We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
it's been controversial from the beginning you know epidemiologists endocrinologists neuroscientists have always challenged it saying this is a bad idea it's a highly reactive element you know the fluoride ion um Can interfere with iodine um uptake and again skeletal fosis neurotoxicity Etc
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
it's a highly reactive element you know the fluoride ion um Can interfere with iodine um uptake and again skeletal fosis neurotoxicity Etc