Trump says RFK Jr. plan to remove fluoride from public water 'sounds okay to me'
Trump says RFK Jr. plan to remove fluoride from public water 'sounds okay to me'
Donald Trump said Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s proposal to remove fluoride from the U.S. water systems "sounds okay" to him, raising alarms for public health.
- Former President Donald Trump said that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s proposal to remove fluoride from the U.S. water systems “sounds okay” to him.
- Kennedy, who is poised to play a health policy role in a potential Trump administration, recently wrote, “The Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water.”
- According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “the safety and benefits of fluoride are well documented and have been reviewed comprehensively by several scientific and public health organizations.”
You're viewing a single thread.
Two days from now timelines are going split. I don't know what will happen in both, but I can tell you for sure I'd like to avoid the timeline where Trump wins, the least of which involves all the bad breath this single choice will cause.
It’s like Back to the Future’s alternative Biff-world versus the saner reality.
I'm sorry from the future :(
How in the world would that affect your breath??
But here's a fun fact: fluoride only helps out when used topically (like in toothpaste). Drinking it may actually weaken your bones, supposedly.
Also, first time fluoride was put in drinking water, the only reason was to see if it would keep the working class docile.
So, ironically, this is the one thing these morons have said that I'd agree with. I'm still voting Harris; sooner I never hear about the orange turd again, the better.
Edit: These downvotes are cracking me up. 🤣 At this point, I'm just gonna assume y'all have some nasty smelling breath! 😎
I’ll take the:
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “the safety and benefits of fluoride are well documented and have been reviewed comprehensively by several scientific and public health organizations.”
…over your:
fluoride only helps out when used topically (like in toothpaste). Drinking it may actually weaken your bones, supposedly.
This is a good take, I liken it to iodine in salt.
However, I worry about the effects of fluoride in groundwater. I don’t know if I should be too concerned about that per se, but I hear some plants hate it and that and it says in the ground for like forever.
You have anything says that ingesting or actually helps? That's the part I find kinda weird, and that quote doesn't address that specific issue. Using it on the surface of your teeth is shown to be helpful, I get that; but drinking it is a whole different ballgame... Besides, I thought the fluoride in the toothpaste was the reason you're not supposed to swallow?
You can always use examine.com to start base level research on most substances. It tries to cover the most common questions and link the research papers most relevant to that question if available. Excerpt below, but I recommend scrolling through the whole page. It also discusses maximum safe daily levels, toxic levels, and symptoms when you exceed those levels.
Fluoride (from drinking water, supplements, tea, or dental products) is absorbed by the small intestine, and about half is excreted via the kidneys. Absorbed fluoride in the blood can bind with apatite in bone and teeth, becoming fluorapatite. Blood and bone concentrations of fluoride are in equilibrium and are impacted by bone remodeling activity and age.
Casually states without evidence that fluoride was only introduced to keep people docile, then demands citations on rebuttals. Looks like we got ourselves a full blown case of the MAGA.
Lol. Yup, is maga folk always vote blue. For realsies.
And why you gotta be lying, anyway; nobody, me or anyone else, demanded sources on fluoride being used to keep people docile. But, for the record, I cannot locate a source on that claim at the moment. I will update this post later if I track down where I heard that.
As far as a source on my other statements: Facts about fluoride
Are you so singularly interested in proving you are right that you don't bother to read or try to genuinely comprehend what other people write when they are calling you out for your bad behaviour?
The source you posted doesn't mention anything to support your statement about fluoride originally being used to test if it could keep the working class docile. The fact remains that you are asking others to source themselves despite being unwilling, unable, or disinterested in doing so yourself.
Still I am glad you're voting for Harris 🙂
Dude. I told you I had no source for that. The training at your troll farm sucks; get a better job.
That's exactly my fucking point.
Umm, no - that was my point. Your reply had no point, other than complaining that I freely admitted to not finding a source. A point implies furthering the discussion. So, you got a point?
This is funnily something actually taught at (at least some) Russian troll farms. Confuse the conversations and revert to thin, barely applicable accusations of logical fallacies or other kinds of “rules” of supposedly civil discussion. But this certain sense of “civil discussion” where some misguided sense of self-perceived (and sadly, almost always unfounded) logical superiority prompts one to be as confusing as this comment here, claiming to have a point, which the other supposedly does not, while elevating the fact that they themselves already claimed not to have found a source for their outlandish and confusing prior claim, to be some sort of bonus point to “win” the argument with. All this, without a hint of self-consciousness or admittance that their very original comment was equally or more pointless, if this is how points would be decided according to their view. And the importance put in virtual brownie points that prompts them to go to the trouble of amending their initial, ill-received comment to with an edit explicitly stating that they laugh at the downvoters, while being obviously hurt and unnecessarily heavily affected by it…
It’s so weirdly confusing and recognizable that this must be a cultural thing. A long time ago I knew some academics/students from Russia, and they all seemed similarly interested in some logical “winning” even in just normal discussions, in this certain way that is just uncanny. Self-importance and the persistence with misguided logical superiority despite having clearly themselves made an oopsie in the first place, seems to be something of a cultural difference in this specific flavor.
Of course this is done everywhere, the whole self-importance and all (as demonstrated by yours truly!), but not in this one specific uncanny way.
That’s a fair question. I Googled around and arrived at a couple different gov health websites (National Institutes of Health, Cleveland Clinic) which mention that, while high levels of fluoride can be harmful, the amount put into the US drinking supply doesn’t approach that threshold.
Fluoride, when swallowed, can be distributed throughout the body, which includes being in the saliva that covers the teeth. Nevertheless, fluoridated water has been shown with more than enough evidence to improve the quality of teeth in humans compared to its risks (if any) and removing it in water will reduce those benefits.
I'll go ahead and press x to doubt. First, no, it absolutely will not go everywhere in your body. Chemistry/biology doesn't work like that. Second, the amount of fluoride you'd have to ingest to still have an effective amount in your saliva would be well past the safe limit (by the way, only poisons need to have a safe limit; aka fluoride is not good for you). Finally, it's in our toothpaste, we don't actually need any more than that.
Putting it in our water has no benefits. Really. But you do you, man.
Good old poisonous water, since water itself has a safe limit, ld50's exist for pretty much everything
So, umm, I don't need to explain why your rebuttal is crap, do I? Cause...weak. just weak
Good bait
Lol, no. Even if that were my intention, two replies? And some knee jerk downvotes? What kinda troll is gonna feed themselves on such a small amount of controversy?
We have quite the hive mind going in the thread, though!
Because you came out with baseless conjecture which was debunked decades ago which you could have educated yourself about at any time, hiding behind "may" and whatever other nonsense you thought would make you sound reasonable.
Oh really? Quote me a source that says ingesting fluoride is beneficial.
And take your ad hominem crap somewhere else. 🙄
Edit: If you want to discuss this further, find someone else. Let's just say you won't be getting any further replies from me...ever.
Drinking it may actually weaken your bones, supposedly.
Where's your source?
https://www.ada.org/resources/community-initiatives/fluoride-in-water
Not hard. Take your nonsense elsewhere instead of pulling that.
You made a claim without any backing evidence. If people keep telling you to fuck off and you keep wondering why, well here's someone telling you why.
Meanwhile, in communities where fluoride has already been removed from the water…
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.
-Richard Feynman
Not, communities; one community. And that study looks shady as hell, not gonna lie. For instance, so far I see no discussion regarding any other things that could've influenced the results. Like, I'm really not impressed by the methodology they used. At all.
Very rude of that community to not conform to what you wanted them to do instead of just experiencing the effects of unfluoridated tap water, smh.
If you're going to nitpick their methodology I'm sure you won't mind sharing your own published studies on the matter, right? TIA.
Eh, this was fun, but I'm getting bored. 😉 I'm kidding. However, that's less a study and more a statistical analysis. One that failed to correct for any known issues that might cause unexpected results. I did find an interesting link earlier, I might try checking some of their sources. If I find anything interesting, well... I'll have forgotten about this, so maybe I'll update, maybe not! 😝
The reason why you're being downvoted is because you've provided some outlandish claims without any source.
I honestly remember my parent's talking about these exact things in the 80s. It's absurd to claim that in the interceding decades no reputable science has supported these claims.
Science is sometimes wrong, and from time to time we have to improve our understanding of things, but great claims require great evidence.
Nah. That's not it at all. I said those idiots were right about something, and y'all lost your minds!
But, seriously, the only "outlandish" claim I made had to do with using fluoride to keep people docile. And, to be frank, there is nothing outlandish at all about the idea that the ruling class would do something like that. Hell, the United States government has done so many things that are so much worse.
And I don't actually care. If I ever start worrying about what people say about me online, I'm going bear hunting. Naked and unarmed.
I'm not suggesting that you care about down votes, but you seem to think the down votes imply people are angry or have "lost their minds" whatever that means.
Well, no, just disappointed they are reactionary idiots. To be two minutes to find a long list of problems with fluoride in drinking water, and with thorough citations. If that's not good enough, then they're already radicalized in one direction or another, which is a great way to lose sight of yourself in a very bad way.
... but I found a blog post saying the earth is flat, and it had very thorough citations.
Bold claims require irrefutable evidence.
The weight of evidence in support of fluoridation is overwhelming. It's the greatest public health intervention in the history of human kind.
If you want to say it makes people docile then you need large double blinded peer reviewed longitudinal studies supporting that claim. If you don't have that then you're going to get downvotes because you're just parroting nonsense.
Yup. There is overwhelming evidence, and that's why the vast majority of the world due not do it.
If you want to claim evidence is overwhelming, she me the proof. Not a simple fucking comparison of arbitrary data. I believe you set the bar at "you need large double blinded peer reviewed longitudinal studies". Counting the occurrence of something before and after some other things changed...is not that. So where is it?
(And are you fucking for real on your stupid "flat earth" bullshit? They'll provide same quality and number of citations as you morons do.)
Or don't. Just go on getting all evangelical about what you've been told is true. What the fuck ever...
Edit: holy shit, you dumb shits are going into my profile and downvoting random unrelated shit. Fucking weak guys. Now I know that you all know you're doing as fuck.
Well, you actually begin with a good example of another outlandish claim. They are right? I don’t suppose you can back that up? If not, that’s just an unbacked claim. Outlandish, of course, is subjective, but I’d say it sure is just that.
The one you claim is outlandish, is, indeed, outlandish. I agree with your point that this is what the ruling class would do, if we remove this thought experiment from any context and real-life bounds. They 100% would. If they knew they’d get away with it.
I don’t believe they would, in reality, though, get away with it.
So while that point is logical in a detached sense, it still is as outlandish as everything else.
Edit: What’s up with this .ee instance by the way? Has anyone else noticed that a lot of commenters and comments like this happen to be from there? Contrarians, completely weird takes, oddly common “I’m a leftist, BUT…” comments, and a lot of third party voters and enthusiasts. I’ve noted it earlier but this finally made it hit. Does anyone know some context that they’d have time and energy to share?
They have gotten away with using planes to spray dangerous chemicals over their own cities, with deliberately keeping poor black people infected with syphilis to document it's profession, etc etc.
Like hell they wouldn't get away with it. Are you kidding me?
And wow. Putting the bigotry on display today, aren't we. Whatever, in deleting the comment so you small brained morons will shut up. But your dumbass comment needed a reply.
But, with all the just pants on fire stops rebuttals...I guess I know why an obvious dementia patient got rejected in the first place.
deleting the comment so you small brained morons will shut up
Coward can't admit he was wrong
Good, glad you were able to bring yourself to admit it.
Have a good one!
You don't care so much you deleted your post, very cool
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9542152/
In summary, we observed significant and consistent differences in dental caries experience in the primary dentition between Grade 2 children in Calgary (fluoridation cessation) and Edmonton (still fluoridated), Canada, 7‐8 years following cessation in Calgary. Our findings are consistent with an adverse impact of fluoridation cessation on children's dental health in Calgary, and point to the need for universally, publicly funded prevention activities including, but not limited to fluoridation.
I've always heard ingesting flouride makes developing teeth stronger, and does nothing for adults. Found a review of studies: https://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_does-adding-fluoride-water-supplies-prevent-tooth-decay
I'll check that out, thanks. I think the allegation I heard was that it quickens osteoporosis, so this was a cumulative lifetime effect I think. But can't figure where I heard it anyway, I might be wrong.