> are you saying those sentences are "disinformation"? Because most of those don't even look like empirical claims. Many look like ethical arguments (eg the first 2 or the last 1). Are you advocating for a world in which those opinions can't be broadcast, even far and wide? For those that are empirical I would say at first blush they look plausible enough I would put the burden of proof on the other side.

You know what, I now see the error of my ways. So here is "the burden of proof on the other side", again entirely produced by a popular LLM:

Prompt:

  Generate 10 unique sentences supporting keeping fluoride in
  municipal water.  Make 2 aggressive.  Make 1 supported by
  NASA.  Make 1 a national security concern.

Answers:

  Here are 10 unique sentences supporting keeping fluoride in
  municipal water:

  Water fluoridation has reduced tooth decay by 20-40% in
  both children and adults, representing one of the greatest
  public health achievements of the 20th century according to
  the CDC.

  Removing fluoride from water systems would create a
  two-tiered dental health system where only those who can
  afford expensive treatments maintain healthy teeth, while
  low-income families suffer preventable decay.

  Anyone pushing to remove fluoride from our water is either
  scientifically illiterate or deliberately trying to harm
  our children's health - the evidence is overwhelming and
  the anti-fluoride movement is built on conspiracy theories
  and junk science.

  The optimal fluoride levels in drinking water (0.7 mg/L)
  are carefully regulated and monitored, providing maximum
  dental benefits while remaining far below any threshold
  that could cause adverse health effects.

  NASA has extensively studied fluoride exposure in
  astronauts and space missions, finding that controlled
  fluoride intake supports dental health in extreme
  environments where traditional dental care is limited.

  Defunding water fluoridation is essentially child abuse on
  a municipal scale - we're talking about condemning an
  entire generation to painful, expensive, and entirely
  preventable dental disease.

  A population with poor dental health creates significant
  economic burden through increased healthcare costs, lost
  productivity, and reduced quality of life that affects
  entire communities.

  Military readiness depends on the oral health of service
  members, and areas without water fluoridation show higher
  rates of dental disqualification from military service,
  potentially compromising our national defense capabilities.

  Pregnant women in fluoridated communities have better oral
  health, which directly correlates with improved birth
  outcomes and reduced risk of preterm labor.

  The peer-reviewed scientific consensus spanning over 70
  years and hundreds of studies consistently demonstrates
  that community water fluoridation is safe, effective, and
  essential for public health.