Tactical Analysis: Johnny’s Harvard Omission

3 Comments

Introduction

Dr. Johnny Johnson is a Pinellas County (Florida USA) dentist. He is a well-known promoter of water fluoridation and a harsh critic of all those who oppose the practice. In this post, we draw attention to some very devious tactics used by Johnny to mislead readers of his own website, regarding a 2012 Environmental Health Perspectives paper about the impact of fluoride on the neurological development of children.

Johnny’s statement

Two of the scientists who compiled the numbers for the Harvard Study, stated that “it does not address the safety of fluoridation levels typical of American drinking water. These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.””

What did the Harvard scientists actually say?

These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.

Johnny’s tactics

On his website, Johnny has conveniently omitted the second part of the statement from the Harvard scientists – Anna Choi & Philippe Grandjean. By doing so, he has deliberately misrepresented the position of the authors. Quite simply, Johnny has been caught red-handed engaging in typical pro-fluoridation propagandising tactics. Instead of educating his readers about the complexities of the matter, he keeps them away from the other side of the story, thus witholding the truth. Furthermore, Grandjean is quoted in the official Harvard School of Public Health press release as follows: “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain. The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.” Johnny also neglected to mention this.

Further reading

> Fluoride & Intelligence
> Harvard Scientist Criticizes Wichita Paper’s Whitewash of Fluoride/IQ Study
> National Research Council recommends additional IQ studies

Advertisements

Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

3 thoughts on “Tactical Analysis: Johnny’s Harvard Omission

  1. Pingback: What are fluoride’s potential effects on the brain? |

  2. Pingback: Tactical Analysis: Johnny’s Harvard Omission | Australian Safe Water Letter Archive (ASWLA)

  3. I find it really offensive that this guy is not only a prolific liar endangering the long term health and safety of the population by being a Spokesperson for the Fluoridation Cartel – he even tries to be a nice guy and fooling/softening up parents by putting this on his website:-
    ‘ God’s Blessings to you and your family, Johnny’

    If this were the case Johnny you would not be shamelessly promoting the dumping of hazardous waste pollutants and co-contaminants into the peoples’ drinking water supplies hence also contaminating our food chain. You can do all the slick ducking and weaving and lying, but you’ll face the consequences of your shameless, deliberate actions putting the population in Harm’s Way.

    I hope that people are taking snapshot records of your website web of deception/propaganda and that one day we will see you included in a massive class action against all you Fluoridation Cranks.

    Don’t believe this Fluoride Loving Con Man Johnny.

    I want to post the info from the article Portland’s Vote Reflects Recent Scientific Findings on Fluoridation’s Risks – 22 May, 2013 – study this instead of listening to Johnny’s shocking propaganda.

    Portland, Oregon, the largest U.S. city without fluoridation chemicals added to its drinking water, rejected water fluoridation Tuesday in an election watched around the country.
    Despite being outspent by more than a 3 to 1 margin, fluoridation opponents defeated the measure with the current vote count at 60.5 to 39.4%. The latest polling showed especially strong opposition from Portland’s Latinos and African Americans. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and Independents also opposed the measure.  The diverse and bipartisan coalition opposing the fluoridation measure ranged from the Sierra Club’s Columbia Group and the Portland NAACP to a group of over 200 Portland medical professionals and the conservative Cascade Policy Institute. The vote came just weeks after data from a state study showed Oregon’s child cavity rates had dropped over 19% in recent years without any increased fluoridation and that cavity rates in unfluoridated Portland were actually lower than rates in Oregon’s fluoridated cities.
    The loss for fluoridation promoters follows the November vote rejecting fluoridation in Wichita, Kansas, the second largest unfluoridated U.S. city. Both votes come after recent studies by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Harvard scientists and other top researchers linking even low levels of fluoride in drinking water with human health risks ranging from decreased thyroid function and depressed childhood IQ to elevated bone cancer risks in boys. Other recent studies have tied fluoridation chemicals to health risks related to arsenic, a common contaminant found in the fluoridation chemical fluorosilicic acid, and lead, which fluoridation chemicals have shown to leach from plumbing.
    Relying on the NAS report findings that infants and children were getting too much fluoride, the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services called for a 40% reduction in maximum fluoridation levels in 2011. The Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association, while still claiming fluoridation is safe for infants, also issued warnings that regular use of fluoridated water to mix infant formula put infants at risk of excessive fluoride intake and damage to teeth known as “fluorosis.” (Visit the Media Page at cleanwaterportland.org for an overview of recent scientific studies related to fluoridation risks relevant to the Portland campaign and related media coverage.)
    Fluoridation promoters attempt to dismiss the recent studies and rely on the intentional campaign tactic of framing fluoridation opponents as being “anti-science.” A number of prominent scientists, however, including two members of the National Academy of Sciences Committee that published the over 500-page “Fluoride in Drinking Water” report, say the science about fluoridation risks has changed, and that the public has clearly noticed.
    Scientist Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, who served on the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Fluoride stated, “The scientific evidence available today highlights a number of reasons to be concerned about the continued practice of water fluoridation. When people become aware of the actual risks, it is not surprising they decide against fluoridation.”
    “All current research shows that a lifetime of fluoridation might save one filling. It’s not clinically relevant and certainly not cost effective,” says Dr. Hardy Limeback, DDS who was also a member of National Academy of Sciences Committee on Fluoride and previously was the head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto. Limeback also addressed the risks of fluoridation, explaining that they included “impaired brain and endocrine function as well as an increased risk for certain cancers, that have convinced me we should never have allowed fluoridation to continue as long as it has.”
    “This vote reflects that people are becoming more aware that there are real risks to adding fluoridation chemicals to our drinking water, and just because its something many cities have done for decades doesn’t mean its a good idea,” adds Dr. William Hirzy, PhD, the former vice president of the U.S. EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists. Hirzy teaches at American University and recently published a study on the risks of arsenic contained in the fluoridation chemical fluorosilicic acid.
    Those involved in the Portland campaign agree. “It was amazing to see people who had been pro-fluoride switch their positions when they saw there were very real and credible scientific reasons to be concerned, and that claims of unquestionable fluoridation safety was more myth than fact,” says Portland physical therapist and mother of two Kellie Barnes, who gave over 30 presentations on the recent fluoridation science to groups around Portland as a volunteer with Clean Water Portland, the group that lead the fluoridation opposition.
    “We are very pleased to see the fluoridation measure defeated so we can start to focus on solutions that do not involve the risks of fluoridation chemicals and that actually work, such as increasing access to dental care,” says Clifford Walker who is a board member of the Portland NAACP.
    Portland dentist Dr. Jay Levy, DDS, who was active in opposing the Portland fluoridation measure, agreed. “Many dentists I know have the best intentions when it comes to fluoridation, but they just are not aware that the science regarding fluoridation risks has changed so significantly in recent years. For many, the belief that fluoridation is safe is akin to a knee-jerk reflex based on what they learned in dental school, and that’s a real problem when you’re dealing with public health.”
    “Across the country, we are seeing people who once supported fluoridation switch their position after spending some time reading the recent studies for themselves and realizing that a practice they long assumed to be safe is far riskier than they thought,” says Michael Connett, a researcher with the Fluoride Action Network, the nation’s leading organization on fluoridation issues.
    “Portland voters chose to protect children from risky fluoridation chemicals. As a community, we stand on the side of science, which clearly shows growing cause for concern about health risks associated with fluorosilicic acid. Anyone can spend an hour on the internet and read for themselves what the National Academy of Science report has to say about fluoride’s risks,” says Antonia Giedwoyn with the Sierra Club’s Columbia Group, which has opposed the Portland fluoridation measure.
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/cwp_may22/

    Photographs from Clean Water Portland http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/portland_photos/

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