just because fluoride reduces cavities doesn’t automatically mean it’s safe to ingest over long periods. The same institutions praising its dental benefits are also historically slow to acknowledge health risks (think lead, asbestos, DDT, etc.).

Historical failures are usualy valid cautionary tales, but that doesn’t mean they automatically apply. Unlike lead or asbestos, fluoride has been studied extensively for decades. Drawing parallels without evidence is oversimplifying the issue.

Plus, we banned all those things when we learned they were harmful, even though they were big money savers. Why would we be resistant to banning flouride if the evidence showed it was harmful? Is our fight against cavities more important to us than better gasoline milage?

The criticism isn’t just ‘old studies vs. new ones.’ It’s about the fact that most of the large-scale safety studies on fluoride aren’t actually designed to detect subtle or long-term harm—especially to the brain or endocrine system. Recent, peer-reviewed research (like the studies on lowered IQ in high-fluoride areas) suggests we might be underestimating the risks.

Those studies focus on areas with high-fluoride levels (often above 2 mg/L), which exceed the levels used in water fluoridation programs in most countries (typically 0.7 mg/L). Extrapolating findings from high-fluoride regions to areas with controlled fluoridation ignores dose-response relationships and misrepresents the risks.

And let’s not pretend there’s no conflict of interest. Fluoride used in water systems comes from fertilizer industry byproducts. There’s a real economic incentive to spin waste into something profitable—especially if you can sell it under the label of public health.

This doesn’t inherently mean it’s unsafe or that its use is driven purely by profit motives. Regulatory agencies evaluate fluoride safety based on scientific evidence, not its source. Your argument is conflating the origin of fluoride with its safety.

Lol, this is hilarious because I’ve actually seem this study linked before so I can just copy and paste my rebuttal from the last time a super dumb person shared it with me:

1. Reliance on Observational Data: The study critiques water fluoridation policies but relies heavily on observational epidemiological data rather than detaled physiological analyses. Observational studies lack sensitivity to detect nuanced harm or benefit[1].

2. Selective Evidence: The study does not adequately consider newer, well-designed studies that challenge its conclusions, particularly regarding fluoride’s impact on IQ and other health effects[2].

3. Ethical and Safety Margin Concerns: While it questions the ethical implications and safety margins of fluoride ingestion, it does not propose clear alternatives or frnmeworks for assessing acceptable exposure levels[1].

4. Bias: The study’s conclusions reflect a bias against water fluoridation rather than a balanced review of evidence, as it emphasizes harms without sufficiently weighing benefits like dental caries prevention[1][3].

5. Limited Scope: The study does not address findings from broader reviews, such as those by Public Health Ontario or Health Canada, which suggest that optimally fluoridated water primarily causes mild dental fluorosis without significant adverse health effects[3][4].

These limitations suggest you should pull your head out of your ass.

Citations: [1] Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of … https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3956646/ [2] Fluoride analysis triggers renewed debate over what levels … - NPR https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/09/nx-s1-5252874/fluoride-drinking-water-iq-analysis-safe [3] [PDF] Evidence Review for Adverse Health Effects of Drinking Optimally … https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/e/2018/evidence-review-health-affects-fluoridated-water.pdf?la=en [4] Expert panel meeting on the health effects of fluoride in drinking water https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/reports-publications/water-quality/expert-panel-meeting-effects-fluoride-drinking-summary.html [5] Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk.html [6] Water fluoridation: a critical review of the physiological effects of … https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24719570/ [7] [PDF] Community Water Fluoridation Programs: A Health Technology … https://caphd.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/ht0022-cwf-environmental-report.pdf [8] [PDF] Water fluoridation : an analyses of the health benefits and risks https://www.inspq.qc.ca/sites/default/files/publications/705-waterfluoration.pdf

The dentist is expensive, this will increase the amount of money people need to spend. Makes workers more vulnerable to exploitation - their guiding light, their north star.

Just tell them you did it, and trust that they don’t have the capacity or will to check

They are low intelligence, and that makes them suspicious of every aspect of life that they didn’t learn about before the age of 10.

They recognize Trump is just as stupid (or ‘normal’ as they choose to think of it) as they are, but since he is successful they see that as evidence that some supernatural element is supporting him, either god or some genetic aspect of being a wealthy white that enables him to win.

You are extremely wrong

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/healthy-living/fluoride-factsheet.html

I bought the one they released for the Wii U and it only worked for Smash

Goes to show the business class is just as stupid as everyone else. Just a bunch of nepo babies

During the COVID-19 pandemic, billionaires experienced a massive surge in wealth:

• Global Billionaires: Their collective wealth increased by $3.8 to $4 trillion during the first year of the pandemic, reaching $12.7 trillion by 2022, a rise of 42%-54%[2][3].
• U.S. Billionaires: Their wealth grew by $1.7 trillion (58%) over three years, totaling $4.7 trillion by 2023[1][5]. By 2024, U.S. billionaire wealth had risen 88% since the pandemic began, reaching $5.5 trillion[7].
• Top 10 Richest Men: Their fortunes more than doubled from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion during the pandemic[4][8].

Citations: [1] Updates: Billionaire Wealth, U.S. Job Losses and Pandemic Profiteers https://inequality.org/article/updates-billionaire/ [2] Covid-19: A new billionaire has been minted nearly every day … - CNN https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/22/economy/billionaires-poverty-oxfam-davos/index.html [3] Billionaires got 54% richer during pandemic, sparking calls for … https://www.cbsnews.com/news/billionaire-wealth-covid-pandemic-12-trillion-jeff-bezos-wealth-tax/ [4] Ten richest men double their fortunes in pandemic while incomes of … https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/ten-richest-men-double-their-fortunes-pandemic-while-incomes-99-percent-humanity [5] Pandemic Profits: Billionaires Wealth Grew $1.7 Trillion During … https://americansfortaxfairness.org/pandemic-profits-billionaires-wealth-grew-1-7-trillion-three-years-public-health-emergency/ [6] American billionaires decried Joe Biden, gained wealth in his term https://financialpost.com/wealth/american-oligarchy-biden-15-trillion [7] U.S. Billionaire Wealth Is Up 88% Since the Pandemic—Now … https://ips-dc.org/u-s-billionaire-wealth-is-up-88-since-the-pandemic-now-topping-5-5-trillion/ [8] 10 richest men double their fortunes in pandemic while incomes of … https://www.oxfam.ca/news/10-richest-men-double-their-fortunes-in-pandemic-while-incomes-of-99-per-cent-of-humanity-fall/

Go fash lose cash

Turns out woke wasn’t so bad, huh

https://www.theverge.com/news/642620/trump-tariffs-formula-ai-chatgpt-gemini-claude-grok

They just destroyed the cdc too so itll be extra great

Buddy this here is the collapse - you are in it right now.

This is like watching the toughest guy in the prison who runs the biggest gang just start smashing his own head against the concrete floor

People are saying if you ask ChatGPT the easiest way to do a global tariff based on trade deficits with a minimum of 10 percent - it spits out the exact same numbers.

What is your solution

I’m willing to give a 2nd chance after a decade

Then change your approach. Instead of trying to black pill every leftist on lemmy like you have been - go post in liberal or moderate social media circles and try to hone your message into something that is effective.

Hope is not a strategy. If someone came to you looking for a business loan and they said ‘we are going to hope people get tired of drinking soda which is terrible for them and switch over to our carrot juice’ - would you give them the loan?