The Fluoridation Advisory Committee

The County of Sonoma Department of Health Services (DHS) has created a "Fluoridation Advisory Committee" supposedly to make a recommendation regarding adding fluoride to the water provided by SCWA. Of course Lynn Silver Chalfin is at the helm.

UPDATE 22 June 2013:
an information page for the Fluoridation Advisory Committee (FAC) has finally been posted on the County Dept. of Health Services (DHS) web site:
https://www.sonoma-county.org/health/meetings/fac.asp

At the first meeting on 14 May 2013, a chairperson was selected (Jo Sandersfeld), ground rules were laid out, and Silver gave her tired, disinformation-ridden "Life is Better with Teeth" presentation.

The committee participants were also given a "Conflict of Interest Statement" to sign and submit. Here is the text of the statement:

Members of the Fluoridation Advisory Committee (FAC) must have no conflict of interest in performance of their activities as a member of the FAC. Activities include, but are not limited to, providing advice on oral health fluoridation issues; gathering relevant data; facilitating broad community input; reviewing information on engineering proposals, and developing recommendations for consideration by the Sonoma County Department of Health Services.

By my signature below, I certify that I have no financial interest that may conflict with my participation on the Fluoridation Advisory Committee.

Should I become aware of any situation that could alter the above representation, or that might otherwise create the appearance of conflict, I agree to notify the Department of Health Services immediately.
Name
Title
Signature
Date

These are the members of the committee:
Chris DeGabriele, WAC/TAC rep from North Marin Water District
Pam Jeane, SCWA
Cynthia Murray, North Bay Leadership Council
Jennie Tasheff, E.D. of Community Action Partnership
Mary Maddux-Gonzalez, Redwood Community Health Center
Joel Berryhill, DDS of Sonoma County Indian Health Dental Program
Jeff Miller, MD retired from Kaiser Pediatrics
Martin Van Tassel, Redwood Empire Dental Society
Ernest Newbrun, DDS professor emeritus of UCSF School of Dentistry
Susan Cooper, DDS community action partnership dental director
Deborah Chigazola, Interim Dean of Health Sciences at SRJC
Crista Chelemendos, Senior Advocacy Services
Suzanne Doyle, Sierra Club
Jo Sandersfeld, VP of Mission Integration at St. Joseph Health
Lynn Mortensen, MD of Kaiser Family Medicine
Penny Vanderwolk, Sutter Health director of development
Lisa W. Schaffner, John Jordan Foundation
Robert Judd, Todd Trust
Ricardo Gonzalez, Graton Day Labor Center
Irina deFischer MD, Marin Medical Assoc
Linda Abrahams, Marin Dental Society

The June meeting of the FAC has been changed once again, or maybe the previous "date change" was, ahem, disinformation. At my request, District Director Michelle Whitman phoned DHS and has confirmed that the original Monday the 24th date is correct. I have updated the listing in the Events section accordingly.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

The County of Sonoma Department of Health Services (DHS) has created a "Fluoridation Advisory Committee" supposedly to make a recommendation regarding adding fluoride to the water provided by SCWA. Of course Lynn Silver Chalfin is at the helm.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

...These are the members of the committee:...Mary Maddux-Gonzalez, Redwood Community Health Center...

---

I wanted people to know how there's another meeting going on behind the scenes. One that is closed. And nested. It's called CHI (Committee for Healthcare Improvement ). It shows Sonoma County Medical Association as a key collaborator. Apologies in advance for all of my words. Someone, please make this more succinct and then throw an electronic egg at me. Mary Maddux-Gonzales is chairing this meeting with Dr S-C. Let me know if you need a pdf. I'm not sure how much of this stuff we should be posting on waccobb.

Maddux-Gonzales is a key leader and decision-maker in fluoridation. Equal to Lynn. She is also the previous county DHS health officer. She retired from public health in 2011...only to become the medical director of a vast and extremely important nonprofit network (Redwood Community Health Coalition).

She cares about well being for children birth to 5 years. This is an excellent "hook" because the literature on infants as sensitive populations is difficult to falsely discredit so easily? Here is a 3 min video where she is interviewed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMcwtjy-CJw

Here is an interview that announces her job switch from public health to health care.

July 2011- https://www.northbaybusinessjournal....lth-coalition/

Rita Scardaci: “Dr. Maddux-Gonzalez’s experience as Sonoma County health officer is a perfect fit with the goals of RCHC (Redwood Community Health Coalition -RCHC) and will strengthen the primary care system in preparation for health care reform.”
"After over two decades in public health, Maddux-Gonzales said it was time for a change, and the unique position that health centers will be in as an influx of new patients are delivered to the health care system made Redwood Health Coalition an ideal fit."

Besides the DHS FAC meeting, there is a "nested" fluoridation meeting that isn't open to the public. It's called the Committee for Healthcare Improvement (CHI). It's a subcommittee that the Health Action Steering Committee
approved in June of 2011. The very next month, July 2011, it was announced that Maddux-Gonzales would be the medical director for RCHC.

The broader meeting called "Health Action" is open to the public. It meets quarterly. They met on June 7th and the next meeting is Sept 6th. I don't recall seeing any evidence that they are discussing fluoridation. Do you see how this is working?

Now, the CHI meeting, which appears to meet monthly, is next scheduled to meet the same day as DHS FAC, but earlier in the day. As you can see, the Sonoma County Medical Association (SCMA) --and by implication the state -- and Sonoma County DHS (Public Health) are working together closely. This has implications for funding: The nine Water Contractors dont have to agree with fluoridation if SCWA can find the money on their own. It looks like the county considers fluoridation a necessary part of preparation for the state having to deal with national health care reform. Along with the county's 2020 health care goals, of course.

CHI - The short member roster coupled with the weight of each job title indicates this is an influencial meeting with a vast North Bay network. One of their working members is a representative of the Sonoma County Human Resources department.

The nesting of this meeting is as follows:

HealthAction: 2020 vision for Sonoma County
Committee for Healthcare Improvement (CHI) meeting
Sonoma County Medical Association (SCMA)
Strategic Planning Update

What follows in this recent meeting are 8 itemized points. Therein, a distinction is made between the working areas of "health care reform" and "healthy communities." Fluoridation is described as falling under "healthy communities." But if you read it closely, you can see they imply an interweaving between reform and communities. Here are two of the itemized points: "Under the health communities goal, priority areas identified are obesity prevention, sugary drinks, and child immunizations. Strategies identified include supporting a soda tax and fluoridation of drinking water. "
AND: "SCMA has created workgroups to address healthy communities (Mary and Lynn S-C are leads) and health care reform." By the way, "icare" is another way that they refer to what fluoridation is nested under. The link for exploring all of this is https://www.sonomahealthaction.org/

You know, as folks outside of these professional fields, sadly, this is the conversation that we join, whether we want to or not -- when we try to strategize those ways that drinking water fluoridation can successfully be advocated against, and when we try to figure out who we can try to influence with the substantial and valid info. about water fluoridation. Which of these professionals will realize the scope of this, all that is at stake, be brave and speak out? Who will be my hero and break the chain of conformity?

ME: "Hello. You have many good strategies. Thank you, I can imagine that the preparation for these changes is a stressful situation to be in, if not ultimately rewarding. It's a tremendous amount of extra work for you. I can relate! Let's see here --Uh oh. This one that you have buried like a shining diamond beneath the pile, Fluoridation, it's actually a bad one, yellow and pitted. Here's why you can shoulder some doubt. Do you really care about the disenfranchised or are you just frontin'...? I now know that you genuinely care and are open to updating your knowledge, that you'll be able to see each and every chosen tree, not only the forest."

Thank you for this enlightening, and very disturbing, background.

What is coming through loud and clear from what you have shared here is that the County "health" apparatus is basically in bed with the for-profit medical industry. Some call that corporatocracy. Some call that fascism. I call it big trouble.

Why are all these people so invested in adding fluoride to the water as part of the Affordable Health Care reforms? Either they are crazy, or they know damned well that it actually causes or contributes to disease, especially chronic disease such as thyroid/metabolic problems, hyperactivity, and diabetes -- all of which are big money-makers for both the fee-for-service medical industry and, most of all, the pharmaceutical industry.

IMO, you all are wasting your time trying to tell them anything about fluoridating the water being a bad idea. They clearly are not listening. More importantly, they do not really seem to give a rat's ass about what "the little people" think.

We are better off doing some good tried-n-true grassroots political activism and getting rid of these no-goodniks, specifically and in this order:
Silver
Rita Scardaci (too bad her arrogant smirking at the BoS mtg in Feb was not captured on video!)
Shirlee Zane

I understand what you're saying and please don't be discouraged, I don't think you are. This will probably sound naive, but my personal opinion for now, where I'm coming from -- these people have to be given a way to back out gracefully. Think of that as one of several possibilities? It's kind of an art to do so, but please leave that door open for them if the situation turns out to be slightly different than what you are describing.

Wouldn't it be fitting, and the perfect end to this, if the target populations for whom these professionals make it look like they are doing a big favor, if they themselves got informed about fluoridation, organized, rose up and said thanks but no thanks. You're doing this for me? Don't. I refuse, I don't want my water fluoridated.

I agree, I mean from one angle this whole situation is about classism, as you are implying. The whole nature of the mainstream professions, which have become calcified by now, is to know more than the untrained and uneducated; that is the only way to "serve them." However, there are many good professionals... (The history of the rise of the professions is another entertaining study.)

I am not disagreeing with you, only in degree. Up until a point. Personally, I'm still hoping this can be cut off midway by a few good professionals in a few good fields. A little flicker of doubt that begins to grow...more to say that i cant say here. I think the fact that they have so much on their plate right now works well for us, I don't know.

Funding: Somehow, I'm more worried about the internal politics of the professions and this vastly probing network of influence like a tree root looking for water. These days, the professions themselves are like a virus. Because they just stop questioning and everything is bureaucratized and standardized and they can't seem to think outside of their past professional training, norms, and language. It's an insidious kind of corruption like groupthink.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Why are all these people so invested in adding fluoride to the water as part of the Affordable Health Care reforms?

---

I think it's something about a focus on prevention? Preventative care? I'm observing that this is where public health and health care intersect? And the general belief that fluoridation is going to offset other costs that the county anticipates will increase? Total guess. If this is what they think, it's a belief that can be worked with, taken down by the opposition. Whatever they believe, whatever the logic, it can be taken down. Sorry, PDines, these people so far aren't listening to the science itself, that's the whole problem. ??

I'd love to ask the doctors at the FAC meeting if they conceive of "fluoridation" as fitting into the box of "preventative primary care." I'm not joking. Even though that's funny. I bet they do.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

loud and clear from what you have shared here is that the County "health" apparatus is basically in bed with the for-profit medical industry

---

But RCHC is a nonprofit. ?? Yes, some of the description for the CIH is discouraging. "Build demand for preventative care" "Engage employers, payers (insurance companies?) and policymakers to build demand and support for prevention-focused primary care."https://www.sonomahealthaction.org/icare

The organizations being represented at the meetings -- I need to compare these three separate roster lists to better see what's what and where the overlaps are.

Check out Bo Greaves -- I bet at least a few of these people are genuinely committed with "hands-on" working experience serving underserved populations and want to do the right thing if they can get away with it. He runs Santa Rosa Community Health Centers' Vista Family Health Center? And he mentions care for seniors -- you know, here is another sensitive population. They are just not fully questioning as they should. It's easy to fall into momentum and subconscious groupthink when there is a preventative care "primary care crisis" tidal wave like this going on. I grant you DHS seems hopeless.

Thanks again for your insight and taking the time to share with us.

Of course the county BoS need a face-saving way to back out of this mess. Zane needs a winch to get her foot out of her mouth, too. However, they are not going to do any backing out unless they are forced to by organized political pressure from the constituency. So yes absolutely educating, informing and organizing *the constituency* is a big piece of the puzzle. But trying to talk sense to Silver or any of the fossils at DHS or the Sonoma County Medical Association (the regional trade group for the for-profit allopathic medical industry) is a waste of time.

Firing Silver and "asking" Scardaci to retire would be a good start toward making the fluoridation fiasco go away. However, they are not going to do those things unless they have effective pressure from the public. Eliminating the "public health officer" position would also be a less confrontational face-saving move. Not only would it get rid of a problem employee, it would also save the expense of her salary!

With respect to DHS as a whole, clearly it needs a thorough house-cleaning. What's the old saying... the fish rots from the head. The old people running it are, as you say, calcified (or ossified). Truly we do need younger people with fresh ideas and training that is more realistic about what people are doing to pass diseases around these days. As with just about any cultural shift, the old people resist change and the younger people effect change, which is another good reason to "ask" the fossils like Scardaci to retire. But again, the politicos are not creative people. They do not start the parade, they catch up to it after it gets going. They will only make such a move at the demand of their constituents.

Love your analogy about the tree roots seeking the water of funding! Quite fitting. It would seem that thirsty trees have no morals or ethics.

With respect to for-profit fee-for-service medicine and RCHC being a non-profit organization: being a non-profit just means that they pay lower taxes and their primary purpose is not to make a profit. It does not mean that they do not charge fees for their services. It also does not mean that they do not make a profit. It does mean that making profit is not their primary purpose. Like all medical care providers in this country, they work within the matrix of for-profit medical insurance and the for-profit Big Pharma. The fee-for-service for-profit model has poisoned and corrupted everything about the practice of medicine in this country. For-profit medicine is truly a cancer on our body politic.

Everyone who is planning on attending the FAC meeting on Monday the 24th should watch An Inconvenient Tooth on YouTube. The interview with Daniel Stockin, a public health professional who figured out that water fluoridation is dangerous and ineffective, is quite informative. Here's a link to the Stockin interview on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/sh-oeu2L8yM?t=1h44m31s

Thanks, Glia, for your inspiring and on-target post. I, too, believe that this is a classic case of an employee who has been given the task of carrying out an unpopular agenda using whatever means available, no matter how devious (such as referring to fluoride as a "necessary nutrient"), to get the job done, as well as discounting the most up-to-date scientific studies and evidence by clinging stubbornly to the old, outdated, worn-out policies of the past.

However, to their credit, several dedicated Sonoma County residents are speaking out loud and clear and objecting to this unpopular proposal; and others are doing incredible writing and research in an effort to bring our elected officials up to date with the latest scientific evidence and peer-reviewed studies which point strongly in the direction of anti-fluoridation.

In Sebastacat's opinion, all residents of this county owe a huge debt of gratitude to all of these individuals for taking valuable time out of their busy lives to do so. They are doing the research that our elected officials and their appointees are supposed to be doing, but there's one stark difference: They're not getting paid even one pretty penny for doing so!

Unfortunately, for the residents of this wonderful county, we no longer have responsive government. What we have instead is a county government run amok. What we have is a county government whose priorities are terribly -- and sadly -- misplaced. What we have are several "supes" who are promoting their own agenda and who value politics over the valuable opinions of their respective constituencies.

What we have is a public health officer who has been tasked with getting an unpopular, misguided and dangerous proposal passed for the benefit of the supes and not the people of this county whom she is supposed to protect.

Jonathan Greenberg in his two outstanding articles which were published recently in both The Press Democrat and The Bohemian I believe referred to it as a case of misplaced priorities regarding the supes' refusal to restore funding for public libraries so that they could once again operate at their full schedule. He also alluded to the term "responsive government."

Sebastacat will now use a similar term to describe the proposal to add toxic fluoride to our precious Sonoma County water supply: a crisis in responsive government.

To date, the supes have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to preliminarily study the issue of fluoridating the county water supply. It will cost close to a million dollars just to implement the program and millions more to keep it going!

That's money that could be better used to keep our libraries operating at full schedule and to fix at least some of our embarrassingly bad, deteriorating roads -- things which would be of true benefit for all residents of Sonoma County.

In Sebastacat's opinion, accomplishing both of the above goals is of higher priority than adding poison to the water supply.

When cast in their proper light, I believe that what we are witnessing is a disturbing ravampment of the way that county-level decisions are made. No longer are citizens being heard. If one of our supes isn't interested in what a particular speaker has to say, he or she can turn on their IPad or -- worse yet -- just walk out mid speech, which is what I understand what one supervisor did recently.

I will take this opportunity to remind each of our supes that the public-comment period of any public meeting is a cherished democratic institution. It is the one time per week that members of the public have the opportunity to address publicly their elected officials at the county level. Full respect and attention should be accorded each
and every person who wishes to address them.

I certainly hope that when and if the proposal to fluoridate the Sonoma County Water supply comes before the board of supervisors for a public hearing and subsequent vote that those who oppose this proposal will be accorded the full respect that they deserve, that their opinions will be heard, that the up-to-date scientific studies and evidence which will be placed before them will be given the full weight which they deserve and that, after all the countless hours that so many individuals have unstintingly put into this research, that it will not be marginalized to the archives of irrelevance.

Fluoridation Advisory Committee member Ernest Newbrun, who spoke at the Feb. 26 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, is a longtime fluoridation promoter and one of those who slandered fluoridation opponents and tried to get them fired from their jobs. He worked closely with John Small (see thread on Project Censored) at the NIDR, a PR man who promoted fluoridation at taxpayers' expense for more than forty years.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

The County of Sonoma Department of Health Services (DHS) has created a "Fluoridation Advisory Committee" supposedly to make a recommendation regarding adding fluoride to the water provided by SCWA. Of course Lynn Silver Chalfin is at the helm.

...
These are the members of the committee:
Chris DeGabriele, WAC/TAC rep from North Marin Water District
Pam Jeane, SCWA
Cynthia Murray, North Bay Leadership Council
Jennie Tasheff, E.D. of Community Action Partnership
Mary Maddux-Gonzalez, Redwood Community Health Center
Joel Berryhill, DDS of Sonoma County Indian Health Dental Program
Jeff Miller, MD retired from Kaiser Pediatrics
Martin Van Tassel, Redwood Empire Dental Society
Ernest Newbrun, DDS professor emeritus of UCSF School of Dentistry
Susan Cooper, DDS community action partnership dental director
Deborah Chigazola, Interim Dean of Health Sciences at SRJC
Crista Chelemendos, Senior Advocacy Services
Suzanne Doyle, Sierra Club
Jo Sandersfeld, VP of Mission Integration at St. Joseph Health
Lynn Mortensen, MD of Kaiser Family Medicine
Penny Vanderwolk, Sutter Health director of development
Lisa W. Schaffner, John Jordan Foundation
Robert Judd, Todd Trust
Ricardo Gonzalez, Graton Day Labor Center
Irina deFischer MD, Marin Medical Assoc
Linda Abrahams, Marin Dental Society

---

Glia, do you think there would be any benefit to printing out copies of John Colquhoun's excellent article, "Why I Changed My Mind About Fluoridation," and giving them to the members of the FAC? Colquhoun was the Principal Dental Offcer of Auckland--and a strong fluoridation proponent--until he began to study the data. His article is here: https://www.slweb.org/colquhoun.html I think this is the most convincing single short piece I have read, and it goes right to the heart of the issue--fluoridation does NOT reduce tooth decay! BTW, I think "An Inconvenient Tooth," is WAY too long, and poorly edited. It put me to sleep. I like "Fluoridegate" much better--not so many talking heads!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sebastacat:

... It will cost close to a million dollars just to implement the program and millions more to keep it going!

---

The early cost estimates are way more than that. They currently estimate fluoridation of the SCWA drinking water supply to cost the county up to $8.5 million in capital upgrades. Additionally, The ongoing upkeep cost starts at $973,000 a year. We all know this is low-ball. Costs rise every year and who knows how old these estimates are. The board recently voted unanimously to spend $103,000 on an engineering and design report. I don't know where the money is coming from. I thought they were prohibited by state law to spend taxpayer dollars on fluoridation. Zer Rock apologizes for having to correct Se'Cat. Otherwise, enjoyed your essay!

Unflortunately, Sebastacat, the scenario you describe at the bottom of your post, which is the scenario I, too, would like to see happen, is the opposite of the pro-fluoridation "playbook," which I described earlier. Preventing anti-fluoridation scientists from speaking, avoiding debate with pro-fluoridation scientists, (and keeping them from getting their research published in journals) and giving local citizens only a couple of minutes each at the end of a meeting, is the M.O. that's been effective in ramming fluoridation through for sixty-plus years.

I think you're right that we should INSIST on a full hearing of the issues before the supervisors. But how do we make them do it? Lawsuits? Ballot measures? After reading how George Waldbott's work was dismissed and lied about--and he was an MD who did original research on fluoride poisoning--it's hard to hold out hope that people with lesser qualifications will be afforded respect. Dr. Waldbott had to go to Europe to find doctors who would listen to him and journals that would publish his work. Observing Silver-Chalfin's behavior makes it clear that little has changed in the last 40-50 years. The fluoride pushers count on most doctors and dentists following the party line without looking at the evidence.

I think only a mass movement of the people will make a difference.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sebastacat:

...
I certainly hope that when and if the proposal to fluoridate the Sonoma County Water supply comes before the board of supervisors for a public hearing and subsequent vote that those who oppose this proposal will be accorded the full respect that they deserve, that their opinions will be heard, that the up-to-date scientific studies and evidence which will be placed before them will be given the full weight which they deserve and that, after all the countless hours that so many individuals have unstintingly put into this research, that it will not be marginalized to the archives of irrelevance.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Why are all these people so invested in adding fluoride to the water...

---

The actual beginning of the Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) morass can be traced to the pre-Chalfin work where the county's studies uncovered extreme tooth decay as an impediment to success in the schools.

If you visit the Community Action Partnership website, which seeks to lessen the negative consequences of income disparities, you'll see several photos of smiling kids holding up tubes of toothpaste, or cleaning over-sized teeth models with large toothbrushes. Oscar Chavez recently left the Community Action Partnership (CAP) as their exec. director to become Asst. Dir. of Sonoma County's Human Services Department. At the same time, he resigned from the First 5 Sonoma County Commission; he was Co-Chair. Proposition 10, The California Children and Families First Act of 1998 established local First 5 commissions, i.e. "first 5 years of a child's life."

Besides serving as the commission's co-chair, Chavez also chaired their (First 5's) Strategic Planning Committee. As an aside worth mentioning: he does appear to still be Co-Chair of the Sonoma County Health Action Council, but even as late as this month, it's not clear whether he's retaining that or not. (The subcommittee CHI was mentioned in a recent post of mine).

After Dr S-C was hired, she began to shop the strategy of Community Water Fluoridation(CWF) as one way to address this recently discovered impediment to learning. Because that's what public health people from NYC are going to do, for one. The First 5 Sonoma County March mtg minutes show not only the announcement of Chavez's resignation but Dr S-C making an appearance to enlighten everyone about drinking water fluoridation:

"...County Health Officer suggested looking at models for school-based sealants and county-wide fluoridation as initiatives with potential to reach large numbers and geographically serve the entire county."

Lastly, for now, the March minutes read : "(Co-Chair) Commissioner Chavez’s vacancy will need to be filled... Commissioners Escobedo, Miller, and Scardaci are (the 3 commissioners) on the Recruitment Committee."

There are several corporate sponsors related to CAP who strike me as worthy of contacting. One especially! CAP is important b/c this is the base that the county is trying to serve with CWF. At least one of these corporate sponsors should know better than to support fluoridation. The take away from all of this is not cynicism but how the proponent's many weak links can be tapped and crumbled. I'm continuing to find leads, people who also have a stake and have influence. Proponents are doing everyone a disservice.

dzerach.....

No need to apologize or regret! In fact, Sebastacat, being the affable (!) cat that he is, welcomes any corrections made to his posts which will add to the discourse of the day and aid in getting valuable information out to the public. Isn't that what this is all about?

Thanks for providing this corrected information. The amount is STAGGERING! If the "supes" vote to proceed with this misguided proposal, it will truly be the height of fiscal irresponsibility. The HUGE sum of money which you mention in your post would be much better spent on things such as fixing our dilapidated crumbling roads and reopening all of our libraries to their original full-time operating schedules.

At the other end of the spectrum, they will also be proving just how out of step they are with progressive Sonoma County values. Dr. Silver-Chalfin says that the rest of the country is ahead of the curve when it comes to fluoridating municipal water supplies and that Sonoma county is behind the curve when it comes to fluoridation.

Sebastacat could not disagree more strongly. I think that we are way ahead of the curve in our distaste for forced water fluoridation -- and for the ongoing campaign of misinformation, lies and half-truths which our supes, their hired henchmen and their appointed hand-picked political minions are presently engaged in.

Just look at what happened up in Portland last month. You think Portland is backwards? You think Portland is not progressive? You think Portland is not a vibrant city full of vibrant, original ideas?

Wrong on all counts, Dr. Silver-Chalfin and supes. Portland is a living, vibrant, progressive city whose residents had the courage and the unmistakable resolve to "just say no" to an antiquated and anachronistic proposal which meant the wholesale poisoning of their precious water supply -- something that the overwhelming majority of Portlandians obviously value as one of that region's greatest cultural and healthful assets. By doing so for the FOURTH TIME since 1956, Portlandians have re-proven their steadfast resolve to resist forced water fluoridation once again, and Sebastacat applauds them for doing so.

The question for us in Sonoma County at present is: Will our supes have the resolve and the will to "just say no" to the wholesale poisoning of our precious Sonoma County water supply after reading and reviewing the incredible plethora of scientific evidence which many contributors on this site, as well as other concerned individuals, have discovered through arduous, diligent research and have put before them?

Have they even read it?

Have they made any attempt to digest it?

Have they even considered it?

Are they even listening?

Just who exactly do they represent?

Sebastacat would like to know.........

Dzerach, I have no doubt that CAP is genuinely interested in children's dental health. I was a volunteer at Head Start, a CAP project, and the kids faithfully brushed their teeth after their after afternoon snack every day. They all had toothbrushes that they kept at school. I also volunteered in their "Give Kids a Smile" program, where dentists volunteer their time to do exams and I think cleaning happens, too.

The problem is that I believe CAP is getting a big chunk of money from DHS to push fluoridation. That means that even if individual CAP leaders don't think it's a good idea, they have to keep silent or jeopardize some funding, and maybe even some staff positions.

Maybe you could look into the details of this. How much money does the DHS give CAP, and are there strings attached?

Also, Silver-Chalfin listed some of the private donors to the fluoridation campaign, whose moneys made possible the fluoridation push here in Sonoma County, and I think tracking down their sources of funds is very important. The ones Chalfin mentioned on June 3 as providing funds were: The California Endowment, the CDA Foundation, the California Fluoridation Task Force, and "interested parties," including "philanthropists."

There were 7 corporations listed by George Waldbott as financial supporters of the appeal of a conviction of Reynolds Metals for fluoride poisoning in Oregon in 1957. The corporations were ALCOA, Kaiser Aluminum, Harvey Aluminum, Monsanto, Olin-Mathieson, Victor Chemical, and Food Machinery and Chemical Corp (FMC). (A Struggle with Titans, p. 118).

In the intervening years, the corporations learned how to launder their money through nonprofits that sound altruistic, but are actually just fronts for promoting corporate interests.

Paul Connett mentions The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). He quotes Bill Moyers as saying: "ACSH has been supported in large part by contributions from such companies as American Cyanamid, Chevron, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Exon, Monsanto,and Union Carbide. The organization sends out a continual stream of press releases and reports anchored by one primary theme--that enviromental risks,, especially the risks of toxic chemicals, are not so great as the public is being led to believe. (Connett, "The Case Against Fluoride," p. 263.)

I'd like to know where the California Endowment and the California Fluoridation Task Force get their money. The CA Endowment provided $15 million for the fluoridation push in Sonoma County.

Another surprise was learning that the National Research Council, a longtime fluoridation promoter, is a private organization that "acts as a liaison between the Public Health Service [government] and industry. I thought it was a government agency. It's not.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by dzerach:

If you visit the Community Action Partnership website, which seeks to lessen the negative consequences of income disparities, you'll see several photos of smiling kids holding.

---

The Colquhoun article sounds like a good handout item for the FAC meeting - yes, definitely do that. any other similar items that others could prepare and distribute to the committee members?

the Inconvenient Tooth video is too long. Two of the interviews are not really that useful and could be cut out. That's why I give links to the beginning of the the portion pertinent to the subject of that particular post. :thumbsup:

Fluoridegate is good too. Could you do a review of it and post it in the Wacco Reader category?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lilypads:

Glia, do you think there would be any benefit to printing out copies of John Colquhoun's excellent article, "Why I Changed My Mind About Fluoridation," and giving them to the members of the FAC? Colquhoun was the Principal Dental Offcer of Auckland--and a strong fluoridation proponent--until he began to study the data. His article is here: https://www.slweb.org/colquhoun.html I think this is the most convincing single short piece I have read, and it goes right to the heart of the issue--fluoridation does NOT reduce tooth decay! BTW, I think "An Inconvenient Tooth," is WAY too long, and poorly edited. It put me to sleep. I like "Fluoridegate" much better--not so many talking heads!

---

Lilypads, Thank you, well, yes, but I'm lacking an instinct for that type of more abstract research. Here is a September 2012 Press Democrat article. It's interweaving -- is this the level that you are interested in (?)
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...CLES/120929495

I really think the level of investigative journalism you are alluding to is beyond my instinctual capabilities. I've been going through pedestrian stuff like meeting notes. (!) Trying to just identify the relevant organizations. Identify potential allies. A horrible mash of broadly-named organizations to make sense of, and several weird roster lists. What a huge, ridiculous, repetitive, bureaucracy. They've formed all of these closely related organizations and committees. DHS just doing its job by poking its head in everywhere. I am sorting it out. AND: excellent inter-agency collaboration; this is why a sane person knows the county can reach metrics without slapping "water fluoridation" onto anybody's resume or retaining as a needed "indicator" for success.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lilypads:

I think only a mass movement of the people will make a difference.

---

AGREED. Oddly enough, that IS what I'm actually working on, indirectly. Strategies for how to change public opinion by igniting a series of cause and effect so that the fuller truth can out. If public opinion can be changed by hearing other local voices of authority in opposition (a counterweight), the authorities have lost the battle. Further, it's possible that the public just needs to understand enough to the point where they doubt.

It's all about the merits of the opposition receiving the same respect from the public that the proponents have currently outright stolen.

Oh, I feel everyone involved as a proponent is genuinely interested in solving the real problem, not only CAP. The "sensitive populations" research is our trump card. Chavez may be an important ally. Or potential ally. For all I know. Open to better understanding fuller truths &what it's all about? He seems to retain informal influence concerning the population being served. He left to take what is surely a less political position, more routine, and seems safely ensconced now, should he ever find that he wishes to oppose the initiative?? Either way, submitting information to him with the genuine concern that we all feel, is on my to do list.

Yes, I've seen a reproachable lack of transparency in local government. This is why an idiot like me has to read a boatload of meeting notes -- shouldn't have to happen just to find out what is going on; excellent intentions -- including the ignorant kind.

Personally, at this time, I don't think there's a way to bring this down by outing where the money is coming from. My only earlier point was to illustrate how authorities could get the money on their own: In other words, residents better not hang hopes on the erroneous belief that SCWA first needs to receive the approval from all nine Water Contractors. They have permission to ruin the county's water without it.

Here's one of many possible, naive approaches, I'm sure: One way to work on public opinion is to identify the different kinds of local chokepoints where loosening is possible. So that's what I'm doing. Potential opposition that can be educated in their own interests! Other authority figures locally: voices of influence who are potentially big stakeholders and stand in opposition as a result.

Horse owners as one "flicker," for example! A few flickers of appropriate doubt start the fire of truth, creating an ever safer environment for others to become informed and speak out. Voila initiative lands in can. "DID YOU KNOW HOW THIS MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT YOUR LOCAL INTERESTS, AND, almost worse: no one will be helped by it ?" That kind of a thing. PR campaign number two, otherwise known as the truth. I'm open to being redirected, but that's what's inspiring me personally -- and will until I can see that it's not working?

There are a number of posts on the "Stop SC Fluoridation" Yahoo Group regarding the FAC meeting. I suggest all those interested mosey over there: https://groups.yahoo.com/group/StopS...ation/messages

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by dzerach:

I'm open to being redirected, but that's what's inspiring me personally -- and will until I can see that it's not working?

---

Thanks for the link to the PD article. Clearly the Health Services Dept. has a lot on its plate, so they'll have plenty to do if fluoridation fails.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lilypads:

There are a number of posts on the "Stop SC Fluoridation" Yahoo Group regarding the FAC meeting. I suggest all those interested mosey over there: https://groups.yahoo.com/group/StopS...ation/messages

---

At long last the formal announcement and agenda for the June FAC meeting have been posted on the DHS web site.
https://www.sonoma-county.org/health...licmeeting.asp

Note that the "engineering report" is scheduled to be presented at this meeting.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

The June meeting of the FAC has been changed once again, or maybe the previous "date change" was, ahem, disinformation. At my request, District Director Michelle Whitman phoned DHS and has confirmed that the original Monday the 24th date is correct. I have updated the listing in the Events section accordingly.

---

At the first FAC meeting in May, I was the only member of the public there who spoke during the "public comment" section. Incidentally, there was only one other member of the public there at all -- a student at Walden University who is observing this process as part of a research project.

As you may have read above, one of Silver's tactics was to have all the members of the committee sign a "financial conflict of interest" statement and turn it in to her. (There is some interesting forensic psychology behind that maneuver, but that's another post.) During my statement when I referred to "enormous financial and psychological motivations" on the part of the fluoridation pushers, she smirked and pointed to the signed statements on the table in front of her, as if to let everyone know that she had that one covered. I told her that I saw the statement and that it was a nice try, but the financial interests are not much of an issue at the individual level but are absolutely an issue at the industry level; further, individuals are motivated to prop up the dogma that they bought in to. Silver's smirk evaporated.

After the meeting, one 30-something woman was chatting with Silver, discussing what she wanted to do as part of the committee. She showed signs of doing her own thinking, and made it clear during the meeting that she did not agree to serve on it to rubber-stamp a foregone conclusion. She told Silver that she wanted to do some new research and statistical analysis of early grade-school children. Silver responded, with a creepy George Bush smile, that such a study is too expensive and no funds are available, and they will have to make do with the data set that she has provided.

Later in the same conversation, the woman indicated that she wanted to do another research inquiry to determine the most cost-effective method(s) of dealing with dental problems. Silver replied, again with the Bush-esque smile, that would not be necessary since she (Silver) had done that analysis and determined that fluoridating the water is the most cost-effective method.
Note: since ingesting fluoride has been shown to be NOT clinically effective at preventing cavities and cannot do anything for existing cavities, how can it possibly be *cost* effective?

In going over the subject matter for upcoming FAC meetings, one committee member brought up environmental concerns and suggested having a speaker/info regarding environmental impacts of fluoride in the water supply. The use of recycled wastewater was also mentioned. Silver's response was (paraphrasing) "oh yes, there's concern about the fishees" (not "fish" or "fishes" but "fishees") with a sneering laugh.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

At the first FAC meeting in May, I was the only member of the public there who spoke during the "public comment" section....As you may have read above, one of Silver's tactics was to have all the members of the committee sign a "financial conflict of interest" statement and turn it in to her. (ETC. ETC. per post)

---

Well. I can't thank you enough, anyone who attends these meetings. Thank you very much.:Clap:I just spoke with my elder cousin in SR and couldn't feel more helpless and infuriated at the moment that I can't be there.

Should anyone doubt Glia, or feel she is exaggerating, or perhaps you are curious about "bhav"? Here is a video of the county's new-hire public health officer (DHS) in person, in action. Here receiving an award in NYC for Best Wavemaker on a mission. A formidable opponent at the apex of her career. And yes, it's relevant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0y8c4bPC6Y

A tad different presentation than what adorable photo stills offer. Just to mention -- between 8:00 minutes and 8:30 minutes in, the viewer may understand that protracted battles and lawsuits are old hat to her?

The additional agenda items struck me also. Based on my prior research and correspondence. I hope to learn how the "environmental update" went....However, it looks like the irrelevant number 4 and accompanying number 5 will be the bulk of the meeting, I shall wager. Lastly, am wondering how much money they are going to spend on expertly massaging the proponent's message through media and one-sided propaganda (Community Outreach Discussion).

3) Environmental Issues Update
4) Preliminary Cost Report of Un-treated Dental Disease in Sonoma County
5) Discussion
6) Community Outreach Discussion

Did you know? The roughly 500-employee Health Services Department (DHS) is the county's third largest by personnel behind Human Services and the Sheriff's office? Their annual budget is about $234 million, most of it federal and state funds. An additional new 30 member team was created in October 2012. Despite the cost dispute, they now have a newly created policy and planning division. The purpose is to guide the county through changes resulting from health care reform.

Dr S-C: "The combination of wave-making, and hard-working rocks in the pond, has been the proud history of public health."

Glia, will you be there tomorrow to identify the woman who thinks for herself?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

At the first FAC meeting in May, I was the only member of the public there who spoke during the "public comment" section....

After the meeting, one 30-something woman was chatting with Silver, discussing what she wanted to do as part of the committee. She showed signs of doing her own thinking, and made it clear during the meeting that she did not agree to serve on it to rubber-stamp a foregone conclusion. ....

---

you have to go talk to them , in person, with as many people as you can collect. good luck. pat

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sebastacat:

The question for us in Sonoma County at present is: Will our supes have the resolve and the will to "just say no" to the wholesale poisoning of our precious Sonoma County water supply after reading and reviewing the incredible plethora of scientific evidence which many contributors on this site, as well as other concerned individuals, have discovered through arduous, diligent research and have put before them?

---

Right now the Board is most probably poised to approve judging by public health officer Lynn Silver-Chalfin, the person they picked to sell us the idea.
Its going to take alot of us going to the board and speaking out, going beyond writing on Wacco, another words.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by patnicholson:

you have to go talk to them , in person, with as many people as you can collect. good luck. pat

---

I just returned from this afternoon's meeting of the Fluoridation Task Force Advisory meeting.
I will have some comments at the end of this post, but after having a highly restrictive one-minute time limit slapped on members of the public who desired to speak during the public-comment period, I was faced with the unenviable task of having to abbreviate a three-minute talk down to just ONE lousy minute.

Several people told me after that they enjoyed my speech and asked me to post it its entirety here,
so I will gladly do so.

"If municipal water fluoridation were the magic panacea and dental-health-care cure-all that some people in this county and country are claiming it is, then the great state of Kentucky, which is the most fluoridated state in the entire union -- at nearly 100% and has been practicing municipal water fluoridation since 1951, when Marysville, Kentucky, became its first community to institute the practice -- should have the best dental health in the nation. But the stubborn and irreducible fact is that they have among the worst dental health of all 50 states!

In fact, recent statistics indicate that Kentucky has the SECOND HIGHEST TOOTH LOSS in the entire country -- at a staggering 38.1% (!) and that in 2001, half of Kentucky's children had decay in their primary teeth.

Incidentally, California is at Number 50 on that same list, having only 13.7% tooth loss, with Utah and Connecticut having the lowest incidence of tooth loss.

Kentucky's state governor, Steve Besher, felt that the problem was so serious that he dedicated a large portion of his Governor's Blog of October 3, 2009, and August 26, 2011, to address this serious health issue.

He said:

"Kentucky has a problem with its national image. Whether it's 20/20 news show or a made-for-TV movie, too often, the face of our state is that of a person missing a mouthful of teeth."

He proposes to institute a program called "Smiling Teeth." And it has three main components:

"1. Over the next year, a protective tooth varnish will be APPLIED to the teeth of children in 1st through 5th grade at 80 schools in 16 counties in eastern Kentucky. The fluoride varnish prevents decay, slows the progress of existing decay and reverses the beginning steps of decay.

2. The Department for Public Health will conduct OUTREACH in the region to increase public awareness of the importance of children's dental health.

3. The local health department nurses specially trained to apply the varnish will examine the children for other dental problems and refer those who need additional services to dentists." Close quote.

Governor Besher also makes mention of increasing the number of mobile dental clinics in that state and purchasing additional dental equipment, as well as teaching dental education to the students.

You will note that nowhere in his program does he makes reference to that state's municipal water fluoridation program which begain in 1951. That's because to do so would be to admit that it has been a complete and utter failure -- not to mention a colossal waste of taxpayer money.

I submit that what Governor Besher is proposing to do is the "new progressive."

The question now is: Are you people going to follow Kentucky's new lead? I will remind you that this is progressive Sonoma County. We're supposed to be the leaders in this respect. Are you going to allow this county to be upstaged by Kentucky?

Conversely, it simply cannot be denied that Kentucky has also wasted a HUGE sum of money on municipal water fluoridation since it was first instituted in that state in 1951. And....what did they get in return for their unwise investment? Some of the worst dental health in the nation.

It has been said that those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it. Let's learn from their mistake and not repeat that error. Let's learn by their example and adopt some of the components of their can-do, hands-on approach to combating this problem of dental disease and make them available to those who need them most and toss the tired, old, anachronistic and scientifically discredited practice of municipal water fluoridation out the window where it belongs -- once and for all.
---
Now some comments on the meeting itself.
The entire process seemed skewed toward the pro-fluoridation argument. However, that being said, I did feel that there were two or three of the members of the committee who were really making a diligent effort to understand the issues and were not afraid to ask questions, and I thank them for it. I urge them to continue to do so.

There were NO MICROPHONES, so it was extremely difficult for Sebastacat to hear the proceedings in their entirety, although he made an extra diligent effort to do so.

One of the above-mentioned members of the committee stated that community outreach is needed, and that that isn't the same as getting public input.

Costs will feed into a recommendation, one member said.

The engineer gave his presentation. And, quite frankly, I found his presentation about injecting the fluoride into the water creepy and chilling. He did everything he could to try to advance the pro-fluoridation agenda and
tried to minimize the toxic effects of this poison. He also said that "caustic soda" is used presently for Ph neutralization (!).

He also said that the capital outlay would be $4,440 MILLION DOLLARS. And that doesn't include what it will cost to keep the fluoridation program going.

(But, wait, I thought that the "supes" didn't have any money to re-open the libraries...)

Dr. Silver-Chalfin said that fluoridated water would have little, if any, effect on the salmon population, to which the public audience strongly disagreed.

One of the members of the committee, a prefessor emeritis from U.C.S.F., ADMITTED that since 1995, it has been known that many children unintentionally ingest fluoride from toothpaste, mouthwashes, etc. Question: How is our "County of Sonoma" going to guard against overfluoridation of these children when they start washing down this extra toothpaste with a glass of fluoridated water?

Dr. Silver-Chalfin cited a study which bolstered her claim that the marine population would not be harmed by fluoridation, only to be corrected when she incorrectly cited the number used therein!

One person asked: "What is the mortality to the human species?" To which Dr. Silver-Chalfin replied, "I haven't heard of any mortality to the human species." To which another audience member replied: "You haven't looked!"

More to come later.

-----
ADDENDUM TO ORIGINAL POST:
8:26 P.M.

When asked about outreach, Dr. Silver-Chalfin informed us that the Dept. of Health Services had done ONE
outreach at a city council meeting.

A committee member asked what avenues had been pursued in this respect, to which Dr. Silver-Chalfin informed the committee that information has been posted on the Dept. of Health Services Web site as well as a campaign on oral health in general.

Another committee member was concerned that only pro-fluoridation material was being presented.

And here is where the most telling moment of the day occurred: Dr. Silver-Chalfin replied that, so far, Dept. of Health Services is not putting anti-fluoridation materials on the Web site because they have "concluded that it is is safe."

It is at this point of the meeting that Sebastacat (and others, I'm sure) nearly fell out of his chair. This is telltale evidence that our public health officer -- Dr. Lynn Silver-Chalfin -- and her cohorts have not and will not listen to the public, nor will they consider seriously the latest scientific studies and evidence which several who post regularly on this forum, as well as others, have attempted to give them.

Sebastacat has just got to ask: What kind of a health officer have our "supes" hired? (Gorin excluded)
Does she have some unknown interest in this battle which she has heretofore not divulged? Or, is she more interested in keeping her high-salary job at the expense of the public's health?

Pardon my naivete, but I've always thought that the first allegiance of a health officer -- ANY health officer -- was to the public whom he/she was charged with serving, ALL members of the public. And that includes protecting that public from the dangerous effects of fluoride.

What I came away with today was that those members of the public who were in attendance were both marginalized and stifled. However, that being said, despite having an unreasonably restrictive one-minute time limit placed on them, the comments that were made attempted to educate and enlighten members of the committee and could hardly be characterized as "fringe."

I say to the supes: It is the height of irresponsibility to continue to allow this "public health officer" to present only one side of the story -- her story -- to the great people of this county in an effort to foist her Orwellian agenda on us. I think to allow her to continue on this path is yet another step down the road of irresponsible government.

This is not a reply to Sebastacat, but is interesting and relevant to the ongoing discussion:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/is-fluoride-brain-drain-damaging-generations-of-children-212952611.html

Here's some good news: I wrote to supervisors Gorin and Rabbitt a couple weeks ago, asking how the members of the Fluoridation Advisory Committee were chosen. Since I did not hear back from either of them, I followed up with phone calls today. Gorin's assistant called back and left a message saying that she was going to be meeting with Chalfin to ask about that.

Andrea Krout, Rabbitt's assistant, called back and told me that Rabbitt met with Chalfin yesterday and said he was not satisfied with the composition of the committee. He wanted more "stakeholders" represented. He suggested Sonoma County Conservation Action and also the Sierra Club.

I told her there was already a Sierra Club representative. I also told her there were 3 doctors in the audience yesterday, one of whom, April Hurley, would have liked to be on the committee.

So I think it's quite likely that the committee will be expanded to include a couple of fluoridation opponents.

I think its important to keep the pressure on the supervisors about this issue. The 4th purpose of the committee is to "facilitate broad community input." They have a long way to go if they are really going to do that.

I came across the info that Rita Scardaci (Director of Health Services) is a Board member of the California Endowment.

And here is a new website I just found regarding fluoride and the Manhattan Project. Looks like this may explain the government's big push for fluoridation before the results of the "experiments" on the paired cities were in. I hope some of you will have time to dig in to this material.

https://www.whale.to/b/fluoride2.html#EVIDENCE OF FLUORIDE'S ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS

Well, welcome to the Brave New World of the U.N. Agenda 21—

Everyone who opposes fluoridating Sonoma County water you are being Delphied as Rosie Koire, “Behind the Green Mask”, would say. As we sat quietly at the Department of Health meeting held on June 24, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., the people were again being duped. Those supporting fluoridation were obviously hoping that no one from the public would be there. The presentation was given as if fluoridating our water had been approved and they were just tying up the loose ends. The majority of the presentation was on the how and where they will place the fluoride dispensers with the salesman of these dispensers being asked questions regarding fluoride as if he were an authority on the subject (it seemed apparent that he wasn’t, but who knows maybe he was). And the rest of the presentation was irrelevant, disinformation and misinformation and flat out lies that went almost entirely unchallenged by the public. We should have spoken up when the presentation rambled on with uncertainties about the effect on Salmon with no mention of the effects on humans. There was a presentation by the health dept. minion who obviously had no knowledge on the subject, presented a power point presentation that seemed to be a hodge-podge of information regarding cost, cost, cost and some not-so-pretty photos of a child needing dental care-obviously playing on emotions and trying to desperately avoid any rational thinking. But she never once mentioned how any of this data would be affected if our water was fluoridated, and in fact both of the speakers seemed afraid to even say the word, fluoride. The elephant in the room was the question of what are the effects of fluoride on human beings. This is because they know that if they even open up that conversation they will start dropping into a bottomless hole from which they will never return.

Also, I have to say that the logic of paying for this estimate before it has been approved by Sonoma County residents should have been another giant Bullwinkle the Moose standing in the middle of the room that we were all looking passed. And I think too, an indication of their intention—to silently slip this project by anyone who doesn’t want it.

They have been through this process before and have lost and they know that if they want to get the water fluoridated they are going to have to sneak it past anybody that is looking and will use any tactics necessary including lieing. One tactic may I suggest is depending on the public to be courteous and let the pro-fluoride people speak and then make us believe that we, too, will be given a chance to speak. After yesterday meeting we all know how that worked out. If the people hadn’t insisted on expressing their opinions we would have never gotten a chance even at the end. Almost everyone had super great comments, but let me just reiterate here—they don’t want to hear it! They already know everything that we may have to say and they are truly afraid that if the people insist on the truth, their project will be in big trouble. So they are dodging the truth with every tactic possible and it’s our job if we really don’t want fluoridate in our water to challenge them and not let them ignore us and just go on with their plans. We need to challenge them in their misinformation and not wait until the presentation is over, which is like putting our stamp of approval on it for them and they will say that, “Well, we told you this and this in our presentation but you didn’t say anything…”

After seeing how this meeting went here’s my prediction on this matter, if the next meetings go as this one, the people in Sonoma County will be drinking fluoridated water within the year. The study that was going to take years has already been expedited. This project is on the fast-track and seems to be on schedule. It will silently be slipped passed us all as we are waiting patiently and courteously in our chairs to give our well-thought out and researched protest. And the next thing we know the fluoride dispensers will be built and they will be preparing to dump in the fluoride. And we will say in shock and surprise, “Hey wait a minute, we don’t want fluoride in our water!” We thought this was a study! The figure heads for those pushing this program will say, oops! Sorry too late, you should’ve spoken up sooner. And because of some crazy California law that says once you have the system up and running, they will say they have to keep it going (I have to ask here, is a law like that “lawful”? How can anybody, including the state, say you can’t change your mind? And hey, and what a coincidence that strange law is just what they will need—not a coincidence I’ll bet). Yep! Those pushing this project have a plan.

In the end this isn’t about fluoride in our water, it is about exercising our free-will and our critical thinking skills. Standing up for what we know is right. If we don’t exercise our free-will, we have consented to give it to anyone else who wants to enslave us. No one can take our free-will away from us if we don’t consent—we are consenting right now. We should be mad-as-hell that poisonous fluoride is being forced on us. Don’t believe anyone who says this study will take 6 years and the whole process will probably never happen and that someone else, the government, can take care of it, because if that meeting was any indication, project completion is way sooner than any of us think, so it will take everyone getting involved.

As for why two-thirds of the advisory committee made no comments what so ever, would lead me on a journey of speculation—but what if they fear for their jobs if they state the obvious-fluoride is poison and are they sitting hoping that the public will take up the reins with courage and critical thinking. How about “The People” insisting on having our own agenda and meetings and having the Sonoma Health Dept. attend our meetings and answer our questions. If they don’t want to attend, then fluoride is off the table with instructions to never bring that idea up again. They think they run the show but they don’t if we take back our power, the power of a concerned human being who pays their salaries.

I will probably make some people angry by bluntly saying the obvious here. We are so afraid that people are so unaware/uninformed that we have to avoid the facts, sugar coat everything and just pray that someone doesn’t say the word, “conspiracy” (a plot, esp. an illegal one—American Heritage Dictionary—at some point no matter how fearful we are we are going to have to finally admit that the movement to fluoridate all of the water in the U.S. is a conspiracy-are we also afraid to speak the truth?). Maybe we could give people more credit, after all most of our opinions/thoughts/beliefs have been given to us. We need some practice on how to think for ourselves, but we need to get started. Right now we should be Mad-as-Hell at the system perpetrating this crime against the people who have to drink this poisoned water instead of being angry at someone for speaking out in a meeting pointing out facts that were intentionally being excluded. We can’t take for granted that this is going to be a fair process because it isn’t. And we need to stand up and support the people at the water agency and other agencies/city council who probably really don’t want to do this and probably could lose their jobs, by helping them say no to fluoridated water. They need the people to demand a voice by saying, “No, we will not have fluoridated water!!!” Because this program to fluoridate our water is on the fast-track and the train is on time, folks!

I think you are right, and I think we should start gathering the necessary signatures to put this issue on the ballot. That will force the PD to report both sides.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by WeWe:

Well, welcome to the Brave New World of the U.N. Agenda 21—

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by WeWe:

Well, welcome to the Brave New World of the U.N. Agenda 21—

---

I think you should leave Agenda 21 out of this. What's more I don't see any reference to fluoride in Agenda 21

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lilypads:

I think you are right, and I think we should start gathering the necessary signatures to put this issue on the ballot. That will force the PD to report both sides.

---

Yes, I agree, PLUS there should be uppity protest demonstrations!

I agree with Barry. Agenda 21 and the Nazis are NOT NEEDED (and apparently there's nothing to the Nazi story anyway). They turn people off and the TRUTH ABOUT FLUORIDE is more than adequate to convince people to oppose it. One of the most effective ways the fluoride pushers discredit the opposition is by labeling us conspiracy theorists. We don't need to play into their hands.

I also appreciate Dzerach's careful research and lengthy posts here and in the Yahoo group, and I agree that we have to give these people a graceful way to back out. But that does not mean we don't move quickly and decisively to put the brakes on Chalfin's stealth operation and demand a public hearing where both sides are represented. Or--since the "pro" side has been aired to death, maybe just a County-sponsored inquiry into the known health effects.

At the TAC meeting June 3, Chalfin said health issues would not be discussed at the FAC. So I am going to write to ALL the supervisors and send them Chapter 9 , "Illness from Artifically Fluoridated Water," from Waldbott's book "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma." (I tried to attach it here, but the 8-page scan was over 15 mb, and I couldn't do it. If anyone wants it, please send me an email. It's not a great copy, but it's readable.) I gave the whole book to Gorin yesterday, and I gave Colquhoun's article, "Why I Changed My Mind about Fluoridation," to Gorin, Rabbitt, and McGuire, as well as to all the FAC members.

I am going to ask the supervisors WHEN and WHERE health issues WILL be discussed. We need to insist that at least one expert fluoridation opponent speak to both the FAC and the BOS, either Connett or David Kennedy, or both. And there needs to be a question period where the committee members and the supes can ask questions of the expert(s). I think that some of the supes are genuinely interested in learning about this. Rabbitt's assistant said he has Connett's book. I offered to bring him Waldbott's book and she said she could order it. I don't know if she did.

I urge everyone to write to the supes now, expressing your own concerns. But we need to MEET with them, also, maybe in small groups. There is not really an event coming up soon at which to have a demonstration. But we can call our supes and request appointments, and then get 3 or 4 others to join us.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

I think you should leave Agenda 21 out of this. What's more I don't see any reference to fluoride in Agenda 21



Yes, I agree, PLUS there should be uppity protest demonstrations!

---

when and where for the protest? Does move-on.org know about this?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

PLUS there should be uppity protest demonstrations!

---

Lilypads:

As usual, and in keeping with what has now become tradition, your latest post provides useful information and inspiring ideas. I am particularly enamored with your suggestion of conducting a public hearing into the issue of municipal water fluoridation in Sonoma County, where both pro and con arguments can be made by each camp to our elected officials and their subordinates.

Accordingly, I would like to offer my assessment of the risks and benefits which I feel that both sides of this issue can expect.

1. PRO-FLUORIDATIONISTS.

A. BENEFITS: The pro-fluoridationists will have an opportunity to make their case for municipal water fluoridation in a public forum in front of numerous elected officials and their subordinates, many of whom are already in favor of this practice. Accordingly, they may feel empowered and emboldened by the opportunity to press their case in front of those people in power who share a similar view on the issue.

Also, some of their outdated ideas just may take hold with those who are on the fence about this issue, depending on how well they present them.

B. RISKS: They now run a huge risk of being outed in a public forum by individuals who are in possession of the most up-to-date science and peer-reviewed studies. And, if they fail to acknowledge these peer-reviewed studies as being relevant, they will certainly lose credibility with many of those in attendance.

And if they continue with the anachronistic and outdated argument that fluoride is "clinically proven" while ignoring the fact that there are no studies that have been conducted which can attest to its safety, and if they keep repeating the line that fluoride is a "necessary nutrient" when information exists to the contrary, they will
lose the trust of the public.

2. ANTI-FLUORIDATIONISTS.

A. BENEFITS: At long last, the antifluoridationists will finally have a hearing in front of public officials where they can, along with their consulting experts, present their latest scientific evidence, studies and data which demonstrate conclusively that municipal water fluoridation is not the magic potion to prevent dental disease and cavities which the public has been led to believe for many years that it is. Photographs of people who have suffered the ravages of fluorosis may now be shown to these same public officials and the public to counter the scary photographs of children suffering the ravages of severe dental disease which Dr. Silver-Chalfin and her minions have so freely shown in an effort to lay the blame of dental disease and excess cavities on the lack of water fluoridation in this county and to use as a selling point to get this terrible proposal passed.

Of course, the success of this effort will depend on two things: 1) the full, undivided attention of each and every member of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors; and, 2) those members of the public who have been indoctrinated to believe that municipal water fluoridation is a safe and effective practice to approach the issue with a clean slate and an open mind and a willingness to learn.

RISKS: There will be those who will be present who will be out to demonize members of the anti-fluoridationist camp as uncaring and still others who will be all too eager to tar and feather them as "new-age quacks." That is why we must refrain from fringe arguments, which will only serve to provide welcome fodder to the pro-fluoridationists.

THE PUBLIC:

RISKS: None.

BENEFITS: LOTS! When (and if ) a public hearing is conducted, all members of the public present will finally get to see their Sonoma County Supervisors in action -- and their actions will speak for themselves. The public will also learn, live and up front, whether the supes are really interested in giving this important issue the full, complete and fair hearing that it deserves and whether the health of the public -- ALL members of the public -- is their paramount concern.

They will also learn something else: just what their first priority truly is -- the public's health and their right to not be medicated against their will, or protecting the reputations of Dr. Lynn Silver-Chalfin and her cohorts by allowing them to continue to present only one side of this issue -- that of pro-fluoridation -- in a deceptive and desperate attempt to railroad this misguided proposal right past public view without it being given the
scrutiny that it so rightly deserves.

Remember Deep Throat, who was living here right under our noses for decades, and his famous advice: "follow the money." It was great advice then, and is great advice now. An accurate and legitimate money trail will always tell you who/what is behind something and who is benefiting.

Also, the benefits of scenarios such as this one are not just financial. Furthering careers, political ambitions, saving face (or ass-covering), and avoiding liability/culpability are all valid motivators. IMO all of the aforementioned are factors in the push to fluoridate SCWAs water. It is part of the puzzle and something that should be taken into consideration -- using responsible and reliable information. another pertinent pearl of wisdom: consider the source.

I completely agree about dealing with this in a credible, reasonable manner and not giving the pro-fluoridators ammunition. Ixnay the "Agenda 21" talk!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lilypads:

I agree with Barry. Agenda 21 and the Nazis are NOT NEEDED (and apparently there's nothing to the Nazi story anyway). They turn people off and the TRUTH ABOUT FLUORIDE is more than adequate to convince people to oppose it. One of the most effective ways the fluoride pushers discredit the opposition is by labeling us conspiracy theorists. We don't need to play into their hands.

---

Here is a fancy PR booklet https://www.calendow.org/uploadedFil..._the_grade.pdf I found on the site of The California Endowment, which gave $15 million to Sonoma County to promote fluoridation. Rita Scardaci of the Dept. of Health Services is allegedly on the Board of Directors, but I could not find the Board members listed on the website. The booklet mentions California fluoridation efforts in at least 2 places. I think it's important to find out where the California Endowment gets its money. They have big bucks, and they spend them on fluoride promotion.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Remember Deep Throat, who was living here right under our noses for decades, and his famous advice: "follow the money." It was great advice then, and is great advice now. An accurate and legitimate money trail will always tell you who/what is behind something and who is benefiting. ...

---

Here is another source of fluoridation promotion funds (and lies): https://www.cdafoundation.org/learn/...y/fluoridation

By dowloading the book, "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma," by George Waldbott, MD, I was able to extract a good copy of Chapter 9, "Illness From Artificially Fluoridated Water," and part 1 of it is attached. I will attach part 2 in my next message. The whole book can be downloaded here: https://www.whale.to/b/Waldbott_DILEMMA_ocr.pdf

It's a great book, covering the history of fluoridation, the toxicity of fluoride, Waldbott's clinical cases, his difficulty getting his work published in the USA (he was a well known and highly respected allergist who had published many articles before his work on fluoride), the suppression of good science on fluoride, the smearing of fluoridation opponents, and much more. It's fully documented and yet accessible to the general reader, very engaging and well written.

This is what Lynn Silver-Chalfin needs to read and absorb. She is doing nothing but repeating lies and empty endorsements, and as a doctor at the FAC meeting said of that meeting, "It's a disgrace!"

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lilypads:

Here is another source of fluoridation promotion funds (and lies): https://www.cdafoundation.org/learn/...y/fluoridation

---

I just saw this video regarding Portland, Oregon's defeat of fluoride-does anything sound familiar?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...Xs3Mdgpo#at=96


also here is another video on the effects of fluoridating water:

https://www.mouthbodydoctor.com/vide...-fluoridation/

Could have a meeting that includes videos. hummmm...

Thanks for this, WeWe. I watched it, and, yes, it does indeed sound eerily familiar. A ton of money was spent by the "powers that be" in Portland on study after study to put poison into the precious Pacific Northwest Water supply, only to be voted down decisively by "Portlanders" for the fourth time since 1956.

Please pay particular attention to the comments of luxvoyager, Mr.Aubery and Donna Mayne in the "Comments"
section.

Also, I think that you should send the link to this Youtube video to every single Sonoma County supervisor as well as Silver-Chalfin and her minions who are continuing to force their one-sided propaganda down our throats without informing the citizens of this county of the inherent and accompanying dangers of fluoride ingestion.

One ironic piece of information which I came across recently is the fact one of the target populations which the pro-fluoridationists are trying to help -- infants -- are going to wind up being harmed by forced water fluoridation if and when it winds up being instituted.

Why, you ask? Because many baby formulas are already quite high in fluoride, and mixing them with fluoridated water is going to raise the level even higher.

The burden will then be placed on their parents to secure an alternative water source or to purchase bottled water to mix with the baby formula so that their child does not wind up receiving a harmful dose of fluoride. Or they will have to bear the added expense of buying bottled water for their household -- which, hopefully, will not contain a harmful dose of fluoride.

Has Silver-Chalfin informed anyone of this fact? Has she even thought of it? Does she even care?
Judging by her poor performance at last week's Fluoride Task Force hearing, I have grave doubts.
When one of her own handpicked committee members informed her and the other members of the committee
that they were concerned that only the "pro" side of fluoridation was being discussed, she said, "That's because we've determined that it's safe."

This is unacceptable. I will once again reiterate that the job of a public health officer -- ANY public health officer -- is to protect the health of ALL of the people in a community which that person serves.

And exposing thousands of people to the dangers of this toxic chemical fluoride is going to wind up causing more health problems than it will cure.

I will reiterate my suggestion that the money that our "supes" are considering spending on this misguided proposal -- which is going to be millions and millions of tax dollars -- would be much better spent targeting the population which they wish to help -- the poor kids whose parents can't afford good dental care -- with a program of dental education for parents and students, starting in grade "K," and adding more dental clinics, including mobile dental clinics, in an effort to replicate the approach taken by Kentucky's governor, Mr. Steve Besher, which he found necessary to institute after over 50 years of dental fluoridation in the 100% fluoridated state of Kentucky failed to improve the dental health of that state's residents -- even after millions of dollars were spent to do so.

But it did prove one thing: It sure was an expensive mistake.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by WeWe:

I just saw this video regarding Portland, Oregon's defeat of fluoride-does anything sound familiar? https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...Xs3Mdgpo#at=96

---

I'm going to add in the cost of that election!

Portland, Eugene, & many other communities in Oregon are aware of how their water source is much purer than average. Whatever people value, they generally also want to protect. Pride in a unique water source really helped Portland's campaign. Known purity is a disinclination to explore unnecessary water additives, especially when the chemical in question isn't being used to treat the water itself. Nota bene: Chlorine treats the water. Fluoride is solely added to treat the human who drinks it. To make a physical change in the human body, not in the water. To make one very specific physical change, somehow topically, to just the teeth. Instead, a lot goes wrong as a direct result of fluoride-- yes, even to the teeth! ("Cosmetic" dental fluorosis lowers one's self-esteem; and it's not "merely" a cosmetic-facial hit either.) This is all without further mentioning the documented systemic risks to body and natural environment.

Recently, in one of the state's big cities, San Diego's First Five commission spent their money passively, on fluoridation. That money (plus) will continue to be flushed down the toilet (literally) every year forward, without end.

Sonoma County can do better. And already has. Their First Five Commission is so far spending the same money in actively-involved, sustainable ways -- even growing the economy as part of the response -- to both catch up to the existing problem -- and to stay ahead of it by a multidimensional "empowerment" of people. (One of these many details includes plans to teach mothers the topical application of fluoride to infant's gums.) Worse, in Diego, both the California Attorney General and the City Attorney's Office opined that when sufficient funding became available, San Diego Municipal Code Section 67.0101, which prohibits the City from fluoridation, would be preempted by state law. In Feb 2011 the deed was done. The city's webpage cries out "we got owned!" to me -- does not emanate the usual enthusiasm for fluoride that I've seen on other city pages. https://www.sandiego.gov/water/quali...ridation.shtml

1. March 30th article https://www.pressdemocrat.com/articl...CLES/130339985
2. Meeting minutes: Sonoma County First Five Commission - Actions 3/25/13:
 Approved One-time Strategic/Capital Investment funding to Alliance Medical Center in the amount of $516,924 for a Pediatric Dental Expansion project.
 Approved One-time Strategic/Capital Investment funding to Community Action Partnership in the amount of $1,378,320 for a Southwest Santa Rosa Early Childhood Campus & Family Resource Center, with contingencies.
 Approved One-time Strategic/Capital Investment funding to La Luz Center in the amount of $171,138 for a Family Resource Center Renovation & Expansion project, with a contingency.
 Approved One-time Strategic/Capital Investment funding to Community Child Care Council in the amount of $815,000 for a Value in Preschool (VIP) Scholarship Expansion project, with a contingency.
 Approved One-time Strategic/Capital Investment funding to Santa Rosa Community Health Center in the am ount of $753,382 for an Oral Health Access project.
 Approved One-time Strategic/Capital Investment funding to Sonoma County Human Services Department in the amount of $1,500,000 for the Road to the Early Achievement & Development of Youth (READY) program, with contingencies.
 Approved staff to return to the April Commission meeting with a recommendation for the use of the remaining One-time Strategic/Capital Investment funds in the amount of $1,665,236.

Sebastacat,

I took notes at the Feb. 26 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. One of them reads:

Gorin: "No physician recommends that infants zero to six months should ingest fluoride, is that true?"

Chalfin: "No." (If she said more, I didn't get it down.)

Gorin: "Are we going to provide low-income families with fluoride-free water?"
___________________

That's as much as I have. Gorin is on it.

Here's what Andrew Young, former UN Ambassador and former mayor of Atlanta said in 2011:

“I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies’ milk formula, do their babies not count? Of course they do. This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion. We must find better ways to prevent cavities, such as helping those most at risk for cavities obtain access to the services of a dentist.”

____________________

I think this is one of the very strongest arguments we have. Many scientists think children under 6 should not ingest fluoride, and I believe the fluoride toothpaste tubes now say that. Anybody got one?

WOW!

Thanks for sharing this with us. It is just one more in what has become a long list of lies, deceits and misrepresentations by our Sonoma County Chief Health officer in an effort to foist her Orwellian agenda on
the good people of this county.

On several other occasions, both orally and in writing, she has stated that the human body needs fluoride, which is, of course false.

It is truly pathetic that she feels that she has to resort to such tactics.

Just think if they had spent that $15 million on providing dental care for needy children instead of on Fluoridation promotion!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lilypads:

Here is a fancy PR booklet https://www.calendow.org/uploadedFil..._the_grade.pdf I found on the site of The California Endowment, which gave $15 million to Sonoma County to promote fluoridation. Rita Scardaci of the Dept. of Health Services is allegedly on the Board of Directors, but I could not find the Board members listed on the website. The booklet mentions California fluoridation efforts in at least 2 places. I think it's important to find out where the California Endowment gets its money. They have big bucks, and they spend them on fluoride promotion.

---

Thanks again for your research, Dzerach. Interesting that First Five felt the need for 2 pediatric operatories in FLUORIDATED Healdsburg. No wonder Chalfin doesn't want anyone to see the statistical data.

For those of you in the West County who may not know this, Santa Rosa also takes pride in its water quality, and the Utlities Dept. publishes an annual Water Quality Report. I have always been happy to receive it and to know that an effort is being made to provide good water. I think there are many people in the Santa Rosa Water Dept. who do not want to see fluoride, lead, arsenic and cadmium added to our water. I'm hoping they will speak up.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by dzerach:

I'm going to add in the cost of that election!

---

thanks to the wonders of digital audio and social media, you can listen to that exchange again and determine for yourself who is "on it" who is "full of it."

Gorin's questions and comments are right at the beginning:
https://youtu.be/SzZh3CQLkzg

Supervisor Zane's now-legendary tantrum is in the same audio recording should you want to revisit it, or if you were not there at the hearing to experience it the first time:
https://youtu.be/SzZh3CQLkzg?t=35m31s

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lilypads:

Sebastacat,
I took notes at the Feb. 26 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. One of them reads:

Gorin: "No physician recommends that infants zero to six months should ingest fluoride, is that true?"

Chalfin: "No." (If she said more, I didn't get it down.)

Gorin: "Are we going to provide low-income families with fluoride-free water?"
___________________

That's as much as I have. Gorin is on it.

---

I listened to about half an hour of the BOS meeting. ( I've learned a lot since that day.) Very good questions from Rabbitt, McGuire, and Gorin. But MANY LIES from Chalfin, Pollick (and Newbrun?). I think that "$38 saved for every $1 spent on fluoridation" was made up by a PR guy--it HAS to have been, because we know that fluoridation doesn't work. So it doesn't save a dime. It just COSTS money, and it increases the cost of dental care.

How, without destroying our own credibility, do we let people--especially those in the health-care field-- know that our paid health officer and her right-hand men are lying to the supervisors (especially when we get no help from the local newpapers, except for the Gazette) ?

I listened to Zane's rant, and it's ironic how closely her words echo those of Andrew Young talking about the DANGER of adding fluoridated water to baby bottles:
Ambassador Young wrote, “I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies’ milk formula, do their babies not count? Of course they do. This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion. We must find better ways to prevent cavities, such as helping those most at risk for cavities obtain access to the services of a dentist.”

There was no science coming from the medical sector, just assertions, most of which are not true.

What I got from the segment I listened to was the overwhelming need for dental care for children-- I don't think anyone argues with that. And apparently MediCal is going to begin covering children's dental care again soon. That was part of Kim Caldewey's presentation at the FAC meeting.

There was an excellent comment in one of Dzerach's links about how dentists won't take MediCal because of the horrific paperwork. Maybe working on that angle is another way to approach it--getting the State to simplify the paperwork.

Chalfin made a strong statement about the benefits of socialized medicine and democratic socialism in general, based on her experience in Sweden. And I agree with her. But I also agree with the right-wing folks who don't want the government medicating the water supply. It was the Tea Party who got fluoride out of the water in a northern Florida community. In Portland, both Right and Left worked to defeat Fluoridation.

One thing we could lobby for is spending all the fluoridation promotion money on dental care for children.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

thanks to the wonders of digital audio and social media, you can listen to that exchange again and determine for yourself who is "on it" who is "full of manure."

Gorin's questions and comments are right at the beginning:
https://youtu.be/SzZh3CQLkzg

Supervisor Zane's now-legendary tantrum is in the same audio recording should you want to revisit it, or if you were not there at the hearing to experience it the first time:
https://youtu.be/SzZh3CQLkzg?t=35m31s

---

Lilypads....

Sebastacat is in total agreement with your post. No one is saying that there isn't a problem with dental disease.
But municipal water fluoridation is not the way to tackle this problem. Why mass-medicate the masses when
targeting the group that needs it most with proven methods which actually work will do the job for way less money in the long run?

I so agree with you that this is not a right or left issue. Instead, fluoridating the municipal water supply goes much deeper than that and strikes at the fundamental right of an individual to not be medicated against his or her will.

I have said that this issue must remain free of contaminating politics, and I will reiterate it once again. The public's health is too important, and politics have no place in this debate.

Silver-Chalfin and her minions must abandon their script of lies, deception and deceit and start telling the truth -- or, at the very least, give those who are in possession of it the opportunity to present their side of the story.
And when that day comes, the lies, misinformation and half-truths which she has tried to pass off as fact are going to wither under the weight of peer-reviewed studies and scientific evidence which have taken years to conduct and prove.

Yes, Lilypads, I know you've pointed out several times on this forum that anti-fluoridationists have had some pretty nasty tactics used against them in an effort to slash their credibility and stifle their findings, but I guess I just had to see it for myself before I could actually say that it was true.

What I observed at last Monday's fluoridation task force meeting has proven you correct. And it's pretty frustrating for this 52-year Sonoma County native to see it happening right here in our county, to say the least.

Someone had written me asking what I thought would be a solution for dental health since I use to be in the field. I thought that proper instructions on brushing and flossing was important to remove the debris. But you can brush and floss until the cow jumps over the moon yet it's not going to stop the garbage that is ingested or breathed that affects the balance of the system. The teeth are not some separate entity from the body. If you've ever seen a dental kinesiology chart, it shows the connections with the whole body, like acupuncture.

Dental Health is reflective of each system of the body working harmoniously together, interdependently, and can't be separated. Decay occurs because of an acid formation response from the foods we eat, the toxic load of the body, and the stress we have. If we're eating foods that harmonize and support our body, then the fuel is there for the teeth to maintain their structure along with the rest of the body. And I realize that it's not easy to eat well, meaning organically, when there are toxic chemicals in air, land and home. The body goes on overload which includes the teeth.

Our teeth are the first place where digestion takes place. When people or parents buy sugar-laden, GMO'ed, matrix food for themselves or family and then expect health, that's creating a russian roulette syndrome. And then we're supposed to pay for people being sick because of their choices and refusal to educate themselves on how to eat properly.

Again, put dental health into whole body health because it just can't be dissociated out. Look at all the factors besides the food as well...look within (because we have beliefs around nurturing and nourishing ourselves, what we can digest in life, how we feel about our bodies and ourselves), and the outside where the corporations' concern is profit which has nothing to do with maintaining health, exist...in fact, quite the opposite.

This is so reflective of this whole fluoride issue because Chaflin KNOWS it's harmful. Anyone who stops buying into mass corporate media (MCM), Big corporations, and Big pharm can see that the same companies are involved with this as they are in GMO's, vaccines, chemtrails and on and on. I don't want to sugar-coat it any longer. It wouldn't be good for my oral health.

And I understand how to keep the issues separate to educate so things can stay focused. I appreciate all that has been written on this subject in this forum, in the meetings attended and reported to us, by the research time and dedication of each of you who has done this. It's the way we stay educated and involved in changing the existing paradigm of covert agendas.

Re: The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Feb 2013 meeting. Part 2: The F'ion Tapes

I'm tired of the nutty radicalism and side-mouth talkin' from Dr S-C, I will tell you that as numero uno.

The worst inaccuracy at this meeting, in my view, of the many available inaccuracies to select, was the false assertion that dental fluorosis occurrence is one in ten. It's three times that by conservative reports. The problem is that the pro-fluoridationists don't think it matters -- just an acceptable side-effect. Yet they still lie about the correct figure.

It's highly relevant to ask at this juncture: Didn't the Santa Rosa City Council recently unanimously issue a statement to county of their rejection of water fluoridation? Or was that back in 2010? (!) And/or in my dreams?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Supervisor Zane's now-legendary tantrum.. in...audio recording... if you were not there at the hearing to experience it the first time: https://youtu.be/SzZh3CQLkzg?t=35m31s

---

Shirlee's verbal bullying, and the easy to refute inaccuracies spread by DHS by whomever else is actually prepared with the different and most current federal info...these two events were the very LEAST of my own objections to -- and sorrow felt at -- how this BoS hearing was conducted.

Mike's inquiries bring him into focus as a public official who is willing to question and apply reason. He expects better answers from DHS to his perfectly basic questions left unanswered --- a genuine, swing vote?

I was pleased to see the meeting DID address one variable: the UNIQUE aspect of the county in terms of geology, microclimates, microecosystems: the corresponding, striking variability in level of fluoride ppm within SCWA jurisdicition. Consistently maintaining optimal treatment level of .7 everywhere is gonna be a learned skill?

Despite many halting attempts to do so, the supervisors never defined for DHS the role and purpose of the Fluoridation Advisory Committee. The default: Dr S-C will do as she sees fit, and she is doin'.

Sups didn't even openly agree to move forward, but moved forward anyway. They have crossed the line. From the domain of necessary civility and cooperation... into the realm of decisionless decision-making. Dr- S-C was not able to answer the basic questions from sups, did not answer directly to easy yes/no questions. Instead, she was busy trying to steer the ship in the direction she wants it to take. That was not suppose to be her role at this meeting; she is not an elected official. In her supportive role as a county health officer, she doesn't even have, nor is she disseminating, the correct research.

How do you fight "reality tv" producers with fact? Whoever feels they can reach Efren's open-eared, analytical, objective, reasoning side, please contact him with the correct info. I now understand why he's not a swing vote. I'm hoping constituents expect better of him. His "justification" for voting yes at this meeting was among the worst of all ?!!

The actual, current, undisputed Facts -

EPA: "Tooth discoloration and/or pitting is caused by excess fluoride exposures during the formative period prior to eruption of the teeth in children." "Some people who drink water containing fluoride in excess of the MCLG (max contaminant level goal) of 4.0 over many years could get bone disease (including pain and tenderness of the bones); children may get mottled teeth.

EPA has therefore set a secondary standard or "secondary maximum contaminant level" goal (SMCL). The SMCL for fluoride is set at 2.0 mg/L or 2.0 ppm. The MCLG (maximum contaminant level goal) of 4.0 that Dr S-C mentions is instead actually where so-called "non-cosmetic" health harm begins. EPA: 4.0 is "protection based on the best available science to prevent potential health problems. " She directly implies even 4.0 is an acceptable level.

The SMCL level of 2.0 was set based upon a balancing of the beneficial effects of protection from tooth decay and the undesirable effects of excessive exposures leading to discoloration. EPA recommends secondary standards to water systems but does not require systems to comply. However, states may choose to adopt them as enforceable standards.

Secondary standards are non-enforceable guidelines regulating contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects in the person or aesthetic effects in the water. The former type include dental fluorosis, any tooth discoloration, and any skin discoloration. The latter involve the taste, odor, and color of the drinking water. This is at 2.0

More fact. In 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) issued a "watershed" report that is slowly but surely impacting how we view fluoridation. Backed by the National Academy of Sciences. It is constantly referenced because it is unquestionably objective and authoritative. They stated that in developing regulatory standards for high levels of fluoride in drinking water, three adverse health effects warranted consideration:

• severe enamel (dental) fluorosis from exposure to these high levels between birth and 8 years of age;
• risk of bone fractures;
• and severe forms of skeletal fluorosis (a rare condition in the United States) after lifetime exposure.

The dental fluorosis occurrence is absolutely not "one in ten," regardless of how you jam around with the federal stats! Because just the psychological and social harm caused by even minimal, cosmetic dental fluorosis (google the "minor damage" pics) is a vital objection to the strategy of fluoridation , esp. for ages 0 - 18 exposure. Nevermind how one in three people in the US reports joint pain and we dont really know why it's so high because the studies haven't been done. The increasing rates of dental fluorosis occurrence is the most easily mentioned b/c there is federal research/information in favor of not fluoridating if you understand why this alone is unacceptable collateral damage/friendly fire. https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/

A National Center for Health Statistics data brief on dental fluorosis in the U.S.---Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the US, 1999-2004

• Less than one-quarter of persons aged 6-49 had dental fluorosis (read: about 25 per cent).
• Prevalence of dental fluorosis was higher among younger persons and ranged from 41% among adolescents aged 12-15 to 9% among adults aged 40-49.
• Children aged 12-15 in 1999-2004 had higher prevalence of dental fluorosis compared with the same aged children in 1986-1987.
• The prevalence of dental fluorosis was higher in adolescents than in adults and highest among those aged 12-15.

Dr S-C doesn't think the optimal level to maintain in the water is 0.7!! This is the accepted federal standard for optimal "treatment." She continues to proclaim that it's the outdated 0.8 - 1.2 range. This is outrageous of her.

2011 - HHS proposed recommendation of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water replaces the current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams. https://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011p...20110107a.html

"This updated recommendation is based on recent EPA and HHS scientific assessments to balance the benefits of preventing tooth decay while limiting any unwanted health effects. These scientific assessments will also guide EPA in making a determination of whether to lower the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water, which is set to prevent adverse health effects. The new EPA assessments of fluoride were undertaken in response to findings of the National Academies of Science (NAS). At EPA’s request, in 2006 NAS reviewed new data on fluoride and issued a report recommending that EPA update its health and exposure assessments to take into account bone and dental effects and to consider all sources of fluoride. In addition to EPA’s new assessments and the NAS report, HHS also considered current levels of tooth decay and dental fluorosis and fluid consumption across the United States"

Dr S-C continues to insist that fluoride is a nutrient. Fluoride is not regulated by the FDA and has not been thought of as a necessary nutrient since the 1960s. That is not even the reason why -- ironically enough -- you will find already too much of it appearing in our consumer stream. The National Research Council (NRC) no longer classifies Fluoride as a nutrient. In fact, for the purpose of water fluoridation ,which is what we are discussing (!): fluoride is classified as a contaminant by the EPA. It is regulated by the EPA b/c it is a toxin dumped into the water supply. No one even questions this! It's exact level of toxicity in the CWF context of thousands of variables -- that is what is in question. https://water.epa.gov/drink/contamin...n/fluoride.cfm

The EPA's published opinions over the years about the safety of water fluoridation are well worth investigating.

I have the 2006 500-page report by the National Research Council in PDF form. If anyone wants to explore it as a summer reading project, send me an email and I'll see that you get it.

Dental surgeon Geoffrey Smith says: "Dental fluorosis, no matter how slight, is an irreversible
pathological condition recognised by authorities around the world as the first readily detectable clinical symptom of previous chronic fluoride poisoning. To suggest we should ignore such a sign is as irrational as saying that the blue-black line which appears on the gums due to chronic lead poisoning is of no significance because it doesn't cause any pain or discomfort.” (New Scientist 5-5-83).

In light of all the information posted on this thread, I have one big question:

are these comments going somewhere beyond this bb, or are we just preaching to the choir?

just askin ...

SharingWisdom and dzerach:

Thanks to both of you for your outstanding recent posts.

To SharingWisdom: Thanks for putting the cause of dental disease into such clear perspective and for pointing out the real things that cause it which are often overlooked and not discussed -- and are being overlooked and kept hidden by our public health officer and others who have a desire to get fluoride into our water supply. This kind of useful information can certainly be of use to all of us.

To dzerach: I, too, feel your intense frustration at Dr. Silver-Chalfin's continuing pattern of lies, deception and obstruction in an effort to get this poison put into our water supply.

So I got to thinking and I asked myself this question: As a medical doctor, didn't she have to take the Hippocratic oath?

I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that the answer to this salient question is: Yes.

I Googled it, and I will share some of the pertinent portions of that time-honored oath with you at the end of this post.

I also think that it would be highly constructive to consider some of Silver-Chalfin's lies in the context of this oath for the benefit of the community at large as well as the members of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors who hired her in the first place.

1. "Like Vitamin A, salt or many other things, getting none of it is bad for you."
This, of course, is false -- and Dr. Silver-Chalfin knows it. Don't let her fool you. Fluoride has not been considered a necessary nutrient since the 1960s, and there has never been ANY recommended amount.

She then goes on to say: "Every major scientific body that has reviewed the issue has come out in support."

That statement is also false, as there are numerous recent scientific studies to the contrary. Why she would chose to omit this pertinent fact must be questioned.

To make matters worse, the above statements were published in a magazine which enjoys circulation among thousands of senior citizens of this county, and in it, she is giving incorrect medical advice to members of one of our most vulnerable segments of our population in an effort to gain acceptance for her fluoridation agenda, which, in my opinion, makes it all the more egregious.

Thankfully, Marlene Lily presented the well-written and factual argument against water fluoridation which was printed right next to Silver-Chalfin's collection of falsehoods.

2. When asked at a recent Sonoma County Fluoridation task force meeting why the arguments against adding fluoride to the Sonoma County water supply were not being presented, Silver-Chalfin responded:
"That's because we've determined it's safe."

She then went on to say that there was precedent for this decision, citing the fact that the Sonoma County Department of Public Health had in the past taken positions on other issues and adopted that as its official policy.

To make such a sweeping misstatement when she is in possession of facts, studies and scientific evidence to the contrary amounts to reckless endangerment.

If Dr. Silver-Chalfin wishes to sully her reputation by continuing to lie to and deceive the people of Sonoma County just because she has been given the unenviable task of carrying out an unpopular (and dangerous) agenda, I suppose that's her prerogative.

But I would remind the "supes" that it is their reputations which are at stake as well, as they are the governing body that hired her in the first place; and if they continue to give her the unfettered authority to continue with this campaign, their reputations will be at stake as well, as they have been made well aware of the latest evidence, scientific studies and information which refutes fully and completely the lies which are being told by Silver-Chalfin and her cadre of trusted minions.

As President Harry S. Truman said, "The buck stops here." It is past time for the supes to take some responsibility for this woman's unbridled misstatements.

Back to the Hippocratic oath. There are actually two versions which are in use, so I do not know which one Dr. Silver-Chalfin was administered. Also, 98 percent of American medical students take some form of oath, while only 50 percent of British medical students take an oath.

Here are the parts which I feel are pertinent, and I hope that our "good doctor" takes time to review them:

From Version I:

"I will keep them from harm and injustice."

"I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect."

From Version II:

"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and judgment and never do harm to anyone."

Finally, I will remind Dr. Chalfin of the last line of Version I:

"If I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot."

There are places on the wacco site where you can see how many views a thread has had. The "Fluoridation Advisory Committee" thread has had over 2000 views. Though members of the choir probably account for quite a few of those, I doubt we account for all 2000.

And I think preaching to the choir is helping us learn and refine our thinking so we do a better job when we're preaching to the congregation.

Barry can you provide a link to show us how to find the number of views for each post? I think I saw that yesterday, but I couldn't find it today. I was really surpised to see one post got 350 views!

[Views are only kept on a thread basis, sorry. -Barry]

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gardenmaniac:

In light of all the information posted on this thread, I have one big question:

are these comments going somewhere beyond this bb, or are we just preaching to the choir?

just askin ...

---

I hope no one read criticism in my last post, wish I had started it with

"Thanks to all for the wealth of information provided"

I've been here for almost a decade, yet each day I am awed by this community of like-minded and not-so-like-minded folks and am honored to be a part of it.
In threads like this, tho, it's hard not to be discouraged (and frightened, I might add); it's a struggle to stay focused on what we, as a community, can do but, as Margaret Mead said:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
... and ...
"Never depend upon institutions or government to solve any problem. All social movements are founded by, guided by, motivated and seen through by the passion of individuals.”

btw, I never got a reply from CCOF.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gardenmaniac:

In light of all the information posted on this thread, I have one big question:

are these comments going somewhere beyond this bb, or are we just preaching to the choir?

just askin ...

---

I think there needs to be a discussion to create an action plan to stop the fluoridation plan. I think it should include:

1. A distillation of the concerns in a 15 second verbal elevator pitch.
2. An email/post that can be read with an introduction of the issue that can be read in a couple of minutes, including links for more info and how to get involved. Be sure you don't overwhelm the reader.
3. Create or attend public events. There should be tables at farmers markets, etc.
4. A petition. (may there is already)
5. A common graphic logo.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gardenmaniac:

In light of all the information posted on this thread, I have one big question:

are these comments going somewhere beyond this bb, or are we just preaching to the choir?

just askin ...

---

What a great start!!! Thanks Barry!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

I think there needs to be a discussion to create an action plan to stop the fluoridation plan. I think it should include:

1. A distillation of the concerns in a 15 second verbal elevator pitch.
2. An email/post that can be read with an introduction of the issue that can be read in a couple of minutes, including links for more info and how to get involved. Be sure you don't overwhelm the reader.
3. Create or attend public events. There should be tables at farmers markets, etc.
4. A petition. (may there is already)
5. A common graphic logo.

---

I don't understand item 1.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

I think there needs to be a discussion to create an action plan to stop the fluoridation plan. I think it should include:

1. A distillation of the concerns in a 15 second verbal elevator pitch.
2. An email/post that can be read with an introduction of the issue that can be read in a couple of minutes, including links for more info and how to get involved. Be sure you don't overwhelm the reader.
3. Create or attend public events. There should be tables at farmers markets, etc.
4. A petition. (may there is already)
5. A common graphic logo.

---

I suggest coming up with a standard verbal "elevator pitch" (short verbal statement that you can share in a short time, such as riding in an elevator with some one) that lets people know why the should be concerned and how to take the next step if they are interested.

[I'm going mostly off line for the holiday weekend - going to High Sierra Music Fest!]

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lilypads:

I don't understand item 1.

1. A distillation of the concerns in a 15 second verbal elevator pitch.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gardenmaniac:

In light of all the information posted on this thread, I have one big question: are these comments going somewhere beyond this bb, or are we just preaching to the choir? just askin ...

---

imao...Good question. Good answers...Waccobb readers and posters alone probably don't have the full power to change Efren's vote....Even if everyone on waccobb was against the initiative to fluoridate and called him out on his lack of mental/emotional sobriety at that meeting. He shared during the meeting that he was open-minded before the meeting. Etc.

A forum has been the problem all along. There should be one and isn't. There isn't any reason why anyone would or should listen to me. I just get to help deal with the consequences after this mindless decision gets made! People are welcome to re-use/re-post anything I've written or shared on this topic, either word for word, or not word for word -- in any way they might find useful for the cause. I'm not assuming anyone would! But I wanted to put that out there.

I wrote a second letter to Traditional Medicinals without a response and a first letter to Crista Chelemedos, Executive Director/Ombudsman Program Coordinator for Santa Rosa's Senior Advocacy group without a response. I've written a second letter to the local chapter of the Sierra Club w/out a response. A letter to the Foundation for the Laguna de Santa Rosa received a response, but I have not yet witnessed their involvement. They will be directly impacted. They are an important voice. There were other letters...

Logic and truth are on our side in every way. I truly don't think everyone who frequents waccobb really knows what is going on, and exactly how this is going down. There's more to say about HOW this is going down. Sups need to be directly, politely confronted. How? By whom? Even waccobb readers who are for fluoridation aren't interested in dialectic.

I don't understand the local complacency one tiny bit. Except that people are overwhelmed by all of the other garbage tossed their way that they are forced to spend time and energy on trying to remedy. Other community "voices of authority"..." entities" that the mainstream public would pay attention to --- they aren't helping to pry the opposition's door open by taking a public stand... If they did, the reasonable, more conventional, and possibly highly persuasive arguments from the other side could also first...just be heard by the public, and given consideration. ??

What do you think people would say if the Press Democrat reported THIS story:

https://www.keepers-of-the-well.org/...eq_for_inv.pdf ?

That's what a free press is for, and what we have is a bought press and a chat room.

Here is the public comments page for the Dept. of Health Services Oral Health page: https://www.sonoma-county.org/health...liccomment.asp. I posted the whole Iowa study, just to see how large a message it would accept, and it accepted it. Sebastacat, maybe you should post your Kentucky piece.

And everybody else, let's let them know there's a lot they aren't saying.

Promotion of Sonoma County Water Fluoridation up on Dept. of Health Web Site!
I just went to the Sonoma County Dept. of Public Health Website, and even though this is a "controversial" subject, and not yet become a reality in Sonoma County to have Water Fluoridation, The county of Sonoma has a full on promotion of fluoridation on their website: https://www.sonoma-county.org/health...uoridation.asp. I wanted to email our Dept. of Health the page mentioned below from Iowa study (https://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/ifs/ ) but I could not easily find the E-mail address! I called the health Dept. number: (707) 565-4700, and the receptionist, named "Annie" answering today, who said she's just the receptionist, and that there is limited staff today, said there is no email address!!! And, she said she had no idea who would be responsible to put that up on the Sonoma Co site, nor who makes those kinds of decisions to put that up, and that no one else there would know either!

This is extremely frustrating: Makes me think, with all the folks needing jobs can't they hire a more informed Receptionist, or rather, are they hiring people who will be particularly apathetic for a reason? And WHY don't they have an email address?? All she could say is that the next meeting for the fluoridation meeting is in Sept., she had no date and said it would be posted on the site. I asked when would it be posted to the site and she did not know that either. I left a message with her stating I wanted to know when next meeting would be and any info on minutes from past meeting. Looking up meetings myself, I see that the meeting was held on June 24 (there are no minutes attached, only the announcement is still there. : https://www.sonoma-county.org/health/meetings/fac.asp.

WE CAN EMAIL THEM!
Within minutes of my message, I get a call back from Receptionist Annie letting me know that that she looked it up herself and it shows under "agenda" on the June 24 meeting, that the next meeting will be held on Sept. 23, 2013 form 1:30 - 3:30 in the DHS-Public Health, 625 5th St. North South City View Room, Santa Rosa, CA 95404. She said they have not yet put up minutes from June 24 meeting. She also commented that there is, and I also noticed there IS an EMAIL for them there too! (not easy to find if you are just on the site) It's: [email protected]. I will now email my concerns. Lets continue to stay very involved. I will keep putting word out to folks as best I can, however due to work, may be hard for me to physically get to that meeting up and coming.

The Health Services Dept. has a page for public comment, and I actually was able to copy and paste the whole Iowa study into the comment box, so it accepts a pretty long comment. Here's the link:

https://www.sonoma-county.org/health/topics/publiccomment.asp

Thank you so much for posting the website! I just sent over a comment with the article that former Crescent City councilwoman, Donna Westfall wrote (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...tep-Newsletter) that appeared as a comment on the PD's article back in April on the fuss over The Next Step newsletter advocacy against fluoridation. It covered it all, and what better place for it to be but on this website you provided. It, too, was rather lengthy but it seemed to go through.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by lilypads:

The Health Services Dept. has a page for public comment, and I actually was able to copy and paste the whole Iowa study into the comment box, so it accepts a pretty long comment. Here's the link:

https://www.sonoma-county.org/health/topics/publiccomment.asp

---