General Ripper is thrilled at Chevron being overturned.
Ripper: Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure-grain alcohol?
Mandrake: Well, it did occur to me, Jack, yes.
Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water?
Mandrake: Uh? Yes, I-I have heard of that, Jack, yes. Yes.
Ripper: Well, do you know what it is?
Mandrake: No, no I don't know what it is, no.
Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?
I don't have super strong feelings on fluoridation one way or the other. Mostly because I'm not a doctor, dentist, or scientist, so my opinion on the matter shouldn't carry much weight. My main issue is that I suspect the judge and plaintiff's reasoning about this issue are roughly on par with that of Gen Ripper.
Fluoridation or not is almost certainly not a huge impact (given that there's no obvious large scale harm and we've run a very large natural experiment). I'm worried that this is a preview for more meaningful health and science issues where unserious concerns might draw a sympathetic judge and harm public policy.
If you ask N doctors you'll get N answers about all sorts of things. The received wisdom can be wrong. You have to at least demand that the science to back up <fill in the blank invasive public policy> is solid, and you should at least do a cursory check that it is.
The conversation does not need my opinion derived from surveying various Youtube channels for dissenting opinions. It, and most conversations surrounding complex technical scientific matters, does need our default position to be humble about what we actually bring to the table.