The hypothesis:




I test the hypothesis:


My question to Alberta Health Services, 6 October 2021


Like some people, water has no teeth.

Caries is mainly a disease of childhood. Why don't health experts call it "child fluoridation"?


So why is it called "water fluoridation" and not "people fluoridation"? Accident or design?


It takes 200 litres of water to make one kilogram of plastic - much plastic ends up in toys, and presumably some of the fluoride with it.


Yet we never hear anything about the benefits of "plastic fluoridation" or toy fluoridation? Why not?


In some cases you could avoid drawing unwelcome attention to the fluoridation of components of fluoridated things by combining the things that are fluoridated into a single item, e.g. "sandwich fluoridation".



Some folks put sugar in their tea. But we do not say unsweetened tea is sugar-deficient just because the overriding motive of selling sugar is more important than those who don't want sugar in their tea. Plastic and sandwiches don't have any teeth.


A cheap advertising trick assures you there's no need to look at tooth counting, irrelevant non-tooth components like brains or kidneys following other-person's-baby-fluoridation. Nooooooooo!



Some people eat tomato-deficient sandwiches - they just don't want tomatoes. But this is no joke for tomato growers and I expect it is the same for Idaho, which in 1990 liberated enough fluoride to fluoridate all Idaho's residents ~132,964 times.


Surely drawing attention to water - which people know turns up in all sorts of places - is likely to make Juliet Guichon's catholic Figueiredo-family-fluoridation look ridiculous? I mention religion because it often appeals to people who seek simplistic answers to fit their stupid cant.


Finally what would you call all the fluoride in water that ends up doing nothing more exciting than going down the toilet? I guess you could honestly call that water fluoridation!        





Repetitive misdirection has a long and illustrious history. Doesn't repeating "fluoride in the water" merely drag the medical profession down into the stinking mire occupied by Brexiteers going on about British sovereignty, or Blair banging on about Saddam's WMDs?




Doesn't misdirection of an - even now - gullible public by repetition of "water fluoridation" ad nauseam suggest that it is as good as those arguments were?

Isn't the main benefit of this advertising technique - that both sides end up repeating it back and forth to each other - just to help you deny putting fluoride in plastic, sandwiches, feti, hockey ice etc.?

Would you agree on the psychological benefits of this repetitive misdirection?

* it points the viewer towards a "technical adjustment" of water, outside of, and not part of, you

** this says - wrongly - that no biological boundary is crossed or privacy violated


*** importantly, it is less discomforting for people-fluoridators to pretend they are just "fixing the water".



Sorry this is quite long but it was necessary to unpick your brainwash.


The article above conflates fluoride and water eight times. People are fluoridated zero times, giving the article a #fluorothink score of 8. The scientific target is 0 or less.



The Q and A at 1700 MDT 6 Oct 2021 added a further 19 points. With none deducted for fluoridated anything else this gives a total #fluorothink page score of 27.

Accident or design?


As for conspiracy theories and the "type" of people you say disagree with being fluoridated - instead of the water and the areas, and the communities - presumably in this Stalinist scheme the questions you can't answer just...disappear?

So you wouldn't publish anything which linked to things you disagree with.




And so nobody will find out that it was a controlled discussion.

The overall question is, why are you using the English language to deceive people into taking being fluoridated for granted?