GENRE: Email letter
TO: Johnny Johnson, Jr., D.M.D., M.S.
AUTHOR: The Administrator – AFAM Research Division
DATE SENT: Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:13 AM
TITLE: Response and challenge to Dr Johnny Johnson
STATUS: Awaiting response.
UPDATES: Please place any updates into the COMMENTS section below
(Open letter; Bcc: various)
Recently, I came across one of your emails (below). I wish to respond to some of the points raised in your email, then present you with a challenge. I have Bcc’d all the original recipients, and added some extras.
My response to your email
Re: Your comical ‘assessment’ Dr. Paul Connett’s book
You claim that this book is 68 pages in length. What does this say about you? It says one of two things: You can’t count, or you have not even bothered to examine the arguments put forth by your scientific opponents. Either way, that’s sloppy on your part, to say the least. Dismissing a book without even reading it *shakes head*.
For the record, Dr. Connett’s book, co-authored with Dr. HS Micklem and Dr. James Beck, is actually 372 pages in length (including citations). How do I know this, Johnny? Because I have a copy on my desk right now. Unlike you, I read on both sides of this debate.
Apparently, I am not the only one who can read, because this book has been favourably reviewed by Dr. Arvid Carlsson (Nobel Laureate, Medicine/Physiology, 2000), who calls it “excellent”; Dr. Hardy Limeback (National Research Council Panelist, 2006), who writes, “Written with clear and easy-to-read prose, and supporting citations, The Case Against Fluoride carefully lays out the arguments against fluoridation and reasons why it should be discontinued” [ http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/the_case_against_fluoride:paperback/praise/ ]; and Dr. CV Howard (Centre for Molecular Biosciences, University of Ulster), who states, “The authors have produced a well-researched, cogently argued, and very readable text that summarises historical, political, ethical, toxicological, and epidemiological scientific data behind drinking water fluoridation… The text is approachable by non-scientists and specialists, although an extensive technical bibliography is provided for those who wish to delve deeper” [ http://www.fluorideresearch.org/433/files/FJ2010_v43_n3_p170-173.pdf ].
Johnny, I suggest you are suffering from the psychological phenomenon of confirmation bias [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias ] – unable to examine arguments that do not suit your profound, “Godly” belief in fluoride’s magic – for doing so would invoke a very uncomfortable cognitive dissonance [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance ]. Perhaps your religious background has hard-wired your brain in many ways, and then fluoridation came along and fitted well with your preconceptions about “doing good”. Luckily, science and religion do not mix, and in science, “authority” is not a substitute for quality evidence, as explained by Physicist Dr Lawrence Krauss [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=c9fpwCC6bk8#t=182s ] [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qcR4XqLlxSA#t=643s ]. In fact, as Krauss argues, science is inherently anti-authoritarian. So you can invoke as many “authorities” and “endorsements” as you like, or even “God Himself”, but it counts for nothing if the science is poor or incomplete – which brings me to my next point….
Re: Your claim, “over 3,000 published, credible, peer reviewed and refereed studies on fluoridation than the best minds in the world.”
Very interesting, Johnny. Again, it seems you are engaging in very selective reading, or worse, withholding information from those you Cc’d into your email. Or perhaps you simply have trouble reading documents longer than ’68 pages’? 🙂 Your original recipients are Bcc’d into this email, so I am going to give them some information that you either withheld, or of which you were unaware, and which you most likely never intended to provide them…
When the University of York, for instance, examined the evidence on water fluoridation, the research team were surprised by its general weakness. In their own words, “Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken” [ http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/pdf/summary.pdf ]. Three years later they reiterated, “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide” [ http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm ]. In 2007, an article appeared in the British Medical Journal, noting that “the [York] reviewers were surprised by the poor quality of the evidence and the uncertainty surrounding the beneficial and adverse effects of fluoridation” [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001050/ ]. Building on this acknowledgement, in 2012, a leading public health researcher from the University of Western Australia wrote in the journal Public Health Ethics, “It would appear that the effectiveness of artiﬁcial water ﬂuoridation in the 21st century is at best questionable” [ http://afamildura.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/public-health-ethics-2012-awofeso-phe-phs016.pdf ].
But of course, Johnny, this does not support your powerful “belief” in fluoridation, does it? So naturally, you just left it out – very conveniently, I might add. But Dr. Connett has done his homework, along with many others [ http://www.fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/benefits/ ], and in fact he produced three whole chapters in his book, critiquing the evidence for fluoridation. You can find an overview of this in his Murdock Theatre lecture. But of course, your psychological disposition will again prevent you from viewing this uncomfortable critique. Nevertheless, for the benefit of those Bcc’d into this email, I offer it for consideration [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=FRIdsxT3IGc#t=2772s ].
Re: Your dismissal and misrepresentation of the National Research Council report of 2006
Johnny, Johnny, dear Johnny, God would be disappointed in you. He gave you a rational brain and gave you laws about honesty. The Bible is very clear about lying and misrepresentation [ http://www.godvine.com/bible/category/lying ]. Unfortunately, the Holy Book is more than 68 pages long, so, maybe a bit too much for you, eh? 🙂
In relation the NRC report, you claim, “That research has been done on levels of fluoride that are 6-15 times higher or more than the levels that will be added to Brooksville’s water.” Oh, you’ve really put your foot in it now, Johnny; and I don’t think the Brooksville Council and people will be too impressed when they find out.
Firstly, and most importantly, the authors actually did examine studies with concentrations well below those you claim. You don’t have to take my word for it. Listen to one of the authors explain this very fact [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sRWgDff8zY&feature=player_detailpage#t=2395s ]. The Panel also requested studies on “low” doses of fluoride in water (“The effect of low doses of fluoride on kidney and liver enzyme functions in humans needs to be carefully documented”), even right down to 1 mg/L, to determine possible health effects (“studies could be conducted to determine what percentage of immunocompromised subjects have adverse reactions when exposed to fluoride in the range of 1-4 mg/L in drinking water”) [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=303 ]. I guess you never made it to page 303. 🙂
Secondly, concentration is not the same as dose. Dose depends on one’s intake from all sources [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6oWvRikI78&feature=player_detailpage#t=100s ]. Chapter 2 of the NRC Report is an exposure analysis that shows a vast range of intake for the US population [ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=23 ], including for High Intake Population Subgroups [ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=30 ]. If you are still unable to understand the difference between concentration and dose, perhaps Cheng et al. can help: With water fluoridation, “an uncontrollable dose of fluoride would be given for up to a lifetime, regardless of the risk of caries, and many people would not benefit” [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001050/ ]. How can you control peoples’ “dose” when you cannot control how much water they drink; and how much fluoride they receive from other sources? The fact is, you can’t. If you had training in pharmacology [http://youtu.be/eou_UMhHlm4 ] [ http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/carlsson-interview/ ], or understood the basics of toxicology [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IdFUFJq8OUI#t=34s ], you would understand this basic principle, and therefore the relevance of the NRC Report to fluoridation [ http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/nrc/fluoridation/ ] – in terms of ‘Margin of Safety’[ http://afamildura.wordpress.com/reports-reviews/ ].
Thirdly – now, get your notepad out for this one – “The only indisputably proven harm of water ﬂuoridation is dental ﬂuorosis, for which there is no discernible threshold. However, the risk of dental ﬂuorosis increases as ﬂuoride concentration of water exceeds 0.3 parts per million” [ http://afamildura.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/public-health-ethics-2012-awofeso-phe-phs016.pdf ]. Therefore, you are proposing a water fluoride concentration level for Brooksville even HIGHER than 0.3 ppm! So what you are really saying to the people of Brooksville, is that you are willing to sacrifice their childrens’ tooth-forming cells to fluoride’s toxicity, and then take the gamble that no other tissues or cells in their body will be harmed by the same fluoride that is damaging their tooth forming cells [ http://www.fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/overdosed/ ]; and on top of this, you are withholding from them the fact that the University of York could NOT FIND A SINGLE A-GRADE study to support fluoridation [ http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/a-critique-of-the-york-review-by-paul-connett-phd/ ].
The Bible, Johnny Boy, read it again. God would not be pleased about this. You are either being dishonest, or you are not utilising the full capacity of the rational brain he gave you. Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance is no excuse when public health is at stake. I suggest you view the Krauss lecture again, in which he says that full disclosure is essential in science; i.e. you must disclose all data/information, even if it does not agree with what you ‘wish’ to be true [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qcR4XqLlxSA#t=598s ]. You clearly ‘wish’ fluoridation’s ‘magic’ to be ‘true,’ but your pathetic appeal to authority and poor quality, gap-riddled evidence [ http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/nrc/panelists/ ], does not make it so.
If you are so confident in your pro-fluoridation views, and so confident about the lack of merit of the arguments presented by your scientific opponents; then instead of slandering Dr. Connett, grow a pair of balls, and front up for a public debate – in Brooksville – and have it professionally video recorded and uploaded to the World Wide Web for all to see. If you are right, you will win the debate easily. If you are wrong, you will get whipped.
AFAM Research Division
Your original email
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 12:36:02 -0400
Subject: Opposition to Fluoride’s Emails to the Brooksville City Council
NYSCOF (New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation): Carol Kopf, Media Director
FAN (Fluoride Action Network): Carol Kopf, Media Director
Good Afternoon Ms. Kopf,
It has come to my attention this morning that you have begun the expected onslaught of misinformation to the Brooksville City Council. Your emails, and those from others in your group(s), are public record and accessible to me by request. And I have made this request.
I am emailing you as a Pediatric Dentist who has cared for the most cavity afflicted children of Brooksville over the last 28 years. I represent no group in this email. I receive no compensation for my advocacy for fluoridation for Brooksville’s families. My only pay will come from God for caring for his children one day.
I want to openly let all of these folks know who and what they’ll be receiving from you and your group. The information you have begun to flood this Council with is well established, purposefully misleading, and misrepresents credible and valid scientific literature. Worse yet, you do this not only to the City Council, but to its residents through your postings in the Comment sections of articles that are published by the Tampa Bay Times (Hernando) and Hernando Today (Tampa Tribune) media groups. Your sole purpose is to create fear and doubt in our elected officials and residents to freeze them in their tracks. By doing so, you and your group, which includes Paul Connett, Joseph Mercola and others, hope to create enough fear that you are successful in having fluoridation ceased. I’ve often been asked why you and the others do this, Carol, and my only response is that “Only God Knows”.
I will tell you here and now that I will answer all of your false claims that you will present to the City Council, media, and the residents of Brooksville. Your ring of fear-mongering tactics have not worked in my backyard, but you continue to try. It was not successful in Tarpon Springs, Pinellas Park, Dunedin, or with the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners last year. In fact, your tactics were so clearly exposed by the Tampa Bay Times last year that their Editors won a Pulitzer Prize.
The bulk of your arguments are from a 68 page book by Paul Connett in which he claims to expose the great cover-up of fluoridation by the World Health Organization, CDC, AMA, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Dental Association, American Cancer Society and every other major, credibly recognized scientific group in the world. And he does this all in a 68 page book. He is able to expose 68 years of safe and effective OPTIMALLY fluoridated water, as used in the United States, as a sham. Isn’t that amazing? A chemistry professor knows more about human anatomy, physiology, epidemiology, the scientific method, and over 3,000 published, credible, peer reviewed and refereed studies on fluoridation than the best minds in the world. And all of this is chronicled in a book. Isn’t it amazing that not a single group of the calibre of those listed above supports a single claim that Paul Connett makes? Not really. Credibly recognized science examines all of the peer reviewed literature published in refereed journals and then arrives at consensus agreement on what the overwhelming evidence of that literature supports. The literature continues to overwhelmingly support the safety and effectiveness of OPTIMALLY fluoridated water.
I will attach documents that clearly show the lack of credentials that you, Paul Connett, and the others have to be reliable or credible in your claims of harm from OPTIMALLY fluoridated water.
Yes, the capitalization of the word OPTIMAL is purposefully done. That is because the science-fiction claims that you and your groups make are absolutely NOT based on the credible scientific research that has been done on OPTIMALLY fluoridated water. You take information that has been researched on NATURALLY high levels of fluoride in the water in other countries, or as evaluated by the 2006 document “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council”, and attempt to backwards extrapolate it to OPTIMALLY fluoridated water. This is inaccurate, inappropriate, and deceptive use of good science. That research has been done on levels of fluoride that are 6-15 times higher or more than the levels that will be added to Brooksville’s water.
To summarize, your tactics and misinformation was unsuccessful in Pinellas County and it will be so in Brooksville as well. We may be the furthest-most point South in the United States, but we didn’t come in on the last load of pumpkins. We will look to the credibly performed, peer reviewed scientific literature as has been done by every major scientific organization in the world. We will make the best decisions for our residents to provide equitable, safe, and effective Public Health Policy for them all. And most of all, we will not allow a vociferous small group of people from out of state attempt to use terroristic tactics to frighten our residents into non-action. Their health is too important to us to allow you and your groups to damage it for your own benefit. Whatever that benefit may be.
Johnny Johnson, Jr., D.M.D., M.S.