Debunking Anti Documents and Videos
You might have read a powerpoint or seen a video claiming that Fluoridation of water is not in our best interest. We take this time to debunk these videos and documents!
In a recent anti fluoridation article in the Lund Report, Rick North expresses numerous misconceptions, misrepresentations, and errors. As is always the case, it takes far more time and space to properly address such misrepresentations, than it does to express them in the first place.
The questions on this page are a list presented to the Public Health County Director, Tennessee Department of Health, in 2009. The questions are heavily biased toward the contentions of fluoride opponents, and based on false assumptions, including, but not limited to:
Michael Connett is an attorney, not a healthcare provider or expert. He frames the fluoridation issue around the premise that fluoridation is the process of adding a substance to water supplies in order to prevent dental disease. It is not. Fluoridation is based upon the observation that at a certain concentration level of a mineral which has been in water forever, the teeth of those ingesting that water are more resistant to dental decay. Fluoridation simply adjusts the level of this existing mineral in water supplies to that level, such that we will receive that benefit, while strictly maintaining that concentration level well below the threshold of adverse effects.
The video “Our Daily Dose” is a piece of antifluoridationist dogma which brazenly exploits children and emotions felt for children, all throughout. It is rife with the same type of unsubstantiated claims, misinformation, and outright fabrications which are characteristic of antifluoridationists and their groups.
Found another anti-publication?
We’d love to see it so we can properly debunk it and add it to this collection!