DEFINITION: Splitting behavior is a cognitive distortion— irrational, exaggerated or biased thought patterns that cause a person to perceive reality inaccurately. In order to protect a false image of themselves as “right” or “good,” the splitter perceives other people and situations in black-and-white terms—either entirely good or entirely bad, with no recognition of the nuances or the "shades of gray" that exist in reality. Virtue signalers often split, although they may just be lazily accepting the position that is consistent with their uninformed opinion.
It is very difficult for a person with a healthy personality or anyone capable of critical-thinking to to come to terms with the splitting behavior of people with Cluster B Personality disorders: Borderline, Narcissistic, Antisocial (psychopath-sociopath), and Histrionic.
Despite common assumptions, these people can seem quite personable, often charismatic, and be successful as well as credentialed. This is what makes them so very dangerous. If you are a normal person, you think you can simply have a dialogue with them about facts. You can’t. It is as if they are blind and deaf to anything that contradicts their position. Consequently, believing what they say is believing a lie.
Splitters will rewrite history, even their own, confabulate, and twist facts to make themselves appear to be the opposite of what they are in order to win their case while demonizing their opponents.
This was never so obvious as when Dr. Bruce Lanphear MD, PhD1 asked the audience of mostly pro-fluoride dentists and pediatricians at the Reagan-Udall hearing on pediatric fluoride supplements if any of them believed consuming any amount of lead was safe for children. Rather than admit that lead poisoning was real and that lead was dangerous to developing brains in any amount, the audience refused to acknowledge that anything said by Dr. Lanphear was true.2
American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) pediatrician Dr. Charlotte Lewis aggressively promoted pediatric supplements at this FDA meeting. She had previously testified under oath that she would consider a loss of 5 IQ points for 10% of children to be an “acceptable trade-off” for an assumed dental benefit of reduced cavities3, as well as wrote in 2015 that pediatric supplements were not a good idea and should be avoided. Attorney Michael Connett called her out on her duplicity.
Other pro-fluoride presenters misrepresented studies and reports as well as slandered their opponents. Some did it more artfully than others which, to my mind, suggests the possibility of craven dishonesty playing a role in their charade.
The written comments (over 5500) submitted before the meeting also are indicative of political lobbying efforts. Nine out of ten are from dentists and dental students. Many are almost word for word identical, and many commenters seem to think they are defending water fluoridation or topical fluoride use, not pediatric supplements. Essentially none provided references substantiating their opinion. In other words, it is obvious that dental groups sent mass emailings went to their lists which called on their membership to defend any and all fluoride use by submitting a comment.
Why the over-the-top defense? Because in-office fluoride treatments contribute hundreds of thousand of dollars to the dental practice bottom-line. Repairing stained and brittle teeth damaged by fluoride is also a huge money-maker.
That the science is unequivocal that fluoride exposure in America is damaging brains beginning in utero as well as damaging thyroids, kidneys, guts, immunity, and bones do not matter to these folks. They are incapable of seeing anything that does not support their position, so they split.
I recommend listening to:
Reagan-Udall FDA meeting
LINDA BIRNBAUM: 53:50
GRIFFIN COLE: 1:58
KYLA TAYLOR: 2:28
CHRISTINE TILL: 2:37
KATHLEEN THIESSEN: 2:47
Reactor panel w/BRUCE LANPHEAR & CHARLOTTE LEWIS: 2:58
Reagan-Udall Public Comments
AUDREY ADAMS (parent): 18
MICHAEL CONNETT (attorney): 21:35
By the way, in the spirit of Harlan Ellison who famously said, “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant,” allow me address two ignorant comments that were pushed:
Teeth with dental fluorosis are not more imperious to decay, although that was an assumption in 1940— a faulty one. A harder enamel shell may hide cavities known as fluoride bombs.4
It was the limited science presented by the fluoride lobby that was flawed and was “cherry picked” as well as being misrepresented, while the science presented by those opposed to systemic exposure was robust, high quality, and significant.
Dance with the Devil: Love in the Age of Covid by Maggie Russo, Atmosphere Press. Feb. 27, 2022.
Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, a physician and epidemiologist at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, has studied the neurotoxicity of lead, fluoride and other toxic chemicals for over twenty years. His studies were the key ones that led the CDC and the WHO to conclude that there is no safe level of lead in children’s blood. He recently testified as an expert witness in an ongoing U.S. trial against the EPA re fluoride. Read his deposition.
Reagan-Udall FDA meeting on July 23, 2025 including slide decks and transcript: https://reaganudall.org/news-and-events/events/use-orally-ingestible-unapproved-prescription-drug-products-fluoride
August 8, 2019 deposition of AAP representative Dr. Charlotte Lewis:
A "fluoride bomb" is a term used in dentistry to describe a condition where tooth decay progresses significantly beneath the enamel surface, often going undetected due to the protective effects of fluoride. This occurs when high levels of fluoride lead to the surface remineralization and hardening of the enamel, masking underlying decay that continues to spread into the dentin and pulp. The result is a tooth that appears clinically sound on the surface but has extensive internal damage, which may only become apparent when the decay reaches the nerve, causing pain or requiring complex treatment.