Okay, so I appreciate your willingness to take interest in the theory. That said, to be perfectly honest, I'm offended by your use of both the words "crackpot"

Okay, so I appreciate your willingness to take interest in the theory. That said, to be perfectly honest, I'm offended by your use of both the words "crackpot" and "schizophrenic". Essentially you're asking me to write a literature review in order not to be considered "a crackpot" or "schizophrenic". Schizophrenia and crack are both quite serious issues, so in the first place I'm annoyed that these are considered to be normal derogatory language for "rational" people to casually throw around. You're suggesting that my comment is full of "editorializing", but then you go ahead and demonstrate exactly the kind of dogmatic, biased language that charges me to write in this way to begin with. I know you probably didn't mean harm, but that is strong, derogatory language you're throwing around in the name of science. Why? If you're feeling open minded, check out the variety of articles here: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/ http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/ There are 232 pages of studies to dig through. Some day I'd love to write a full article on the subject. But I have a feeling that no matter how scientific it was, there would be a crowd so skeptical as to be blind. Maybe that's cause their pineal glands are too far calcified ;p