The Second Fable:  Fluoride Reduces Tooth Decay

established data on fluoride effects

In 1938, Dr. H. Trendley Dean, the first director of the National Institute of Dental Research, claimed to have found that fluoride in the drinking water was responsible for a reduction in tooth decay in children.  He said that only 30% of 9 year olds living in areas with what he called a low natural fluoride content of 0.6 to 1.5 parts per million in the drinking water (Pueblo, CO; Junction City, KS; and East Moline, IL) had decay free permanent teeth.  In contrast, he pointed out that 60% of the children living in areas with a higher natural fluoride content of 1.7 to 2.5 parts per million in the water (Monmouth, IL; Galesburg, IL; and Colorado Springs, CO) had decay free permanent teeth.  However, an examination of his data shows that claims attributing lower tooth decay rates to fluoride do not hold up.  From the following data, it is difficult to discern any beneficial effect from higher levels of fluoride in the water:
 


 

Locality

Fluoride:  parts per million

Percent of Children with Decay Free Permanent Teeth

Percent of Children with Dental Fluorosis

Pueblo, CO

0.6

37

2.4

Junction City, KS

0.7

26

1.7

East Moline, IL

1.5

11

24.5

Monmouth, IL

1.7

55

42.1

Galesburg, IL

1.8

56

35.1

Colorado Springs, CO

2.5

41

67.6

If Dr. Dean were to try to point out that 1.7 to 2.5 parts per million fluoride were necessary for cavity prevention, he would also have had to admit that these same levels of fluoride produced mottling in 40 to 70 % of the children.  In a subsequent study in 1942, Dean grouped Moline, IL with high fluoride areas because in this study, instead of having the highest tooth decay rate, it had the lowest.

    In a 1970 follow up study of the findings of Dr. Dean, Drs. Fred L. Losee and Basil G. Bibby re-examined some of Dean's figures and showed that, in cases where the tooth decay rates of 12 to 14 year old children went down as fluoride levels in the drinking water went up. The reduction in tooth decay could as easily have been attributed to strontium and/or boron as to fluoride.  To back up this statement they presented data from the following communities in Illinois:

Correlations of Tooth Decay Rates with Fluoride and other Minerals

 

City

Strontium: parts per million

Boron: parts per million

Fluoride: parts per million

# Decayed, Missing, & Filled Permanent Teeth per 12-14 yr. old

Galesburg

2.0

0.5

1.9

2.36

Aurora

1.0

0.3

1.2

2.81

Joliet

0.5

0.5

1.3

3.23

Oak Park

0.1

0.02

0.0

7.22

Quincy

0.03

0.01

0.1

7.06

Waukegan

0.02

0.02

0.0

8.10

Dean's studies have been widely cited by fluoridation promoters because they supposedly proved the benefits of fluoride.  As a matter of fact, what they really showed was that fluoride has little if any effect on tooth decay.  The results of other researchers also show no apparent effect.

     Dr. Eugene Zimmerman and co-workers from the National Institute of Dental Research reported on a 10 year study of Bartlett, TX (8 parts per million fluoride) and Cameron, TX (0.4 parts per million fluoride).  Their report, published in a 1955 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association, noted that the incidence of tooth decaywas "examined statistically and no significant difference was found between the Bartlett and Cameron residents."

    A slightly earlier study in Arizona likewise found no significant difference in tooth decay rates between high and low fluoride areas.  Dentist Donald J. Galagan conducted the study on 12 to 14 year olds.  He published the results in the Journal of the American Dental Associationin 1953.  His data (reproduced in the following table) indicates, that while dental fluorosis (mottling) increased and became more severe as the fluoride concentration in the water increased, no reduction in the number of decayed, missing and filled teeth per child could be observed:

 
 


 

Arizona City

Fluoride (ppm)

Number of Children

Decayed, Missing, & Filled Teeth per Child

Number of Children

Percent with Dental Fluorosis

Yuma

0.4

29

2.45

82

4

Tempe

0.5

45

2.82

113

10

Tucson

0.7

167

3.48

316

17

Chandler

0.8

42

2.45

95

19

Casa Grande

1.0

22

2.00

50

48

Florence

1.2

34

3.56

70

56

    In, probably, the largest study of tooth decay in areas with various natural levels of fluoride in the drinking water, Dr. Yoshitsugu Imai of the Tokyo Medical and Dental University examined more than 20,000 students, grades 1 through 6.  In 1972, he reported the results of this study. He found a higher percentage of students with tooth decay in areas with fluoride levels of 0.4 parts per million or more in the drinking water than in areas with 0.2 to 0.39 parts per million in the drinking water.

Proper Scientific Experiment VS. Scientific Cretinism

     Numerous attempts have been made to show that the amount of fluoride used to fluoridate public water systems reduces tooth decay under laboratory conditions.  The U.S. Center for Disease Control and the British Ministry of Health admit that no laboratory study has ever shown that the amount of fluoride added to drinking water is effective in reducing tooth decay.  Furthermore, they admit that there are no epidemiological studies on humans showing that fluoridation reduces tooth decay that meet the minimum requirements of scientific objectivity.  These requirements are referred to by scientists as blind or double-blind design in which neither examiner nor patient know who is in the test group and who is in the control group.  This type of study is necessary to eliminate examiner-patient bias.  It also helps to prevent misleading results.  For instance, tooth decay rates among U.S. children living in some fluoridated areas are more than twice as high as those living in other areas that are nonfluoridated.  Comparisons showing the opposite can also be found.  Blind and double-blind design helps assure an unbiased selection of areas so that reliable results can be obtained.

  The Fluoridation "Experiment" Begins

    The studies of Dr. Cox, Dr. Armstrong, and Dr. Dean hardly proved the benefits of fluoride, yet it was on the basis of these studies that fluoridation of public water supplies began.

    Grand Rapids, Michigan, the first city reported to be fluoridated, began to add fluoride to the drinking water on January 25, 1945; Muskegon, MI was selected as a control (nonfluoridated) city.  the study was originally designed to last for at least 10 years, but five years after fluoridation began, it was observed that the tooth decay rates of both artificially fluoridated Grand Rapids and Nonfluoridated Muskegon had decreased as recorded in the following table derived from studies originally published by USPHS Scientists:
 

 Decayed, Missing, and Filled Permanent Teeth (DMFT) Per Child

 
(This may be the most important table of data since it is pushed so much by the fluoridationists, yet it is missing so much data when they present it.)

 

Grand Rapids (fluoridated)

Grand Rapids (fluoridated)

Grand Rapids (fluoridated)

Muskegon (non- fluoridated)

Muskegon (non- fluoridated)

Muskegon (non- fluoridated)

Age

1944-45

1949-50

Change

1944-45

1949-50

Change

5

0.11

0.03

-0.08

0.06

0.14

+0.08

6

0.78

0.38

-.40

0.81

0.63

-0.18

7

1.89

0.76

-1.13

1.99

1.43

-0.56

8

2.94

2.16

-0.78

2.81

2.58

-0.23

9

3.90

2.48

-1.42

3.81

3.88

+0.07

10

4.92

3.56

-1.36

4.91

4.44

-0.47

11

6.41

4.69

-1.72

6.32

5.93

-0.39

12

8.07

7.02

-1.05

8.66

7.21

-1.45

13

9.73

8.11

-1.62

9.98

9.52

-0.46

14

10.94

8.90

-2.04

12.00

11.08

-0.92

15

12.48

11.80

-0.68

12.86

10.32

-2.54

16

13.50

11.83

-1.67

14.07

12.51

-1.56

Average

6.31

5.14

-1.16

6.52

5.81

-0.72

Thereafter, Muskegon was dropped as a control city and the only result publicized was that the tooth decay rate in Grand Rapids decreased after fluoridation (since the overall results between the two cities was negligible).  This scientific cretinism took place at the precise time that the fluoridation "bandwagon" began rolling.

   The major fluoridation study in Britain, carried out by the British Ministry of Health, also failed to show a significant reduction in tooth decay from fluoridation.  The average number of decayed, missing, and filled permanent teeth per child was reported for 8, 9, and 10 year olds for the years 1955-56, when fluoridation began, and for 1967.  Out of five populations studied, two groups (designated fl1ppm  in the table below) received drinking water containing 1 part per million fluoride for the entire period of time.  Another group (designated fl1ppm, 3yr ) received drinking water containing 1 part per million fluoride for three years, a fourth group (fl0.7ppm) received drinking water containing 0.7 part per million fluoride for the entire time period, and the last group (fl0ppm) received drinking water containing no added fluoride for the entire time period.  From the tabulated results below, it is difficult to see any beneficial effect from fluoride:
 


TOOTH DECAY (THE NUMBER OF DECAYED, MISSING & FILLED PERMANENT TEETH PER CHILD)

 

Area

1955/56

1967

Change

Watford  (fl1ppm)

3.6

2.0

-1.6

Holyhead (fl0.7ppm)

3.5

2.2

-1.4

Sutton (fl0ppm)

3.8

3.1

-0.7

Gwalchmai (fl1ppm)

3.2

2.9

-0.3

Bodafon  (fl1ppm, 3yr)

3.2

3.6

+0.4


Another British Study , carried out in Kilmarnok, Scotland, examined the tooth decay rates of permanent teeth (DMFT) of 9 to 14 year olds.  From the results, tabulated below, it is hard to discern any significant beneficial effect from fluoride:
 


 

Age

9

10

11

12

13

14

DMFT 1956

3.4

4.4

5.8

7.4

9.1

9.0

DMFT 1968

3.7

4.1

4.9

6.6

8.4

9.6

Change from 1956 to 1968

+0.3

-0.3

-0.9

-0.8

-0.7

+0.6

# of Years fluoride was Consumed

3

4

5

6

6.5

6.5

    Recent Large-Scale Studies Show Fluoridation Does Not reduce Tooth Decay in Permanent Teeth 

    Virtually every recent large-scale study done has shown that fluoridation does not reduce tooth decay in permanent teeth.

    Dr. John Colquhoun , former Chief Dental Officer of the Department of Health in Auckland, New Zealand, examined the tooth decay rates of all 12 to 13 year old students undergoing their final dental examination by the New Zealand Dental Service in 1984 and 1986 in the six major cities of New Zealand.  This study included 59,331 students, the largest study ever done in the world.  As can be seen in the following table, no differencein tooth decay rate of permanent teeth was observed as a result of fluoridation:

 TOOTH DECAY RATES (THE NUMBER OF DECAYED, MISSING & FILLED PERMANENT PER CHILD) AMONG 12 TO 13 YEAR OLDS IN NEW ZEALAND

 

City

Fluoridation Status

Number of Students Examined

Decayed, Missing, & Filled Permanent Teeth Per Child

Christchurch

Nonfluoridated

14166

3.05

Hamilton

Fluoridated

8065

3.20

Dunedin

Fluoridated

3955

2.90

Palmerstown North

Fluoridated

3771

3.15

Greater Auckland

Fluoridated

39404

2.95

Wellington

Fluoridated

17368

2.80


 In the largest study of fluoridation and tooth decay ever done in the history of the United States, Dr. Yiamouyiannis examined data from the dental examinations (performed under contract from the United States Public Health Service in 1986-87) of 39,207 schoolchildren, aged 5 to 17, in 84 areas throughout the United States.  Of these areas, 27 had been fluoridated for 17 years or more (F), 30 had never been fluoridated (NF), and 27 had been only partially fluoridated or fluoridated for less than 17 years (PF).  The average number of decayed, filled, and missing teeth per child (DMFT) were 1.96 in the (F) areas, 2.18 in the (PF) areas, and 1.99 in the (NF) areas. For life long residents these values were 1.97 in the (F) areas, 2.25 in the (PF) areas, and 2.06 in the (NF) areas. In neither case was there any difference in tooth decay rate that could be attributed to fluoridation.

    And there was no difference in the decay rate of permanent teeth in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas at any age, as can be seen in the following graph:

TOOTH DECAY IN FLUORIDATED ( F), PARTIALLY FLUORIDATED (PF), AND NONFLUORIDATED (NF ) AREAS:  PERMANENT TEETH

DECAYED, MISSING, AND FILLED
PERMANENT TEETH (DMFT) PER CHILD
decayed, missing, and filled permanent teeth (DMFT) per child vs. age

 And the following table shows that when the 84 areas examined are put in the order of increasing decay rates of permanent teeth and compared, no dental benefit can be found as a result of living in a fluoridated area:

TOOTH DECAY RATES FOR 5 TO 17 YEAR OLDS IN THE U.S. IN THE ORDER OF INCREASING AGE-ADJUSTED DMFT RATE (DECAYED, MISSING, AND FILLED PERMANENT TEETH PER CHILD)

 

City

Fluoridation Status

Number of Students Examined

DMFT Per Child

Buhler, KS

Nonfluoridated

543

1.23

El Paso, TX

Fluoridated

451

1.32

Brooklyn, CT

Nonfluoridated

410

1.42

Richmond, VA

Fluoridated

475

1.44

Ft. Scott, KS

Fluoridated

491

1.44

Prince George, MD

Fluoridated

443

1.49

Cloverdale, OR

Nonfluoridated

354

1.49

Alliance, OH

Part. Fluoridated

467

1.58

Martin Co., FL

Nonfluoridated

440

1.59

Andrews, TX

Fluoridated

455

1.59

Coldspring, TX

Nonfluoridated

406

1.59

Tulsa, OK

Fluoridated

504

1.60

Palm Beach, FL

Nonfluoridated

476

1.61

Holcumb, MO

Part. Fluoridated

558

1.63

Kitsap, WA

Nonfluoridated

564

1.64

St. Louis, MO

Fluoridated

491

1.64

Houston, TX

Part. Fluoridated

488

1.66

Clarksville, IN

Fluoridated

428

1.68

Grand Island, NE

Nonfluoridated

535

1.72

Ft. Stockton, TX

Fluoridated

415

1.72

San Antonio, TX

Nonfluoridated

422

1.74

Cherry Creek, CO

Fluoridated

441

1.76

Tuscaloosa, AL

Fluoridated

475

1.81

Marion Co., FL

Part. Fluoridated

545

1.82

Cleveland, OH

Fluoridated

486

1.82

Allegany, MD

Nonfluoridated

458

1.83

Norwood, MA

Part. Fluoridated

434

1.84

Alton, IL

Fluoridated

511

1.86

Shamokin, PA

Nonfluoridated

462

1.86

Lodi, CA

Nonfluoridated

573

1.88

Bullock Creek, MI

Part. Fluoridated

472

1.88

Marlboro, MA

Part. Fluoridated

386

1.89

San Francisco, CA

Fluoridated

456

1.91

E. Orange, NJ

Nonfluoridated

401

1.91

Lincoln/Sudbury, MA

Part. Fluoridated

436

1.92

Conejo, CA

Nonfluoridated

620

1.93

Lakewood, NJ

Nonfluoridated

450

1.93

New York City, NY-2

Fluoridated

336

1.95

Bethel, WA

Part. Fluoridated

540

1.96

Beach park, IL

Fluoridated

518

1.97

Rising Star, TX

Part. Fluoridated

370

1.97

Philipsburg, PA

Fluoridated

499

1.98

Lanett, AL

Fluoridated

503

1.99

Plainville, CT

Part. Fluoridated

436

2.01

Wichita, KS

Nonfluoridated

496

2.04

Newark, NJ

Nonfluoridated

494

2.04

Knox Co., TN

Part. Fluoridated

530

2.06

Los Angeles, CA

Nonfluoridated

540

2.06

Pittsburgh, PA

Fluoridated

415

2.06

Lincoln, NE

Part. Fluoridated

476

2.08

Newton, KS

Nonfluoridated

464

2.08

Lakeshore, MI

Part. Fluoridated

486

2.09

New Paltz, NY

Nonfluoridated

350

2.11

Bemidgi, MN

Fluoridated

485

2.12

Alpine, OR

Nonfluoridated

397

2.13

Canon City, CO

Nonfluoridated

463

2.16

Wyandank, NY

Nonfluoridated

396

2.16

Millbrook, NY

Nonfluoridated

332

2.18

Chowchilla, CA

Nonfluoridated

551

2.18

New York City, NY-1

Fluoridated

503

2.19

Baltic, SD

Part. Fluoridated

487

2.19

Blue Hill, NE

Part. Fluoridated

480

2.22

Crawford, PA

Nonfluoridated

492

2.22

New Orleans, LA

Part. Fluoridated

459

2.25

Memphis, TN

Part. Fluoridated

464

2.25

Madison Co., MS

Part. Fluoridated

493

2.26

Milwaukee, WI

Fluoridated

478

2.35

Tooele, UT

Nonfluoridated

519

2.37

Chicopee, MA

Nonfluoridated

453

2.39

Cambria, PA

Part. Fluoridated

532

2.46

Springfield, VT

Part. Fluoridated

444

2.49

Dearborn, MI

Fluoridated

491

2.50

Maryville, TN

Fluoridated

466

2.51

Taunton, MA

Part. Fluoridated

445

2.52

Greenville, MI

Fluoridated

556

2.56

Hart/Pentwater, MI

Part. Fluoridated

455

2.58

Philadelphia, PA

Fluoridated

463

2.65

Sup. Union#47, VT

Part. Fluoridated

487

2.71

Cutler/Orosi, CA

Nonfluoridated

528

2.80

Brown City, MI

Fluoridated

512

2.97

Lawrence, MA

Part. Fluoridated

339

3.01

State of Hawaii

Nonfluoridated

293

3.29

Concordia Co., LA

Part. Fluoridated

424

3.77

The Results in this study are comparable to those obtained in other large studies conducted in North America.

     In 1989, a researcher from Missouri examined the tooth decay records of rural 6th grade schoolchildren and again found no significant difference in tooth decay rates between those living in fluoridated areas (who averaged 2.2 decayed, missing, and filled teeth per child)  and those living in nonfluoridated areas (who averaged 2.0 decayed, missing and filled teeth per child).

     The October, 1987 issue of theJournal of the Canadian Dental Association published an article admitting that fluoridation isn't doing the job that dentists have been claiming it could do.  According to the article: "Survey results in British Columbia with only 11% of the population using fluoridated water show lower DMFT rates than provinces with 40-70 % of the population drinking fluoridated water" and "school districts recently reporting the highest caries-free rates in the province were totally unfluoridated."
 

Trends

 Many studies show that in the United States and worldwide, reductions in tooth decay rates over the last 25 years in nonfluoridated and fluoridated areas have been comparable.  People who extol the benefits of fluoride seem to ignore this fact.

    Between 1958 and 1978, Dr. Robert Glass , a researcher at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, derived what he called 'amazing' statistics from a study of tooth decay in two nonfluoridated Boston suburbs, Norwood and Dedham.  For the study, he examined the teeth of 1,776 children in the school systems of these two communities and discovered, over the course of 20 years, a 50 % drop in the number of decayed, filled, and missing teeth.

    Other studies from the United States as well as Australia, New Zealand, and Britain have also reported a 50 % decrease in tooth decay in nonfluoridated areas

Fluoridation Reduces Tooth Decay in Baby Teeth

 In 1990, Dr. Yiamouyiannis carefully focused in on the number of decayed and filled baby teeth (dft) in children 5 to 8 years old who were permanent residents of fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas.  Among 5 year olds, he found that the decay rates of baby teeth in fluoridated areas were 42 % lower than in the nonfluoridated areas, and that the difference was statistically significant.  However, this reduction soon disappeared as children grew older, as can be seen from the following table:
 


 

Age

Percent Reduction

Statistically Significant?

5

42%

Yes

6

18%

No

7

11%

No

8

1%

No

Fluoride may have cause this reduction in dft - simply by delaying baby tooth eruption.  Recent studies examining 5 year olds have indicated delayed eruption as a result of fluoridation that could account for such a difference in tooth decay rates.  Delaying the eruption of baby teeth gives them less time to decay.
 

Decay-Free Children in Fluoridated and Nonfluoridated Areas

 The percentage of children with no tooth decay in nonfluoridated areas is as high as or higher than it is in fluoridated areas, as can be seen from the following table:
 


 

Fluoridation Status

Number of Students Examined

Percent of Decay-free Children

5 to 17 year olds, 1986-87

United States

Nonfluoridated

13,882

35%

United States

Fluoridated

12,747

35%

12 to 13 year olds, 1984 and 1986

Christchurch

Nonfluoridated

14,166

24%

Hamilton

Fluoridated

8,065

19%

Dunedin

Fluoridated

3,955

21%

Palmerstown North

Fluoridated

3,771

20%

Greater Auckland

Fluoridated

39,404

23%

Wellington

Fluoridated

17,368

24%

Good Diet, Not Fluoride, Necessary for Healthy Teeth

 In primitive societies whose drinking waters contain negligible amounts of fluoride, such as the Otomi Indians in Mexico , the Bedouins in Israel, and the Ibos in Nigeria, 80 to 90 % of the people go through life without tooth decay - not because the fluoride level in the drinking water is low, but because they eat very little sugar and other refined carbohydrates.  More recent studies show that people living in low-fluoride areas who eat low-sugar diets experience very little tooth decay, whether they are 12 year old schoolchildren in Tanzania or 20 to 50 year old soldiers from Indonesia.

 Fluoride in Toothpastes, Mouthrinses, Tablets, Drops, etc.

The only form in which fluoride may be effective in reducing tooth decay is the fluoride found in toothpaste.  Children living on a high-sugar cariogenic diet who conscientiously brush their teeth may experience a 10% reduction in tooth decay as a result of the fluoride found in their toothpaste,  But even here there is controversy, with some researchers claiming that fluoride toothpastes don't reduce tooth decay at all - and others claiming that higher levels of fluoride are needed to make toothpaste more effective - and still others claiming that lower levels are either as effective or more effective.  Considering the hazards and potential gum-damaging effects of fluoride toothpastes (see above excerpt), it would be best to keep fluoridated toothpastes out of the house.

     Other forms of fluoride create a serious threat to health with no real benefit.  Like water fluoridation, the apparent 'beneficial' effect of fluoride tablets is to retard the decay rates of baby teeth in 5 and 6 year olds.  Balance that against chronically poisoning your child, and very possibly leaving the tell-tale evidence of that poisoning in the form of dental fluorosis of the permanent teeth.
 

Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, excerpt from chapter 14, "The Second Fable:  Fluoride Reduces Tooth Decay", Fluoride the Aging Factor, pp 119-132, (1993), Health Action Press.


(appendix for the above excerpt)



 
 
 

ALERT

Check your local library for the book by Dr. Yiamouyiannis.  It is most likely that if your city is planning to fluoridate-or has fluoridated that "Fluoride the Aging Factor" has been stricken, physically and electronically from any library records.  The Data within the book completely negates any argument by the fluoridationists, so it may certainly be on the government blacklists - and is most definitely on the black lists of the Fortune 500 Companies in the steel, coal burning, phosphate/phosphate fertilizer, aluminum, ceramics, hydrofluoric acid, petrochemical, glass, frit, cement, nonferrous metals, uranium, and other industries that create fluoride as a by-product, waste product .

    For the Reader's information, of the key Fortune 500 Companies, the Biggest culprit, Alcoa, has purchased market research reports in automobile chemicals and parts, lighting, and then, a report that sticks out like a sore thumb because the company has done nothing else in the medical/health industry, " Community Water Treatment."

'Fluoride - The Aging Factor' by John Yiamouyannis

    The book by Dr. Yiamouyiannis does not hesitate to point out the culprits or the mechanism of genetic damage caused by an over indulgence of fluoride.

 Please Remember.  Noone has ever suffered from fluoride deficiency. !

Grassroots organization POWA launches campaign to outlaw fluoridation of municipal water supplies

[Bioenergetic Spectrum] [Ear Hot on Long Cell Phone Calls? This Will Help... ] [GB4000 Function Generator and Royal Rife Info Page] [Healing MindN Body Spirit Connection] [Holy Life, Healing Mind] [Poison Consumer Reports] [Sexual Health] [Bioenergetic Spectrum] [Privacy] [World Spirit Blog] [Bioenergetic Spectrum's feedback form] [Bioenergetic Spectrum Science Blog] [Green8USA.com Cell Phone Protection Page] [Bioenergetic Nutrition Spectrum] [Unlock Your Inner Miracle Mind Power: Free 12 lesson course][Spiritual advice, assistance and information live 24/7!] [Bioenergetic Spectrum] [Keys To Power system: Free 12 lesson course] [Content Rating] [Restore your mind and body - break the crystal meth addiction now with this safe, natural solution.] [Using EFT for Addiction and Substance Abuse] [Cell Phone Safety Info Blog] [Live your life - break the crystal meth addiction NOW] [Improve Your Sleep, Enhance Your Mental and Physical Performance, and Feel Younger in 90 Days...] [Learn the Psychoenergetics within the Bioenergetics] [Sleep Package][Life Pixel IR] [Holy Life, Healing the MindN, Cleansing the Soul] [Protect Yourself From Mobile Phone Stress! Green 8 USAis the only protection specifically designed to protect you from the latest high bandwidth wireless technologies - Limited Time Discount!] [Ear Hot on Long Cell Phone Calls? This Will Help... ] 

©Copyright 2007 HealingMindN.  All rights reserved.

88x31 - Natural Lifestyle #1

2-5


Dentists are not physicians, neither are politicians.
Trust the proper Source of Medical Expertise.
Medifocus: Your Personal Guide to Trustworthy Medical Information