Your Letters Published – ‘Incoming!’ with response to ‘They’re baaaack!’


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

STATUS: Published

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

They’re baaaack! 

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

Highton

****

2. RESPONSE Letters, February 8th, 2013

lncoming!

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.

Daniel Zalec

Irymple

Geelong Independent 8th Feb 2013

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