"People are usually taken aback, but as a rule never attempt to refute my assertions beyond
"but it's good for your teeth!". The scientific literature is unambiguous; it is only public
distortion that leads to the spurious perception that there is some sort of 'controversy' and that
both 'sides' are in some way legitimate. Fluoride use is supported by polluters (uranium
enrichment; aluminum refinement; phosphate fertilizers; glass production; etc), dentists (who
were taught to rely on it for treating their patients), and bureaucrats (who actually believe
they're doing good, or else don't care). The 'pro-fluoride' arguments are mechanical in nature,
and as a rule disregard or attempt to trivialize its toxicity. In fact, it is invariably toxic and has
no health benefits, dental or otherwise. It makes teeth and bones brittle and prone to
discoloration, and significantly impairs the activity of the thyroid and pineal glands.
Many chemicals that are widely used in industry and residential settings are significantly toxic.
In general, the more vocal the attempts to discredit a given claim of toxicity in the eyes of
laypeople, the more unequivocal the scientific evidence for that particular toxicity. Fluoride,
aspartame, aluminum, mercury, PUFA, gluten... The purveyors of toxic substances are always
successful at drowning out the criticism of those who would expose their rackets - if they were
not, we would not still be using their products."