Fluoride for teeth is an example of how rationalizing works with no basis in evidence, measurements or background science.

There has never been real science applied to the fluoride question. As early studies showed the opposite of desired results, they were discontinued before drawing conclusions. Then propagandists proclaimed a science to exist for the subject, when it never did exist.

What the unarguable science shows is the chemistry of fluoride. Fluoride is used to etch glass. That means it dissolves hard substances, not hardens them. Fakes said there is fluoride in some hard minerals. Almost anything can be a contaminate in complex minerals, which says nothing. Geological minerals were shaped more by physical forces deep underground than by chemistry.

Teeth have soft areas near the root where growth occurs and hard areas where enamel occurs. Those materials are made of calcium compounds with the hardest being calcium phosphate. All of the atoms in those structures of teeth make two bonds, which ties them together into a hard group of atoms. But fluoride can only form one bond. That means it breaks the links. So there is no proper chemical basis for assuming fluoride would do anything but soften teeth. And sure enough, it rots the enamel of teeth—the hardest part of teeth. But that result is said to be "cosmetic." How could it be hardening the soft areas where the decay occurs, when the hard enamel is rotting, cosmetic or not?

Nonscientists would assume that sodium fluoride is not going to do what hydrofluoric acid does. Changing the hydrogen ion concentration only changes the rate of the reaction, not the end result. Sodium fluoride might take a year or two to do what hydrofluoric acid does in a few minutes; but a slower rate is not acceptable for a destructive reaction.

Then there is the quantitative fraud that says, sure a lot of fluoride will do bad things including damaging kids brains, but a small amount doesn't. A small amount will do the same thing to a smaller extent. How much damage is the right amount? And how is the right amount determined, when fluoride is in an array of products which have undetermined exposure to various persons? Rationalizing that absurdity is not how to protect health.

Now days, statistical methods are used to show the positive results of fluoride on teeth. The reason for the difference is that statistics are not valid scientific procedures. They are too arbitrary, vague and disconnected from scientific knowledge.

If two persons were growing potatoes; and one wore black shoes and the other brown shoes, one of them would get a higher yield than the other. Does that mean the color of shoes determines the yield? What determines the yield cannot be determined apart from scientific knowledge.

The use of statistics disconnects from scientific knowledge. Numbers disconnected from scientific knowledge are not a part of science.

Persons who use statistic as a substitute for valid science are not honest enough to show a real result. They just keep manipulating until the get the results they want.

That's how models are used to show the effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas; but frauds feed numbers into a computer and manipulate the process, until they get the result they want.
 
Statistics Fraud

Statistics were designed as fraud to promote fraud. The purpose is evident in the concept of "standard deviation." It replaces average deviation, which has clear meaning across studies. Standard deviation does not. The relevance of standard deviation cannot be determined without a detailed evaluation of the whole study; and then the absence of comparability with other studies removes the relevance.

If real math were used instead of statistics, the meaning would be in the method of study. But calling the math statistics is a gimmick for shifting the meaning away from the method of study and into the obscure math. Or for nonspecialists, the obfuscation of statistics erases the whole concept of evaluation.

After turning the math and methods into an invisible blur, fakery is promoted by propagandists as supposedly measured facts. Then know-nothings are used to present the propaganda fraud to the public, so there is no possibility of accountability, while endless claims are used to generate unquestionable, measured facts contrived with no relationship to reality.

With fluoride, know-nothings claim endless studies showing the wonders of fluoride, while there has never be such studies realistically conducted. An example is the claim that studies show fewer cavities for persons exposed to fluoride compared to persons who have not. No such study is possible, because there is no way to acquire such information.

Dentists do not have a record of how many cavities anyone has nor their exposure to fluoride; and generating such information is impossible. If someone used broad generalizations to acquire such information, such as persons located in a certain area and their dental expenses, the endless factors that influence the results would be invisible and would always skew results in unforeseen ways.

I can guaranty you that no one looked at the number of cavities 300 thousand persons had over ten or twenty years and determined the amount of fluoride the persons were exposed to. That's why know-nothings are used to make such claims. If a scientist made such claims, they would be expected to show us what studies were used, where, when and how; and they don't exist.

But that purpose is exactly what statistics were designed for. Supposedly, statistical methods will extract information where humans do not see it. That assumption is total fraud.

If a small and complex factor were buried in the math, it could be accountably extracted from the math. But that is not how statistical studies are used. They are used as substitutes for social effects, not invisible mathematical effects. Otherwise, simple math would be the necessary procedure.

The broad effects, usually as sociology, are buried and invisible in how operators make choices. Even if they state how they made their choices, and they never do in a suitably accountable manner, their statistics supposedly takes care of the subjective choices by extracting facts from nonsense.

Without the fake statistics, the choices would have to stand on their own to determine quality and relevance of methodology. But with statistics, the subjectivity and poor choices are supposedly taken care of in magical numbers.

The most open and obvious example of how that process works is in the claims for so-called climate change from greenhouse gases, while there is no such thing as greenhouse gases.