There is no active ADA link on this website because it has been deleted. Also, the use of capital letters with the word "study" afterwards will seem legitimate at first glance.

There are other websites advertising in every possible spot on this article, which leads me to believe that the primary purpose of Natural News is to make money

Language appeals and captures attention of the intended audience.

Health Ranger is also a twitter account which posts links to this website.

Source not found.

The content from this website is almost identical to the one from Nature News.

I looked at the website, and there appears to be action taking place, however the website also has other unrelated news on its page, which is odd.

Doesn't go into detail.

The word "chemical drug" will stand out to the intended audience, because they are for more natural approaches and try to avoid unnatural things, like chemicals

Since there is no action plan listed, the purpose of this article is to make viewers paranoid, not to actually lower amounts of fluoride.

Which experts? Again, there is no real credibility here; the author is using rhetoric to sound like he knows what he is talking about.

The NRC stands for Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and they protect public health and safety related to nuclear energy. The study probably doesn't exist and the source isn't even relevant anyways.

The author included the word "Chinese" to describe the study because he had no other context or information about it. By adding this detail, it the study will seem more real to readers.

Vague term, and the studies are not cited or even given any addition context, so they most likely don't exist.

Where is this study? The author gives no information about it and uses vague terms like "researchers". Again, the study is not cited under his sources.

Link is does not lead to the study, and the study is not cited in the sources.

Both studies were not cited, and I couldn't find them when I looked them up. Even if they do exist, the author of this article is only confirming their argument with supporting evidence that could be taken out of context, and avoiding opposing evidence.

Natural News has no proof that the ADA has known this. Furthermore, why is the author presenting them in a negative light if he is using them a source (in attempt) to prove other accusations in the article? It seems as if the author is creating conspiracies and trying to turn his readers against anyone in order to gain their trust.

By clicking the fluoride tag, I found many other articles mentioning how fluoride is dangerous for blood-brain barriers in some way. For an example: http://www.naturalnews.com/055455_fluoridated_medications_prescription_drugs_blood-brain_barrier.html

Study not linked or cited.

This statement is incorrect, "Over long exposure to fluoride in saliva, more and more fluoride is incorporated, and the enamel surface becomes stronger" (the Encyclopedia of Food and Culture, 663).

Another Natural News article claims that fluoride increases the body's storage of fat: http://www.naturalnews.com/055431_water_fluoridation_depression_obesity.html

By clicking on this tag, I was brought to a page with about 50 other articles from Natural News about various negative effects of fluoride.

I searched him up and found that he has written many other articles for the Natural News website regarding detrimental negative effects of other things, such as almond milk and cleaning products.

The source given does not exist anymore.

This website seems to be targeting people who are into naturopathic methods and want to be as natural as possible.

The Health Ranger Twitter account has tweeted this website multiple times, so they are most likely linked.

This headline would easily catch the attention of mothers or fathers.