There's an attorney by the name of John Remington Graham and he explains his methodology on how to make any pro-fluoridation testifiers in court who are called to the stand admit they are not experts on fluoridation and that their testimony is nothing more than opinion and not based by any fact. Here is part of the winning strategy with a brief narrative explaining the scenario:
John Remington Graham's Victory:
I was called to try a case before the District Court of Texas in Houston. The matter was entitled Safe Water Foundation of Texas v. City of Houston, 151st Judicial District, No. 80-52271. The chief counsel on the case advised me that we had to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that artificial fluoridation of public water supplies causes cancer and other ailments in man. Judge Anthony Farris, tough-minded and blunt, heard the evidence. He was exceedingly fair to both sides. It was an international confrontation of the leading experts in the world.
When we rested our case on January 20, 1982, I was never so proud of a group of professional men in my life. And they all proved the truth of the seasoned lawyer's maxim that if an adverse witness is really strong, avoid cross-examination if you can. Naturally, Dean Burk was there. I think history will show that, when he testified, Dr Burk was the most eminent cancer scientist then living. He stated the awful truth, a truth so awful that you do not want to believe it:
Q: In assessing the total percentage of cancer increase in the United States . . . do you have an opinion, based on a reasonable degree of scientific probability, as to what percentage of those would be associated with fluoridation?
A: Not in terms of percentage. That would be estimated, but it is my firm opinion that fluoridation contributes very materially to the increase that is observed. I have had that opinion for quite a few years now. In other words, we wouldn't see by any means as much increase in cancer but for this fluoridation, or, to look at it from the other way around, I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely no means of prevention that would save so many lives as simply to stop fluoridation, or don't start it where it is otherwise going to be started. There you might save 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 lives a year, cancer lives. That is an awful lot of lives a year.
Q: At any expense?
A: No, it would save money.
Q: And at any great effort?
A: No, you just wouldn't bother to put it in the water. And why people don't fully appreciate it, or take action to oppose it, I cannot understand without going into the question of politics and the root of all evil and those things. But, scientifically, I can't understand any basis.
The other side appeared with their team of polished witnesses. Their first witness was the Director of the Health Department for the City of Houston. She held the degrees of doctor of medicine and master of public health. In an erudite and poised manner, with demeanor of a kind which naturally commands respect and confidence, she had enthusiastically and unreservedly recommended, for the good of children, especially those in low socioeconomic groups, that the City of Houston "adjust the fluoride in the municipal water supply to the optimal level for reduction of dental caries."
Q: Doctor, have you read a report which has been marked and introduced as plaintiff's exhibit 23, entitled Fluoride, Fluoridation and Environmental Quality, a translation of a report prepared for the Minister for the Environment [for the Province of Quebec] by the Advisory Committee on the Fluoridation of Water Supplies?
A: No.
Q: Doctor, I am showing you what has been marked as plaintiff's exhibit 3, an article [by Burk and Yiamouyiannis], published in the journal Fluoride, entitled Fluoridation and Cancer: Age-Dependence of Cancer Mortality Related to Artificial Fluoridation. Have you read that before?
A: No.
Q: Doctor, I am showing what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 7, a book by George Waldbott, MD, and Professors Burghstahler and McKinney, University of Kansas, entitled Fluoridation: the Great Dilemma. Have you read that book?
A: No.
Q: Doctor, showing what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 8, a publication by the National Research Council of Canada, entitled Environmental Fluoride 1977, by Dyson Rose and John Marier, have you read that report?
A: No.
Q: Doctor, I am showing you what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 13, a paper entitled Cytological Effects of Sodium Fluoride on Mice by Aly Mohamed and Mary Chandler of the Biology Department at the University of Missouri in Kansas City. Have you read that report?
A: No.
Q: Doctor, showing you what has been marked as plaintiff's exhibit 20, a translation of an article in the original German, the translation being entitled Fluoridated Water and Teeth, by Rudolf Ziegelbecker in Austria, published in the journal Fluoride, have you read that report?
A: No.
Q: Doctor, showing you what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 9, a paper by Dr Alfred Taylor in 1954 in the journal Dental Digest, entitled Sodium Fluoride in the Drinking Water of Mice, have you read that report?
A: No.
Q: Doctor, showing you what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 15, a paper by Danuta and Jachimszak and others of Department of Biology in the Institute of Biostructure in the Pomeranian Medical Academy, published in volume 19 of Genetica Polonica, entitled The Effect of Fluorine and Lead Ions on the Chromosomes of Human Leukocytes in Vitro, have you read that report?
A: No.
Q: Doctor, showing you what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 10, a paper published in the journal Genetics, volume 48, in 1963 by Herskowitz and Norton, entitled Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumours in Two Strains of Drosophila Melanogaster Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride, have you read that paper?
A: No.
Q: Doctor, showing you what has been marked as plaintiff's exhibit 24, a paper by John Lee, MD, entitled Optimal Fluoridation: the Concept and its Application to Municipal Water Fluoridation, it is reprinted from the Western Journal of Medicine, have you read that report?
A: No.
Q: Doctor, showing you what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 25, a paper by George Waldbott, MD, Fluoridation: A Clinician's Experience, in volume 73 of the Southern Journal of Medicine, published in March 1980. Have you read that study?
A: No.
Q: Doctor, I am showing you what has been marked as plaintiff's exhibit 16, a paper done by John Emsley, published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, entitled An Unexpectedly Strong Hydrogen Bond: Ab Initio Calculations and Spectroscopic Studies of Amide-Fluoride Systems. Have you read that paper?
A: No.
Q: Doctor, showing you what has been marked plaintiff's exhibit 12, a paper in Plant Physiology, volume 43, by Dr Chong Chang of the United States Department of Agriculture, entitled Effect of Fluoride on Nucleotides and Ribonucleic Acid In Germinating Corn Seedling Roots. Have you read that report?
A: No.
Q: Have you read anything in the way of literature by Dr Ionel Rappaport?
A: No.
I "passed the witness", as they say in Texas. The assistant city attorney then asked,
Q: You are not an expert in fluoride, are you?
A: No.
------------------------------------
You can see the entire article here:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2004/05/12/questions_for_water_fluoridation.htm More information on John Remington Graham can be found here:
http://www.sonic.net/~kryptox/law/graham.htmIf you have any more information on John Remington Graham could you please post it here including other cases and his current practice or website. Thank You
