Comment: You asked an extremely important question

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Generally correct. (see in situ)

You asked an extremely important question

and then followed it up with a chemistry fallacy. :/

The fallacy first: A carbon-fluoride bond is MUCH different than a flouride salt. The fluoride salt (like NaF) dissociates and essentially "latches onto something else," as you said, usually a calcium cation in the human body (thought it can most definitely in certain percentages interact with organic molecules, too).

But a carbon-fluoride bond is very strong. A fluoro-carbon doesn't dissociate into a fluoride ion, it acts as a unit. When the body encounters a fluoro-carbon, it metabolizes the fluoro-carbon as a whole and not the carbon and fluoride separately, so to speak.

Two examples of fluoro-carbon chemicals are Teflon and Prozac. Teflon does not realize fluoride ions and neither does Prozac. Some people tend to lump water fluoridation with NaF and drugs like Prozac into being the same thing, but they are not.

Now with that said, I don't know why the hell chemists have this obsession with fluoro-carbon chemicals. To me it is has gotten to the point of sheer ridiculousness and arrogance. Fluorine is extremely electronegative and leads to some organic chemicals having interesting properties, but from my perspective in medicine they don't seem to be working any better than not fluoro-carbons. I would even go as far to say they are LESS effective.

The best drugs we have discovered, like imatinib, which has proven to be essentially a "cure" for chronic myelogenous leukemia, do not have any fluoro-carbons in them. Yet a good percentage of new experimental drugs have fluoride functional groups (fluoro-carbon bonds) and none of them seem to work that great and have strong undesirable side-effects.

I seriously don't get it.