Rob Sutherland waded into very dangerous territory with the definition of cherry picking, in his Letter to the Editor in the Lethbridge Herald of March 3, 2011, when he wrote: “Cherry picking involves knowing your conclusion first, sifting through a mass of information that shows you are wrong, to come up with something that you can use as support.” He was referring to those who oppose artificial drinking water fluoridation, but he forgot to mention that the substance used is the highly toxic waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry called Hydrofluorosilicic Acid Specifications.
Isn’t it strange that this is exactly what the pushers of fluoridation have done since the practice began over 60 years ago. Then they found some poor saps to promote it by their false, misleading and intimidating tactics to insure compliance.
The original research that was used to justify fluoridation is suspect at best and was actually manipulated to show positive results when in fact, the totality of the original data were inconclusive at best. So the researchers, at the behest of their sponsors, cherry picked the data that fit the desired conclusion, leaving out all contrary data and presto, fluoridation became a panacea. However, Harold Hodge and his work in cooking the data have been entirely debunked and discredited for having cherry picked and “doctored” the original data.
Follow the money. Christopher Bryson, a brilliant investigative journalist Sutherland should imitate, clearly showed the skulduggery and deceit that preceded the deconstruction of the truth about fluoride substances. Then followed the implementation of witch hunts against anyone who disagreed with the establishment of a new orthodoxy about fluoride substances, especially in the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid for water fluoridation with callous disregard for the possibility of harm to public health.
Absence of data does not mean absence of harm. If you don’t look, you wont find. All fluoridating governments refuse to do any original, credible research to verify the mounting massive amount of anecdotal data on the deleterious health effect of fluoride. By putting together self-serving government reviews that whitewash the practice, governments are guilty of a massive cover-up that needs to be made right by real, credible research, not cherry picked studies and misrepresented research.
Access the following charts to look at the data that irrefutably prove that fluoridation is ineffective at best, and causes at least the most unsightly looking teeth ever seen in children, called dental fluorosis. If you don’t look, you won’t see. There are other more health effects, but too many too mention and go into at this time.
In the chart accessible below, fluoride is shown as a little more toxic than lead and a little less than arsenic, yet it is allowed to be consumed in parts per million while the other two are allowed in parts per billion. Where’s the logic in that? Fluoride vs Lead and Arsenic Toxicity.
In this next chart, tooth decay rates are unequivocally shown to decline equally well in fluoridated countries as in non fluoridated countries. WHO Tooth Decay Trends.
The type of results above apply equally well to Canada when one compares provinces that do and do not fluoridate as can be seen in the next graph. Cavity Rates compared Between Ontario and Québec.
Dental fluorosis is now endemic in most of the United States. Canadian Dentists report an equally disturbing amount of dental fluorosis that needs their intervention to repair and cover up. Is it not surprising that they would support water fluoridation since it can bring them such substantial income as tooth decay rates have declined over time. Prevalence of Dental Fluorosis.
See them altogether on this web page with a bit more commentary.
For more information see these web sites: Fluoridation-Free Ottawa, Fluoride Action Network and SecondLook – Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride.