TITLE: Scribbling by Moonlight
AUTHOR: Daniel Z
DATE WRITTEN: 10th December, 2012
STATUS: Unreplied to, as of 31st December, 2012
UPDATES: Any updates should be posted in the comments section below.
FURTHER READING: The Case Against Fluoride (Connett, Beck, Micklem)(2010)
Bcc: Various lists
I refer you to your recent Editorial:
“Leave Fluoride in our Water Supply. Queensland dragged itself into the latter half of the 20th century with its decision three years ago to introduce fluoride to the water supply. Any proposal to reverse it should be quickly slapped down by the State Government. The link between fluoride and good dental health is clear and is only debated by those at the very fringes of the health debate where facts are illuminated only by moonlight. It’s unfortunate if, as reported, one-third of the Government’s numbers belong to that fringe. The costs of running the health system are one of the big public policy challenges of this century. Prevention is always the best option. Anyone, like first-term MP Jason Woodforth, who wants to risk the health of the public by denying sensible solutions cuts themselves out of the debate. It’s a bad idea, Premier. Pull him into line.” – Linked from:http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/minister-and-former-dentist-john-paul-langbroek-tells-backbencher-jason-woodforth-to-concentrate-on-his-electorate/story-e6freoof-1226532817150
This is a bold statement, with no references to back it. It seems you need to do some further reading. I recommend that you begin with a book titled, ‘The Case Against Fluoride’ by Dr. Paul Connett, Dr. James Beck, and Dr. Spedding Micklem. Here is an extract from a review of this work, written by Professor Vyvyan Howard, MB, ChB, PhD, MRCPath, FRCPath:
“A complete discussion of water fluoridation requires knowledge of its history, the political pressures during that period of history, the toxicology of fluoride, and the epidemiological impact on exposed populations. This undertaking requires a great deal of effort on behalf of the non-expert. In this respect, the authors have done an excellent job in analysing the current knowledge base and presenting it in a fairly non-technical manner… After reading this book, one is left with the strong impression that water fluoridation is an idea that is well past its ‘sell by date’ and that it should be rapidly phased out. What is now clear is that, if proposed today, fluoridation of drinking water to prevent tooth decay would stand virtually no chance of being adopted, given the current status of scientific knowledge.” – Full review online: http://www.chelseagreen.com/content/isfr-reviews-the-case-against-fluoride/
I can only imagine what you must be thinking right now: Did Professor Howard write these fringe words under the cover of moonlight? I guess you could always ask him. You can find his academic staff profile via the School of Biomedical Sciences at the University of Ulster.
Furthermore, you may wish to discuss – with the authors of the aforementioned book – the moonlight levels during the composition of their manuscript, and how this influenced their fringe scribbles. Perhaps you can start with Dr. Connett [ http://www.fluoridealert.org/about/team/ ]. As a former professor of environmental chemistry & toxicology, I’m sure he would enjoy being educated by your extensive knowledge of the scientific literature, which you have already so impressively demonstrated to your readership.
In the meantime, perhaps you would like to share in some online reading activities with your mate, John-Paul Langbroek. Try these for starters – ‘A Response to Pro-Fluoridation Claims’ & ’50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation’ [http://www.fluoridealert.org/take-action/activist-tool-kit/ ] – and be sure to read them in the moonlight.
Daniel Z | Independent Researcher (proudly not a corporate newspaper media whore)