How we've ended up regulating medicine to the nth degree, but when it's teeth we're like "oh well, lol", continues to mystify me.
You don't understand the power of the ADA/flouride lobby.
Even just 20 years ago it was routine to have mercury (toxic heavy metal) placed in your mouth for fillings, evidence said the compounds were stable and no one would fund anything that rocks the boat in the US. They did that for children, but they didn't call it mercury, they called it silver fillings (50% by weight mercury).
Normally flouride has very limited uses prior to government mandates, and was so common that it was largely considered a waste by-product not worth selling.
I've yet to find an evidence based study or information on why government require flouride ingestion in any population center above 30,000 when studies have shown its just as effective topically. A study out of african really put the nail in the coffin on this one.
Side effects include lethargy, neurological damage, cognitive decline, hypertension, acne, seizures, and gastrointestinal issues.
It also damages your kids brains more than an adult brain (seemingly lowering IQ permanently), can't be filtered out except by specialized filters that cost a lot (and rapidly become less effective over time).
If they get too much which is very simple indeed, this can happen since its in everything (even bottled water and sodas, GRAS and no label needed under a certain concentration that's well above the toxic limits of new studies).
Nursery Purified bottled Water for infants is a primary source of business.
https://www.readyrefresh.com/medias/sys_master/images/images...
Makes you wonder what's really going on, and why they have to drug broad swaths of the population under the guise that it helps fight dental decay (through ingestion), when most of those studies have been debunked outside the US.
When cities don't have the funding, they magically get the funding for it. When local municipalities don't keep the levels up, they go after them heavy handed, and they disappear from public view.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...
Here's a site that gives you those references. Do the critical thinking and reasoning. If you actually do the reading, you'll find what I have said is quite correct (and your downvotes are you exercising your opinion to silence others irrationally, which is coercive and evil when its arbitrary and unbacked by rational evidence).
https://fluoridealert.org/content/50-reasons/ (the list is at the bottom)
Then there is also a good paper here for the history of Flouride.
For those that don't pick out the critical parts, conclusion isn't appropriate because it neglects common factors like funding (rather the lackthereof for anti-flouride research), the lack of ability to publish (subverted journals refusing publication), and a great many papers after the 1950s; and only briefly touches on methodological issues such as the fact that early studies used young men (not infants, kids, older populations, or women), and extrapolated out for the general population.
Women's health, birth, and allergies/thyroid changes were largely ignored, and rather than correct the bad science in a rational way; the expert voices involved were minimized and discredited, while simultaneously being barred from publishing in research pools (for a perceived stance rather than for actual science, ideologically against science). Its not hard to see why the thought that Communism was playing a role in this line of inquiry.
When seeing these tactics, they were commonly known by the public at the time, and were used primarily by Communists and Marxists who weren't follow western thought based in rationalism (science) to try to subvert the population, and if this were the case, its hard to argue that they didn't succeed in subverting the bureaucracy to force the changes despite the health consequences.
Read for yourself, also that objective 15% benefit (not 2/3) extrapolated didn't properly account for increasing tooth hygiene during that same time.
Even the CDC today recognizes the benefits are mainly from topical uses. Most western countries don't allow flouridated water supplies.
Much of the research over the years had to be independently funded, or were government funded by those countries, and the science has been overwhelming, but this isn't how public trust science is supposed to work (in the US). More specifically biasing funding on safety issues to push unsafe options for profit/benefit would fall under political corruption, and a violation of the public trust.
