I trust you have perused and thought on PART 1 of this article.
Continuing…
… you will recall I had shown some of the distorted claims in the 1957 Commission of Inquiry document.
Why do I care about some old document from the 1950s? To answer, we must look through research and claims of the 1970s, then return to modern times. In the 1970s, a few technical documents appeared that claimed fluoride non-essential, including the following document from the US National Academy of Sciences - a group that has advocated Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) since the early 1950s.
Pictured: Is Fluorine an Essential Element? Fluorides, Biological Properties of Atmospheric Pollutants, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., pp. 67-68, 1971.
One of the only other advocates of fluoridation who pointed out that “the experts” exaggerate on this aspect of the science, was Dr. Terry Cutress, writing in the New Zealand Dental Journal in 1971, about the 1970 WHO monograph, Fluorides and Human Health (pictured).
In 1982, Dr. Neil Jenkins (Dept. of Oral Physiology, Dental School, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England) authored a chapter on fluoridation in a textbook on nutrition and claimed something similar.
Pictured: Human Nutrition, Current Issues and Controversies, Edited by Neuberger and Jukes, p. 57, 1982.
Please consider as you continue to read, that Dr. Cutress’ and Dr. Jenkins’ observations occurred in 1971 and 1982 respectively.
How little attention has been paid by the advocates. Note also that Dr. Cutress has advocated fluoridation for at least 40 years here in New Zealand (I’m not sure about Jenkins’ advocacy, he’s British, but in 1982 he was an advocate).
All through the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, the advocates of fluoridation continued to publicly claim or imply fluoride was an essential nutrient in American, Australian and New Zealand media.
Pictured: Water Fluoridation to Be Discontinued, Daily Post (New Zealand), 20th July, 1978. Available on microfiche at Fairfax media, Willis Street, Wellington.
Pictured: Letter to Editor, Dunedin Star Midweek (New Zealand), Page 11 Section 1, 13th June, 1990.
The author claims to practice medicine earlier in the letter, but no name is given beyond the “G.P.” at the end.
Pictured: The Noblesville Ledger (Indiana), p. 12, 17th February, 1982.
Note the difference in claim when media is compared with scientific documents. In 1989, the National Academy of Sciences looked at some of the experiments on rodents that tested if fluoride was essential or not, and concluded:
“These contradictory results do not justify a classification of fluorine as an essential element, according to accepted standards.”
Pictured: Recommended Dietary Allowances: 10th edition, Report of the Subcommittee on the Tenth Edition of the RDAs, Food and Nutrition Board, Commission on Life Sciences. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. p. 235, 1989.
Four years later, the Canberra Times completely ignored this statement, and claimed the opposite, with no explanation. Not explaining the contradiction, is perfectly normal for experts in media over the last seven or so decades.
Pictured: Canberra Times, 1993.
Why do I care about this?
It tells us a lot about the nature of experts. Is it important for experts to tell us what is actually true, what is actually reported in scientific documents, as opposed to what will get them promoted, what will get them a pat on the back, what will keep them fashionable?
The question “Is fluoride an essential nutrient?” is far far less important than the question of whether the experts that advise social policy are objective, and accountable for their claims.
The 1957 Commission of Inquiry was cited by a couple of experts in a 2018 court case here in NZ, to support the claim that fluoride was an essential nutrient.
IS THIS A BIG DEAL???
Even the courts follow the experts and their self-deluded pseudoscience WITHOUT DOUBLE-CHECKING IT.
Just consider: it’s 2018, and the experts, educated and intelligent, are citing a document from 1957. Nobody in the courtroom is bothering to check if there’s been any changes since – or if the 1957 document was a bit ‘off’ in its claims).
As I’m sure Professor Paul Connett once said, “Kafka could have written this play.”
Note that in paragraph 208 of the 2018 document, paragraph 228 of the 1957 document is cited.
I can’t help but wonder how much do all these people get paid? Surely they get paid enough to follow-up on some of these claims…? It’s not that difficult to ask a librarian to obtain a few old documents…
I DON’T think the experts want to mislead, it’s just that if it’s only the antifluoride people who’ve been saying “fluoride’s not a nutrient”, and the whole society already believes that anything those antifluoride people say is garbage, the experts and all the fancy intellectuals aren’t very likely to listen.
And besides, fluoride “must” be a nutrient, simply because all those other experts are saying it is… and round and round we go…
CONTINUED IN PART 3…
If you like my work, feel free to subscribe to this blog, I have no interest in charging for it. If you’d like to support my work, feel free to purchase one of my books online. I began by writing comedy, and have three self-published comedies (one (but I think this is the worst one), two - first chapter free here, and three - and the story behind it), the book on fluoride is my only non-fiction work. I’ve also published one collection of horror stories. Another way to support my work if you’ve already read something of mine, is to leave a review.
Or feel free to contribute via USDT (network TRX Tron TRC20) cryptocurrency to:
TWVYdv6pD8i6mkf7Za5sYgiS4KT1a2Bb7N