Page 658 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think it is relevant to look at a very important point - not the numerous problems caused by fluoride, but particularly cancer deaths. In 1975 in America, two doctors, Burk and Yiamouyiannis, conducted research. They compared the 10 largest cities in America whose water supplies were fluoridated with the 10 largest cities whose water supplies were not fluoridated, and found that between 1940 and 1950 both groups had similar cancer death rates. This study was done in 1975. They then looked at what happened after 1957 with cancer death rates. It was shown that those cities whose water supplies were fluoridated had an increased cancer death rate; those cities whose water supplies were unfluoridated had a similar cancer death rate to what was occurring earlier.
These figures were checked and confirmed by the US National Cancer Institute; although many people, including some in the National Cancer Institute, said that Burk and Yiamouyiannis had not allowed for age, race and sex.
Mrs Carnell: That is right.
MR STEVENSON: Kate Carnell says, "That is right"; indeed it is right. But let us have a look at a couple of interesting points. Professor Kinlen, Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford University, said that Burk and Yiamouyiannis had not allowed for age, race and sex. He failed to mention that one year earlier he had been a witness for pro-fluoridationists at the Pittsburgh court case and that, under cross-examination, he acknowledged that Burk and Yiamouyiannis did allow for age, race and sex. It was quite remarkable that it was shown that his own studies showed the same increase of 5 per cent or thereabouts in cancer deaths as Burk and Yiamouyiannis showed. This is a pro-fluoridationist showing, under cross-examination, that the figures of Burk and Yiamouyiannis were correct, because that is what he found as well.
It was also interesting to note that he had used Birmingham in England as an indication of a place where there was not any increase in cancer incidence. I know that we were talking about cancer deaths, but he used cancer incidence. It was shown, once again in court, that Professor Kinlen did not allow for age, race and sex in his own study. That is a truly remarkable situation that rarely can be gleaned anywhere but in court, where there is a major requirement that people continue to answer the questions until they get to the bottom of the situation. Dr Schneiderman and Dr Taves, who were leading proponents and major witnesses for the pro-fluoridation forces, indicated in court that the Burk and Yiamouyiannis figures were correct. In other courts, in 1982 in Illinois and Houston and also in 1983, it was acknowledged that Burk and Yiamouyiannis did allow for age, race and sex.
What happened in America as far as this evidence was concerned? The US Congress, specifically because of the studies by Burk and Yiamouyiannis, called for a congressional inquiry into these cancer figures and into the area of fluoridation. At the time it was admitted that the proponents of fluoride in America, government bodies, had been saying that it was perfectly safe for 25 years without doing any tests on the carcinogenicity of fluoride. So, we had a 1977 direction by the US Congress to study this matter, but it was not completed until 1990. What happened then? The early indications were that the animal studies that were done showed an increase in cancer. Since that time scientists, medical researchers, doctors and others, on both sides, have been saying that skulduggery was involved in trying to cover up that increase in cancer. Later there was a suggestion that it did not really mean anything, that we standardly revise downwards these estimates on the scope of cancer.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .