Comment by Jimmc414
21 days ago
It was a direct response to a question with the answer they were looking for. It was provided in good faith, previously researched and sourced by me within the last 12 months.
I am the OP and someone asked for evidence and the only answer after an hour, falsely stated there was no evidence. I didn't want to challenge anyone directly so I posted what I thought were the top few more convincing links I have compiled out of 30+.
I am disappointed that I am getting downvoted and this is somehow being made into something political when people deserve to see the evidence for and against supplementing fluoride the drinking water of every living thing because the government wants to improve the health of our teeth. It is a fair question to ask.
The main problem with your wall of links from a professional medical PoV is it utterly lacks any context.
The very famous meta studies with all the negative correlations get all the bad associations with flouride from regions where water naturally has extremely high (relative to most other parts of the world) levels of fluoride in addition to high levels of many other uncommon concentrations.
Some of these regions also have additional problems with industry waste.
Put simply, negative correlations about unattended children in swimming pools cannot be extrapolated to infer negative correlations about young children and sippy cups of water.
Again, it was in response to an (mis)unanswered question for that specific information. I don't get what the issue is.
It’s basically coping responses from people who are starting to realize they have been loudly wrong for years. It’s a fairly human response I suppose. They’ll get over it eventually after they go through the stages of grief or whatever.
7 replies →
> I am disappointed that I am getting downvoted and this is somehow being made into something political when people deserve to see the evidence
I didn’t downvote. (I don’t think.) But as a non-expert, I also didn’t see value in a wall of links. (Particularly when you wouldn’t confirm it wasn’t AI generated.)
A better presentation would pull quotes or make an argument, in your voice, with the citations as scaffolding for your arguments.
To illustrate the issue, I believe I could construct a context-free wall of links justifying just about anything.
Honestly, I think people downvoted it because it sounded a lot like LLM output.
If you could explain the process that led to the production of the list & what led you to the belief that those are the best studies/evidence so far, that would probably help people view it more favorably.