"Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?"

There’s a follow up meta study from 2020.:

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.

A study in Canada was published in 2019 looking at the differences between 2 neighboring cities where on stopped fluoridating water in 2011. They saw that saw a significant increase in cavities in children in the city that stopped fluoridating vs the other. This is despite the fact the the city without fluoridation actually has somewhat higher adherence to brushing, flossing, and going to the dentist. No difference was seen yet in permanent teeth, but that's because the study would need more time to see effects there.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdoe.12685

Of course, we still should do more studies on fluoride neurotoxicity. Most studies look at levels of fluoride at 1.5mg/L or higher, which is more than double the recommended level by the US (0.7 mg/L). There is a hard limit in the US of 4mg/L, but the EPA strongly recommends a limit of 2mg/L. This only really matters for locations with very high levels of fluoride in the groundwater, and is thus quite rare. The EU's limit is 1.5mg/L.

I also came across the same study while looking to disprove a conspiracy nut. We should really do more research on the effects of fluoride.

The Takeaway I’m getting from both of these studies being talked about Is that things are very unclear. The Cochrane group is very well regarded for conducting Meta studies and finding flaws in previously held understandings. The term high fluoridation is mentioned many times, and it’s unclear what that is meaning.

Vitamin A is an incredibly important molecule to many biological processes in the human body, but we do not want to supplement it, aggressively, as it can become toxic. Fluoride is noted to be beneficial for enamel hardening. No one is recommending taking large amounts of it. The second link you have points out the important questions, what is the actual danger, and who is in danger the most?

I don't avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.

Your link is more or less an opinion piece from a geneticist, so this isn't even her field of study.

All her health issues she points out are for fluoride concentrations over triple the amount that tap water is brought up to.

The reason it's usage spread across the country was because while the entire country had access to things such as fluoridated toothpaste, counties and cities that started fluoridation of their water supplies consistently had fewer cavities than areas that didn't fluoridate the water. This alone outlines the glaringly obvious flaw in her argument.

Further still, while the US adds fluoride to the tap water in a concentration to reach 0.5mg to 0.7mg per liter of water (a couple drops per 50 gallons), natural drinking water for over 20% of the world is in concentrations well over that (to be clear, being well over that can cause health issues. Too much of anything can cause health issues.)

In other words, there is no evidence that this low concentration of fluoride causes health issues. There is loads of direct evidence that it reduces cavities. Plus, this woman from your opinion piece is talking out of her field. Not to mention that 21% of the world's drinking water supply naturally already falls within the recommended range of what the US takes theirs up to. It's just that most of the US water supply naturally falls below that amount.

Only 3% of Quebec's population has access to fluoridated water and we have way more dental issues than any other province in Canada.

I appreciate that you put some reputable sources, rather than relying on a random tweet/post.

Interesting. The article doesn’t actually say that fluoridation in water supplies is dangerous but that some researchers are questioning. Generally code for lack of scientific evidence. It also finds that early studies may have had a flawed basis (pretty much all early studies have been found wanting by later scientists) but doesn’t refute the results.The study mentioned in the article talks about high levels of fluoridation which I assume is in lab tests however these levels are not the case in water supplies.

The correct way forward is more actual science based studies.

The bad part about Rfk jr is he probably mixes in some science with quackery. I honestly assumed all his ideas are insane. That's what's so hard about being discerning right now, you have to be on one side or the other.