Sonoma County's Public Health Officer Works for Special Interests on Tax-Paid Time

[lilypads]

Sonoma County's Public Health Officer Promotes Agenda of Special Interests
While Collecting Salary from Taxpayers

By Marlene Lily
WaccoBB.net

Lynn Silver Chalfin
Sonoma County’s Public Health Officer

On Monday, June 3, Lynn Silver Chalfin, Sonoma County’s Public Health Officer, gave her Power Point presentation about the benefits of fluoridation to the members of the Technical Advisory Committee of the Sonoma County Water Agency.

It was my third time seeing this 5^th-grade level Power Point, and this time I fully realized how insulting it is to the intelligence of an adult audience. Chalfin dodges many questions with the phrase “I’m a pediatrician,” and it seems she’s used to gearing her comments to those under ten. I wonder how the technically knowledgeable members of the TAC viewed her smiling lack of scientific expertise and her repeated claim that fluoride is an essential nutrient, like Vitamin A and sodium chloride.

Chalfin was preceded by Marjorie Stocks, a “Fluoridation Consultant” for the California Dental Association. Using maps of Southern California and the Bay Area, Stocks discussed the CDAs efforts to spread fluoridation throughout the state. Not surprisingly, she neglected to mention that dentists in fluoridated areas make more money than those in non-fluoridated ones. About 62% of California is now fluoridated. At Chalfin’s side once again was Howard Pollick, D.D.S. of UCSF, a longtime fluoridation pusher.

This lineup makes me question how our taxpayer-compensated Public Health Officer sees fit to use her work time to promote the agenda of special interest groups. Can this possibly be legal, not to mention ethical? Where were the

housands of scientists who oppose fluoridation because they know it does nothing to reduce tooth decay and because of its harmful health effects—not to mention its cost. Surely at least one of them could have come to speak at this meeting.

Bob Rawson, who operates the Graton Wastewater Treatment System, was there. He has the expertise to talk about the corrosive effects of fluoride on public and privately owned water pipes—and the consequent extra expense fluoridation would entail for homeowners and public water systems--but he was not invited to speak.

This meeting was allegedly about engineering, not health. Chalfin seems so confident that she can ram fluoridation down the throats of Sonoma County residents that she has moved beyond the what to the how and the how much? Everyone who is concerned about clean water needs to start urging their friends and associates to educate themselves about fluoridation. We’re going to have to fight it hard, or we’ll soon be drinking and bathing in toxic water, and putting poison water on our food gardens and into the Russian River.

On June 3, Chalfin stated that fluoridation is “increasing, is safe, and is effective.” None of these statements is true. Calgary and Wichita recently ended fluoridation, and Portland just voted it down for the 4^th time. Israel will end mandatory fluoridation at the end of this year. 97% of Europe is fluoride free. There’s no fluoridation in China. The safety and effectiveness of fluoride are discussed in the documents at the bottom of this post.

Chalfin was asked who has been paying for the pro-fluoridation promotional campaign that she’s been leading. This is a critical question. A $15 million grant from the California Endowment, a private nonprofit organization, covered some of the costs, she said. The California Dental Association Foundation and the California Fluoridation Task Force are other “interested parties.” “First Five” has been an important funder, along with large hospitals (Sutter, Kaiser, and Memorial) and "private philanthropists." But what about the taxpayers who pay this woman's salary? Who is representing our interests while our "Public Health Officer" does the bidding of the well-organized pro-fluoridation forces? Maybe it's time for a call to the County Attorney.

One job that needs to be tackled now by the clean water forces is research to find out exactly where these groups get their money.

And if anyone reading this knows decision makers at any local hospitals or health groups, please make sure that they get a copy of Dr. John Colquhoun’s essay, “Why I Changed My Mind About Fluoridation.” Colquhoun, who is both a dentist and a Ph.D, was the Principal Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand. An avid fluoridation proponent, he began to actually take a look at the statistics about tooth decay, and discovered that there was no evidence that water fluoridation reduced decay. In fact, many fluoridated areas hadmore decay than the non-fluoridated ones. He found the same results from studies in the U.K. and the United States.

His essay can be found here: https://www.slweb.org/colquhoun.html

A shorter, less scholarly letter by another dentist can be found here: https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_14528191

And another excellent letter from a dentist is here: https://www.nofluoride.com/kennedy_letter.htm

[dzerach]

Marlene, Fantastic posts, thank you. I very much appreciate the dialogue from everyone. There are so many facets to the anti side, while the pro side seems to have...two? -- it's easier for them! Possibly explains the powerpoint. Appreciate the clarity and wish I shared your articulateness.

The authorities are heavily goal-oriented -- usually a good thing! -- in part blinded by their ambitions to meet metrics for 2020: Rita; Lynn; Shirley; Mike. They do not seem to understand the full meaning of accountability.

To exploit the engineering for a completely different reason than for what the water delivery idea was first intended is not admirable resourcefulness. I do not think the following is social justice: happily re-purpose one vulnerable person's drinking water to address another vulnerable person's need for improved dental care.
Now view this from the standpoint of public health policy.

Adding something for this reason to the water supply reeks of a kind of desperateness that could only be fitting as a response were there a genuine emergency. "We have an intense need to reduce inequalities in dental health" is not a genuine emergency. The authorities in SoCo are obviously blessed to not know what a real emergency/disaster is.

Regarding the push that comes down from the state of California...

In the draft that Lynn prepared and posted on February 26, 2013, ("Life is Better with Teeth") she explains:

"Although the Fluoridation Act of 1996 applies to retail water systems with over 10,000 connections, requiring them to fluoridate if funding is available, recent approaches to fluoridation have begun with an investigation of regional water delivery systems, which often involve a wholesale system."

Does the county water system have over 10,000 connections? Here, Lynn herself implies that the state's little edicts don't directly apply to SoCo (but she'll make it work anyway!).

Also:

"... developments in California, beginning with AB 733 (the Fluoridation Act of 1996), have helped to move fluoridation forward, particularly in the metropolitan areas of southern California. In the last five years, the percentage of Californians who receive fluoridated water has risen from 27 to 58 percent. "

Again, shouldn't fluoridation decisions be made at the local level? Apparently not. This kind of rhetoric from county authorities should be held up to the light, and then crumpled and tossed where it belongs

FLUORIDATION AS WORTHY PUBLIC POLICY?:

Even if you don't think there are adverse health effects to fluoridation, consider a cautionary approach whenever public policy is forcibly involved.

Should there even BE a public policy that effects everyone this intimately on a constant basis? -- not to mention how THIS public health policy's sole impetus is to directly address a minority problem? At the possible or likely expense of many other minority members therein?

"The Precautionary Principle" could bring clarity to this controversy. Public policy should reflect a conservative approach "to minimize risk in the setting where harm is possible, but not necessarily confirmed, and where the science is not settled." --- "What does the precautionary principle mean for evidence-based dentistry?" J.Tickner & M. Coffin. Journal of Evid. Based Dent. Pract. (March 2006) 6 /1: 6–15. / wikipedia.

I think it's revealing that the backers, lacking a variety of reasons upon which to propel their argument forward ALWAYS want to use the compelling "But Mommy, Everybody Has One" reasoning, as Lynn does here in the article,

"On June 3, Chalfin stated that fluoridation is “increasing, is safe, and is effective.”

Ok, folks should act on a belief that fluoridation everywhere is inevitable.

Nationally, let's look at one statistic -- FACT: 44 of the 50 largest cities have fluoridated. Know that this fact more accurately informs the meaning of the other statistic that is more predictiably trotted out: "Three-fourths of the country has already fluoridated." Please also consider how these governmental entities in larger cities are more vulnerable to hands-off, band-aid solutions. If you reject the "Keeping up with the Jones'" argument ("Fluoridation is increasing"), the importance of decison-making at the local level is restored. The unique needs and resources of each community are acknowledged.

Acknowledge that deprived areas are worrying the county on many levels. The county is already home to health care access that is nationally lauded. The public health officer's commitment to guiding other available solutions (of which Lynn is a proven expert) could not help but have many other productive ripples: the kind that bring people together and strengthen communities. Unlike a decision to fluoridate, which only serves to strengthen divisiveness over the course of a lengthy, divisive process.

PROGRESSIVISM

It's worthwhile to consider that both Portland and Wichita (ideological polarities) recently rejected fluoridation. John Birch Society rejects for libertarian reasons. Sierra Club rejects for environmental reasons. People LOVE to participate in rhetoric that involves mind-numbing political partisanship. Thankfully, this is one issue that has sprawl. The McCarthy era, the country's 2nd Red Scare notwithstanding! As a progressive myself, I have a lot to share about Lynn's admirable career and approach to things, if only to prove that she is indeed a committed progressive, and a highly intrusive one. I even agree with most of the intrusiveness that took place in NYC under Bloomberg's rule and her tenure. However, she thinks fluoridation is just one more battle. She doesn't understand or respect that it's a whole 'nudder war.

At any rate, this 2012 article that Lynn wrote about herself for Pacific Medical Care is really good. I had to open up the google cache b/c they pulled it from storage:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...nt.com/search?

And let's not forget who she reports to, the leadership role of Rita Scardaci in hand-picking.

Should anyone think they can get by with resting an antifluoridation argument upon the county's progressivism, seemingly predominant, I can only ask them to review past ideological divides and disconnects within the county. These divisions predate the fluoride pitch outta left field by county authorities. Notice any distinct threads of "conservatism" that share kinship with historically rural, agricultural communities everywhere?

Separately, just look at the protracted struggle Portland, Oregon went through. The large city of Portland is the most progressive in the country. The surprising sociology of the fluoridation controversy is worthy to keep in mind. We could be REMINDED of what used to be a more productive, pragmatic tension between ideological polarities. This issue is a joyful if not pragmatic commonality.

*~~~~~~~~~~~``````````*``````````~~~~~~~~~~~*

One minor correction -- Wichita has never even had water fluoridation. Yes, in Nov 2012, voters rejected fluoridated water --AGAIN-- as they did in 1964 and 1978. Interesting trivia (amusing to me) both counties, Sedgwick and Sonoma lie along the 38th parallel, and no sooner did the issue end here than it appeared in Sonoma County....Fun facts! (not for me).

Should anyone have an interest, here are a few excerpts from Wichita's newspaper after the proposal's defeat:
Both sides mounted spirited campaigns. In 2012, a broad coalition of local doctors and dentists collected more than 11,000 signatures on an initiative, forcing the council to either adopt fluoridation or put it to a vote. The council, which had studiously avoided the controversial issue for years, decided unanimously to punt the issue to the voters.

The fluoride initiative sponsored by local dentists and doctors failed with 59 percent voting no. Jonathan Hall of Wichitans Opposed to Fluoridation : "First off, historically, more than half the time when it comes to a public vote, fluoride is voted down. Then talking to people as we’ve been campaigning, people have been expressing: ‘We never knew this about fluoride.’ People want to learn, and they’ve been happy to learn about it.”
Anti-fluoride forces organized through several different but interlocking groups....One of the voters remarked that fluoridation was a nice change of pace for an election question – “not Democrat or Republican or Libertarian.”

Sonoma County's Public Health Officer Promotes Agenda of Special Interests
While Collecting Salary from Taxpayers

.

[dzerach]

Expand

A little humor -- while seriously putting this controversy into proper perspective?

"Dental hygiene is important for gorillas as well as humans. Not only does Koko know how to brush her teeth, but she is also an expert flosser!!" This is from the Koko & The Gorilla Foundation (Re-purposed by me).

[sebastacat]

Fantastic! A gorilla that knows how to brush AND floss! Such a great example for the mere mortals among us to follow about taking responsibility for one's own dental health.

Check out the Web site. It says that Koko also has a special relationship with kittens. Yes, Sebastacat was once a kitten, and he thinks that this gorilla is too good to be true.

Sebastacat approves glowingly!

[sharingwisdom]

I so appreciate your report, the time you took to write it, and the links you supplied. Though Dr. Biles article might not have sounded as scholarly, he makes a good point about how difficult it is for dentists to be able to get independent information and once they do, the ADA attempts to stop them from bringing the information forward.

"...as a long time board member of the Monterey Bay Dental Society, I proposed inviting David Kennedy, D.D.S. to give our local dentists a lecture on water fluoridation. The Board president informed me at the subsequent meeting that we, the Monterey Bay Dental Society, could not entertain an opposing view to water fluoridation because we were members of the American Dental Association and California Dental Association, who were staunch proponents of water fluoridation. Dentists have been denied the education necessary to make a truly informed opinion regarding fluoride and community water fluoridation. They simply do not know the truth."

This is very powerful information on the politics of fluoride.

A shorter, less scholarly letter by another dentist can be found here: https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_14528191

And another excellent letter from a dentist is here: https://www.nofluoride.com/kennedy_letter.htm

[tommy]

In my opinion the title of this post is misleading and inaccurate. This is another case, so common today with the proliferation of internet loudspeakers, giving voice to extremists, of the tail wagging the dog.

Sonoma County's Public Health Officer Promotes Agenda of Special Interests
While Collecting Salary from Taxpayers

By Marlene Lily
WaccoBB.net

[sebastacat]

Sebastacat concurs with LilyPads' excellent article in its entirety.

Thanks for being brave enough to express you opinions in understandable and unmistakable terms --
and for not being afraid to tackle the tough issues and ask the hard questions.

[lilypads]

In my opinion the title of this post is misleading and inaccurate. This is another case, so common today with the proliferation of internet loudspeakers, giving voice to extremists, of the tail wagging the dog.

I think it's important that as many people as possible learn about the dangers of fluoride. Although I'm not ready to write an official article about Chalfin's in effect acting as a lobbyist for the dental industry right now, I may be in a week or two when my other tasks are completed. Meanwhile, please keep studying and networking. Maybe in that process someone will find a key person who works for Kaiser or St. Joes's or the City of Santa Rosa or some other city who will be willing to speak up--if not in public, at least where he/she works.

The members of the TAC and the WAC can be found here: https://www.scwa.ca.gov/water-advisory-committee/ You should be able to write to them at their offices.

The ADA and the CDA, as Dr. Kennedy says in his letter to the Santa Cruz supervisors, are TRADE organizations. Their job is to help dentists make more money. They do not do research. They are not scientific organizations. They certainly fall under the category of "special interests." Fluorosis causes so much disfigurement that dentists find it profitable. They need to be called out about this, as ugly as it is. It's not the job of our PUBLIC health officer to help dentists make more money. It's as if doctors were encouraging people to ingest a known carcinogen so they could profit from cancer treatments.

Oh! Wait! They ARE encouraging people to ingest a known carcinogen! Fluoride is a known carcinogen! So why isn't it covered by California's Prop 65? Maybe that would be another way to get it out of our water. Has anybody looked into that angle? Investigating that approach certainly seems like a worthwhile task for someone to take on. Here's the info about Prop. 65: https://oehha.ca.gov/prop65.html

Dr. Biles's letter to the Santa Cruz Sentinel describes what happens when a dentist deviates from the party line. Another article I read said that more than half of all US dentists are uncomfortable promoting fluoridation. That's a good indication that the PR forces, and not the concerned clinicians, are running the show at the TRADE organizations.

Tommy, my participation in the fluoridation discussion on waccobb began with a response to the excellent post about Project Censored's work on fluoridation. That post had to do with the history of fluoridation in the USA and the role of the public relations industry (working for the aluminum industry) from the very beginning. People like you, my friend, might benefit from going back and looking at that thread before dismissing my comments out of hand. The history of this battle goes back to the 1950s. Even then, there was NO GOOD EVIDENCE that ingested fluoride reduces tooth decay. It was a case of "social engineering," as one of the early PR men bragged back then. It still is.

[sebastacat]

Let us not forget those small -- but sometimes forgotten -- words which appear an all tubes of toothpaste containing fluoride:

"If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help
or contact a Poison Control Center right away."

I think that pretty much says it all. When I was in the store the other day, I checked several boxes in which
fluoridated toothpaste is sold, and I could not find even one that did not have that ominous warning printed on it.

By contrast, I have recently purchased two brands at the health store which are fluoride free, and -- guess what?
They contain no such warning.

I think that pretty much tells the story -- and saves the fluoridated toothpaste industry lots of money fighting potential lawsuits!

By the way, I feel SO MUCH better after having switched to fluoride-free toothpaste. Those afternoon stomach aches I would get after brushing my teeth with fluoride-containing toothpaste are now, thankfully, a thing of the past!

[Glia]

Tommy, were you there at the meeting? I was and did not see you. IMO both the title and content of this post are spot-on.

Public employees doing the bidding of the pro-fluoride lobby on the public dime seems to be a trend:

Did state employees help pro-fluoride advocates on state time?

PORTLAND, Ore. – The leading group opposed to fluoridating Portland's water plans to call for an official investigation by the secretary of state into the state agency that strongly supports community fluoridation.

Clean Water Portland filed a public records request and obtained copies of Oregon Health Authority emails related to fluoridation from as far back as July 2012.

https://www.katu.com/politics/Did-st...208242221.html

In my opinion the title of this post is misleading and inaccurate. This is another case, so common today with the proliferation of internet loudspeakers, giving voice to extremists, of the tail wagging the dog.

[lilypads]

Tommy, were you there at the meeting? I was and did not see you. IMO both the title and content of this post are spot-on.

Public employees doing the bidding of the pro-fluoride lobby on the public dime seems to be a trend:

Did state employees help pro-fluoride advocates on state time?

PORTLAND, Ore. – The leading group opposed to fluoridating Portland's water plans to call for an official investigation by the secretary of state into the state agency that strongly supports community fluoridation.

Clean Water Portland filed a public records request and obtained copies of Oregon Health Authority emails related to fluoridation from as far back as July 2012.

https://www.katu.com/politics/Did-st...208242221.html

Great find, Glia!

This might give officials second thoughts about pushing fluoridation as a path to higher office.

[Glia]

Thanks Lilypads, but the credit for finding this article belongs to the folks running the Sonoma County:No Fluoride Facebook page, which is located at:

https://www.facebook.com/sonomacounty.nofluoride

Great find, Glia! This might give officials second thoughts about pushing fluoridation as a path to higher office.

[lilypads]

If you just look at the headline and the picture, this is pretty funny!

Speaking about the intelligence of animals, I watched the "Poisoned Horses" video on youtube, and the most interesting part was this: when there was snow on the ground, the horses avoided the fluoridated water and ate the snow. After the snow melted, there was a little rivulet, just a few inches wide, running across the pasture, and they dug a hole and made a big mud puddle and drank the muddy water, rather than the "clean" water in their tank. HOW DID THEY KNOW? Fluoride is supposedly tasteless. But they did! The video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TwwNZyRVOA

Expand

A little humor -- while seriously putting this controversy into proper perspective?

"Dental hygiene is important for gorillas as well as humans. Not only does Koko know how to brush her teeth, but she is also an expert flosser!!" This is from the Koko & The Gorilla Foundation (Re-purposed by me).

[Rocketman]

60+ years after the fact and we're still discussing fluoride...why are they still passing this chemical off as safe? What is the underlying reason why fluoride is still being manufactured?