1. A police spokesman is quoted as:
“the similarities between this and other recent cases involving “bath salts” are striking.”
This statement is pure conjecture as no drugs have been found around the crime scene.

2. the Huffington Post (and many other tabloids) write stuff like:
“Bath Salts: The ‘Cannibal’ From Miami’s Alleged Dangerous Drug Of Choice”

notice the word “alleged”.

3. a critical thinking sceptic (who by the way makes a great podcast I really enjoy) writes
“it was almost certainly the result of the use a designer drug called bath salts.”

Now it became “almost certainly”

4. Yesterday the media is abuzz with headlines like
“Miami face-eating attack may prompt ban on bath salts”
This is so horribly misinformed as mephedrone and mdpv (the most popular substances sold as bath salts) are already emergency scheduled by the DEA since September 2011 and almost all thinkable other ingredients are covered by the analogue act already in place.

But let’s remember that still there is not the faintest evidence that drugs have something to do with the story.

We’ll probably soon hear about the “Bath Salt-Babies” born to Bath Salt abusing mothers and the Bath Salt junkies who share bath tubs and get STDs in this way….

Couldnt we just base our reaction on facts and evidence?
Or is this not possible anymore because the fluorine in the drinking water makes immune to reason?

No need to apologise.
In fact, I was quite amused by your attempt at psychoanalysis.
Of course it failed miserably.

But I was more amused by your conclusion that fluoride should not be added to municipal water based on sources that support fluoridation.
But of course you were merely providing balance!

That’s a good one.

I know you like to argue. Is that how you learn? When you see somebody who has a contrary point of view, you start an argument to see if they can convince you of their viewpoint? Is it because you can’t trust yourself to make up your own mind? When you see someone say “I’m just writing something for the benefit of anyone who might read it.” it makes you think of anti-vaxers, who you are against, so you think “hmm, maybe that will help me decide since that sounds like the anti-vaxers sound and I know I don’t like them, so I don’t like this anti-fluoride stuff either!” I’m not printing only the negatives, as you yourself pointed out. I linked to the site that says that flouride is the greatest thing since sliced bread. i linked to that to show that the recommendations that were given by the NRC are being utilized in the CDC’s move to lower the recommended fluoride level in public water, which has happened SINCE the article was printed. I did this to show that the Scientific American article was outdated. Of course the phraseology of HHS and the CDC is going to tow the line as much as possible. Do you think it would be possible for a governmental agency to say flat out that fluoride is damaging teeth, causing accidental deaths and may be harming thyroid, brain and other organs? There, now I’ve explained that to you too, so that’s another thing you don’t have to figure out for yourself. If you’d read all the materials that have been linked to, you wouldn’t have needed to engage me in further argument. The ADA paper is for the unscientific reader and promotes the association’s support of fluoridation. Did you look into the references on that paper at all? Did you find that some of the references actually contradict what the paper is saying? There are A LOT of references there. Did you read the paper? How it explains to the reader that lots of references are GOOD. And that the readers shouldn’t listen to “junk science” on the web. Real scientific, eh? Why don’t you do some research into the ADA’s financial alliances? Why don’t YOU trust a non-profit international organization of scientists and other citizens concerned about public health? Did you see that the Scientific American article is linked to on the http://www.fluoridealert.org/ site? Did you actually read the Scientific American article? I don’t think jre did. Why don’t you just read the little excerpt? Here, I’ll copy it for you: “Researchers are intensifying their scrutiny of fluoride, which is added to most public water systems in the U.S. Some recent studies suggest that overconsumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland.
A 2006 report by a committee of the National Research Council recommended that the federal government lower its current limit for fluoride in drinking water because of health risks to both children and adults.”
Did you know that the limit of 4ppm may be high enough to cause these deleterious effects?
It’s old news, and the limit has been lowered, but, whatever. Now you can read it again.
I don’t support fluoridation. I trust myself to examine all the evidence and form that opinion. If you’d like to form your own opinion, why don’t you read ALL the links that have been provided and make up your mind. Or, just do what the skeptics (?) do and follow the leader. Or, as is your wont, argue with someone like me to see if you can learn anything because you don’t want to read. Whatever man. Enjoy your fluoridated water. Salude

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention named the fluoridation of drinking water one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.

One of water fluoridation’s biggest advantages is that it benefits all residents of a community—at home, work, school, or play,” said HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH. “Today’s announcement is part of our ongoing support of appropriate fluoridation for community water systems, and its effectiveness in preventing tooth decay throughout one’s lifetime.

As always, th equestion is: “Who do you trust?”

“I’m just writing something for the benefit of anyone who might read it…”

Or so you believe.
The AVN (Australian Vaccination Network – or the Anti Vaccination Network as we have renamed it) uses the same tactic.
Print only the negatives.

So….
For the benefit of everyone who might read your links, I have supplied links to the counterargument.
That’s only fair don’t you think?

BillyJoe7, you’re just the kinda guy that write that for. Do you want to argue about fluoridation or what? Why don’t you just read all the stuff and make up your own mind? I’m just writing something for the benefit of anyone who might read it who has small children and drinks fluoridated water. This doesn’t affect me – I have a reverse osmosis filter in my home. Why is it important for you to support fluoridation? (except that food and beverages manufactured with fluoridated water also add to my intake of fluoride.) Why don’t you do some research on the studies which compare the caries rate in places that fluoridate and those that don’t? Why don’t you look at the European studies – those aren’t as affected by entrenched public policy and the interests of big money as those here in the states. Why don’t you do some additional research on the safest and most effective ways to prevent tooth decay and the safest ways to deliver water to our cities. Tell me what you find out.

From the article:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention named the fluoridation of drinking water one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.

One of water fluoridation’s biggest advantages is that it benefits all residents of a community—at home, work, school, or play,” said HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH. “Today’s announcement is part of our ongoing support of appropriate fluoridation for community water systems, and its effectiveness in preventing tooth decay throughout one’s lifetime.

Mlema: “The Scientific American article is outdated.”

That article is dated Jan 2008.

Mlema: “http://www.fluoridealert.org/absurdity.aspx”

That article is dated November 28, 2002”

Mlema: “Here’s some sciency stuff for the skeptic in all of us: http://www.fluoridealert.org/hileman-print.htm”

That article is dated August 1, 1988

BillyJoe: “Why do you accept the advice of the above references as opposed to the advice offered by the American Dental Association: http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEvents/pdfs/fluoridation_facts.pdf”

Mlema: “BillyJoe7 – that paper is garbage.”

You’ve completely convinced me. I don’t think flouride should be added to municipal water.