Two Major Legal Victories in Federal Court Case to End Water Fluoridation
If you really want to effect change, you need, within the confines of law, to inflict pain on those doing evil,whether through ignorance or by intent.
To start, you need to remove the ignorance. This is, in some ways, easier than most might think. For example, many solid studies have been done that counter arguments for fluoridation in water, toothpaste, baby food and so on. These studies served on individuals responsible for making the decision to poison water and goods with fluoride, with proof of service, along with notices they will be held personally liable for injury from their decision could alter the direction a case for damages goes.
Most these people are just parrots. They are doing what fools started telling people they need to do ages ago. Think about it, the decision to market flu-o-ride was made by people who also promoted the food pyramid brought to you by lobbyists.
Once this information is served on the relevant persons, in their private and professional capacities, it falls them them to consider or ignore it. Ignoring it could be at their peril, in their private capacities.
Imagine locals all across the states serving public officials and putting them on notice.
To give an idea of how such things can work, some several years back, I aided a friend in a suit against a county clerk (defacto court clerk). She was relying on erroneous advice from the local prosecutor. We put her on notice she would be liable for damages she caused relying on that advice, and would be well served by requesting it all be given in writing, so she could, in turn, sue the prosecutor for the bad advice that caused her to suffer a damage.
We reminded the clerk, if the prosecutor balked at giving the advice in writing, she should be very concerned about relying on it, since he could deny having given it. She fired him and hired private counsel.