The Fluoridation Advisory Committee

[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.

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

[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.

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.

[dzerach]

...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."

[Glia]

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

[dzerach]

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.

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.

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.

[Glia]

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

[sebastacat]

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.

[lilypads]

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.

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

[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!

[dzerach]

... 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!

[lilypads]

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.

...
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.

[dzerach]

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.

[sebastacat]

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.........

[lilypads]

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.

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.

[Glia]

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.

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

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!

[dzerach]

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.

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?

[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

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?

[lilypads]

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.

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

[Glia]

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.

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.

[Glia]

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.

[dzerach]

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.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."

[lilypads]

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

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. ....

[patnicholson]

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

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?

[Magick]

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.

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

[sebastacat]

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.

[lilypads]

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

[lilypads]

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

[WeWe]

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!

[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.

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

[Barry]

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

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!