Comment by akira2501
1 year ago
I can imagine several ways to manage that outcome that don't involve engaging in an unrequested medical intervention on their behalf using the public water supply.
They also didn't "find" that. They have a very limited study with exceptionally poor controls that they openly acknowledge and thus they're only capable of suggesting an "indication" that this "may be true."
For such an important question, I would want a lot more work than that particular study, which only examined 2nd graders, has done before arriving at a conclusion that we should medicate an entire population without consent.
Finally, I'd suggest a better study, between the cities that had fluoride removed, were the citizens even informed that a change was made to their water supply? 2 to 3 years later, instead of looking at kids teeth, how many adults understood the ramifications of the change? How many of them even consciously _knew_ the change had been made?
Which highlights the point here, it's fundamentally unethical for a government to wholesale dose their entire population, even if they think they're doing them a favor.
> Which highlights the point here, it's fundamentally unethical for a government to wholesale dose their entire population, even if they think they're doing them a favor.
Do you hold the same belief when the government requires kids to get certain vaccines before entering school?
So because one type of intervention is "forced" all types can be? Are you trying to give the "slippery slope" argument more credit or? Just because vaccines are more or less required doesn't give any argument for doing so for other stuff. Unless you want even more opposition considering you are literally using it as a slippery slope to justify more requirements.
(I'm not saying I oppose fluoride in water, I think the attention it gets is insane for what is probably not much effects on cognition even if those claims turn out to be true. I have naturally bad teeth so I'm very happy to get fluoride, and use medical toothpastes with very high concentrations of it. But I really dislike when this type of argument is made. It only provides more arguments that slippery slopes are real, and that a certain compromise or requirement will lead to more inevitably. Just argue about the merit of fluoride in water, on its own. )
No where did I say I am for or against flouride in water. I'm just trying to see if they are against all government medical intervention or just this one.
1 reply →
> Do you hold the same belief when the government requires kids to get certain vaccines before entering school?
What an odd inference to attempt to draw. There's no comparison. Can parents decide to NOT send their children to school because they don't want to comply with entry requirements? If the answer is yes, then your question is obviously a complete non-sequitur.
> Can parents decide to NOT send their children to school because they don't want to comply with entry requirements? If the answer is yes, then your question is obviously a complete non-sequitur.
You can also decide to just not drink from the tap. There are large groups of people that make that decision.