GENRE: Published letters with response
TO: NSW Health Department
AUTHOR: Geelong Independent, VIC
DATE SENT: 8th February, 2013
TITLE: Letters, Geelong Independent 8th Feb, 2013
UPDATES: No response from Peter Van Elden (he has not given his Scientific qualifications or review of the book).
ATTACHMENTS: 1 x News item published
1. Letters, January 18, 2013
AT LAST! Where had those guys been?
I have so missed their weekly anti-fluoridation rant (Letters, January 11). Perhaps they were off joining the anti-vaccination and anti-climate changers, which distracted them from the more-important task of the fight against fluoride.
Never mind, they’re back, that’s the main thing.
I looking forward to their next missile.
Peter van Elden
2. RESPONSE Letters, February 8th, 2013
PETER Van Elden (Letters, January 18) wrote that he looked forward to the next anti-fluoridation missile.”
Actually, I would like to launch one for him.
I challenge Mr. Van Elden to read The Case Against Fluoride, by Dr Paul Connett, Dr James Beck and Dr Spedding Micklem.
This book has been favourably reviewed by: Dr Avid Carlsson, a Nobel Laurette in medicine; Dr Hardy Limeback, a former head of preventative , dentistry at University of Toronto; and Dr Vyvyan Howard, Professor of Bioimaging and a medically qualified toxico-pathologist ate University of Ulster’s School of Biomedical Sciences.
According to Prof Howard, the authors,
“..have produced a well-researched, cogently argued and very readable text that summarises historical, political, ethical, toxicological and epidemiological scientific data behind drinking water fluoridation. The text is approachable by non-scientists and specialists, although an extensive technical bibliography is provided for those who wish to delve deeper”.
Please, Mr Van Elden, get back to us with your own expert review of this text.
Perhaps you would also care to explain to the people of Geelong why every argument presented in this book can be dismissed as baseless anti-fluoridation “ranting” and why Dr’s Carlsson, Limeback and Howard are “misinformed.”
Please include your scientific qualifications alongside your expert analysis.