Page 2708 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
... my curiosity to discover the truth soon led me to realise that my medical teaching had been quite incorrect. All the data I had been given on fluoridation by the medical authorities was basically untrue. The data had in it sufficient truth to make it credible, but was so slanted and curved as to lead one to a conclusion which was entirely false.
Let us look at some of the important data on fluoride. Two scientists, Dr Dean Burk and Dr John Yiamouyiannis, compared the cancer death rate of the 10 largest fluoridated cities in the United States with that of the 10 largest non-fluoridated cities that had comparable cancer death rates from 1940 to 1950, a period during which neither of those groups of cities was fluoridated. That gave them a good basis to start with. In other words, all things were even to the time of fluoridation. What did the data show? It showed that cancer deaths were the same in the 20 cities before fluoridation, from 1940 to 1950; after 10 cities were artificially fluoridated there were many more cancer deaths in the fluoridated cities than there were in the unfluoridated cities.
Some proponents of artificial fluoridation claim that the Burk and Yiamouyiannis studies were not valid because they had not allowed for age, race and sex. However, in a Supreme Court verdict, in the decree of Justice John Flaherty in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the United States he addressed the question of the Burk and Yiamouyiannis study. He said:
Point by point, every criticism defendants made of the [Burk and Yiamouyiannis] study was met and explained by the plaintiffs. Often, the point was turned around against defendants.
That is the pro-fluoridationists. He continued:
In short, this court was compellingly convinced of the evidence in favour of plaintiffs.
The trial brought into my Court experts on the subject of fluoridation, and I meticulously considered the objective evidence. In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .