I fear for my opponent, I fear for him in the sense that I believe he has made a classic
mistake in just his opening statement of this
The classic mistake being he seems to have based his entire argument thus far on what is very questionable "evidence" provided from a source which
can only be described as "a sea of disinformation". Reading his points put forth, he also seems to have attempted to focus primarily on providing
for us these "sources" of his and seemingly not much else at all.
He even seems to agree with me here in my view of this "disinformation battle" which is all so clearly waging concerning his sources:
It has become increasingly apparent as I struggle to find good documentation on either side of the debate.
Then he goes onto say this..
I have a lot more information to quote and link but it will have to wait for a later response
An unusual tactic of firstly admitting there is no good, reliable documentation, and then deciding to further expand on this in his pending posts.
Intriguing to say the least, especially as the sources highlighted so far are also clearly questionable in nature. (Source number 1 can't even be
found - a blank page is shown!)
His second source itself
highlights at points that much information has been left out due to not a high standard of evidence.
Now, please don't get me wrong here, these supposed sources or pieces of "evidence" being put forth simply can't be dismissed, that would be
foolish, but the unreliability of them as a whole is the sole reason for me in my opening of this debate deciding to discuss at the very least,
areas of this topic. Not simply focusing on one aspect, one which I know to be unreliable - unreliable in the sense that MOST
of what is out there is dis/mis information.
That being so, let's actually take a real look at some of the facts & figures, especially
seeing as my opponent is showing such a high level
of confidence in his position and so as to ensure all areas of this debate are adequately looked at and discussed in detail. But, unlike my opponent,
let's take a look at something which we can be be sure on in terms of reliability.
Before continuing though, allow me tome make one small point...
(From my opponent)
You will find however that while I like to entertain certain theories, I do so from a fact based and scientific based approach. In an attempt
to satisfy a need to have government supported sources, I will go straight to the website of the CDC to prove my point.
A good idea no doubt, and as you felt the need to go to the CDC to prove your point, I believe I shall also do the same:
The widespread availability of fluoride through water fluoridation, toothpaste, and other sources, however, has resulted in the steady decline of
dental caries throughout the United States.
Even today, with other available sources of fluoride, studies show that water fluoridation reduces
tooth decay by about 25 percent over a person’s lifetime.
- See my
opponents reply to my first Socratic question
This is straight from the source my opponent highlighted. Although in fairness he does go onto question the CDC itself and what I have quoted above
can't be considered conclusive evidence on anything, admittedly. But as I shall go on to prove. A concession from him this certainly does seem as his
doubts are based on his belief in the lack of evidence provided - something which is untrue.
Let's cut out the myths and start reaching some facts
Now, in my previous post I had shown a couple of points that I felt were key to this debate, such as the history of fluoride for example - as well as
the importance of physiology and psychology. I plan to discuss this much further in this debate, particularly the latter. For now though, I want to
focus on what I feel is another key area but one which wasn't mentioned much in my opening.
It's of course the discussion of sources as well as the 'disinformation battle' waging between those whom believe fluoride to be a dangerous tool
of TPTB - and those whom believe It to be a tool at helping others. This "battle" replicated in the form of a one-on-one debate between myself and
So, in order to ensure I don't fall into a trap that I believe my opponent has fallen into, I will pick my sources very carefully indeed and I shall
go straight to those whom are guaranteed to understand the nature of the discussion at hand.
Please read the wealth of information provided by this fantastic source highlighting, from the official ADA website itself
, many sources of
important information which anyone whom would be wishing to understand the true natures
of water fluoridation should certainly browse through.
Please note that these are not ADA websites, ADA does not endorse any of these websites, nor are they affiliated with them nor are they controlling
what is wrote there (which is why I felt the need to link to it more so than anything else) but I feel they are vital pieces of information here, ones
which mustn't be forgotten or dismissed because of dis(mis)-information.
Fluoridation - The facts. [PDF] 
Q. 17 & 18 are of particular importance in the above source as they also explain in a factual manner my side of this argument and they rightly so
ignore the many myths involved. It's also fdiscussing the affects Fluoride has on humans.
(Please at this time refer to my opponents skepticism concerning the CDC particularly when looking at Q.18 from the above source.)
My opponents sources are from a york and Australian paper, mine are from the WHO & the ADA. I rest my case on the matter in this post.
"Water Fluoridation is psychological harmful" Something my opponent will undoubtedly attempt to prove here but something I undoubtedly deny, again,
basing my argument here on what is reliable and full of information sources - ones coming from those whom are in positions to be considered reliable.
My opponent agrees he does trust these organizations but only to a certain degree (refer to the reply to Q.4 of my questions). Is it the conspiracy
theorist in him perhaps which is causing some doubt? Well, he continues on to state this:
I simply do not trust politicians and anyone that is in intricately involved in politics
An interesting thing to say no doubt. It also makes me question whether It is this adherent distrust of those whom may be in a position of authority
which is causing his questioning of those in other positions of authority also, namely those in said positions regarding our debate topic I must
He goes onto claim I made an error and attempts to steer the debate away from the information I provided also, so please allow me time to clarify:
Here is what I wrote:
But the simple facts are most people support It rather than are fearful of It, not forgetting such organizations like the WHO or even
the ADA. These organizations, as mere examples, proved that Water fluoridation is a necessity, It's safe and that's why we have it.
Note the bolded text in particular.
Note the title of where the quoted text above had come from: "The Psychology Factor." I.e. The discussion lay on psychology - not facts and
And finally for arguments sake, Note that I have gone on to prove in this post how they have shown fluoridation to be safe and effective.
So, I say to him once more, many people agree with it (as I have shown), those whom It is coming from also strongly agree with it (as I have shown)
and have proven time and time again that it is safe (As I have shown) but still It's a topic up for debate, and I ask why? Why is this?
Well, I go back to my previous point - the disinformation battle one which is ever waging and that is why, IMO, this is still a topic for discussion
here. You see, as my opponent has shown, there is a certain level of mistrust to those whom may have positions of power.
ATS for example - constantly accused as being a disinformation tool for TPTB yet no evidence to support such a claim. But the claims by many are so
constant and ever apparent still. And It's the same with Water Fluoridation. It's but a tool which helps those whom need help (history shows this
and modern day documentation also shows this), but if one wants to search for this truth, It's difficult to find. Reason being, Dis & Mis-information
is a foot.
That's why I fear for my opponent as he has almost certainly fallen into the classic trap. He has seemingly searched and found sources which back up
his claim. But sources which are in question - and there are a lot of them to find.
Take a look at the below image from "sources" (A term used loosely) such as infowars for example - a clear attempt to show the water supply as toxic
and a clear attempt to sway your way of thinking using wild claims.
A lack of information is feeding grounds for speculation. Therefore we MUST go to the source and we MUST ensure that we ignore the speculation which
is tossed around and presented as "facts" so oftenly.
Do you agree that there is a high degree of disinformation concerning this topic?
Can you show documents proving psychologically human physiology is being changed due to Fluoridation?
Yes I have. Please read this post.
If 'something' Is set out to affect us in anyway, more "in-depth" studies should always
be considered. Common sense really..
I'm very sorry but I'm actually unsure if my particular region is fluoridated.
For the benefit of the debate though, yes, I do believe It to be safe (If It Is there) and our best interests are being looked out for in this
I look forward to your reply..