By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. acknowledged that removing fluoride from water supplies could lead to a rise in cavities across the United States. This statement was made during a Fox News appearance where he discussed the “Make Oklahoma Healthy Again” campaign. Kennedy responded to concerns about the potential impact on dental health, especially for lower-income children who may not have access to preventative care. The admission drew criticism and mockery on social media, with many users pointing out the negative consequences of such a decision. The American Dental Association has since reiterated its support for fluoridation, emphasizing the negative effects of removing fluoride on public health and the economy.
Read the original article here
RFK Jr. Admits Removing Fluoride From Drinking Water Will ‘Probably’ Lead to More Cavities in Children. Well, that’s a loaded statement, isn’t it? It’s hard to miss the inherent contradiction: acknowledge the likely negative impact, yet still pursue the policy. The idea that removing fluoride will increase the number of cavities in children seems almost self-evident to the medical and scientific community. The fact that he seems to be downplaying it, or even worse, proceeding with this knowledge, is concerning.
The increase in cavities means more trips to the dentist, which means more procedures, and, as the article indicates, more children requiring anesthesia. This leads to a whole cascade of implications. It’s not just about a simple filling; it can represent a significant financial burden for families, not to mention the potential for stress and anxiety for children. It raises the question of priorities: Why would anyone willingly risk children’s dental health, knowing the consequences?
The emphasis on the “probably” in the statement is particularly telling. It’s a weak acknowledgment, a hesitant admission of the potential harms. It’s the kind of phrasing that suggests a lack of true conviction or understanding of the issue. It’s like saying, “I know this might cause problems, but I’m going to do it anyway.” This type of approach doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
One can’t help but wonder about the reasoning behind this stance. There are so many possible motivations, but what it boils down to is the fact that they are intentionally harming children. It’s tough to comprehend the choices that lead to this kind of decision-making. Are they doing this for the money the dental industry will make? Does this align with some other agenda? Or is it simply an expression of a broader distrust of science? Whatever the underlying cause, the consequences will be clear.
This whole fluoride debate underscores how deeply polarized our society has become. It’s easy to see the science, but it’s equally easy to see the politics that is also at play. But the core question remains: who suffers from the dental issues? The children.
The comments make the point that this decision could have lasting consequences. It’s not like you can easily undo the damage. The critical window for fluoride’s benefits is during childhood, as adult teeth are developing. Once that window closes, it’s too late. It’s like closing the barn door after the horses have bolted. This adds another layer of complexity to the situation. It highlights the long-term impact of these kinds of policies.
It is very sad to hear that dentistry is not covered by health insurance. The need for good dental health is critical for overall health. Bad dental health can really mess up your general health for life. But the reality is that many people can’t afford proper dental care, which means they might not even be able to take advantage of fluoride treatments that can protect them from cavities.
The sheer absurdity of this situation is mind-boggling. It feels as though people are intentionally putting children at risk and putting personal opinions above the needs of the very people they are supposed to be representing.
The science behind fluoride is pretty straightforward. It strengthens tooth enamel, making teeth more resistant to decay. It is a pretty standard practice, and yet, we see resistance to it. The majority of dentists recommend fluoride for a reason. They understand its benefits.
Ultimately, it comes down to a fundamental question of values. Do we prioritize the well-being of children, or do we give more weight to other factors? This whole situation is so disappointing. It brings up a lot of issues.