Letter

Fluoridation

Addressing the arguments

BMJ 2007; 335 doi: 10.1136/bmj.39374.421100.BE (Published 25 October 2007)
Cite this as: BMJ 2007;335:841.1

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

  1. Baldwin of Bewdley, Cross bench peer
  1. House of Lords, London SW1 OPW
  1. rotenboden{at}ntlworld.com

    Cheng et al1 are well placed to sound cautionary notes about fluoridation as two of the authors were involved in the only scientifically defensible assessment of the evidence so far.2 I also served on the advisory panel to the York review, after two years of parliamentary questioning of the rationale for fluoridation.

    It is depressing then to see restatements of old positions, instead of engagement with their …

    Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment

    Subscribe

    Article access

    Article access for 1 day

    Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

    The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

    * Prices do not include VAT

    Rapid responses

    THIS WEEK'S POLL

    Read related article

    See previous polls

    BMJ most popular