Science can always be wrong. But the nature of science is that it's self-correcting, and it builds on itself. And when it's wrong, it's very rarely completely wrong. It's usually a particular conclusion that was based on relatively weak evidence is superceded when higher-quality evidence is developed that supports a different conclusion. And it's literally never deemed wrong by the judicial opinion of a single layperson. If the scientific consensus related to fluoride is going to be overturned, it's going to be because some revolutionary, indisputable new evidence is developed by relevant subject-matter experts, and their published research is so compelling, and confirmed through the peer-review process that it forces the entire scientific establishment to rethink the entire multi-decade body of knowledge the current consensus is based on. This is why I say that it's misleading and ultimately irrelevant what some judge says. It has no relevance and no impact on the established science.