to giving them artifically fluoridated water?
Is it still unknown as to whether the fluorine found nat-
uraly is the same as the fluoride that is being added?
As I understood the hearings were for the purpose of
determining the safety of fluorine in public waters, what
was the decision of your Committee? And can you give your
personal opinion. If you have any other information per-
taining to fluoridation since the hearings of 1952 were
held, I would like to have it.
Thank You,
“ALL THE NEWS BY A DAMSITE”’
Mr, John A» Filpi,
910 Woodland Drive,
Glenview,
Illinois.
Dear Mr. Filpis
In response to your request I enclose a copy of
the committee fluoridation reporte
Also I enclose reprints of certain testimony which
was given at the hearings. This testimony opposes fluoridation.
Unfortunately my supply of the complete hearings has run so low
that I am not able to send out further copies. However, I hope
the enclosed material may be of some assistance to yous
Very sincerely,
JJD/H James Je Delaney, Me Ceo
hn i iii ee eee nein: sia ee. ee Mae:
JOHN A. FILPI, President MRS. W. C. THOMAS, Vice-Pres. MRS. R. W. BROWNING, Vice-Pres. MRS. C. LITER, Secretary REV. SELDEN B. MARTH, Treasurer
GLenview Area Community Councit
GLENVIEW, ILL.
March 24,1965
Hon James J. Delaney
Chairman
Congressman,
Washington, D.C.
Dear. Sir:
Would it be possible for you to mail to
me your report of your Committee investigating fluoridation
of public drinking water.
Also, if any extra phamhlets are available
on the Committee hearings.
Yours very truly |
‘
yar C Takes
' p AN
yg Wl wetland A
ZY y * wee
Mrs. Wilma. Taylor
Box 123
San Lucas, California
Dear Mrs. Taylor:
I have read your letter of May 14 with much interest.
The enclosed form letter may contain information which
you will want to have, The pesticide law, to which I re-
ferred in the letter, will not take care of the particular
problem which you outlined, I believe that this problem is
one which may have to be handled by the states individually,
since legislation on it at the federal level might well be
considered as an invasion of states’ rights.
Very sincerely,
James Je Delaney, Me Co
JJD/HC
“ se rie fo fl ra
ee ee ee
May 12, 1955
Mre We He Robert Juengel, President
Citizens for Good Government
1425 Elder Avenue
Akron, 1
Ohio
Dear Mr, Juengel:
I have read your letter of May 10th with mich interest and
have given thought to the suggestions contained in it.
Legislation to prohibit the fluoridation of water on a
national scale presents certain knotty constitutional
problems, As you imow, certain rights are reserved to the
states. For the most part, drinking water does not enter
into interstate commerce and as a result, it is difficult
to find any way that Congress could act without invading
states’ rights. Clause 1 of your proposed bill might well
run afoul of this principle.
Clause 2 looks more possible and I shall be interested in -
giving it further study,
At the present time, the most effective action against fluor-
idation has been at the local level. A large number of com~
munities throughout the country have defeated fluoridation
proposals. There is no substitue for an alert citizenry.
I appreciate your interest in this subject.
Very sincerely,
JJD/H James J, Delaney, Me Ceo
Akron, Ohio
May 10, 1955
Hon. James J. Delaney,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
My dear Mr. Delaney:
What do you think about having a bill proposed to Congress to out-law
the usage of "public water supplies" as Medical Dispensaries?
This Bill would not outlew THE RIGHT of "local councils” or"ma jority
vote of citizens" to provide poisonous medication (at taxpayers’ expense )
to their citizenry; it would only out-law the right to use “oublic water
supplies" for such a purpose on the grounds that it was against the guaran-
teed Constitutional right of the citizen, of freedom of choice and inviola-
bility of person, to use "a method of distribution" which forced a poisonous
medication upon any citizen against his will and/or penalized him for refusing.
If a citizen refuses to take "sodium fluoride" in the public water, the
penalty is: (1) He mst buy bottled spring water for drinking, cooking, and
bathing, since one can absorb through the pores of the skin ina hot tub bath
as much sodium fluoride as is ingested by drinking; and, through cooking,
foods can take on a dangerous fluoride concentratéon up,l6 to 20 parts per
million. (2) He has to dig his private well. (3) He has to move away from
the community. These are all severe penalties to pay when Constitutional
rights have not been protected by Congrees to safeguard the citizens' liberty.
Furthermore, it is not NECESSARY to use public water supplies to make
"Fluoride medication" available to children under twelve years of age. In
Akron, Ohio, from 1916 to 1920 "iodine medication" was given to school chil-
dren for prevention of endemic goiter by adding a spoonful of "Iodine Solution"
to children's drinking water in the schools, with the parents consent. Also,
in Cleveland, Ohio, and in the state of Michigan, “iodine pellets" were given
to school children, with eonsent of parents. Both of these methods were suc-
cessful; and either one could be adopted for the distribution of sodium fluo-
ride with greater safety, better dosage control, and far more economically
than by adding fluorides to an entire water supply. Also, "Pluoride salt cap-
sules could be distributed through the local Board of Health or public schools
to families for family use. Or, the salt company could be asked to supply
fluoridated salt, like iodized salt. #ngland has adopted the sale in grocery
stores of fluoridated salt. This easily provides fluorides for those who
believe they are beneficial; and this can be done without taxing the people
or forGing anyone against his will to ingest them.
There are also other ways readily available for dispensing sodium fluoride.
Why then should Congress sit by and permit local governments to steal from
citizens their guaranteed constitutional right of "freedom of choice" and do
nothing to safeguard and protect the Constitution from such infringement?
Especially is it important for Congress to fulfill its pledge, under oath,
to protedt and uphold the Constitution when 11 out of 12 courts in "our-Land-of-
the-free" have denied citizens their guaranteed constitutional rights and the
Supreme Court of our Country has refused twice to review these cases.
th
What help, then, ie left for the people but to turn to,Congress of the
United States? Surely it is your business as Congressmen to protect the Consti-
tution and to out-law procedures that infringe upon the Constitution.
(Over)
To: Hon. James J. Delaney (2)
By "outlawing" the use of "public water supplies" as Medical Dispensaries
you are not interfering in the right of any local community to privide "free
medication" for its citizens by any means or method it may choose, so long as
such meane do not deny to any his Constitutional right of "freedom of choice".
footh decay is not contagious. Your poor teeth cannot cause anyone in
the Nation to have poor teeth; and your refusal to take medication for them
prevents no one who so desires from taking it. Tooth decay is a private not
a public health matter. No person should be denied his right of "freedom of
choice" regarding the maintenance of his teeth,or as to whether or not he will
ingest a “poison medication" or an “improved diet" to better them. No system
of dispensing this poisonous sodium fluoride medication,which forces anyone to
ingest it against hie will or thereby suffer a penalty, should be permitted by
our United States Government.
To provide legislation to prevent infringement of the Constitution is
clearly a responsibility of Congress. In fulfilling this responsibility Congress
need not take sides as to whether fluorides are good for children's teeth or not,
or as to whether they are injurious to the human system or not. Congress is
merely taking a stand that the “public water systems" of the Nation are not a
legitimate means of dispensing sodium fluoride and that some other means must
be employed which will protect for every citizen his guaranteed right of “free-
dom of choice".
The Salk vaccine is not forced upon entire communities regardless of age
or will to accept. Iodine medication for prevention of endemic goiter was not
forced upon entire communities denying to all the right of "freedom of choice".
Why, then, should Congress sit by sélently and allow fluorides to be forced
upon entire communities through the usage of "the public water system" as
medical Dispensaries?
The public water system is organized for the purpose of supplying the
population with pure water, not medicine.
Inclosed is a suggestion for a Bill to Outlaw the Usage of Public Water
Systems as Medical Dispensaries.
W ill you give this matter your tho ughtful consideration and let us hear
from you at your earliest convenience?
Sincerely,
Citizens for Good Government, Akron, Ohio.
W. H. Robert Jyengel, President
1425 Elder Av
Akron, 1, Ohio
7 PROPOSED BILL FOR PROTECTING THE CONS TITUTIONAL RIGHTS
j OF THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
WHEREAS, water is a necessity of life, and
WHEREAS, for all practical purposes, résidents of urban communities in the
United States are compelled to rely on public water distribution systems, both pub-
licly and privately owned, for their supply of water for drinking purposes, and
WHEREAS, the use of public water distribution systems for the purpose of dis-
pensing medicines, nutrients, or other substances for the alleged purpose of improving
or promoting the health of individual members of the public or preventing the develop-
ment in individual members of the public of non-contagious diseases, is a deprivation
of liberty without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and
WHEREAS, the Gongress finds that various individuals, groups, and local public
authorities in the United States have made use of, or contemplate making use of, various
water distribution systems serving the public for the purpose of dispensing various
substances, such as compounds of fluorine, for the alleged purpose of promoting the
health of some members of the public by eliminating or curbing certain non-contagious
diseases, such as dental caries, and
WHEREAS, the Congrees finds that such use of public water systems is actually
dangerous to the health of many members of the public because of the medical fact that
not all persons respond alike to the same medication or nutritional substances, and
WHEREAS, for all the foregoing reasons the preservation of the Constitutionally
guaranteed liberty of the individual citizen to determine for himself what medicane,
foods, or other substance he shovld ingest is a matter of substantial interest to
members of the public and to the Congress, and
WHEREAS, the widespread practice of inserting in public water distribution systems
substances other than those required for water purification would constitute a danger
to national defense by rendering easier the sabotage of the public water systems and
the poisoning of large groups of the population,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby enacted:
1. The placing of any medicine, chemical, nutrient, or other substance in any
water distribution system supplying water for drinking purposes to the inhabitants
of part or all of any community:in the United States.is prohibited, except where
such system is privately owned by the pereons normally consuming the water therefrom,
or except where the placing of such substance in such water distribution system is
required for purification of the water and the removal of harmful bacteria or other
substance therefrom.
2. The placing of any medicine, chemical, nutrient, or other substance in any
water distribution system supplying water which ie intended to be used in processing
or preparation of food, drug or other substance intended for human consumption, which
focd, drug or other substance ie intended to be transported in interstate commerce
or via the mails, and the transportation of any food, drug or other substance, so
prepared or processed, in interstate commerce or via the mails, in prohibited.
3. Violation or Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Act shall be a misdemeanor, punishable
by a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment of not more than six months, or both,
in the discretion of the court.
4, The District Courts of the United States and the appropriate courts of the several
states are vested with concurrent jurisdiction to enjoin violations or prospective
violations of Paragraph 1 and 2 of this Act.
March 1, 1955
Mr, Jesse Mercer Gehman, Vice President,
Citizens Medical Reference Bureau, Ince,
1860 Broadway, Suite 1215,
New York, 23, Ne Yo
Dear Mr. Gehmans
Mr, Delaney has requested me to express his appre=
ciation of your letter of January 25th, which he read with much
intereste
Yesterday Mr. Delaney introduced two bill designed
to control the use of éhemicals in foods and cosmeticse I enclose
copies of theme
Also, enclosed are copies of two bills of a some-
what similar nature introduced by two other Representatives. While
similar in certain aspects, they are not identicale I might call
your attention to the underlined phrase on page two, which might
be interpreted as & "Grandfathers? rights" clauses
Mr, Delaney appreciates your interest in this sub-
jects
Very sincerely,
Edward Harris
Secretary to Hone James J. Delaney, Me Co
ee Oe l—E ee
8 : Advocating No Form of Treatment but in Defense of Parental Control over Children
CITIZENS MEDICAL REFERENCE BUREAU, INC.
(AGAINST COMPULSORY MEDICINE OR SURGERY FOR CHILDREN OR ADULTS)
OFFICERS SUPPORTED WHOLLY BY VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS DIRECTORS
PIERREPONT E. TWITCHELL
PIERREPONT E. TWITCHELL, President _ ae ae
JESSE MERCER GEHMAN, Vice-Pres. & Treas. mayAERIO: FTCAIS
1860 BROADWAY, Sulre 1215 py ina A
NEW YORK 23, N. Y. J. ARTHUR CAMPBELL
January 25th. 1955
Dict. January 18th.
Honorable James J. Delaney, M. C.,
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. C.
Honorable Sir:
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of January l2th.,
wherein you advise that somehow or other an erroneous. impression
seems to have gone out with the Select Committee, of which you
were Chairman, would be reorganized for further investigation.
You add that a new Committee would require special congressional
action, and yet as yet, you cannot state whether there is enough
interest in Washington to bring about such a result.
Throughout the country the interest is intense, and it is our
belief that it can be aroused so that action will be taken.
We observe with pleasure your advice to the effect that you intend
to introduce designed to control the use of chemicals in foods
and chemicals. We shall appreciate receiving copies of these
bills as soon as they are ready.
You advise that if enough people throughout the country write
their own Congressmen in favor of this legislation, it may be
that sufficient support will be stimulated in Washington to
bring about successful action. You have the promise of our
organization to do whatever we can to alert people to the need
for such legislation. Besides I am personally in a position to
bring the matter to the attention of several human betterment
organizations with memberships which are country wide which
should help us considerably. So when you are ready please advise
us accordingly.
With regard to fluoridation, we expected that the Weir Bill would
be objected to, mainly on the basis that to prohibit the utiliza-
tion of the process nationally would be an invasion of State's
rights.
Page 2 Honorable James J. Delaney, January 25th. 1955
We are inclined to agree with your statement that the most effective
action seems to be at the local level, and we appreciate your com-
mendation of the efficient work being done in that direction by
local organizations.
With reference to our own organization, we are a National group,
and fluoridation is but a part of our program. We have a history
of thirty-five years of fighting medical freedom and against com-
pulsion of any kind.
We are enclosing a folder which embodies our purposes of our
program.
Thanking you for the information provided in your letter, and
assuring you of our cooperation at all times, we are,
Sincerely yours,
JMG :AMF
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0