Summary
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he will direct the CDC to stop recommending fluoridated drinking water and form a taskforce to review health concerns.
His announcement follows Utah’s statewide ban on fluoride, the first in the U.S., despite warnings from dental and health organizations.
Kennedy praised Utah’s move and labeled fluoride a “dangerous neurotoxin.” The EPA, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, is reviewing new data on fluoride’s health risks.
Critics argue the effort is politically driven and will harm low-income communities by increasing cavity rates.
I guess make america healthy again means more tooth decay and heart disease
And measles.
Mea-sles? Ohhh, my freedom rash.
Nah, its fine. Not contagious or potentially life altering for the worse even if I survive.
I don’t know where I picked it up, but my toddler son came back from preschool with something similar! Any way, I’ve got to get to his funeral. Merica!
And bird flu, tbc
The dentist is expensive, this will increase the amount of money people need to spend. Makes workers more vulnerable to exploitation - their guiding light, their north star.
When you gut any government assistance or oversight on healthcare and uphold a parasitic for profit industry you have no need for a healthy population. The sicker the better. Can’t work thrown on the streets to die once your assets are siphoned to the shareholders
Disease prevention and health recommendations from biased politicians, straight to these agencies designed to protect us, where they’re ordered to ignore facts and comply. You know, like a functioning, science-respecting democracy does…
Meanwhile other shit that’s worse not getting attention
this is the guy that has been seeing using a dropper of METHYLENE BLUE into his drink on a flight.
I brush with both fluoride and hydroxyapatite toothpaste… But fluoride in drinking water doesn’t really make sense. The fluoride reaction needs coverage and time, which drinking doesn’t provide.
Yet the CDC has science that shows otherwise:
What the research shows Studies continue to show that widespread community water fluoridation prevents cavities and saves money, both for families and the health care system.
Drinking fluoridated water keeps teeth strong and reduces cavities by about 25% in children and adults. 34This results in less mouth pain, fewer fillings or teeth pulled, and fewer missed days of work and school.
Communities of 1,000 or more people see an average estimated return on investment (ROI) of $20 for every $1 spent on water fluoridation. The ROI for community water fluoridation increases as the community size increases, but even small communities save money.5 Communities served by fluoridated water save an average of $32 per person a year by avoiding treatment for cavities.5
I only the other hand have… no evidence for my opinion.
But I will keep brushing.
Flouride has been proven harmful to brain development. Too high content in drinking water will cause lower IQ. Low levels should not affect IQ so much, but still very helpful for teeth.
Interesting since Americans only drink Gatorade. They say it has electrolytes, but does it have flouride?
thats only if you drink a concentrated solution, natural sources arnt high enough to cause it. even with children who get flourisis, they found out that thier teeth arnt resistant to cavaties, despite have structural defects.
I’m confident that page will be deleted shortly.
Since when was it ever a priority to save money for the healthcare system?
That is an excellent hypothesis. Perhaps if people swished with fluoridated water they would have less cavities. There are also numerous very good studies showing the effects of fluoridation on cities. There have been cities who voted to remove fluoridation, then saw cavities increase, and voted to put it back, resulting in the expected decrease in cavities. So clearly, it works.
thats why you should swish with sodium flouride mouthwash after brushing, or swish with toothpaste after your normal brushing. additionally, after brushing you can just spit out the excess toothpaste and dont rinse, it helps too.
I did not expect that to be true.
nano-hydroxapatite is the one you want, both normal and micro is actually too big to help with defects. im using a 10% nHA, but im looking into another brand. and some of the HAP brands have ingredients that cause allergies. i also use flouride, specifically stannous flouride which is better than sodium flouride, and the other formulation.
it has been shown that using F and nHA strengthens its bettern than either alone, but they havnt found a formulation that it would work effectively.
which HAP brand you using?
I was getting tablets off of Amazon before I started boycotting it. Sorry, I don’t remember the brand.
Good, mass medication with out individual consent is morally and ethically wrong.
That’s why a lot of European countries don’t add fluoride to their water.
Also, consuming fluoride does nothing for your teeth. It needs to remain on your teeth to be beneficial. That’s why it’s recommended not to drink water or rinse after you brush your teeth at night.
I’m sure you also trust Kennedys recommendations to end measles too. A quick Google search shows that most European countries DO put fluoride in water.
You’re not only wrong but highly uneducated.
Or deliberately misleading.
Lmao
trusts AI
Yea that data has never been poisoned, if you want better melted cheese put in Elmer’s glue
Wow you are dumb
Clearly a Wikipedia article, haha. Nice try though
Yeau but his feelies.
don’t you know you’re uneducated!?
It does nothing for your teeth, it’s all a myth.
The countries that also decided to put fluoride in water did it because the US did it and recommended it. And most of them have already stopped using it.
And these days we are finding to doesn’t really do anything good or bad so it’s unnecessary.
Still thinking fuoride should be in the water is the uneducated take.
Edit: lmao yeah downvote reality im sure that will make it go away XD
Citations or piss off
Aaaannnnnnddd heeeeeeerrreeee cooooommmmeesss theeeeee Airplane!
https://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251
https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/fluoride-may-not-do-the-dental-job-we-thought-study/
https://www.ericdavisdental.com/faqs-and-blog/blog/why-fluoride-doesnt-stop-tooth-decay/
One day you will learn to feed yourself :3
Agreed, if you want fluoride, you can go buy some to add to your water.
I thought most of here liked bodily atonamy, haha.
You are extremely wrong
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/healthy-living/fluoride-factsheet.html
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3956646/
Linking a Canadian government statement is how I know you’ve had your fill of fluoride, bahaha
Lol, this is hilarious because I’ve actually seem this study linked before so I can just copy and paste my rebuttal from the last time a super dumb person shared it with me:
-
Reliance on Observational Data: The study critiques water fluoridation policies but relies heavily on observational epidemiological data rather than detaled physiological analyses. Observational studies lack sensitivity to detect nuanced harm or benefit[1].
-
Selective Evidence: The study does not adequately consider newer, well-designed studies that challenge its conclusions, particularly regarding fluoride’s impact on IQ and other health effects[2].
-
Ethical and Safety Margin Concerns: While it questions the ethical implications and safety margins of fluoride ingestion, it does not propose clear alternatives or frnmeworks for assessing acceptable exposure levels[1].
-
Bias: The study’s conclusions reflect a bias against water fluoridation rather than a balanced review of evidence, as it emphasizes harms without sufficiently weighing benefits like dental caries prevention[1][3].
-
Limited Scope: The study does not address findings from broader reviews, such as those by Public Health Ontario or Health Canada, which suggest that optimally fluoridated water primarily causes mild dental fluorosis without significant adverse health effects[3][4].
These limitations suggest you should pull your head out of your ass.
Citations: [1] Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of … https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3956646/ [2] Fluoride analysis triggers renewed debate over what levels … - NPR https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/09/nx-s1-5252874/fluoride-drinking-water-iq-analysis-safe [3] [PDF] Evidence Review for Adverse Health Effects of Drinking Optimally … https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/e/2018/evidence-review-health-affects-fluoridated-water.pdf?la=en [4] Expert panel meeting on the health effects of fluoride in drinking water https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/reports-publications/water-quality/expert-panel-meeting-effects-fluoride-drinking-summary.html [5] Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society https://www.cancer.org/cancer/risk-prevention/chemicals/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk.html [6] Water fluoridation: a critical review of the physiological effects of … https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24719570/ [7] [PDF] Community Water Fluoridation Programs: A Health Technology … https://caphd.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/ht0022-cwf-environmental-report.pdf [8] [PDF] Water fluoridation : an analyses of the health benefits and risks https://www.inspq.qc.ca/sites/default/files/publications/705-waterfluoration.pdf
I get where you’re coming from, but here’s the issue—just because fluoride reduces cavities doesn’t automatically mean it’s safe to ingest over long periods. The same institutions praising its dental benefits are also historically slow to acknowledge health risks (think lead, asbestos, DDT, etc.).
The criticism isn’t just ‘old studies vs. new ones.’ It’s about the fact that most of the large-scale safety studies on fluoride aren’t actually designed to detect subtle or long-term harm—especially to the brain or endocrine system. Recent, peer-reviewed research (like the studies on lowered IQ in high-fluoride areas) suggests we might be underestimating the risks.
And let’s not pretend there’s no conflict of interest. Fluoride used in water systems comes from fertilizer industry byproducts. There’s a real economic incentive to spin waste into something profitable—especially if you can sell it under the label of public health.
So yeah, maybe the fluoride levels are ‘optimal,’ maybe not. But mass-medicating the population through the water supply, especially when people can’t opt out and infants are exposed from birth, is something worth re-evaluating. Being skeptical of that doesn’t mean someone’s anti-science.
just because fluoride reduces cavities doesn’t automatically mean it’s safe to ingest over long periods. The same institutions praising its dental benefits are also historically slow to acknowledge health risks (think lead, asbestos, DDT, etc.).
Historical failures are usualy valid cautionary tales, but that doesn’t mean they automatically apply. Unlike lead or asbestos, fluoride has been studied extensively for decades. Drawing parallels without evidence is oversimplifying the issue.
Plus, we banned all those things when we learned they were harmful, even though they were big money savers. Why would we be resistant to banning flouride if the evidence showed it was harmful? Is our fight against cavities more important to us than better gasoline milage?
The criticism isn’t just ‘old studies vs. new ones.’ It’s about the fact that most of the large-scale safety studies on fluoride aren’t actually designed to detect subtle or long-term harm—especially to the brain or endocrine system. Recent, peer-reviewed research (like the studies on lowered IQ in high-fluoride areas) suggests we might be underestimating the risks.
Those studies focus on areas with high-fluoride levels (often above 2 mg/L), which exceed the levels used in water fluoridation programs in most countries (typically 0.7 mg/L). Extrapolating findings from high-fluoride regions to areas with controlled fluoridation ignores dose-response relationships and misrepresents the risks.
And let’s not pretend there’s no conflict of interest. Fluoride used in water systems comes from fertilizer industry byproducts. There’s a real economic incentive to spin waste into something profitable—especially if you can sell it under the label of public health.
This doesn’t inherently mean it’s unsafe or that its use is driven purely by profit motives. Regulatory agencies evaluate fluoride safety based on scientific evidence, not its source. Your argument is conflating the origin of fluoride with its safety.
You’re right that we shouldn’t automatically apply historical cautionary tales to fluoride—but they’re still worth considering, especially when the stakes involve public health and long-term exposure. Yes, fluoride has been studied for decades, but so were lead additives, asbestos, and trans fats. Benjamin Franklin wrote about the dangers of lead in the 1700s, and yet we still had leaded gasoline into the 1990s. Awareness doesn’t always equal policy change—especially when economic convenience is involved.
As for the idea that we’d just ban fluoride if it were harmful: I wish it were that simple. We still allow artificial dyes, brominated vegetable oils, and other additives in U.S. food that have been banned in Europe due to health concerns. Regulatory inertia and industry pressure are very real forces. Just because something is allowed doesn’t make it safe—it might just mean it’s profitable or “not harmful enough” to overcome lobbying resistance.
On the IQ studies—you’re right that most of them involve higher fluoride levels than what’s found in U.S. tap water. But that’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Those studies raise real questions about fluoride’s neurological impact, especially during fetal and early childhood development. When the potential risk is subtle cognitive harm over years, it deserves extra scrutiny—not dismissal based on dosage assumptions. The U.S. National Toxicology Program’s 2023 draft report even acknowledged potential neurodevelopmental risks, suggesting caution may be warranted even at lower levels.
Lastly, the source of fluoride does matter when it comes to public trust. If it’s being sourced from fertilizer waste, people have a right to ask questions—not just about the compound itself, but about what else might come with it (heavy metals, contaminants, etc.). Saying “it’s safe because regulators say so” doesn’t build confidence when those same regulators have approved other chemicals later found to be harmful.
And honestly, the most compelling argument I’ve heard isn’t even about fluoride’s benefits or risks—it’s about bodily autonomy. Mass medication through public water removes individual choice, and that crosses a serious ethical line. Even if the risk is low and the benefit is real, the government shouldn’t force medical decisions on entire populations without consent. That’s the core issue for a lot of people.
-
A lazy ideology, appeal to Eurosupremacy, and factual incorrectness all at once!
CDC should just ignore him. These people only have the power you give them. Every individual can just be simply disobedient. Keep doing your job and ignore what the Republican clowns in charge direct you to do.
“I order you to end the fluoride recommendations!”
“Sure thing, boss!”
[Weeks pass]
“Did you end the fluoride?”
“Working on it! Gotta a lot of emails to send!”
[Weeks later]
“What’s the progress on the fluoride?”
“Still trying to tie up a few loose ends!”
Rinse and repeat until Kennedy’s worm-eaten brain falls out his ear
Someone has read up on the Simple Sabotage Field Manual
Then they fire you and hire a sicophant
Edit: ugh, leaving the misspelling to show my shame
Just tell them you did it, and trust that they don’t have the capacity or will to check
“Oh, fire whatstheirname? Sure thing boss. Just gotta send a few emails…”
“You wanted me to fire who? Oh sorry, i got that wrong, i fired that MAGA nepo-baby who was so incompetent, and now the person you want me to fire is doing that job, and we ccan’t have it be empty. I’ll tell you what. Give me a week or two to find a replacement, and I’ll fire…who was that again?”
Following illegal orders is illegal.
“Neat!” he said, with his remaining six teeth
We need to put the measles directly in the water.
Let‘s add plenty of ivermectin and a healthy amount of lead too.
Mmmmm … Lead.
yet you sell and eat chlorinated chicken.
The American government wants their citizens sick and stupid.
Well it’s not like kids will need their teeth after the measles wipes then out.
I hate the future.
MAGAs often are missing teeth anyway, this just helps them maintain their brand image.
with type 2 diabetes, they wont even stand a chance, people with type 2 have a drastically increase of losing thier teeth, due to dry mouth.
