RFK Jr. says a Trump White House would immediately push to remove fluoride from water
RFK Jr. says a Trump White House would immediately push to remove fluoride from water
Major health groups support water fluoridation as a public health benefit and emphasize that the practice is safe.
Summary
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that a Trump administration would prioritize removing fluoride from public water systems, a position at odds with major health organizations like the CDC, the American Dental Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, all of which endorse water fluoridation as safe and beneficial for dental health.
Despite Kennedy’s controversial stance on health and environmental issues, which includes previously debunked claims linking vaccines to autism, Trump has praised his passion, stating that Kennedy would have significant freedom to influence health policy if Trump were elected.
You're viewing a single thread.
-
Great way to send a lot of business to dentists.
-
A Pynchon-level conspiracy. I suspect we’ll be seeing some more dentist-on-trampoline accidents.
-
Eh... the benefits only really exist for people who don't brush their teeth anyways, and there actually are some founded concerns about it's safety. This is one area you should really research more before leaping on the "Trump bad" bandwagon.
-
.
-
That paper specifically concludes that despite all that, there is no reason to even look into whether fluoridation in drinking water might be a problem because there has clearly been no corollary deleterious effect. So, knowing what it would look like if it was a problem, was enough to know that it isn't even close enough to warrant checking how close it is. The highest reported extremes of exposure already didn't cause issue, so there is certainly no cause for concern at normal levels.
Basically, normal levels are so far below potential risky levels, that they aren't even concerned of accidental overexposure due to mistakes or accidents. They concluded they had literally zero concern...
So linking that paper isn't really supporting your opinion.
-
The point of it being, that fluoride is, in fact, recognized to be a neurotoxin, so it's not just people pulling baseless crap out of their asses. There was a time, not long ago, when lead levels in consumer products were believed to be safe.
-
The paper does not recognize fluoride as a neurotoxin in its current application in Europe:
Overall, despite the remaining uncertainties, and based on the totality of evidence the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be considered as a human developmental neurotoxicant at current exposure levels in European countries.
-
Permanently Deleted
-
Not that I'm agreeing in an away about the paranoia about fluoridation, but there is no known safe level of lead. Lead concentration is regulated, but whatever the thresholds are, they aren't based on "safe" levels, just acceptable levels.
https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/lead-poison-and-children-no-amount-lead-safe
-
This is not true. To elaborate on what the other person who replied said... there is no safe level of lead in consumer products because lead accumulates in the body. Also, lots of consumer products still contain lead because there are loopholes. And the regulations any way aren't that stringent.
-
-
-
-
Those concerns are for unrealistically high doses though. The last sentence of the abstract you linked:
In conclusion, based on the totality of currently available scientific evidence, the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be assessed as a human developmental neurotoxicant at the current exposure levels in Europe.
Calling concerns about the safety of fluoridated water “founded” is a bit of a stretch.
-
The issue is not whether fluoride is good or bad. Conservatives vilify medical experts as "woke" and it that as a reason to dismiss their advice.
I too can cherry pick an article to support my position. The number of cavities in children born in Calgary, Canada within the decade after they removed fluoride from their water was higher than nearby Edmonton who kept fluoride.
We can argue about who has more links to support their argument; or we can argue about whether politicians should govern based on the recommendations of experts, or trust that "they know best".
-
That isn't an article I cherry picked. It's literally actual research from those "experts" you pretend to worship.
-
The article you linked explicitly concludes:
Overall, despite the remaining uncertainties, and based on the totality of evidence the present review does not support the presumption that fluoride should be considered as a human developmental neurotoxicant at current exposure levels in European countries.
-
You weren't supposed to read the study! 😅
-
-
.. And it literally actually says it's not a concern.
-
When you dismiss other scientific evidence like this, it makes it seem less like you are mindfully sharing research for open discussion, and more like you have a link to use as "ammunition" to defend the conclusion you've already reached (and won't be reasoned out of)
-
These people use research the same way a drunkard uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination.
(Paraphrasing)
-
And didn't even fucking read the article they are attempting to use as ammunition, to boot, the article specifically denies the point they're trying to make
-
If I were looking for ammunition, I certainly wouldn't share something which doesn't explicitly state my point. I shared this to show, for those honest enough to actually consider it, that there is in fact research suggesting concerns aren't baseless.
Recently, epidemiological studies have suggested that fluoride is a human developmental neurotoxicant that reduces measures of intelligence in children, placing it into the same category as toxic metals (lead, methylmercury, arsenic) and polychlorinated biphenyls.
-
-
Claims to not have cherry picked anything yet follows up with the claim that scientists are fake experts and he doesn't listen to them.
You've exposed your ruse here, bud.
-
You're putting words in my mouth. I'm challenging people to actually read and engage with the content, instead of treating scientists like some higher power which must be deferred too, even in absence of understanding.
-
I'm not putting words in your mouth, you clearly don't think they're experts by your use if the snarky quotes around it and stated "you people worship" which obviously excludes yourself from that category.
If you're trying to challenge people, why aren't you replying to the multitude of comments pointing out that the study you linked doesn't say what you think it does?
-
Why reply the same thing multiple times? I already quoted the very first line, which quite clearly states that there have indeed been multiple studies recently which represent fluoride as a neurotoxin. Whether you agree with them or not, it's very obvious evidence that concerns are not without foundation.
-
.
-
It's literally not misinformation though. The very first line quite clearly states that there have been multiple studies in recent times which characterize Fluoride as a neurotoxin. This sort of behaviour, deliberately lying about the content of scientific research, is exactly why people are losing faith in our systems.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-