USA - Metropolitan Water District of SoCal Sued for Illegal Use of an Unapproved Drug
Metropolitan Water District of SoCal Sued for Illegal Use of an Unapproved Drug to Fulfill Fluoridation Program
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) August 10, 2011
Alleging willful misrepresentation and deceptive business practices by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, in the interest of millions of consumers, the California attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed Foli v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Case No. 3:2011cv01765 in the Southern District of California. The lawsuit cites that MWD of SoCal has made claims of safely and effectively treating and preventing dental disease in recipient consumers, while selecting and delivering a hydrofluosilicic acid drug through their water system that has never been approved for safety and effectiveness, nor in the expected dosages delivered by MWD through retail water districts, either topically, systemically through ingestion, or trans-dermal exposures through baths and showers.
In the legal action which may impact the decision-making of water districts across the country employing the same practices, the lawsuit filed on August 9, 2011 in San Diego Federal District Court addresses the Constitutional right of Plaintiffs to be free of bodily intrusion from a drug that has not been approved for MWD's intent to alter the physical structure and bodily functions to make a person's teeth more resistant to the demineralization process of tooth decay without their consent. The lawsuit against MWD SoCal is entitled Foli, Brown, Aslanian & Blake vs. Metorpolitan Water District of Southern California, Case No. '11CV1765JLS BLM.
While some consumers may elect to purchase bottled water for drinking, virtually all consumers are captive to exposures from baths and showers, as simple filtration and most non-commercial methods do not remove the product, resulting in exposures to consumers similar to those medications delivered by seasickness or nicotine patches.
"This case does not challenge the public policy of fluoridation," states Kyle Nordrehaug, attorney for the Plaintiffs. "It does challenge MWD's bait and switch tactics of orchestrating statements by them and their down-line distributors of water to individual consumers when MWD knew that the actual drug product that they deliver had never had a toxicological study performed on the health and behavioral effects of its continued use until 2010, much less approval for MWD's perpetuation of absolute health claims."..................
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) August 10, 2011
Alleging willful misrepresentation and deceptive business practices by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, in the interest of millions of consumers, the California attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed Foli v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Case No. 3:2011cv01765 in the Southern District of California. The lawsuit cites that MWD of SoCal has made claims of safely and effectively treating and preventing dental disease in recipient consumers, while selecting and delivering a hydrofluosilicic acid drug through their water system that has never been approved for safety and effectiveness, nor in the expected dosages delivered by MWD through retail water districts, either topically, systemically through ingestion, or trans-dermal exposures through baths and showers.
In the legal action which may impact the decision-making of water districts across the country employing the same practices, the lawsuit filed on August 9, 2011 in San Diego Federal District Court addresses the Constitutional right of Plaintiffs to be free of bodily intrusion from a drug that has not been approved for MWD's intent to alter the physical structure and bodily functions to make a person's teeth more resistant to the demineralization process of tooth decay without their consent. The lawsuit against MWD SoCal is entitled Foli, Brown, Aslanian & Blake vs. Metorpolitan Water District of Southern California, Case No. '11CV1765JLS BLM.
While some consumers may elect to purchase bottled water for drinking, virtually all consumers are captive to exposures from baths and showers, as simple filtration and most non-commercial methods do not remove the product, resulting in exposures to consumers similar to those medications delivered by seasickness or nicotine patches.
"This case does not challenge the public policy of fluoridation," states Kyle Nordrehaug, attorney for the Plaintiffs. "It does challenge MWD's bait and switch tactics of orchestrating statements by them and their down-line distributors of water to individual consumers when MWD knew that the actual drug product that they deliver had never had a toxicological study performed on the health and behavioral effects of its continued use until 2010, much less approval for MWD's perpetuation of absolute health claims."..................
posted by Bill at
9:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home