My bad, I assumed malice unnecessarily.

Low bar but he did blow it away.

Jesus tap-dancing christ you worked hard to matrix bullet-time dodge the PRC and their monomaniacal focus on han identity above all.

Yes but it’s a speed run to 0.

… I would really love to see that “Deep State” right now :(

I mean, my solution is just to leave the US, which worked for me.

It’s not just lowering dental costs btw, but you’re right, taking money out of dentistry would probably give the most improvement to medical outcomes.

Tool-assisted speedrun 0% USA.

Everyone on this argument seems to be posting a rather religious position and rationalizing backwards.

Europe has vastly better dental health in every possible way, without flouridation.

It’s not working, cut the shit.

Not by a little bit, commuting here from California is like traveling between heaven and Somalia.

Chlorine absolutely makes sense.

Chlorine is our anion gap, we have so much more than you can imagine, it’s literally in salt.

Flourine is less common, saying some places have a lot is like saying arsenic is fine because chile has high concentrations. The Pampas actually is known for their wines and they have massive arsenic.

Btw, asked gpt4o this question:

Fluoridation Coverage and Socioeconomic Status

Lower Access in Disadvantaged Areas: Studies have found that areas with greater socioeconomic disadvantage often have less access to fluoridated water. This disparity is attributed to factors such as limited infrastructure, political opposition, and logistical challenges in implementing fluoridation programs in these communities .​

Variability Across Income Levels: In the United States, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) revealed that children from families with low income—but not those living in poverty—were less likely than other income groups to reside in predominantly fluoridated counties .​

So your argument is somewhat flawed, poor people tend to be less flouridated, so the people who need it get it the least.

This is the wrong way to distribute this, please stop and find a better way, MOST IMPORTANTLY A CONTROLLED WAY, and work out a precise dosage schedule while you’re at it, none of this ignorant yeehaw cowboy shit where each town rolls a dice.

Our youth now love luxury, they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders, and they love to chatter instead of exercise. Children are now tyrants not servants of their household. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.

That shit wasn’t transient either, in Scandinavia women will still stand and fuck your shit up if you mess with them.

They somehow solved civilization, it’s incredible.

So we have to choose between a 100% known bad outcome for poor people and a potential bad effect for young people from a poorly done study. I don’t think it’s too crazy of a decision to go with the option that does a significant amount of known good to the most disenfranchised part of the population, personally.

I disagree with your risk calculus. We are talking about something so 100% fundamental to human life, water. This is something we should consider absolutely sacrosanct, and a human right to all. It should be unthinkable to alter or modify it in any way imho.

I’m not trying to “Precious bodily fluids” here. , but this is one thing we all should have personal choice over.

You’re right it’s more expensive and the logistics are worse, but at the same time you could inculcate better habits in your population, and even subsidize proper mouth rinses.

If we begin to assume that the government is going to start manipulating the water supply secretly, you would then have to assume that any water that you didn’t personally purify is suspect, and at that point water fluoridation is the least of your concerns.

I agree, which is why I don’t want any tampering or adultering of water to begin with. I trust now that the levels are appropriate, but your whole argument boils down to “we’re adding stuff to water because it’s convenient”, which is true, but a lot of things are convenient.

Let’s have people take new referenda on adding them, flouride was added in the early 1900s without any political process.

I say this as someone who grew up in areas with truly horrible water quality from agricultural and industrial runoff, that was still declared “perfectly fine” by a dramatically corrupt local government. I also lived near the town where “A Civil Action” took place, and the water tasted funny there too (not terribly bad, but still weird).

I would suggest instead that advancements in dental technology and science is not pushed harder due to financial interests, as wide adoption would drastically reduce the income of dentists. It’s capitalism, basically.

See, I’m willing to go with you on your other points, but I don’t buy this at all.

Dentistry in America is ludicrously broken, but Europe has had its own way for decades, and diverged in many important ways, while having a far smaller economic incentive. My wife insisted on flying back home for all her dentistry after a catastrophic incident in the US (bad infection after unneeded root canal almost lead to sepsis). Personally I have nearly perfect teeth, or I did until recently. After the first examination I mentioned I had changed dental insurance, the dentist stepped out for a moment, came back, and suddenly I had 4 cavities that must be drilled at once. That was an eye-opening experience. My next dentist found nothing of course.

I don’t like the theory of adding compounds to water without a very, VERY compelling reason, particularly one with no alternatives. Providing free dental rinses to kids at school seems like it would solve this better, but adding it to water? If the state can add compounds to water, why not other compounds that reduce aggression? That’s actually not bad either, but can lead down a slippery slope. It’s less a concern for America, but I can imagine a communist country doing that with 0 reflection.

I’ll take up closys, I use a hydroxyapetite toothpaste that I find very powerful, alongside listerine.

There are a lot of things we could add to water that would help everyone, magnesium is at the very top of that list (as someone who grew up with rural water, city water is horrifically deficient here), but let’s just add that as a secondary supplement, it gets better scrutiny, but mostly, and here’s the real kicker:

IF WE WANT TO CHANGE THE FORMULATION, WE DON’T HAVE TO CHANGE EVERYONE’S WATER INFRASTRUCTURE!

I don’t know the woman, I’m just against improper use of science.

Most of the Flouride studies are a century old, I consider all medicine of that era to be effectively meaningless.

Let’s do some new studies and put this stupid shit to bed.

Id love studies with apatite and fluoride combined, I’d also like to see the efficacy of Flouride mouthwash and toothpaste vs in water, no reason to treat systemically if we can treat topically.

We’re practicing voodoo medicine based on tradition, let’s see if we can come up with something even better now that we’re not illiterate morons.

Hydroxyapatite is basically bone without the last calcium ion, which is calcium apatite

Hydroxyapatite is present in bones and teeth; bone is made primarily of HA crystals interspersed in a collagen matrix—65 to 70% of the mass of bone is HA. Similarly HA is 70 to 80% of the mass of dentin and enamel in teeth.

I think you may want to reconsider, it might not be used for calcium absorbtion (that’s via preferential binding and transport pathways in the gut lumen), the apatite is absorbed by the collagen matrix for the outer coating, effectively regenerating the tooth.

Flouride is a stronger, but worse version of this (strengthing apatite without the Ca++ ion), though both together could theoretically be optimal, I don’t know of any studies looking into this, and we should be wary of making such claims barring evidence.

Yes, I remember when Oppenheimer got in trouble, which resulted in all the decent doctors in the country being rounded up and executed based on lies.

As US President George Bush was preparing for his recent “We care” trip to Latin America — during which massive demonstrations of Latin Americans responded by saying “No you fucking don’t” and “Get the hell out of here” — he was briefed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

She told Bush that the previous day, three Brazilian soldiers had been killed in Iraq. To everyone’s amazement, all of the colour ran from Bush’s face. Then he collapsed onto his desk, head in hands, visibly shaken, almost whimpering.

Finally, he composed himself and asked Rice, “Just exactly how many is a brazillion?”