posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Amanda5
reply to post by DeadSeraph
Just found your post and read the quote you inserted. The quote - to me - suggests that even though there is fluoride in the water 60% to 90% of
Children in industrialised areas still have tooth decay. Soooooo this means fluoride is not working. Is that context correct??
Logic indicates that the fluoride is not working but that coconuts might be the key to prevention of tooth decay.So we can add that fluoride not only
did not prevent tooth decay in 60% to 90% of the Children referred to in your quote but that it may have actually contributed to the tooth decay.
Is this the context in which your post/argument sits??? I have learned about sodium fluoride and am anti - the gist of your post suggests to me you
are okay with sodium fluoride in the water - is that correct?
Not correct at all. I have been arguing against the fluoridation of drinking water throughout this entire thread, and have provided the recent
findings in the link I provided as a further proof that it is unnecessary. I have also argued that excess fluoride is DETRIMENTAL to dental health (as
have many dentists).
I have also provided links to interviews with dentists who share my opinion (whom have far more experience than phage, despite his leanings).
I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that fluoridation of drinking water is not only unnecessary to facilitate dental health, it is in fact
DETRIMENTAL in situations where individuals follow modern practice with fluoridated tooth paste ON TOP of consuming large amounts of fluoridated
water. The logic, statistics, and information provided more than back up my position, and while phage is an "intellectual heavyweight", he has yet
to prove any of them wrong.
I have provided the study of coconut oil with added enzymes as a further rebuttal as to why fluoridation of a water supply is completely UNNECESSARY.