Comment

So let me gets this straight. You do not refute anything I have said.

Your are right, this is over.

I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fluoride that is added to municipal systems comes from the smoke stack scrubbers of fertilizer plants. I also provided a sourced peer reviewed article that explained that adding fluoride to water when there is the presence of toothpaste and dental care is not effective.

There is a mountain of evidence comparing dental health in communities that use of fluoride artificially added and those who do not. Guess what, none of it supports adding fluoride. Why? Because it does not work when you already have basic dental care. There is no statistical difference.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6309358/

Please read carefully because it supports everything I have said. Fluoride is effective topically but there is no benefit in ingesting it.

The conspiracy theory and is somehow drinking fluoride helps teeth pre-eruption. This is pure fantasy and what people who support adding fluoride to water believe.

Your elaborate straw man is that I am saying fluoride is dangerous. Instead I said it is effective topically but not when ingested. As in, there is no beneficial effect of swallowing it.

I provided an article you chose to dismiss because the guy who wrote havsa PHD in social sciences and therefore is full of shit. I won’t even go into how fucked up that is.

Because yes a research scientists is going to know about public policy!? I mean you are literally so stupid about this it isn’t funny.

I get you pretend to be smart but really have zero critical thinking skills.

source

Sort:hotnew top

BreadOven@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Woah, no need to get so angry, I’m merely asking questions (which you’re not providing answers to).

I’m refuting the one thing you’ve mentioned multiple times; the “contaminated” source of fluoride. You make it seem like it’s dangerous because “it comes from the smoke stack scrubbers of fertilizer plants.” Why do you keep bringing this up?

Since you brought it, up have you studied this at a university level? While I have not directly studied the fluoridation of water in university, I have studied chemistry. That is where all my questions are coming from. I’m not concerned about this from a dental perspective.

While that article is peer-reviewed and has sources, it’s pertaining to a very specific region, and also is published in a fairly obscure journal with a trash impact factor.

This is also the first I’ve heard mention of pre-eruption benefits of fluoride. I’ve never stated I believe this, and have not heard anyone else mention this in favour of fluoridation.

Also as I mentioned in a previous comment, I am in no way saying the individual with a PhD in a social science is “full of shit”. I’m just saying the article is an opinion piece, and reads like a conspiracy theorist wrote it. Think Charlie and Pepe Silvia from IASIP.

Many scientists (research-based) go into public policy as well. Mainly because they’re capable of thinking critically and are able to contribute to policy in their area of expertise.

Also for the third time, are you a scientist, or have any scientific background?

Doesn’t questioning all these things you’re saying display critical thinking?

source