I'm not going to put myself in danger to avoid it. But when the evidence is marginal, social factors are something I'll take into account.

Even if there is indeed a problem with fluoridated water, it only shows up in a small effect that requires a large sample to see. The conspiracy theorists were guessing, even if they guessed right. And they ignored the data that had been gathered.

Science changes its mind, but conspiracy theorists never do. They accumulate, and it looks to me as if we're about to drown in them.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/fluoridation...

Of course, the EPA would never live it down if the anti-fluoridation people actually had something to their claims.

What's stopping them from coming back with the same or higher acceptable levels of that's where the evidence leads?

(It’s also not a ruling “against” the EPA. It’s entirely consistent with the statute, and the EPA will presumably act in accordance with it and produce yet another study demonstrating marginal-to-zero harm associated with fluoridation below 1.5mg/L.)

Maybe you have a set of experiences where you've successfully debunked conspiracy theories and converted previous believers?

Otherwise I'm not sure how you can make such a wild claim.

You've decided to weigh social factors over evidence because you believe the other side isn't behaving rationally.