Latest news with #PublicHealthService
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Opinion - I was surgeon general — Trump's nominee is not fit for my old job
Americans deserve a surgeon general with the highest level of expertise and a proven record in public health — not a symbolic figurehead or media influencer. President Trump's current nominee, Dr. Casey Means, holds a medical degree from a respected institution, but her professional qualifications raise significant concerns. She is not board certified, does not hold an active state medical license, never completed a medical residency and lacks substantial experience in clinical practice, public health, policy and scalable leadership. By law, the surgeon general must be a commissioned officer with significant training or experience in public health. Historically, this has meant licensed physicians with deep clinical, scientific and operational credentials — individuals who have led through complex crises and earned the trust of both the public and the uniformed services. To lower that bar is to undermine the office. The U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is one of eight uniformed services in our nation. It is charged with protecting the health and safety of all Americans. The surgeon general serves as its operational and symbolic leader. That person must be capable of directing public health efforts across agencies, advising Congress on critical issues and working alongside military and civilian leaders on matters of national importance. Public health crises are rarely simple. From pandemics to natural disasters, bioterrorism to chronic disease, the person occupying this office must be fully prepared to lead under pressure. Leadership in the Public Health Service must remain merit-based and above politics. Appointing a nominee who lacks the credentials expected of even entry-level officers in the corps threatens the credibility of this proud institution. During my tenure as surgeon general, I was tasked with responding to a range of complex emergencies: coordinating U.S. efforts after the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia, leading public health operations during Hurricane Katrina and participating in the rollout of the Human Genome Project. I was frequently called on to address urgent public health issues, including vaccine policy, abortion access, pharmaceutical ethics and combat casualty care. Each of these responsibilities required deep clinical expertise, global collaboration, operational leadership and a commitment to scientific integrity. These were not ceremonial roles — they were real-time, high-stakes leadership demands. Public health is a national security imperative. We must treat it that way. History teaches us that the most impactful surgeons general have been those who brought courage, competence and scientific clarity to the nation's most difficult conversations. Dr. C. Everett Koop took a stand against tobacco and led a science-driven national education effort on AIDS. Dr. David Satcher confronted addiction and health disparities at a time of political polarization. They didn't just hold office — they led with authority earned through decades of experience. This legacy should not be diminished by placing symbolism or politics above readiness and expertise. The surgeon general is not just an advisor but a field-tested leader who must command respect, coordinate with other uniformed services and represent the nation on the global public health stage. We owe it to the American people — and to those who built the Public Health Service on a tradition of merit and mission — to demand the very best. The U.S. Public Health Service traces its roots to the birth of our nation, when President John Adams signed legislation in 1798 to care for sick and injured seamen. Since then, the service has remained a meritocracy grounded in competence and readiness — like all our uniformed services. Our health, our security and our future depend on it. Richard H. Carmona, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.S., was the 17th U.S. surgeon general. He is Laureate Professor of Public Health at the University of Arizona. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
13-05-2025
- Health
- The Hill
I was surgeon general — Trump's nominee is not fit for my old job
Americans deserve a surgeon general with the highest level of expertise and a proven record in public health — not a symbolic figurehead or media influencer. President Trump's current nominee, Dr. Casey Means, holds a medical degree from a respected institution, but her professional qualifications raise significant concerns. She is not board certified, does not hold an active state medical license, never completed a medical residency and lacks substantial experience in clinical practice, public health, policy and scalable leadership. By law, the surgeon general must be a commissioned officer with significant training or experience in public health. Historically, this has meant licensed physicians with deep clinical, scientific and operational credentials — individuals who have led through complex crises and earned the trust of both the public and the uniformed services. To lower that bar is to undermine the office. The U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is one of eight uniformed services in our nation. It is charged with protecting the health and safety of all Americans. The surgeon general serves as its operational and symbolic leader. That person must be capable of directing public health efforts across agencies, advising Congress on critical issues and working alongside military and civilian leaders on matters of national importance. Public health crises are rarely simple. From pandemics to natural disasters, bioterrorism to chronic disease, the person occupying this office must be fully prepared to lead under pressure. Leadership in the Public Health Service must remain merit-based and above politics. Appointing a nominee who lacks the credentials expected of even entry-level officers in the corps threatens the credibility of this proud institution. During my tenure as surgeon general, I was tasked with responding to a range of complex emergencies: coordinating U.S. efforts after the 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia, leading public health operations during Hurricane Katrina and participating in the rollout of the Human Genome Project. I was frequently called on to address urgent public health issues, including vaccine policy, abortion access, pharmaceutical ethics and combat casualty care. Each of these responsibilities required deep clinical expertise, global collaboration, operational leadership and a commitment to scientific integrity. These were not ceremonial roles — they were real-time, high-stakes leadership demands. Public health is a national security imperative. We must treat it that way. History teaches us that the most impactful surgeons general have been those who brought courage, competence and scientific clarity to the nation's most difficult conversations. Dr. C. Everett Koop took a stand against tobacco and led a science-driven national education effort on AIDS. Dr. David Satcher confronted addiction and health disparities at a time of political polarization. They didn't just hold office — they led with authority earned through decades of experience. This legacy should not be diminished by placing symbolism or politics above readiness and expertise. The surgeon general is not just an advisor but a field-tested leader who must command respect, coordinate with other uniformed services and represent the nation on the global public health stage. We owe it to the American people — and to those who built the Public Health Service on a tradition of merit and mission — to demand the very best. The U.S. Public Health Service traces its roots to the birth of our nation, when President John Adams signed legislation in 1798 to care for sick and injured seamen. Since then, the service has remained a meritocracy grounded in competence and readiness — like all our uniformed services. Our health, our security and our future depend on it. Richard H. Carmona, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.S., was the 17th U.S. surgeon general. He is Laureate Professor of Public Health at the University of Arizona.
The Independent
14-04-2025
- Entertainment
- The Independent
What to know about fluoride, the substance at the heart of SNL's ‘unfunny' skit
Fluoride has hit the headlines again after an SNL skit about the substance that actor Aimee Lou Wood said was 'mean'. During Saturday night's episode, SNL cast members reimagined the hit HBO series The White Lotus as The White Potus. The sketch depicted Donald Trump (played by James Austin Johnson) attempting to unwind at an exotic vacation resort with Ivanka Trump (Scarlett Johansson) and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick (Jon Gries). The SNL skit also attempted to recreate the dynamic between Rick (Walton Goggins) and his younger girlfriend Chelsea (Wood), with Health Secretary RFK Jr. (Jon Hamm) rambling about fluoride in water to his confused girlfriend, played by SNL cast member Sarah Sherman, who darts off to kill and eat a monkey. Sherman is shown wearing prosthetic teeth in an apparent mimicry of Wood's gap teeth. Wood later said on social media that she felt the skit was 'mean and unfunny'. 'I am not thin-skinned. I actually love being taken the p*** out of when it's clever and in good spirits. But the joke was about fluoride. I have big gap teeth not bad teeth,' she wrote. She said she had since received an apology. But what is fluoride and why is there controversy about it in the United States? Here's what you need to know. What is fluoride and why is it in water? Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally in water, soil and air that has been demonstrated to prevent dental cavities, or tooth decay. It works by strengthening the tooth's enamel, its hard outer surface, making it more resistant to the acid produced by bacteria that cause tooth decay. Fluoride also reverses early tooth decay by replacing and preventing loss of minerals in teeth. Prior to the beginning of community water fluoridation, tooth decay was widespread and severe among Americans. After fluoride was added in many places to the U.S. water supply, tooth decay declined in both children and adults, and complete tooth loss in older adults became more rare, according to federal health officials. In the early 20th century, some U.S. researchers observed that people who lived in areas where community water supplies had naturally occurring high levels of fluoride had teeth that were resistant to decay. In 1945, the Michigan city of Grand Rapids became the first to add fluoride to its water supply in a controlled manner, kicking off what was in effect a large-scale public health experiment. Data over a 15-year span showed a reduction of more than 60% in tooth decay among 30,000 school children in Grand Rapids, demonstrating fluoride's protective benefits. By the 1950s, the U.S. government's Public Health Service and the American Dental Association acknowledged the success of water fluoridation in reducing cavities. This led to the broad U.S. adoption of adding fluoride in community water supplies and eventually its inclusion in dental products such as toothpaste and mouthwash. No federal law mandates fluoridation of water supplies. The decision to fluoridate water is typically made by municipal governments, city councils or local water authorities. How widespread is fluoridation? About 63% of all Americans have fluoride in their community water systems, according to CDC statistics as of 2022. According to the American Dental Association, the average cost per year for U.S. communities to fluoridate their water supplies ranges from 50 cents per person for large communities to $3 per person for small communities. In most of the world, fluoride is not added to the public water supply. Some countries add fluoride to table salt. In some regions, fluoride levels in water are naturally high. The U.S. Public Health Service recommends that drinking water levels for fluoride remain below 0.7 milligrams per liter. Levels above 1.5 mg/L are known to increase health risks such as bone fractures, thyroid disease and nervous system damage. The enforceable limit as set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is 4.0 mg/L. A federal judge in California recently ordered the EPA to strengthen its regulations. What companies make fluoride? Fluorosilicic acid is the compound most widely used in water systems as it yields free fluoride rapidly when mixed with water. J.R. Simplot and Nutrien's PCS Phosphate Company are among companies that manufacture the product, according to the EPA. Total U.S. domestic production of fluorosilicic acid from phosphate rock was approximately 29 million kilograms (32,000 tons) in 2019, according to EPA statistics. What has RFK Jr. said about fluoride? Kennedy wrote on social media in January that 'the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water'. Kennedy has claimed in the absence of conclusive evidence that water fluoridation at U.S. levels is associated with numerous health issues including cancer. What do public health experts say? The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called fluoridation of drinking water one of the nation's top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century, noting that it effectively prevents tooth decay regardless of a person's socioeconomic status or access to care. The American Dental Association has reiterated its support for community water fluoridation to help prevent tooth decay. Studies show that community water fluoridation reduces tooth decay by more than 25% in children and adults even in an era with widespread availability of fluoride from other sources such as toothpaste, the association said. Adding fluoride to the water supply has been a boon to the dental health of Americans, and research shows there is a very low risk of adverse consequences, according to Kellogg Schwab of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Maryland. Not all officials agree. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, who had a history of controversial public health stances during the COVID-19 pandemic, recently recommended against adding fluoride to community water supplies, citing inconclusive studies that suggest the practice poses a risk to children's brains. What do recent studies say? A review published in October by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews raised questions about the value of fluoridation of public drinking water in wealthy countries based on the findings of 157 studies. The research suggests that given the widespread addition of fluoride to toothpaste since 1975, community water fluoridation may now have only modest benefits in reducing tooth decay and increasing cavity-free children, compared to the effects seen in earlier studies. The review also found there is not enough evidence to determine the impact of stopping fluoridation or its effect on socioeconomic disparities in dental health.
