That Swedish study was probably the best study that I could find that looked at fairly close locations geographically, similar demographics, similar visits, similar access to care, and similar diets.

You had one area with very low fluoride levels and you had one area with recommended levels. Their outcome measure was cavities. And the result was a 20% difference.

I am skeptical of the grand benefit of fluoride because of data like this and because of worldwide data. 95% of the world does not put fluoride in their water. The top countries in the world in terms of dental care do not put fluoride in their water. Seems to me that they achieve these numbers through improved public education, brushing with fluoride, and access to care.

Like my analogy above, you cannot outrun a bad diet. I also don’t think you can out fluoride bad habits. If someone has bad dental habits, they’re going to have issues whether they have fluoride or not. They might see a 20% reduction in some of that decay and damage. If you take good care of your teeth, you’re going to see very little benefit from fluoride.

So do we pay tax dollars for that reduction and how do we quantify it? If you have better data, that is of the quality of the Swedish study that I referenced, I would love to see it. Can you show me something where there are dramatic outcomes that are different in a fluoridated area versus a non-fluoridated area that are very similar populations? I always have an open mind with these things.