Response to ‘EDITORIAL: Case for fluoride overwhelming’ DZ


GENRE: Email letter

TITLE: Response to ‘EDITORIAL: Case for fluoride overwhelming’ DZ

AUTHOR: Daniel Z

DATE WRITTEN: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:12 PM

STATUS: No response, as of 1st January, 2013

UPDATES: Any updates should be posted in the comments section below.

FURTHER READING: The Case Against Fluoride (Connett, Beck, Micklem)(2010)

To: fagand@qnp.newsltd.com.au

Bcc: Various lists

Attn. Editor

Re: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/editorial-case-for-fluoride-is-overwhelming/story-e6frerd6-1226533201085

Dear Editor,

You like to refer to Queensland as being somehow backwards for not adopting water fluoridation sooner; and now, not continuing to have the practice mandated by the State Government. It seems that you are the one behind the times. We’ve been taking the piss out of your ilk for ages:

In fact, your tactics are even more pathetic than those used by fluoridation promoters/cronies down south. But just to let you know, we’ve also been watching Queensland over the years:

It seems the Queensland people, based on the latest trend away from State Government mandatory fluoridation laws, are waking up to the fraud of fluoridation. Only YOU, Editor, and your ridiculous gang of ‘Yes Men’ morons, insist on pissing into the wind.

I suggest you buy yourself a Christmas gift: http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/the_case_against_fluoride

Merry Christmas.

Sincerely,

Daniel Z | Independent Researcher

Advertisements

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