Page 1514 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 27 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
should not be done. But where should this controversy be looked at? Well, in America in 1978, 1980 and 1982 there were three court cases: the first in Pennsylvania, the second in Illinois and the third in Houston. In those cases, where both sides had the best opportunity ever to present their case, the judges in each of those cases decided that fluoride was a health hazard and a carcinogen. That evidence has never been refuted. In a study in America, Doctors Burk and Yiamouyiannis - and let us look at medical evidence - proved that the incidence of cancer increased in those areas of America that were fluoridated. There were fewer cancer deaths in unfluoridated areas in America.
The proponents of fluoride, throughout the years, have said that Burk and Yiamouyiannis did not adjust for age, race and sex, but in the court cases that I mentioned it was proven and acknowledged that Burk and Yiamouyiannis had adjusted for age, race and sex. Yet the proponents continue with this nonsense of trying to state that that was not a scientific study. The head of the AMA in the ACT made this very same statement a few days ago - that the Burk and Yiamouyiannis study had not adjusted for age.
That is the sort of medical nonsense that is presented in what has been called an emotional debate. People do get emotional when the truth is not told. It is unfortunate. It is not through lack of investigation of scientific people proving the harm caused by fluoridation; it is the fact that these things unfortunately usually are not reported. There was the case of Dr Frederick Shatz in Chile. He showed a vast increase in the incidence of cancer and other drastic diseases in Chile caused by fluoridation. That brought about the restriction of the fluoridation in the water supply of Chile in 1970, I think it was.
Mr Berry: What did they restrict it to?
MR STEVENSON: They took it out altogether, Wayne. Thank you for bringing up the point. That study was fully submitted to the Medical Association and Dental Association in America, but they have never published that. Who is Shatz? Shatz was the co-discoverer of streptomycin, the antibiotic for which a Nobel Prize was given. We talk about peak bodies and scientists.
So why is it that doctors and dentists maintain fluoridation? Not all doctors and dentists do, by any means, but the associations maintain fluoridation. It is because they have based their reputations on the fact that fluoride is safe when countless studies and medical evidence show that it is not. It is not the job of opponents to prove harm; it is the job of proponents to prove safety. So I commend those people who have spoken out against fluoridation. It is not only a matter of knowing the truth, but of having the courage to speak the truth - particularly scientists, and I commend them on that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .