A question for Joe, relevant to his qualifications…Attn: Joe Butterfield, Chairman, Southern District Health Board


GENRE: 2 x Email letters

TO: Joe Butterfield, Chairman, Southern District Health Board, NZ

AUTHOR: Daniel Z

DATE SENT: Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:12 PM / then, Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:56 PM; then,

TITLE: A question for Joe, relevant to his qualifications…Attn: Joe Butterfield, Chairman, Southern District Health Board

STATUS: Awaiting response(s)

UPDATES: Any updates should be posted in the comments section below

to:

 jeanette.kloosterman@southerndhb.govt.nz

cc:

 joanne.fannin@southerndhb.govt.nz,

 eileen.goodwin@odt.co.nz

Attn: Joe Butterfield, Chairman, Southern District Health Board

Dear Joe,

I recently had the misfortune of reading an article in which you were quoted vehemently supporting water fluoridation (1). In this article, you claim that the matter has been “settled by science” and that fluoridation is “extremely beneficial to public health”.

I assumed that, surely, you must have some sort of scientific or medical qualifications to make these assertions. So you can imagine my surprise when I discovered your actual qualifications:

“Joe Butterfield is a chartered accountant” (2).

No offense, Joe, but in light of this information, when you make a statement such as, “In my view the scientific evidence is clear … I don’t believe the alternative arguments”, I’m sure you’ll understand why I’ll be sitting at my computer, giggling.

Sorry Joe… I’d rather listen to those with actual qualifications (3), who have thoroughly examined the primary literature and found that you, and others like you, are dead wrong.

(1)http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/256276/sbhb-chairman-questions-fluoride-referendum

(2) http://www.southerndhb.govt.nz/?pageLoad=618

(3) http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/the_case_against_fluoride

Daniel Z, BA, MA

Freelance Writer

*****************

2nd email – Sent: May 10, 2013 at 4:56 PM

to:

 jeanette.kloosterman@southerndhb.govt.nz

cc:

 joanne.fannin@southerndhb.govt.nz

Hey Joe,

I’ve been thinking…

There is one aspect of this debate where you actually are relevantly qualified – so I ask you the following questions:

1. Which company or companies will be supplying the fluoridation chemicals for use in Dunedin’s water supplies?

2. How much annual profit will this company or companies be making from the sale of fluoridation chemicals?

3. Which company or companies will be responsible for equipment maintenance and supply, directly relating to the addition of these fluoridating agents (e.g. anti-corrosive agents); and how much annual profit will this equate to for this company or companies?

4. Quite simply, who will be profiting from the use of fluoridation chemicals, and to what extent will they be profiting, and does the potential for profit-making have any bearing on the notion that a referendum should be discouraged by yourself and others?

 As an accountant, you should be able to figure out the answers to these questions. If you upgrade your qualifications one day to a PhD in Toxicology, Chemistry, Biochemistry, or Pharmacology, then I will consider asking you some additional questions, which you are currently not qualified to answer.

Daniel.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s