Youtube scientist C0nc0rdance addresses the pseudo-science against flouridation of drinking water.

[Boston_Chemist]

48. Pro-Fluoridation crankery is also an issue.

As I was saying in my previous posts in this theme, there is plenty of science to parse on this topic. This is an interesting theme, and I feel that it should be considered in its totality.

This means:

A. An analysis of policies concerning water fluoridation in other countries.
B. The ethic of fluoridation.
C. The soundness of the science that led to fluoridation in the 1960s.
D. The financial incentives for fluoridation in the USA.

If you look into A, you can find a way to obtain immensely valuable epidemiological data concerning the effectiveness of fluoridation at producing a statistically significant reduction on the incidence of dental caries in the population. I posted, above, a long-ish list of European countries that do not fluoridate (Sweden, France, Germany, Norway, etc.), and which have well established medical institutions that should track this topic. Any real skeptic (starting to think that this excludes you guys) would take it upon him/herself to examine this angle, and arrive at the proper conclusions.

Considering B is the realm of lawyers. I am not an ethicist, but I think that personal choice can be ultimately destructive. For instance, it may be your personal choice to ignore the massive evidence that HIV causes AIDS, but such a stance would have apalling consequences. You might also choose to to avoid vaccinations for your child, but that would cause an increased chance for that child to fall ill with a number of things. Personally, I do not buy the various ethical complaints against Fluoridation, as one could come up with easy counterarguments that illustrate beautifully the need to use medicine as a tool of governance.

I don't think that the human body was as well understood in the 1960s as it is now. And any analysis of the initial decisions for fluoridation ought to be performed in the context that existed when it was made, in the 1960s. Does anyone here really have any insight into this? From my personal experience in this thread, no. All I see here are derisive remarks, and borderline insulting stances. I am truly curious about this aspect of the problem, because it exists in the framework of the Tuskegee syphillis experiments, and other poorly thought out schemes.

Concerning financial incentives for fluoridation. Anyone here would agree that the US government is uniquely beholden to lobbying concerns for anything it does. What industry benefits from the addition of fluoride to the municipal water supplies? An honest understanding of this matter must take this aspect into consideration.

Enough with the name-calling already.