22 Feb 2011


I don't think the CDC have said all that. They have called for a reduced level but I can't imagine them ever decrying fluoridation.


Alastair Carnegie said...

Dr. Greg's talk is persuasive, but he is preaching to the choir. We have been stuck in this "Tiz-Tiz'nt-Tiz-Tiz'nt" argument for six decades!

The dogma of systemic fluoridation has invariably been founded on stochastic analysis, which by nature is only either weakly, moderately or highly suggestive.

The NHS York Review revealed that at best, only one or two moderately suggestive data sets indicated a very slight benefit with systemic water fluoridation.

Even highly suggestive data sets, can only be compelling if supported with mechanistic evidence. We now have that bio-chemical 'mechanistic' evidence, and it shows conclusively that 'topical' application of fluoride is the only way to impart acid-resistance to tooth enamel.

Make sure you don't bite too hard on your food though, your fluoridated acid-resistant tooth enamel is also more brittle! and cracks are where bugs hide!

When hard factual science enters the fray, tiz-tiz'nt arguments should be rejected!...It's time for the water-fluoridation proponents to do their homework! put up or shut up!

Anonymous said...

Most people have sheepishly followed the pied piper of the 'Tiz' tune for the past 60 years until the Internet heralded the 'Tizn't' angel of truth.

Fluoride not only damages and demineralises tooth enamel, but also causes periodontal disease, so that teeth temporarily 'saved' in infancy will be lost to fluorosis and gum disease in later years anyway.