Re: Another fluoride deception

From: The Webby (nospamatthetmjiatroepidemic_at_san.rr.com)
Date: 06/16/04 

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:54:28 GMT

Hello Peter,

I've often wondered how you would comment upon the public water in my
region. I admit fully to my ignorance on the topic that you have
dedicated so much energy. Please take a look at the URL I'm pasting
here and add comments if you have time. This URL may not be exactly up
to date but it's historically accurate for this sort of discussion, I
think. There's plenty more where this info came from (WWW).

http://www.ndcsouthwest.med.navy.mil/publichealth/dental%20caries%20and%2
0fluoride.htm

Thanks,
Sabra

In article <40D09F95.7D9E@yahoo.com>,
 Peter Meiers <Tren_Dean@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Steven Fawks wrote:
> >
> > You're missing the point. 1.0 ppm is the effective range. Double that
> > (or more as you mention) and the fluorapatite crystals make up too much
> > of the enamel structure and the advantage of fluoride is lessened.
>
> 1 ppm, 2 ppm or 3 ppm doesnīt make a difference here, but anyway:
>
> Thatīs not the point.
>
> The original caries-fluoride epidemiology started with a claim that
> children with mottled teeth in Colorado Springs have a lower incidence
> of tooth decay. That was not true, as the "history of dentistry in
> Colorado" (written by William Alan Douglas with the Colorado State
> Dental Association) clearly proves. Thatīs the point. It all started
> with a lie, and it continued that way as I will show you shortly.
>
> No matter what the American Medical Association and other bodies
> continue to repeat time and again, to hammer it into peoplesī heads.
> They obviously never read the original sources! Or they lie for whatever
> reason.
>
> Regards,
> Peter 

-- 
 -- 
Sabra Broock <sabrabroock@earthlink.net>