US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5173

On August 19 2025 23:11 oBlade wrote:

The dental effects of fluoride are not in question.

You recognize it has potential toxicity since you say much of the world needs to filter it out, but we also need to add a bit to get into the goldilocks zone.

Fluoride only has topical dental effects. It has no systemic role in the body, and the body doesn't use it in any part of metabolism. If you have too little of it, it doesn't imbalance a process that uses it by slowing it down. If you have too much of it, it doesn't accelerate a process that uses more of it. That we know, it only makes the surface of your teeth stronger, and is toxic to your brain and messes up your bones and other stuff if you have too much of it. The thing is "too much" is a population level measurement. If you drink a lot of water, you get a lot more fluoride. If you drink a lot of stuff that isn't water, it was probably produced using municipal water anyway right, meaning you also get more fluoride. As an individual a person won't necessarily show up in the population study even if it stunted their development by 5 IQ points, say, if it's within what background noise looks like and therefore not significant based on the size complexity and duration of the study.

The most recent study from the US, from 2016 to 2024, affirmed that over the WHO limit of 1.5 mg per liter is negatively correlated with IQ in childhood development. The US used to fluoridate at 1.2 mg per liter, which is under the WHO limit, but reduced that to 0.7mg for whatever reason.

How is a kid not at risk of losing IQ points in development if they, for example, over years, drink over twice as much water as average?

+ Show Spoiler +

There is not a study, that I know, that shows 0.7mg is "safe" - or rather measures how safe it is - rather, there are studies that show 2 and 5 and 10mg per liter are dangerous, and the US set 0.7 below that conservatively, after 1.2 ended up not being conservative enough anymore. (Please let us know otherwise.)

Yet we, and kids, don't just get fluoride from water. It's in toothpaste, it's in mouthwash, ye olde dentist applies it, and now people even get 1.1% prescription toothpastes. You have to constantly study this because the habits of the population change and their sources of fluoride change, and furthermore you can't rule in, you can only rule out. And the studies take a long time because human children take the longest time to develop.

It would obviously be prohibitive to filter to 0.000000000000mg/L even in the worst case, and people swallow more than that from toothpaste, but that's not a reason not to study as long as the government runs the water supply. We get information, not policy, from scientists. Dentistry does not have a monopoly on the interests of water.

+ Show Spoiler +

On August 20 2025 02:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:


Thank you for this informative post about things I definitely didn't know.

Anyway (no sarcasm), if we want to have a debate on caries vs fluoride (which we don't, I mean I don't even like doing that when I get paid for it) you also need to consider:
patient centered risk factors, different types of screening programs (preferably also a comparison globally), individual risk assessment (and tools for that), biological; clinical; behavioural and social factors affecting caries, the different risks of fluoride, general and tailored delivery systems on population and individual levels, levels of natural exposure, different access to dental care, available infrastructure and the local economic situation, epidemiological and demographic variations, different ways to analyze risk and benefits, ethical considerations and historical context.
And I've probably forgotten at least as many variables that are important.

But it doesn't matter.
Because as a person, either you trust the experts, or you trust other sources. And either one is fine because it's an individual choice. But "we need more research" and "what if X" is incredibly tedious because everything and much, much more has already been considered, weighed and debated by said experts. It doesn't mean it's always right but at any moment it's the best we've got and it's not going to be any better because groups of uniformed people with an at best partial view of the problem (and at worst being batshit crazy) trying to argue against it based on their convictions.

I'm happy to answer questions professionally but I'm done with trying to convert people.

As a side note, I don't really have any opinions about water fluoridation because it's never really been an issue in Sweden, we solve it in other ways. But there are reasons, especially historical ones, for other countries choosing it as an option.

On August 20 2025 03:06 oBlade wrote:

We aren't living in history.

You are 100% correct that it's a historical accident that fluoride is the one thing we add to water, because one time people were too poor and too stupid to brush their and their kids' teeth with fluoride so we helped their teeth out a little.

Therefore the US should do it that exact way forever, and also Sweden shouldn't because that's just like the way it is and stuff. Even though looking it up, your country did at one point, and then stopped (and the US nearly halved the concentration like a decade ago as I already said, and as you definitely knew anyway). Maybe you weren't there to go "Trust the experts."

Your own country doesn't fluoridate tap water and you have a problem with my government's Health Department engaging in deeper research to further evaluate its own practices. That's amazing. There's just no other word for it. You're against knowing more about the one thing we do put in water, fine, do you have any opinion about something else new we might want to add to water? Otherwise this whole thing reads like a basic status quo appeal.

For example, the US fortifies flour with vitamins so people who eat like shit get more than basic carbs from it. Why not in water too? Or instead? Everyone needs water, flour doesn't make it to everyone, depending on diet, gluten issues, etc. Zinc's good for the immune system. Why doesn't the US put it in water? How about sugar? A nice boost of energy. Ah right, diabetics might have an issue. How about some isotonic saline? Get those electrolytes back? Forget fluoride, what does your scientific mind suppose the reason is that we don't add a single other supplement to water when it could be so beneficial?

On August 20 2025 03:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:


"Tell me you don't understand the contents of my post without telling me".

Like holy shit oBlade, it's actually impressive.

Your own country doesn't fluoridate tap water and you have a problem with my government's Health Department engaging in deeper research to further evaluate its own practices.

Nah dude, I have a problem with the people parroting "we need more research" towards the experts.

Newsflash, the experts actually want to do new research. They do it all the time. Your health department are supposed to have experts in it. They did this research because of many previous studies on the topic.
No one is saying *that* is the problem. In fact, it's the way it's supposed to work, and public policy is supposed to work over time.

On August 20 2025 03:34 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Everyone (except you apparently) are agreeing that the problem is that there are groups of people with set beliefs actively working against public policy that is based on research and expert opinion and one of their foremost talking points is "we need more research", not as an actual argument to do more research but to shut down current policy.

On August 20 2025 05:18 oBlade wrote:

Those weren't rhetorical questions.

The reason not a single other thing is supplemented in water is because you cannot control dosing, because people drink different amounts of water. That should be obvious to any scientist.

At times, dental health was so poor and anyway our understanding of the effects so limited that anyway the widespread benefits outweighed any drawbacks. That made fluoride's supplementation in water the one exceptional historical accident, and apparently not in most of Europe, or not anymore. + Show Spoiler + Otherwise the same logic (dosing) applies to fluoride and is apparently embraced by the Continent, which surprised me. I just assumed with this vigilant defense from you that they would be more progressive on fluoridation.

You haven't produced a single study about this, or even a single piece of factual information about the subject except to expose there is a policy gulf between the US and Europe about fluoridation (which I thank you for, it's nice to know, that I didn't expect) and yet somehow anything implying the US might ever consider approaching the more European policy is a step backwards.

You may have never even opened the actual most recent government study I linked. You said to me If you’re saying that "we need to take a look at flouride" you are already with the wrong crowd. Which you're also saying to the National Toxicology Program that said verbatim "More research is needed to better understand if there are health risks associated with low fluoride exposures."

+ Show Spoiler +


You have taken this and woven it into a pretzel. You claim to have no opinion about fluoridation, and also advise to trust the experts, and understand experts want to do research, but if the wrong person says we should do research, that's bad because it means they must have set beliefs. What set beliefs do I have buddy?

There are always groups of people with fringe or extreme beliefs who want to overturn any policy. No shit. In order for them to be a dangerous problem, the policy has to be very essential/good, or they have to be very influential. The better the policy, the worse overturning it would be. The more influential they are, the greater the chance of overturning it.

You told... me? to man up and say if I agree with medical consensus about fluoride, when the consensus of almost your entire continent is apparently not to put it in water. That's an egg on face thing to have brought up.

Are there a lot of people with dogmatic opposition to fluoridation in the US? I don't think so. Probably much more for vaccines. It's not the 60s and we're not in Dr. Strangelove. The fluoride "meme" has largely passed. Are there a lot of people with dogmatic opposition to fluoridation in Europe? Maybe, maybe not, but anyway they aren't needed since the policy is what they want already. If those people in the US are a serious problem, it'd be because fluoridation now is so important in the US that it would be an enormous negative to lose it, no? What do I read that shows that? Link me.

They could be right by sheer luck anyway. "Shutting down current policy" could be correct. For any issue. If you think they're a threat you should explain with a modicum of effort more than the magic word "experts" or listing variables as an excuse for well, it's complicated. It can't be that complicated or else it'd be more prevalent in Europe. Europe's water fluoridation policy looks incredibly simple. Almost nobody adds fluoride to their water and almost everyone's natural concentration is in the subclinical range. Now I'm really curious how you're so sure experts with different answers for our two continents are simultaneously so correct. I want to learn what exactly is so different and then maybe I won't have to bother with supporting my HHS's wasteful moves to look into it since we have confidence already. You could, for example, produce the research you're familiar with that we laymen aren't.

On August 20 2025 05:18 oBlade wrote:

Those weren't rhetorical questions.

The reason not a single other thing is supplemented in water is because you cannot control dosing, because people drink different amounts of water. That should be obvious to any scientist.

At times, dental health was so poor and anyway our understanding of the effects so limited that anyway the widespread benefits outweighed any drawbacks. That made fluoride's supplementation in water the one exceptional historical accident, and apparently not in most of Europe, or not anymore. + Show Spoiler + Otherwise the same logic (dosing) applies to fluoride and is apparently embraced by the Continent, which surprised me. I just assumed with this vigilant defense from you that they would be more progressive on fluoridation.

You haven't produced a single study about this, or even a single piece of factual information about the subject except to expose there is a policy gulf between the US and Europe about fluoridation (which I thank you for, it's nice to know, that I didn't expect) and yet somehow anything implying the US might ever consider approaching the more European policy is a step backwards.

You may have never even opened the actual most recent government study I linked. You said to me If you’re saying that "we need to take a look at flouride" you are already with the wrong crowd. Which you're also saying to the National Toxicology Program that said verbatim "More research is needed to better understand if there are health risks associated with low fluoride exposures."

+ Show Spoiler +


You have taken this and woven it into a pretzel. You claim to have no opinion about fluoridation, and also advise to trust the experts, and understand experts want to do research, but if the wrong person says we should do research, that's bad because it means they must have set beliefs. What set beliefs do I have buddy?

There are always groups of people with fringe or extreme beliefs who want to overturn any policy. No shit. In order for them to be a dangerous problem, the policy has to be very essential/good, or they have to be very influential. The better the policy, the worse overturning it would be. The more influential they are, the greater the chance of overturning it.

You told... me? to man up and say if I agree with medical consensus about fluoride, when the consensus of almost your entire continent is apparently not to put it in water. That's an egg on face thing to have brought up.

Are there a lot of people with dogmatic opposition to fluoridation in the US? I don't think so. Probably much more for vaccines. It's not the 60s and we're not in Dr. Strangelove. The fluoride "meme" has largely passed. Are there a lot of people with dogmatic opposition to fluoridation in Europe? Maybe, maybe not, but anyway they aren't needed since the policy is what they want already. If those people in the US are a serious problem, it'd be because fluoridation now is so important in the US that it would be an enormous negative to lose it, no? What do I read that shows that? Link me.

They could be right by sheer luck anyway. "Shutting down current policy" could be correct. For any issue. If you think they're a threat you should explain with a modicum of effort more than the magic word "experts" or listing variables as an excuse for well, it's complicated. It can't be that complicated or else it'd be more prevalent in Europe. Europe's water fluoridation policy looks incredibly simple. Almost nobody adds fluoride to their water and almost everyone's natural concentration is in the subclinical range. Now I'm really curious how you're so sure experts with different answers for our two continents are simultaneously so correct. I want to learn what exactly is so different and then maybe I won't have to bother with supporting my HHS's wasteful moves to look into it since we have confidence already. You could, for example, produce the research you're familiar with that we laymen aren't.

On August 20 2025 06:17 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:


I have told you several times but I'll make it it even clearer. I'm not trying to debate you on fluoride. That's why I'm not posting any studies.

But I will answer your question.

There are different ways to provide fluoride to the population. You can push it to the general population (in water or food additives, like milk) or selectively with mouth rinse, toothpaste etc either through self care or a care provider. You can also do in between efforts like arranging fluoride rinses in schools in high risk areas.

Historically caries was common globally. Most people can't really understand just how problematic it was. When fluoride was introduced it was incredibly effective and most governments started looking for ways to get people to use it. Water fluoridation is a very low cost way to reach people and it's also the reason we understood how it works in the first place. That study is from the US. The first city in the world (1945) to fluoridate water was in the US and showed that it worked.
As you've already pointed out if you want to reach most people, especially from socio-economic risk groups, it's a cheap and effective way to do it.
America was first on the ball and it was effective so it spread.

However parts of Europe was drifting towards a more socialised form of healthcare post WWII. Especially the nordic countries where a lot of our dental research was done (some that we are not so proud of, google the Vipeholm study for a Swedish horror story that "discovered" caries).
We had already had major population drives for hygiene that was effective and followed that up with fluoride rinses in schools and information campaigns about fluoride. Other countries went their own ways but a higher focus on government healthcare meant that there was more alternatives to just putting it in the water.
This was followed by nationalised dental care in different shapes in many countries, often focusing on children.
Sweden still has free (and mandatory) dental care with regular visits between 6-18 months until your 19.
A higher availability of dental care for everyone meant it was easier to transition to individual recommendations with fluoride toothpaste as a base and additional prophylaxis on an individual basis depending on risk.
Once this gets effective enough general fluoride additives adds very little as only a few individuals benefit.
Europe is not some monolith but the trends were common enough and the research on the continent was mainly driven by the countries that led the charge.

However the US never took that direction and with lack of dental infrastructure (especially for kids) that reaches the entire population that means broad measures are more effective. The early adoption of water fluoridation also lead to an higher acceptance. You note that we banned fluoridation in water, but that was 1971 at a point were it would have limited usefulness and the fear of caries had begun to recede and we never really did it in the first place.

At this point you could (have rather) begun to phase out water fluoridation. However it still serves more of a purpose in the US. A lesser % of your population have good access to dental care and in general your dental care is less focussed on the kind of broad preventative type of care than in much of Europe. You also haven't had a couple of generations to hammer the message into people (big difference, immigrants have significantly higher caries on average).
There is also less acceptance for alternative strategies that could solve the biggest problems (like free dental care for low income kids, targeted programs with flouride rinses and information for specific areas etc). And even if you wanted to do it you have less dental "infrastructure" to do it with. Finally government policy varies by state so it would be harder to enforce a national program.
Of course much of the population (especially well educated with good income) wouldn't suffer at all.
But in general this tips the scales. Adding water fluoridation in Europe would add almost nothing at this point, but removing it in the US (in certain places) can potentially have a negative impact on the population unless other strategies replace it. So the risk-reward balance is not equal in Europe vs the US.

Finally there is a historical "if it aint broke don't fix it" aspect to it as well. Social programs (if they are cheap!) have a certain inertia to them.

On August 20 2025 01:03 Magic Powers wrote:


I don't think ADHD medication (e.g. methylphenidate) are a problem in general or in the US. Of course it can have side effects but those are minimal and addictive effects are also minimal. When prescribed by a pediatrician it's considered safe and effective. These are not the kinds of medications that people need to worry about.

SSRIs (antidepressants) are a more controversial topic. Side effects are more obvious and possibly long-term, which is why some concern is warranted. It's not an epidemic though I'd say.

On August 20 2025 08:55 Acrofales wrote:

Weren't you the one claiming just a few pages back that vaccine researchers would advocate for more research into vaccines, and we shouldn't take their word for it. But when toxicologists say you need more research into toxins, you repeat the message verbatim. Why do you trust toxicologists more than vaccine researchers?

On August 20 2025 17:55 Acrofales wrote:
Ok, we're getting into trolley problem territory here, but I disagree quite thoroughly with the action vs inaction dichotomy.
Let's say the government can fund an mRNA vaccine research program that will most likely protect 50,000,000 Americans from an infectious disease. This is a medicine that does not yet exist, but all the scientists claim it is going to save lives, and where not lives, a week of productivity at a minimum (e.g. flu).

They can also spend the same amount of money investigating how to make drinking water safer. The scientists involved claim this will protect 1,000,000 Americans from intoxication through water. Lethality, morbidity and risk profiles are otherwise identical to that of the infectious disease.

You think the US government should spend their limited money on protecting the 1,000,000 from toxins in drinking water, rather than the 50,000,000 that could be protected from the infectious disease at the same cost? Just because one of them is something you already do and the other would be a new thing?

I think you said at one point that you run a business. I assume you don't apply the same mentality to your business decisions...

On August 20 2025 19:05 Razyda wrote:


This is such an absurd argument.
You have a patient with ruptured appendix, would you rather vaccinate him against tropical disease, potentially saving his life, or would you rather deal with the problem at hand?

On August 20 2025 20:43 Velr wrote:


Donald Trump & Co. would cut your funding for the tropical disease vaccination and proceed to not give a shit about the appendix.

On August 20 2025 17:55 Acrofales wrote:
Ok, we're getting into trolley problem territory here, but I disagree quite thoroughly with the action vs inaction dichotomy.
Let's say the government can fund an mRNA vaccine research program that will most likely protect 50,000,000 Americans from an infectious disease. This is a medicine that does not yet exist, but all the scientists claim it is going to save lives, and where not lives, a week of productivity at a minimum (e.g. flu).

They can also spend the same amount of money investigating how to make drinking water safer. The scientists involved claim this will protect 1,000,000 Americans from intoxication through water. Lethality, morbidity and risk profiles are otherwise identical to that of the infectious disease.

You think the US government should spend their limited money on protecting the 1,000,000 from toxins in drinking water, rather than the 50,000,000 that could be protected from the infectious disease at the same cost? Just because one of them is something you already do and the other would be a new thing?

I think you said at one point that you run a business. I assume you don't apply the same mentality to your business decisions...