Many Objectivists reject all the facts claimed by environmentalists because of their politics. It is easy to understand, but hard to excuse, and it is a mistake. Environmentist et al. claims about the dangers of modern farming practices, our damaged food supply, and the increasing presence of toxins is very real. As I second vocation, I treat dogs with cancer. In most cases, they can be cured by switching to a clean, raw prey model diet and adding certain nutraceuticals. However, I cannot cure them if they continue to drink unfiltered tap water. There are other problems with tap water other than flouride, but that and chlorine are the two major problems. If you are one of these Objectivists, I would recommend that you challenge your assumptions and study all of their claims, especially the ones mentioned above. Many of their claims are false, but many are not.

One has to question though, why was this published in 2014, and now trumpeted as "new". In addition, I read through the article itself (the Lancet) and I did not find any mention of flouride itself, but a different substance:

Summary

Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.

I do not see in their article any justification for their claim, but in Table 1 they say Fluoride and Manganese, but again, no real reference or proof. I am not a neuroscientist, but I would prefer to see some data.

What a bunch of nonsense. The empirical evidence does not support any alarmist conclusion. This is Luddite environmentalist BS.

"Why are they still putting poison in our water? Because the damn Jerks cannot admit they were wrong in the first place. They never took in the full exposure to fluoride in their haste to perform a service that turned out to be a dis-service. If you want to see a more current example of this kind of behavior, just examine Obama's refusal to admit any mistakes even in the face of irrefutable evidence.

All Old Dino had to do was read the title.
Right away I thought of a scene from Dr. Strangelove. (I love that movie).
If you recall, an American general starts World War III due to what he calls "the international commie plot to fluoridate water."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2bS...

The truth of it is...they don't know, they have been told it's ok and they don't question it, (its called coercive compartmentalization) it's the same with mercury in vaccines, and tooth fillings.
(not to mention...MONEY)

One must also caution on many of these that are listed that are natural are used by our bodies and without them we would also die, it is a matter of total exposure and content and the form of it that is ingested. There are many things that are dose dependent eg we need both omega 6's and 3 's in our body but our current overload of omega6's is very unhealthy but some is still needed...

Science is about being open to new answers but the evidence goes completely against this claim.

MamaEmma summarized it better.

Alex Jones constantly harps on this as part of the global conspiracy. I never really took it seriously until now.

Because it's very expensive to properly dispose of industrial fluoride. However, when we use it in toothpaste, and city water, WE pay for their toxin, and we dispose of it all over the country...one flush at a time.
Let's follow the money from ALCOA to DC.

Bullshit

Lets remove the fluoride so my teeth will rot thus leading me to starve because I can no longer eat.
Every time I turn around I have a new path to death.

I began getting cavities in my 30s. I have been drinking fluoride free water and using fluoride free toothpaste for a long time ever since I began I've had zero cavities. This is just my personal observation. Very happy with my decision. A side effect of this is that I feel more clearheaded.. I think my short-term memory has improved. I drink only spring water that has minerals in it.

I love commenting on cult sites...


chris price 1875 • a month ago

it amazing what rubbish research comes to light Peckham is a former chairperson of the activist group Hampshire Against Fluoridation. He is an active political campaigner on the issue of fluoridation Hardly independant research and to make matters worse the only paper that would publish his rubbish is the Scientific World Journal They will publish anything for $1000 fee
So that is the first of the so called quality research from our unnamed commentator.
It make you wonder about the quality of the rest


plusaf chris price • a minute ago

I particularly liked it when I noticed the "obvious unbiased positions" of each of 1895's references... (/sarc).
In addition, the 'sources' common use of terms like "might" and "a small percentage" indicate a knee-jerk level of what I refer to as "catastrophization"... the generalization that a few incidents of negative effects should be justification for making it illegal for anyone and everyone to even CHOOSE to subject themselves to such an "unconscionable risk."
When emotions and moralization enter such conversations, rational has 'left the building.'
I wish 1895 and his cohort might ever realize that...
But cult members never do.
You're all trying to Discuss Something with a Cult.
Do you realize how Futile that is?!
Cheers, and good luck to all.

Too much of a good thing is bad, not enough of a good thing is bad. Finding the balance is the challenge. Funny thing that people are living way longer now than the past. Social security age requirements will be increased - go figure. Human health care is not once size fits all. I grew up when butter was bad. Now it's good. Everything is point is time. No problem, delete fluoride from drinking water = job security for dentists.