Talk:Water fluoridation/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 20 May 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)(back)

FACT: Nanobots in the tap water![edit]

You're missing the point! The moon is a spaceship!! WAKE UP!!! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources for the article[edit]

Since we're all so interested in tap water, yet the article is just of bronze quality (it should be gold one day!), here's some sources to implement into the article:

Top tier illuminati insiders[edit]

Mid tier masonic shills[edit]

Low tier NWO stooges[edit]

What this discussion is really all about[edit]

TL;DR: the moon is a spaceship. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries[edit]

I can't find a single piece of scientific evidence in either of these that fluoride in the water prevents tooth decay in a statistically significant way. Isn't that the bear minimum to even entertain the idea of fluoridation? Maybe you've seen this study? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/abstract "The Cochrane Collaboration, a group of doctors and researchers known for their comprehensive reviews—which are widely regarded as the gold standard of scientific rigor in assessing effectiveness of public health policies—recently set out to find out if fluoridation reduces cavities. They reviewed every study done on fluoridation that they could find, and then winnowed down the collection to only the most comprehensive, well-designed and reliable papers. Then they analyzed these studies’ results, and published their conclusion in a review earlier this month." What did they find: "There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels." "There is insufficient information to determine the effect of stopping water fluoridation programmes on caries levels." "No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria." Love to see your studies, friendo.97.70.1.221 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's the same study's full conclusion:

Our review found that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay among children. The introduction of water fluoridation resulted in children having 35% fewer decayed, missing and filled baby teeth and 26% fewer decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth. We also found that fluoridation led to a 15% increase in children with no decay in their baby teeth and a 14% increase in children with no decay in their permanent teeth. These results are based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today.

Within the ‘before and after’ studies we were looking for, we did not find any on the benefits of fluoridated water for adults.

We found insufficient information about the effects of stopping water fluoridation.

We found insufficient information to determine whether fluoridation reduces differences in tooth decay levels between children from poorer and more affluent backgrounds.

Overall, the results of the studies reviewed suggest that, where the fluoride level in water is 0.7 ppm, there is a chance of around 12% of people having dental fluorosis that may cause concern about how their teeth look.

The same study is also cited here (among many others).
More importantly, however — the limited conclusions of the Cochrane review has been identified as due to its improper inclusion criteria. Other takes on the same review clearly demonstrate that its findings support fluoridation. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Why did you not bold this part of the quote:"These results are based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today."?
" the limited conclusions of the Cochrane review [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27056513 has been identified as due to its improper inclusion criteria"
This simply isn't true. They used so few studies because most of the studies were flawed.
Here's a paper from 2002 (more recent than the potentially no longer applicable studies):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153562 97.70.1.221 (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Which portions I bold is of less importance. What matters is, I produce whole text segments — instead of circumcise the text like you do.
You treat all of their statements expressing any nuance whatsoever as endorsement of fluoridation being a sham, but where the same study and the same authors overtly endorse fluoridation, the goalposts suddenly grow legs. How convenient for you.
There's no need to discuss some other paper from 2002. We've already got a paper to discuss, the 2015 Cochrane review. It'll do nicely. And it's a paper with serious methodological problems, quote:

The Cochrane Review on water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries was published in 2015 and attracted considerable interest and comment, especially in countries with extensive water fluoridation programmes. The Review had two objectives: (i) to evaluate the effects of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) on the prevention of dental caries, and (ii) to evaluate the effects of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) on dental fluorosis. The authors concluded, inter alia, that there was very little contemporary evidence, meeting the Review's inclusion criteria, that evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries. The purpose of this critique is to examine the conduct of the above Review, and to put it into context in the wider body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of water fluoridation. While the overall conclusion that water fluoridation is effective in caries prevention agrees with previous reviews, many important public health questions could not be answered by the Review because of the restrictive criteria used to judge adequacy of study design and risk of bias. The potential benefits of using wider criteria in order to achieve a fuller understanding of the effectiveness of water fluoridation are discussed.

Even with all these problems, didn't the Cochrane study authors conclude that, quote:

Our review found that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay among children.

Surely you're not implying that I made this quote up? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
"You treat all of their statements expressing any nuance whatsoever as endorsement of fluoridation being a sham, but where the same study and the same authors overtly endorse fluoridation"
I like how you rephrase what I say and put it in hysterical terms, and then accuse me of being hysterical. I didn't say this was evidence that fluoride is a sham (what does that mean? How could it be a sham? Is that what you think I'm saying), it's evidence that we don't know if fluoride in the water has any significant effect.
Yes, I skipped over that they say that data may suggest it fluoridated water does help, but that that data may be out of date.
Yes, you skipped over all their statements that we don't have data that supports fluoridating water. Their conclusions are waffling and can support either side, my point is this calls into question whether we have non-biased studies to conclude that fluoride in the water even helps ina significant way.
"There's no need to discuss some other paper from 2002." Well, it was part of the Cochrane study, and it's more recent so not likely to be out of date, so yes, there is a need.97.70.1.221 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
You've said repeatedly that it's "all one gigant NWO scheme". You just said so. This can't be proven and is unprovably false = true. Please concede the point and leave with your dignity intact. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Why are you saying "You've said repeatedly that it's "all one gigant NWO scheme". You just said so."?
You know that's not true.
"This can't be proven and is unprovably false = true. Please concede the point and leave with your dignity intact."
Clearly you're trolling at this point, but I'd love to get your opinion over at the 9-11 page (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:9-11). My comment is the most recent one. It has verifiable direct evidence that the Pentagon attack is not as is presented. I know you think I'm crazy, but then maybe you can poke a hole in it and return my sanity. It is the video that convinced me of error in the official story of 9-11 - it's the only verifiable evidence I've ever seen concerning the 9-11 attacks that refutes the official story. You've done an admirable job defending fluoride (though fluoridation is certainly one of the harder "conspiracies" to prove - obviously people shouldn't be medicated without their consent, and fluoride doesn't need to be ingested for benefits, so there's no reason to put it in water (the money should be invested in child dental care like in Europe, not in buying industrial waste to put in our water), but the negative effect studies are all very new and the Chinese ones have problems), so I'd love for you to take a crack at my 9-11 source. If it's false, I'd like to know, because I would have to return to the fence on 9-11. Thanks. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
You're correct; the above joke quote was just some friendly horseplay. I wouldn't call it trolling, because my goal wasn't to upset you or be purposefully rude. And I don't think you're crazy. I used to be a truther myself... I even debated in public for the truther side of things. And I'm not just saying that. I've seen all the "worthwhile 9/11 conspiracy movies" there are. Many times over, in fact. Made my family sit through them as well. Just saying, dude. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Then maybe you can view my source with an open mind, because I don't see any way around it. The gist is that every single witness to the Pentagon crash saw the plane go over the Navy Annex building and go North of the Citgo gas station - the official path (with the knocked over lamps, and black box data info) must be South of the Citgo. These people interviewed the actual witnesses. You can watch them be interviewed and describe the path in detail. I really don't see any way around it. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I have ADHD, and I've learned that whenever I promise to do something, it gets pushed down to next month. So I won't promise anything, but that's just on the basis of my ADHD. Your claims deserve to be adressed by someone willing to not kneejerk against them — but that's on the condition that you'll keep an open mind, too. Meaning, maybe this particular story is bull, for some legitimate reason you've yet to think of. And maybe it's true for some legitimate reason I've yet to think of (i.e., as I've yet to look at the claims, though I've heard versions of them many times prior). And I think you'll agree that there's no rush to look into this (counted in literal minutes), and that you'd prefer an in-depth reply to some off-hand remark. So, again, here's where I'd say "I'll look at it tomorrow", only I won't say that, because I don't want to jinx it. ADHD works in mysterious ways. Just promise me you'll spare me the honest work and let me know beforehand if you know already that you won't be giving my reply a snowball's chance in hell (in the case that it's not confirmatory of your views). Finally, let's not discuss that stuff further here. Leave the 9/11 talkpage as it is, and let's hope I get to work on taking in what you've presented there sometime soon. Also — did you just concede that maybe the jury's still out on fluoride? If so, kudos to you. Skeptic or truther alike; one has clearly snowed in completely once one resists change for the better even in oneself. In less Deepakese terms; once you've lost the ability to be wrong, you've paradoxially devalued your ability to be right as well. When the misses don't count, the hits cease to matter. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
" And I think you'll agree that there's no rush to look into this (counted in literal minutes), and that you'd prefer an in-depth reply to some off-hand remark."
Absolutely.
"Just promise me you'll spare me the honest work and let me know beforehand if you know already that you won't be giving my reply a snowball's chance in hell (in the case that it's not confirmatory of your views)."
To reiterate what I said before, this is to me the only conclusive piece of evidence, so while I'm confident in it, were it to be refuted or generally had enough holes poked in it that it didn't stand up, I could no longer claim with any certainty that 9-11 was covered up. I want as much scrutiny against this source as possible - if it's false, my entire certainty on the issue of 9-11 would be destroyed. I hate having false knowledge or false confidence. If there are holes in my source, I want to know, I don't like looking like an idiot (despite what it may seem haha).
Finally, let's not discuss that stuff further here.
Agreed.
"Also — did you just concede that maybe the jury's still out on fluoride?"
Yes. Though, there is no question that too much fluoride is bad. There is also no question that fluoride applied topically helps teeth. Whether the small amount of fluoride in the water is harmful is not in my opinion conclusively known in either direction.
Every talk page I've commented on, I've had problems with specific sentences, and called out those specific sentences. I don't come to these talk pages saying "this page ought to say my view is correct." I just wanted blatant misinformation to be removed. You all turn the debate into a general debate of the entire topic, which I think you'll see from my initial comments was not my intention (I must though admit my title in retrospect was inflammatory and over the top, but it certainly got more attention than my 9-11 post). 97.70.1.221 (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The Paper[edit]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/abstract

Main results

A total of 155 studies met the inclusion criteria; 107 studies provided sufficient data for quantitative synthesis.

The results from the caries severity data indicate that the initiation of water fluoridation results in reductions in dmft of 1.81 (95% CI 1.31 to 2.31; 9 studies at high risk of bias, 44,268 participants) and in DMFT of 1.16 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.61; 10 studies at high risk of bias, 78,764 participants). This translates to a 35% reduction in dmft and a 26% reduction in DMFT compared to the median control group mean values. There were also increases in the percentage of caries free children of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%; 10 studies, 39,966 participants) in deciduous dentition and 14% (95% CI 5% to 23%; 8 studies, 53,538 participants) in permanent dentition. The majority of studies (71%) were conducted prior to 1975 and the widespread introduction of the use of fluoride toothpaste.

There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels.

There is insufficient information to determine the effect of stopping water fluoridation programmes on caries levels.

No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.

With regard to dental fluorosis, we estimated that for a fluoride level of 0.7 ppm the percentage of participants with fluorosis of aesthetic concern was approximately 12% (95% CI 8% to 17%; 40 studies, 59,630 participants). This increases to 40% (95% CI 35% to 44%) when considering fluorosis of any level (detected under highly controlled, clinical conditions; 90 studies, 180,530 participants). Over 97% of the studies were at high risk of bias and there was substantial between-study variation. Authors' conclusions

There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries.

The available data come predominantly from studies conducted prior to 1975, and indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous and permanent dentition in children. Our confidence in the size of the effect estimates is limited by the observational nature of the study designs, the high risk of bias within the studies and, importantly, the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles. The decision to implement a water fluoridation programme relies upon an understanding of the population's oral health behaviour (e.g. use of fluoride toothpaste), the availability and uptake of other caries prevention strategies, their diet and consumption of tap water and the movement/migration of the population. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.

There is insufficient information to determine the effect on caries levels of stopping water fluoridation programmes.

There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level. The evidence is limited due to high risk of bias within the studies and substantial between-study variation.97.70.1.221 (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to cite the very first thing their conclusion states:

Our review found that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay among children.

Quote mining? That's a paddlin'. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Quote mining? Have you no shame? Look at my source - I quoted the entire main results and conclusions. I edited nothing out. Please acknowledge your dishonesty here.97.70.1.221 (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
And your quote is quote mined - you left off: "These results are based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today."
You're a hypocrite.97.70.1.221 (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Serious.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
"Look at my source - I quoted the entire main results and conclusions. I edited nothing out." True or false? You have no intellectual honesty. — Unsigned, by: A big stupid doo-doo head / talk / contribs
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Dental experts respond to Cochrane Review on fluoridation[edit]

Source: https://www.bda.org/news-centre/press-releases/dental-experts-respond-to-cochrane-review-on-fluoridation

1. Although the Cochrane Review focuses mainly on studies published before 1975, the BDA notes that a report by the European Commissions’ Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) in 2010 found that water fluoridation has a beneficial impact on reducing oral health inequalities.

2. The Cochrane report highlights that cross-sectional studies, which form the majority of fluoridation studies, were not included in their review.

3. Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral which can protect teeth in a number of ways. It makes developing enamel more resistant to acid, it helps to repair teeth during the early stages of decay, and it prevents tooth decay by reducing the ability of plaque bacteria to produce acid. In some areas in the UK the ideal level of fluoride occurs naturally; other areas have chosen to add it to the water for public health reasons.

4. Only 10 per cent of the UK population receives fluoridated water compared with 67 per cent in the USA in 2002[i]. Major schemes are in operation in Birmingham, throughout the West Midlands and also in Tyneside. About 500,000 people receive water which naturally contains fluoride at or about the level of 1ppm, while a further one million people receive water which naturally contains fluoride at a lower level, but which is still considered to confer some dental benefits.

The American Dental Association Responds to Cochrane Review of Water Fluoridation[edit]

Source: http://www.ada.org/en/press-room/news-releases/2015-archive/july/the-american-dental-association-responds-to-cochrane-review-of-water-fluoridation

The U.S. Community Services Task Force conducts systematic reviews of interventions in many public health topics to find which program and policy interventions have proven to be effective, their benefits or harms, return on investment and other factors. The Task Force recommended community water fluoridation based on strong evidence of effectiveness in reducing dental caries across populations.

The American Dental Association strongly endorses the Task Force’s recommendation and supports ongoing research on the safety and effectiveness of community water fluoridation.

Critique of the review of 'Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries' published by the Cochrane Collaboration in 2015[edit]

Source: http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v220/n7/full/sj.bdj.2016.257.html

It should be emphasised, first, that the Cochrane Review states 'that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous [primary] and permanent dentition in children.' In this, it agrees with all other authoritative reviews.2, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 The findings and conclusions of the Cochrane Review are at odds, though, with the literature on the effectiveness of water fluoridation in respect of: its effectiveness in adults; its effectiveness in reducing social disparities in oral health; and the effect of cessation of water fluoridation. On these, the Cochrane Review said that there was insufficient evidence; it did not say that water fluoridation was ineffective in these regards. It is a fundamental premise of interpreting evidence from trials that the absence of evidence, or the existence of poor-quality evidence, should not be confused with, or taken to imply, an absence of effect. There is a risk that the Cochrane Review will be inadvertently, or deliberately, misinterpreted in this way.

The earliest study of the effect of fluoridated water on the dental health of adults was reported in the USA in 1943.48 Since then, many studies have reported lower caries experience in adults who have lived in fluoridated communities than adults who have lived in communities with low concentrations of fluoride in drinking water. In 2007, Griffin and co-workers, working for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), published a systematic review49 on the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults. For the nine studies which satisfied the inclusion criteria, water fluoridation significantly reduced caries experience (p <0.001). For the five studies published after 1979, the prevented fraction was 27%. Since the publication of that systematic review, several publications have supported its conclusions.50, 51, 52, 53

As mentioned earlier, the use of water fluoridation to reduce dental health inequalities was not a stated objective of the Cochrane Review, so it is unsurprising that the narrow inclusion criteria fail to identify any reports. In contrast, the York Review stated: 'There appears to be some evidence that water fluoridation reduces the inequalities in dental health across social classes in five and 12-year-olds using the dmft/DMFT measure. This effect was not seen in the proportion of caries-free children among five-year-olds.' A recent analysis of national data in England20 concluded that caries prevalence and experience were lower in communities receiving fluoridated water than in communities receiving water low in fluoride, and suggested that 'the effect is greater within the most deprived communities.'

The impact of cessation of water fluoridation was considered above. It was noted that the York Review concluded: 'The best available evidence from studies following withdrawal of water fluoridation indicates that caries prevalence increases, approaching the level of the low fluoride group. Again, however, the studies were of moderate quality (level B) and limited quantity.' The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 2007 review43 concurred with the conclusions of the York Review, stating: '[the York Review] also sug gest that cessation of fluoridation resulting in a narrowing of the difference in caries prevalence between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations. Only one additional relevant original study was identified in the current review and this did not change the conclusion of the existing systematic review.'

Public health policy and decisions in public health should be grounded in the totality of the evidence with appropriate consideration of the quality of that evidence, its context, relevance, applicability and cost. There is no doubt that there is a considerable amount of evidence indicating that water fluoridation is effective in caries prevention. This evidence considers not only oral health-related outcome measures such as dmft/DMFT scores, but also dental abscesses, toothache and admission to hospital for general anaesthetics.54, 55, 56 It was listed by the US CDC as one of ten most important public health initiatives during the twentieth century.57 The Cochrane Review used methods which were very restrictive: the American Academy of Pediatrics commented that the Cochrane Review of community water fluoridation had excluded 97% of the evidence.58 Those considering this Cochrane Review or embarking on a further review of water fluoridation should bear this in mind.

TL;DR[edit]

It's all in here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Unanswered objections[edit]

1. If fluoride in the water is known to cause fluorosis in some percentage of the population - then it is a medication with a side effect that is being put in the water. There has been no explicit consent to this treatment.

Objections: Vitamin D is added to milk, iodine to salt.

Why this doesn't hold up: People can choose not purchase milk with vitamin D added or salt without iodine. People can not choose what water system to connect to without moving sometimes out of state or across the country.

It also doesn't hold up because vitamin D is practically speaking impossible to make you sick. The amount of milk would make you sick before the vitamin D. There are no negative side effects to vitamin D, because it's a nutrient, unlike fluoride, which is not a nutrient and according to all mainstream sources does not need to be consumed to benefit teeth. Fluoride in the water does cause fluorosis in some of the population.

The article also mentions that in Western Europe countries fluoridate salt - this again gives people the option to buy fluoridated slat or not, unlike with water.

Fluoride is medicating people without their consent. This opinion should not be marginalized or called crazy. Rationalwiki should present their logically sound argument without ridicule. The article can still say that it thinks fluoride is worth using despite it being medication without consent, but it's also a valid opinion to say you don't want to be medicated without consent.

2. The article states: "Despite fluoride naturally occurring in food and water,[21] a common argument against it is the appeal to nature."

The fluoride that is added to water systems is not the same as the fluoride that is naturally in water and food - they are different compounds that are all called colloquially "fluoride." Fluoride in water systems comes almost always from waste from the phosphate fertilizer industry. You can say that waste is perfectly safe, but it's not the same fluoride that occurs in food and water.

3. The article states: "[Fluorosis] is a purely cosmetic issue that does not lead to tooth decay, whereas removing fluoride from water does if individuals do not brush their teeth regularly."

There's something wrong with this sentence. Removing fluoride from the water leads to tooth decay if individuals don't brush regularly? So, not brushing regularly is the problem, not the water?

4. The general tone attacks anti-fluoride in the water people as loons, and prefers to attack the more absurd, fringe positions. In light of my first point, that people have the right to not be medicated arbitrarily without their consent, the tone of the article should reflect that there is valid objection to the practice, regardless of how safe or unsafe the amount of fluoride used is, or how important or not important cosmetic damage to teeth is considered. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

A well-intentioned attempt at answering the above points[edit]

Thanks for the bulleted list. Here's a shorthand reply:

Regarding your first point — nowhere in the world is fluoride accepted as a medicine. Indeed, the courts have rejected specific attempts to classify it as medicine in places as disparate as the US (see #2) and New Zeeland.

For a medical definition, see here (in the case of New Zeeland):

a medicine is defined in S3 of the Medicines Act as:

a substance or article, other than a medical device, that is manufactured, imported, sold, or supplied wholly or principally for a) administering to one or more human beings for a therapeutic purpose b) use as an ingredient in the preparation of any substance or article that is to be administered to one or more human beings for a therapeutic purpose,

  • where it is so used- in a pharmacy or a hospital; or
  • by a practitioner, or registered midwife or designated prescriber, or in accordance with a standing order; or
  • in the course of any business that consists of or includes the retail sale, or supply in circumstances corresponding to retail sale, of herbal remedies;

c) use as a pregnancy test. S4 defines the term therapeutic purpose as:

  • treating or preventing disease
  • diagnosing disease or ascertaining the existence, degree, or extent of a physiological condition
  • and several other non-pertinent activities.

However, Medsafe has never considered the fluoridation of water to lead to the creation of a medicine. Fluoride is found naturally in water at varying concentrations and water is not supplied for a therapeutic purpose. We consider that the principal use of water and foodstuffs (which contain minerals or fluoride) is dietary and not therapeutic. We therefore do not consider the addition of substances such as chlorine or fluoride, or alum to water to be under the remit of the Medicines Act but rather under the control of other public health and water quality legislation. A similar argument can be used in relation to quinine. While quinine is a medicinal substance, the quinine contained in a gin and tonic, no matter how therapeutic we might think consuming one may be, does not make tonic water (or gin) a medicine.

This pragmatic approach to the legislation is clearly what was intended by parliament. Too rigid an interpretation quickly makes everything a potential medicine. After all we drink water to prevent dehydration which is a symptom of a disease state. This kind of over-interpretation of the wording of the legislation is not, and has never been the intention of parliament. Finally while we must accept that fluoride in certain concentrations and formulations is scheduled as a medicine in several schedules within the Medicines Act, the concentrations of fluoride in drinking water are well below the threshold for consideration as a medicine and so would be considered to fall within the controls of other legislation, such as water quality control etc. Fluoride is also an element and it is naturally found in a great many places, the presence of fluoride, or any other element or mineral in an item does not make the item a medicine. After all, lithium can be used as a medicine, but its presence in a lithium battery, or a paint, does not make that product a medicine. I hope this information is useful to you.

Similarly, here's a US explanation from experts on biotech law (LSU Law Center of the Louisiana State University):

Fluoridation is not Compelled Medication Opponents of fluoridation measures assert that allowing fluoridation of the public water supply amounts to compelling citizens to drink or ingest medication against their will, thereby resulting in a violation of their freedoms of religion and choice. Additionally, some opponents have claimed that fluoridation of water should be condemned as the unauthorized practice of medicine. First of all, an overwhelming majority of courts have found that fluoridation is not the practice of medicine. In Chapman v. City of Shreveport, 74 So.2d 142, 146 (La. 1954), the court relied largely on the testimony of dental professionals in holding that the fluoridation of public water supplies would not be considered the practice of medicine.

Several other courts have come to the same conclusion. Attaya v. Town of Gonzales, 192 So. 2d 188, 192 (La.App. 1 st. Cir. 1966); Dowell v. City Of Tulsa, 273 P.2d 859, 863 (Okla. 1954); Kaul v. City of Chehalis, 277 P.2d 352, 625 (Wash. 1955); Rogowski v. City of Detroit, 132 N.W.2d 16, 24 (Mich. 1965); Readey v. St. Louis County Water Co., 352 S.W.2d 622, 628 (Mo. 1961).

Other arguments have stemmed from the unfounded claim that fluoridation is the unauthorized practice of medicine. For example, in Dowell v. City of Tulsa, 273 P.2d 859, 863 (Okla. 1954), it was alleged that fluoridation violated the freedom of religion, presumably because it required certain citizens to submit to medication against their religious beliefs. In rejecting the argument, the court adopted the decision made in the DeAryan case that fluoridation was not the practice of medicine. Id.

Additionally, courts considering these arguments have stated that adding fluorides to the public water supply is not technically compulsion. “The United States Supreme Court, in establishing and clarifying the Constitutional right of religious and other freedoms, has distinguished between the direct compulsions imposed upon individuals, with penalties for violations, and those which are indirect or reasonably incidental to furnished service or facility.” De Aryan v. Butler, 260 P.2d 98, 102 (Cal. Ct. App. 4 th Dist. 1953). In other words, because fluoridation of public water is reasonably related to the state’s interest in protecting the public health, the resulting burden on citizens to drink the fluoridated water is considered “reasonably incidental” to the state’s justified action.

To date, no court has accepted the proposition that fluoridation of water should be considered medication. In rejecting this proposition, most courts have recognized the opinions of medical and dental professions that the addition of fluorides to public water should be viewed as a preventative mechanism, and not as medication. Because water fluoridation is not the practice of medicine, it follows that all arguments based on this suggestion should not succeed.

TL:DR: Fluoridated water is not a form of medication.

Also, there's no need for a comparison to Vitamin D in the first place — but let me just point out that you most certainly can overdose dangerously on Vitamin DWikipedia.

Regarding your second point — see point #8 here. See also here and here.

Regarding your third point — cars wouldn't need laws which force private citizens to have seatbelts, and to use them, if people drove more carefully. People don't — but even if they did, everyone simply being given free seatbelts by the government is still a good idea. The same goes for fluoride. You have to deal with real people and real decision making, not some imagined "perfectly rational consumer" who brushes his teeth diligently on his own.

Let me also be perfectly clear that on an ideological level, I would not support medicating people against their will. But fluoridation is not medication, so (to quote the US law experts):

Because water fluoridation is not the practice of medicine, it follows that all arguments based on this suggestion should not succeed.

Regarding your fourth point — there's no need for you to make a tone argument. Regarding the rest of your fourth point, see the above on fluoride not being medication to begin with.

Your points are worthwhile and I don't mean to dismiss them out of hand, on the contrary I think you will agree on some of my points above. Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

"Fluoridated water is not a form of medication."
You've turned this into a semantic argument. No, fluoride is not considered a medication by courts, and may not fit the specifics of every definition. However, practically speaking the implications of medications and the implications of adding fluoride are similar - I'll elaborate.
Fluoride is put in the water to prevent a health problem. It can have side effects, and does - including fluorosis. The amount that is toxic is different between individuals based on size/weight. Whether or not fluoride is "technically" medicine is irrelevant. I hope you won't think I'm moving the posts here, my point is that there is no practical difference in the need for consent. People are getting side effects from something that is being put in the water - they have no choice to say no, and are not ever asked for consent.
So if we have to rephrase it as people are being given water with silicofluorides - which have known negative side effects - without their consent, that's fine with me. But if you say: "Let me also be perfectly clear that on an ideological level, I would not support medicating people against their will." Then can you explain how it's meaningfully different to have your water treated with a substance that can cause negative side effects against their will?
"Regarding your second point — see point #8 here. See also here and here. "
I think you'll find those do not address the point. They say that silicofluoride is not unsafe - they do not say that silicofluoride is the same fluoride found in water or food.
"Regarding your third point — cars wouldn't need laws which force private citizens to have seatbelts, and to use them, if people drove more carefully."
Do you really think this? Even if cars went no more than 15 MPH, which would be obviously ridiculous, you would still need seat belts, as cars are extremely dangerous.
People don't — but even if they did, everyone simply being given free seatbelts by the government is still a good idea.
Yes, this justifies wide access to school fluoride dental programs.
The same goes for fluoride. You have to deal with real people and real decision making, not some imagined "perfectly rational consumer" who brushes his teeth diligently on his own.
So you agree that a decision is being made for everyone which has benefits that will help some people and have literally no effect or worse (cause too much fluoride and fluorosis) in the rest? Why is it unacceptable to say that you don't want to put fluoride in everyone's water when it will negatively effect some and positively effect others? If there was a way to only get the benefits and none of the fluorosis, wouldn't that be preferable? We do have way, school dental programs that come in and apply fluoride to children's teeth. This gives the teeth all the benefit, but has a much smaller risk of fluorosis. This is at least arguably more practical. If someone objects to fluoride on this ground, do they deserve to be called a loon?
Why is it more important to benefit those who don't brush their teeth than to respect peoples' right to not have a substance with known side effects put in their water without their consent? Isn't this at least arguable? Isn't it a philosophical question? So, again, not sure why Rationalwiki leaves no room for reasonable objection to fluoride in the water. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Wrong dilemma. Fluroidation doesn't "protect those who don't brush their teeth", it is an extra layer of protection against cavities and the several systemic reviews that shown effectiveness among populations. I think the whole "forced medication" argument is libertarian for the sake of being libertarian that misses the point of the benefits of fluoride and why we fluoridate in the first place. At that point, the argument boils down to pure ideology and government already does a lot to protect lives. It's like motorcycle helmet laws. They protect people by weighing benefits against harms taking advantages of the clear benefits and enforcing the law. Fluoridated water helps everyone, but it may help those who need it the most, including children, and poorer communities appreciate it. If you don't like it because of unfounded fears of fluoridated water, well, other people appreciate it. Of course, you can advocate schools having dental care and being more involved, but that costs a lot of money and no one is arguing against that either; why can't we have both? Oh yeah, because ideology. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


"I think the whole "forced medication" argument is libertarian for the sake of being libertarian that misses the point of the benefits of fluoride and why we fluoridate in the first place."
I'm not a libertarian, but doesn't this admit that the argument is philosophical? In a place where the majority of the population was libertarian, non-fluoridation would be correct then no?
"It's like motorcycle helmet laws. They protect people by weighing benefits against harms taking advantages of the clear benefits and enforcing the law."
My state recently legalized riding without a helmet. More evidence that your argument is ideological. You think people should be protected. Others don't.
"Fluoridated water helps everyone, but it may help those who need it the most, including children, and poorer communities appreciate it."
Is fluoridated water helping people with fluorosis?
Your statement is just not true - you get sufficient fluoride from brushing your teeth, there is no added benefit to consuming it as well. As per the Cochrane study, there's no evidence that fluoride helps adults, or that it helps poorer kids more than rich kids.
"why can't we have both? Oh yeah, because ideology."
Well, I think my main reason was fluorosis - which is a known side effect and a growing problem. The fluoride is not helping people with fluorosis, is it? Your whole argument is that libertarian ideals are wrong, so people do not have the right to not have a substance with known side effects put in their water without consent. You've dodged the question with idealogical moralizing. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
"Libertarian" is a political philosophy.
And your state legalized riding without a helmet because there is an anti-government sentiment and there are powerful anti-helmet lobbies (though statistics say that riding without a helmet is dangerous and every insurance company opposes it) even though I think it's morally wrong to let people die because they put their own health and relationships at risk for such an overblown inconvenience that is wearing a helmet. Maybe I'm wrong that it helps poor children compared to rich kids, as how the Cochrane study admits to, but I find "forced medication" a baseless argument that runs against established knowledge of fluoride.
As I said, the fluoridation is done after the cost-benefits are weighed, and government decided that benefits outweigh the costs shown by the systemic reviews and multitudes of studies purporting the overall safety of fluoride. Fluorosis is a negligible side-effect, and there is added benefit to consuming, as I said that drinking it exposures your teeth longer to it (which is an effect that children highly appreciate) and fluroide can be distributed into your saliva, which again, increases exposure to fluoride. And if there is no further benefit to fluoridating water, then why do studies show benefits of drinking fluoridated water?
So, cost-benefit. It's worse to get cavities than fluorosis (which, if caused by fluoridation, are vastly minor anyway).
Reverend Percy has posted sources that comment on and disputed the study (like this one, and even if the study didn't have problems, it's just one study compared to the hundreds of studies on fluoridation. You can't spin it any other way; the study itself even says plainly that water fluoridation is effective and it also acknowledged limits that severely impacted its power. You can't keep citing it especially when Reverend Percy repeatedly pointed out that the study's conclusion aligns with authority and hasn't exactly knocked down other systemic reviews. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
""Libertarian" is a political philosophy."
I'm not sure how that's relevant. Also, libertarianism is a political and social philosophy. You say removing fluoride is too idealistically Libertarian - that's a philosophical argument (one that is not determined by science because it's not empirical). Maybe it's not idealistic, maybe you are not idealistic enough.
"...I think it's morally wrong to let people die because they put their own health..."
Yawn. More moralizing.
"Fluorosis is a negligible side-effect,"
In moderate to severe fluorosis, teeth are physically damaged.
"and there is added benefit to consuming, as I said that drinking it exposures your teeth longer to it (which is an effect that children highly appreciate) and fluroide can be distributed into your saliva, which again, increases exposure to fluoride."
This doesn't respond to my point. Yes, adding fluoride to increases exposure - but there is no evidence that children need more fluoride than is in toothpaste. Adding fluoride to the water increases the risk of fluorosis - which is increasing:
http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/health_database/teeth_figures/hodge_heller/
http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis01/
Kids have more access to toothpaste and dental care than ever before - now they're getting too much and are getting fluorosis. Is it not reasonable to suggest that we stop fluoridating the water to stop all that unnecessary exposure? Even if you say no, isn't that at least a reasonable position? That maybe fluoridation helped in the past, but now with increased access to tooth care, fluoride in the water is now causing fluorosis at too high a rate to continue? That we ought to now target kids without access to tooth care, and not just blanket every man, woman and child's water regardless of if they already have fluorosis or more than ample access to tooth care?
"it's just one study compared [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=water+fluoridation to the hundreds of studies on fluoridation"
No, it was not one study, it actually was reviewing the many studies that have been done in the past, and showed almost all were biased and junk science. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Fluoridealert is basically as credible a "research site" as Whale.to is, just in case you hadn't realized it yet. Join me and kick your critical thinking into first gear, atleast. "Fluoridealert" is obviously not a source we accept, because that entire site is bullshit.
Here's a fun experiment: try offering "Fluoridealert" as a source to any serious newspaper in the world, to any serious professor in academia, or to Wikipedia — they'll all just cringe. IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP!!!
The main point here is that you seem to insist that fluoride is in fact a medicine, and that fluoridation of the water supply is in fact ideological.
My question to you is this: is the US court system ideological in this same sense, and the law professors who interpret the results, along with the dental experts who provided expert witness testimony? It's all just ideology, then?
Because — speaking of ideology — the last thing fluoride crankery bases itself on is any scientific consensus. As hard as you work to make your position seem respectable, the fact of the matter is, it's long-debunked fringe muppetry.
I'm not calling you insane, but you will find that your position is shared almost exclusively with insane people. If this has no significance to you whatosever, then I find that to be highly psychologically curious in you (because I'm actually assuming that you are not insane).
Numerically, this isn't even an exaggeration — you'll agree that your position is an utter, utter minority globally. And there's no need to cry "argumentum ad populum" — it becomes a null card, since you won't ever find yourself in the majority, considering the views you've decided to adopt.
Of course most people don't share your views — they're just plain wrong, to be frank. Prognosis: this will remain the consensus view (as pertains to fluoride) for the forseeable future, likely for our entire lifetimes (if not "forever") — I'll gladly wager you that. Please adjust your expectations accordingly.
And the fact remains, fluoride crankery is overtly of no interest (and generally comes across as some manner of eccentric word salad) to the vast majority of functioning adults, including politicians, academia, medical science, enterprise and the entire discipline of professional dentistry. Wake me up (no pun intended) when anyone whose opinion actually matters moves in conflict with this consensus view.
And I'll pre-emptively note that this is no time for a Galileo gambit on your part. It's not enough just to get laughed at by the entire reality-based community. You also have to be right. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Fluoridealert is bascially Whale.to, just in case you hadn't realized it yet.
If their sources are valid and their reasoning is valid, their credibility is irrelevant. The link (http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/health_database/teeth_figures/hodge_heller/) has a valid source - the piece of information I referenced is not addressed by attacking the website. You know this, why are you obfuscating? Fluorosis is increasing - mainstream science agrees.
"The main point here is that you seem to insist that fluoride is in fact a medicine..."
You have not explained how fluoridation of water differs in any practical way from medicine. I directly asked you up above and you did not respond. If you will not explain yourself, how can I argue the point? More obfuscation.
"and that fluoridation of the water supply is in fact ideological."
That's an absurd characterization of what I said - either that or you didn't understand me. Whether it is more important to protect people who do not brush their teeth or it is more important to protect people from side effects (fluorosis) from a substance put in the water without their consent is a philosophical question. You can't empirically determine which is more important.
"Because — speaking of ideology — the last thing fluoride crankery bases itself on is any scientific consensus."
Why would they need consensus to have concerns? There are plenty of fluoride "cranks" who base their ideas on science. They see conflicting data.
"but you will find that your position is shared almost exclusively with insane people."
That's simply not true. It's also not relevant, and not how an honest person argues.
"If this has no significance to you whatosever, then I find that to be highly psychologically curious in you."
They say crazies believe 9-11 is a conspiracy, well, I've seen facts that refute that the official story, so why should I believe it when people say an idea is crazy? Can't I determine the validity of a claim based on the science? Not trying to go off topic, but when you see obvious coverups and lies in the media (the entire Oklahoma City bombing for instance obviously could not have been done by a fertilizer bomb, it's simply not possible), you don't get cowed by accusations that avoid the facts.
"Numerically, this isn't even an exaggeration — you'll agree that your position is an utter, utter minority globally.
What percent of people drink fluoridated water? Less than 10%? What does this matter to the science?
And there's no need to cry "argumentum ad populum" — it becomes a null card, since you won't ever find yourself in the majority, considering the views you've decided to adopt.
This is more absurd talk. You predict the future now? You're dishonest when it suits you, just like a pseudoscience crank.
"Of course most people don't share your views — they're just plain wrong, to be frank.
How could it be wrong to think people shouldn't have a substance put in their water against without their consent that can cause negative side effects? Even if you disagree with me, how could that opinion be just plain wrong? It can't.
"And the fact remains, fluoride crankery is overtly of no interest (and generally comes across as some manner of eccentric word salad) to the vast majority of functioning adults, including politicians, academia, medical science, enterprise and the entire discipline of professional dentistry."
Yet they keep studying and accumulating more studies that confirm lowering of the IQ. But yes, dentists, who have no knowledge of anything but teeth are qualified to decide what's safe to ingest.
"Of course most people don't share your views — they're just plain wrong, to be frank. Prognosis: this will remain the consensus view (as pertains to fluoride) for the forseeable future, likely for our entire lifetimes (if not "forever") — I'll gladly wager you that."
Alright, I'll take you up on that wager. Now let's just wait for forever to pass.
Your entire post is avoiding my arguments not addressing them. You liked my numbered list and responded directly to it (even though most of your points were wrong), but now you've completely given up on direct response. I'm still waiting for you to describe how fluoridating water is meaningfully different from medicating. Still waiting for you to understand my explanation of how the argument is philosophical. Still waiting for you to address the fact the silicofluorides are not the same fluoride that is in food and water.
You did a lot of huffing and puffing about crazy people, but you avoided actually engaging in the discussion. All it did was show how insecure you are about having people think you're crazy, probably because you're a "reformed conspiracy theorist." You think you know the truth because you've "seen both sides," but really it seems you're easily manipulated, falling for absurd lies from Alex Jones and then trying to atone for your stupidity by falling equally unskeptically into utter belief of mainstream opinion. And if this seems like a pointless personal attack, that's what reading your last post felt like. Let's stick to the points of contention, not jerk ourselves off for daring to agree or disagree with public opinion. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 03:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for you to describe how fluoridating water is meaningfully different from medicating.
Medicating is where one ingests materials in order to prevent a disease. Because fluoride products can percent tooth decay, it can technically be counted as medicating. Medication is good in fact. Don't paint drugs as being bad!
Still waiting for you to address the fact the silicofluorides are not the same fluoride that is in food and water.
Well, FluorideWikipedia ions really aren't the same as the Silicofluoric acidWikipedia compound. I don't know why you are comparing the two. Finding pure fluoride in real life is extremely EXTREMELY rare and unlikely. Fluoride is an anion to Fluorine, so is Fluorine okay? It's just not missing that electron.
I really don't understand why you are afraid of an element when compounds that contain an element are not related to each other in the slightest. If you are going to use scientific terms, I strongly advise you understand them, not just cherry pick things you find Online.—CheeseburgerFace Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
"Medicating is where one ingests materials in order to prevent a disease. Because fluoride products can percent tooth decay, it can technically be counted as medicating."
Then you agree with me, thanks.
"Well, FluorideWikipedia ions really aren't the same as the Silicofluoric acidWikipedia compound. I don't know why you are comparing the two."
I explain at the top of this section my reason. My only point is that silicofluorides are not the same flourides found in food or water - I have no point beyond that. If you want to know why I'm making that point go to the top of this section and read my post. But you agree with me again then, thanks.
"I really don't understand why you are afraid of an element when compounds that contain an element are not related to each other in the slightest."
"I strongly advise you understand them, not just cherry pick things you find Online."
I suggest you actually read my posts before arguing with random elements of my argument without any concern for what's actually being debated. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not afraid of an element. It is known that too much fluoride is toxic.
"I'm not sure how that's relevant."
You based your argument on partially philosophy which is "people shouldn't have the right to be forced to be medicated" and you then asked if the question is philosophical, which I replied that yes, it appears to be libertarian, which is a political philosophy. Why are you accusing me of bringing ideology into this? You're the one who's bringing up "forced medication" and that kind of argument is the same field as asking how much government should regulate us? Big government or small government. You do try backing up with more reasoning, which is "fluorosis" and studies that (you think) links fluoridation with damaging your brain and IQ (fluoride does, but only at amounts much higher than recommended, so dose makes the poison; proper fluoridation doesn't do these). Fluorosis is also caused by fluoridation, but most of them are very mild cases and therefore do not damage the teeth. Unlike cavities, which fluoride does reduce. Mild fluorosis or cavities. Pick one.
"In moderate to severe fluorosis, teeth are physically damaged."
My case was an assumption on "mild" fluorosis which fluoridation is most prone to causing, which, in that case, is a purely cosmetic issue. And again, cost-benefit: most people would rather go with mild fluorosis than cavities and fluoride has been shown to be safe and work from systemic reviews of thousands of research papers over literally decades. I'm sorry if I haven't clarified earlier, but a quick Wikipedia search on fluorosis clearly says that fluordation is one of the cause of fluorosis, and it's mainly talking about mild fluorosis.
"accumulating more studies that confirm lowering of the IQ"
It appears that you don't even read our refutations of why the studies that purport lowering IQ does not apply (as stated for the millionth time: the studies examine the effects of fluoride poisoning by looking at problems when people ingest higher than the recommended dose of fluoride; the studies I've seen does not apply and it doesn't topple the thorough systemic reviews that are cited in this article). A thorough rebuttal was in our article before you came along and tried to say it "lowers IQ".
"If their sources are valid and their reasoning is valid, their credibility is irrelevant."
FluorideAlert's has a clear emphasis on fear over substantial content (e.g. "[fluoride is] the most damaging environmental pollutant since the Cold War"; that's an absolutely ridiculous claim; "toxic waters, broken laws" with a graphic picture of someone's teeth with black spots) already activates my skeptic radar. Call it poisoning the well, whatever, but it doesn't cast them in a good light when they're proud of displaying movies like GMO OMG and cite the Harvard Choi study (which is in that link you gave us) as "evidence" that fluoridated water lowers IQ when it's been already explained why the Choi study doesn't apply to your arguments. If you're going to give us good content, use more professional sources, not advocacy groups. Even if they have one good study, it doesn't topple the foundation of the thousands of other reviews that say fluoridation is safe and beneficial.
"That's an absurd characterization of what I said - either that or you didn't understand me. Whether it is more important to protect people who do not brush their teeth or it is more important to protect people from side effects (fluorosis) from a substance put in the water without their consent is a philosophical question. You can't empirically determine which is more important."
As I said, it's a false dilemma and that fluoridation is an extra protective layer against cavities. It doesn't just "protect people who do not brush their teeth" as you worded it in a way that sounds like we shouldn't fluoridate water because it promotes enablers. Mild fluorosis or cavities, it's much easier to deal with mild fluorosis. "from a substance put in the water without their consent is a philosophical question" (bolded for emphasis): that's, again, the wording "without their consent" implies "lack of choice" and "government intrusion" which are core tenets why it would fit right into libertarianism (which I did not argue is entirely wrong, though I disagree with many of them on government's role) and you're the one who brought up the moral implications in the first place (again, your repeated use of "forced" and trying to add some backing ("but fluorosis") which is very weak to begin with, so I'm convinced that you're giving the philosophical part of the argument equal, if not more weight than the evidence part. So, stop accusing me of "ideological moralizing" and putting my quotes as if I simply brought up my moral viewpoints out of nowhere when it's a response to your issue with people "being forced to medicate rather than choosing" and your smart "oh fyi my state removed biker helmet laws" to my analogy to bike helmet laws that supports my argument. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it even remotely casts doubt that a portion of the six-thousand citations on fluoride science is wrong. And this systematic analysis by the CDC and this PubMed systematic analysis. And WHO and the American Dental Association based their views off this "junk science". And what about Reverend Percy's post on comments related to that study? It's not very high-impact. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 04:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
"You based your argument on partially philosophy which is "people shouldn't have the right to be forced to be medicated""
Do you disagree with this premise? If so, can you empirically prove otherwise - that people don't have the right to not be forced to medicate? (Obviously a right doesn't empirically exist, you can't prove the right to liberty or free speech either)
"It appears that you don't even read our refutations of why the studies that purport lowering IQ does not apply"
Any study that purports lowering IQ doesn't apply? There are more than 50 studies, some of the Chinese ones are not very useful, but you only focus on the weakest studies, not the more recent ones from New Zealand and elsewhere.
"As I said, it's a false dilemma and that fluoridation is an extra protective layer against cavities."
Nope, it doesn't help people who brush their teeth even the tiniest amount. It only increases their risk of fluorosis.
"Mild fluorosis or cavities, it's much easier to deal with mild fluorosis."
False dilemma, brush your teeth and eat right and you will have neither fluorosis or cavities.
"when it's a response to your issue with people "being forced to medicate rather than choosing""
I never claimed my argument wasn't philosophical (my argument has never been moral). My position is a valid philosophical one - people should not have a substance with side effects put in their water without their consent. My point is that this position is logical and valid. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes I do disagree about the whole "people aren't forced to medicate" which means "people have a right to choose" because one choice is an informed one, the other one is a choice thinking that fluoride decreases IQ and promotes fluorosis, and my point is that government's role is provide best quality life for humans even if they sacrifice a bit of liberty. It's also why I oppose GMO labeling. "Right to choose" sounds nice, logical, and valid, but this time, it's founded on fear and some one or two unusual or poorly-designed study. "There are more than 50 studies"; I read in that one analysis you linked and mentioned New Zealand, it is more than 50, but the Chinese studies take up around 32 of them.
"Nope, it doesn't help people who brush their teeth even the tiniest amount. It only increases their risk of fluorosis."
http://www.fluoridefacts.govt.nz/questions-and-answers-0

Q. If people brushed their teeth would it mean we don't need water fluoridation?

Keeping your teeth healthy also requires brushing twice a day with fluoride toothpaste, dental care and reducing sugar. Community water fluoridation provides additional benefits even if you do all these things. Over half of New Zealand adults avoid going to the dentist because of cost, and over half of New Zealand children don’t brush their teeth twice a day with the recommended strength fluoride toothpaste.

That’s why community water fluoridation is so important – it makes good oral health accessible to all.

I just wish it were so easy as brushing teeth twice a day, but it's not.
--It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Nothing you just posted contradicts me. You have a quote with no backing or source. The only reasoning following the quote refers to people who do not brush. You are not good at this.
"my point is that government's role is provide best quality life for humans even if they sacrifice a bit of liberty. "
Great, that's your ideology. It's not empirically right. See how your argument relies on ideology? You're not good at this.
"that one analysis you linked and mentioned New Zealand, it is more than 50, but the Chinese studies take up around 32 of them."
Yup and more will be coming, especially as kids already get enough fluoride from other sources. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It appears to me that you're not here to have an honest discussion. I'm done with you. Bye. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 06:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The bottom line[edit]

This post is in reply to BoN above.
You wrote:
"If their sources are valid and their reasoning is valid, their credibility is irrelevant."
But they're not, and it isn't.
You wrote:
"You have not explained how fluoridation of water differs in any practical way from medicine."
It's been explained with great clarity above. I suggest you actually read what's in the big blue boxes this time around.
You wrote:
"There are plenty of fluoride "cranks" who base their ideas on science. They see conflicting data."
Correction — there are plenty of fluoride cranks who think they base their ideas on science.
You wrote:
"That's simply not true. It's also not relevant, and not how an honest person argues."
It's perfectly true. You'd have to live on a different planet to believe that fluoride crankery is the accepted view in society today? If it was, then what are you even going on about here? I mean — if so, you've already "won", right?
Fluoride crankery is a pretty exclusive club — members are a rare sight in society at large. It follows that you should take better note of the company you keep. You (rightly) call Alex Jones nuts for horking his anti-fluoride garbage, but you don't see the irony in sharing the man's views on water fluoridation. We all see it, though.
You wrote:
"You predict the future now?"
Yes, the fluoride in my brain has crystallized and given me superpowers.
But jokes aside — I'm as a big a fan of conspiratorial thinking as you are (or I wouldn't be on this site to begin with). But the harsh reality is that nobody's interested in the utter non-issue of fluoridation but cranks and the people who study them (that's us, by the way). I can confidently promise you that this will remain the case.
Conspiracy memes evolve, like all cultural fashions. And let's be honest — there are far more exciting conspiracies out there to choose from. 9/11 packs an emotional impact, for example. People care about 9/11 — it means something to them (for obvious reasons). But fluoride? It just doesn't have the appeal to take off. I'm sorry to Simon Cowell you, but fluoride crankery simply lacks "the X factor". Sorry. You can quote me on that in 20 years when nobody cares, still.
You wrote:
"Yet they keep studying and accumulating more studies that confirm lowering of the IQ."
Their confirmation bias stays perpetual and their Gish gallops grow ever taller, yes.
You wrote:
"But yes, dentists, who have no knowledge of anything but teeth are qualified to decide what's safe to ingest."
The mere fact that you're so quick to disparage dentists (of all people) as having "no knowledge of anything but teeth" is pretty adorable. You literally just admitted that you have no idea what goes into even becoming a dentist.
And that's really not strange in the least, because you're not coming at the issue of water fluoridation from the angle of having an actual, formal interest in oral hygiene. You're here for the conspiracy. And we, in turn, are here for you. Everybody wins.
You wrote:
"Alright, I'll take you up on that wager. Now let's just wait for forever to pass."
Remember to come see me (and I do mean that!) when you've grown out of this phase (which you will, because I don't think you're actually nuts) and realize how unimportant this issue actually is — largely by virtue of it being a (rather stale and certainly dusty) manufactroversy.
I'm not talking past you, so much as meta-discussing. As such, I suggest that we talk about why we are having this talk in the first place. (I get to decide too, because we're both here by our own free will, spending our own free time). I get to listen to you prattle on, you get to listen to me prattle on. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
So, then — what, if anything, is actually being "determined" or "proven" on this talk page? Nothing, of course. The "determining" is being done quite far from here, in venues which actually matter (e.g., the courts). The "proving", in turn, is done in academia.
This is obviously quite far from both the aforementioned categories, for the record. We're not a scientific entity, nor a governmental agency of any kind. What we're doing here is primarily fringe watching.
And diligent observers as we are, there's only so much of this nonsense we can take in (let alone want to — and we don't "have" to do anything). We're all volunteers, here for the heck of it — it's our hobby. Once our insanity quota has been met for the day, we're done for the day. Life marches on.
The interesting point is, if you were to take your business elsewhere (outside deliberate skeptic/fringe contact surfaces like RW), there'd literally be no sensible (read: non-fringe) place left for you to bore people with fluoridation woo for very long. Go on Imgur. Go on Reddit. Go on YouTube. Go on Wikipedia. Go on Twitter. People have heuristics that are good enough to identify your views as "Something, something, David Icke".
To some extent, this has to do with the fact that opposition to water fluoridation is a particularly dead horse, one that has been around since long before either of us was born.
As such — please know that you're not exactly among the brave, early pioneers in an as-of-yet-unrecognized field of study. Rather, you're rehearsing someone else's stillborn nonsense from half a century past. By choice, on your free time. And we'll listen to you, but that's only because our chosen pastime is inviting cranks to display their plumages to us (so that we may catalogue them, in all their splendor).
The real question is, why isn't your view the mainstream one? Is everyone duped? Is it a vast conspiracy, and truth is being actively supressed? Something else entirely?
Whatever the way in which you explain the fact that almost nobody in the real world is an active fluoridation truther, I'm sure that said explanation won't involve the likely hypothesis that "maybe fluoride crankery is just plain wrong after all" — aside from fluoride crankery being a particularly long-debunked, boring and generally unappealing kind of "wrong".
Of course, I could be wrong (and I hope I am), but my expectations are reasonably low at this point. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not responding to this cavalcade of nonsense. Address my points or don't, but I'm not going out in the weeds with you. No, fluoride is not exciting. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Whilst you've made a lot or points, too many to refute all of them. The Reverend did refute quite a few to be fair. Calling it a "cavalcade ofnonsense" is just unoriginal ad hominem. Christopher (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
As I previously said; you've made a lot of, I'll be honest, terrible arguments (it's not ad hominem as I'm not suggesting me saying that proves you wrong). How about you go through all of the arguments you've come up with and point us to what you think is the best. Christopher (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

How far from silver[edit]

I think the article does a a rather fine job. It could use some expansion, especially in the chemistry. Do cranks really think that anything containing a fluoride ion is bad? Compounds aren't entirely related to the composing elements. Their reactivity does though, but I'm not sure about much else on the top of my mind.—CheeseburgerFace Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 04:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

CheeseburgerFace and I agree that think Fluoridation of water is essentially no different from medicating[edit]

CheeseburgerFace said: "Medicating is where one ingests materials in order to prevent a disease. Because fluoride products can percent tooth decay, it can technically be counted as medicating."

I agree. Can we get a discussion going on how adding fluoride to the water is meaningfully different from medicating?

The Rev disagrees and says court of laws have ruled it is not medicating, but will not making any sensible point on how fluoridating the water is meaningfully different (probably because he has no argument). 97.70.1.221 (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I really hate to pull out dictionary definitions, I do, but CheeseburgerFace has his definition of medicating wrong. Your argument, ergo, is wrong because it's based off of a bad definition. Now, to avoid an appeal to definition (and invalidate my argument: how ironic!), how does five different dictionary definitions sound? Good? Alright, we'll move ahead.
The Free Dictionary
a. To administer a medicinal substance to (a patient).
b. To treat (a disease or condition) with medication.
c. To add a medicinal agent to (a substance)
Dictionary.com
a. to treat with medicine or medicaments.
b. to impregnate with a medicine
Merriam-Webster
a. to treat medicinally
b. to impregnate with a medicinal substance
Vocabulary.com
to treat medicinally, treat with medicine
Collins Dictionary
a. to treat with medicine
b.to add a medicinal substance to; tincture or impregnate with medicine
Alright! I think we can see that to medicate (gerund: medicating) means to treat with medicine. Now, I would argue that fluoride is not a medicine. If you want to disagree, that's fine, but I really don't think fluoride is a medicine. Since we are not adding a medicine to water, we are not medicating the water, and because we are adding fluoride, we are fluoridating it. On a related note, even if we defined fluoride as a medicine we wouldn't be medicating water because preventing a disease is not part of medicating.Anim (Carfa) 18:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
You totally avoided the argument. I said adding fluoride (a substance with known negative side effects (fluorosis)) to the water is not meaningfully different from medicating. Your entire argument is semantic and based on definitions. We already had this argument up above. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Anim. I'm rather indifferent either way, but thanks for pointing that out.
Why would law benefit from classifying fluoride as a drug? If you read Fluoride toxicityWikipedia and Water toxicityWikipedia you'll die from overdosing from water before you do from fluoride. In fact here's the math:
  • A lethal dose to rats for water: 90 ml/kg = 0.90L/kg
  • A lethal dose of fluoride: Failed to parse (PNG conversion failed; check for correct installation of latex and dvipng (or dvips + gs + convert)): 32 to Failed to parse (PNG conversion failed; check for correct installation of latex and dvipng (or dvips + gs + convert)): 64 mg/kg = 0.03200 to 0.06400 g/kg
  • Recommended levels of fluoride in water by the WHO: Failed to parse (PNG conversion failed; check for correct installation of latex and dvipng (or dvips + gs + convert)): 0.5 to Failed to parse (PNG conversion failed; check for correct installation of latex and dvipng (or dvips + gs + convert)): 1.0 mg/L = 0.00050 g/L to Failed to parse (PNG conversion failed; check for correct installation of latex and dvipng (or dvips + gs + convert)): 0.00100 g/L
Let's be generous here and use the left range value for the lethal dose of fluoride and the highest recommended level of fluoride in water. Given recommended level and the lethal dose, we can calculate the amount of liters of water it would take to get fluoride poisoning.
Let's use an arbitrary adult body weight, 60kg, here to calculate the lethal dose of water:
Failed to parse (PNG conversion failed; check for correct installation of latex and dvipng (or dvips + gs + convert)): 1.0mg * ?L = 32mg/kg * 60 kg
Solving for ?, amount of liters of water (the amount of water in commercial water bottles) is 1920L.
Let's find the lethal water dose for a human of 60kg:
Failed to parse (PNG conversion failed; check for correct installation of latex and dvipng (or dvips + gs + convert)): 0.90L/kg * 60 = 54L
At 54 liters, an adult human would die from water overdose long before fluoride poisoning. In fact, looking at the rates before the calculations, water is already more lethal than fluoride. Clearly, water is the thing that should be regulated.
P.S. Please verify my math :)—CheeseburgerFace Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 18:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
But fluorosis. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 18:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
My calculations only considered adults, not children. For the latter, lowering the amount of fluoride is advised, but even then, fluorosis is just teeth damage. It makes your teeth look like shit, but it won't kill you.—CheeseburgerFace Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 18:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how this is relevant. Still waiting for someone to explain how adding a substnce with known negative side effects to water is meaningfully different from medicating.
"Clearly, water is the thing that should be regulated."
Yes, water with fluoride added must be regulated - if there's more fluoride than is considered optimal very serious problems occur. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
As others have pointed out "The dose makes the poison". Literally anything, including water itself, will have negative side effects if taken in sufficient quantity. So I'm not sure that "known negative side effects" (in sufficient quantity) is what makes something a medicine.
Furthermore poisons will have negative side effects - but they are hardly medicines. So I think you need to find another way to redefine fluoride as a medicine.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I think y'all need to work on your reading comprehension. I am not trying to define fluoride as a medicine. I'm asking what the difference is when concerning explicit consent? 97.70.1.221 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I was responding to this comment of yours shortly before mine:"I don't see how this is relevant. Still waiting for someone to explain how adding a substnce (sic) with known negative side effects to water is meaningfully different from medicating."
You certainly seem to be suggesting that adding a substance with "negative consequences" was equivalent to "medicating".
If you didn't mean that - what did you mean?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
CheeseburgerFace: But fluorosis. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The reality is it's far, far cheaper to add fluoride to a municipal water system than for every individual household to have their own system because one single local dumbass is concerned about their precious bodily fluids. Arguing that we are being fluoridated "without consent" is about as dumb as arguing that we have water hooked up to our houses without consent. CorruptUser (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Our cars have to have seat belts and airbags! Airbags kill children!!! So they're dangerous! Why aren't we allowed to choose to remove them!!? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
And why not de-chalk tap water as well (except in lead-pipe using areas)? 31.51.113.79 (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)