I love the New York Times but not when they bury their heads in outdated opinion...

In a letter dated 2015 the response to a valid query regarding recent research questioning the validity, efficacy and safety of delivering fluorides via our water supply, the Revered Science Correspondent Donald McNeil Jn. basically admitted that he relied on data published 50 years ago... 

"I think it's fair that most members of the science staff of the New York Times consider this debate have been decided ... 50 years ago"

50 years ago we were still debating the safety of cigarette smoking, lead, arsenic and asbestos... so much for investigative research...

The NYT is being slammed by the 45th - isn't it time for the NYT to rise above "dogma" ? If they actually spend time (5 hours ) reading the 530 page 2006 report by the 12 panel fluoride experts at the National Research Council and 10 minutes reading the more recent Cochrane Review 2016  these "scientists" would soon start to question their own assumption... and maybe delve a little deeper beyond the platitudes... 

Contrary to "popular science" fluoride is not a nutrient and the fluorides we add to our water are not "natural" but actual toxic waste products from the phosphate industry.

When are we going to wake up from the fog ... ?

#fluoride #toxin #Neurotoxin #NAS2006 #NYT #Ourdailydose #Rachelmaddow

Featured Posts
Recent Posts