The Fluoridation Advisory Committee

[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.

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.

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!

[patnicholson]

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

PLUS there should be uppity protest demonstrations!

[sebastacat]

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.

[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.

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!

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.

[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.

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. ...

[lilypads]

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

[lilypads]

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!"

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

[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


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...

[sebastacat]

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.

[dzerach]

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.

[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.

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?

[sebastacat]

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.

[lilypads]

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

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.

[lilypads]

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.

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

[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 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

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.

[lilypads]

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.

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

[sebastacat]

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.

[sharingwisdom]

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.

[dzerach]

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?

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.

[lilypads]

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).

[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 ...

[sebastacat]

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."

[lilypads]

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]

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 ...

[gardenmaniac]

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.

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 ...

[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.

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 ...

[WeWe]

What a great start!!! Thanks 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.

[lilypads]

I don't understand item 1.

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.

[Barry]

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!]

I don't understand item 1.

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

[dzerach]

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. ??

[lilypads]

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.