Summary
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that a Trump administration would prioritize removing fluoride from public water systems, a position at odds with major health organizations like the CDC, the American Dental Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of which endorse water fluoridation as safe and beneficial for dental health.
Despite Kennedy’s controversial stance on health and environmental issues, which includes previously debunked claims linking vaccines to autism, Trump has praised his passion, stating that Kennedy would have significant freedom to influence health policy if Trump were elected.
So explain to me how Denmark has the best DMFT index score (decayed, missing, or filled teeth), yet they do not add fluoride to their water.
Or Kuopio Finland, that was the only city in Finland that fluoridated then stopped.
Again, better health care, better outcomes. Putting a poison that becomes a random dose depending on age, consumption, and concentration into water is stupid. You wont change my mind. It may be a necessary evil to get to better care, but we should be able to stop doing that.
And yes, I don’t know any kids who actually are willing to drink tap water anymore. Its all bottled, brita, or filtered these days.
Your response to me saying that adding fluoride is best until the US has complete and free dental healthcare was to mention two European countries with with better healthcare than the US. So I’ll repeat myself since you can’t read:
If you live in the US then it should be obvious what will provide the best outcomes, since those other measures aren’t in fucking place here.
It’s not a poison, this type of bullshit fear-mongering just highlights how hollow your arguments are. You’re arguing that the delivery method of fluoride is wrong, and then you call it a poison. Stop taking cues from anti-vaxxers.
It’s not an evil, just because there’s a hypothetical better way doesn’t mean this way is bad. It provably doesn’t have worse outcomes! How the fuck can it be evil? All your links just show it has “negligible effects” if fluoride is provided another way, none of them show negative effects.
Than you either don’t live in America or you live in a much more well-off area then me. Over half of Americans drink tap water, and more than that cook with the water.
Brita and other filters don’t remove fluoride from water, so drinking filtered tap water doesn’t affect adding fluoride to the water.
If you do not think fluoride is a poison you are out of your mind. You didnt seem to understand how chlorine worked, so I guess its par for the course. There are 188 superfund sites in the US to clean up… FLUORIDE. There are even communities that have to remove it from their drinking water. There are strict limits on the ppm in water, so you think everyone is getting the same dose by adding it?
I gave two examples, you want me to write a damn paper? There are PLENTY MORE. The study in the UK came to the same conclusion. But no matter what I say, you are going argue. True Brita basics do not remove flouride.
And yes I am suggesting, the WHOLE FUCKING TIME, that the US can do better. That this stop gap is stupid, because of the reasons I gave. Why do you want to argue this shit?
The examples of negatives are the deaths that occurred in Alaska, and the injuries in Utah due to human error. Those are rare though. Chronic ingestion of fluoride in large amounts interferes with bone formation. But then there is the study that prompted this discussion, which is interesting, but it needs more review. I looked through the 300 pages and the summary, and I am not convinced.
We are not far apart on this: I am not against fluoride. I am just not hugely in favor of adding it to the water supply if we don’t have to. Ingestion is not the same as oral application. A person drinking black tea is already getting decent amount of fluoride. Should their water also be fluoridated? Looking at other countries that do not need to do this is something to strive for.