Fluoride update re IQ

weisses wrote: »

Tis is the only disclaimer i see

about selection criteria ... seems reasonable enough

If you can point me to the sections you are referring too RE policy makers ?

The selection criteria seems reasonable on paper but meant that only 3% of studies were included. They used a system normally used for clinical trials.

Take for example Ireland , fluoridation began in the 50's when record keeping was poor , the same goes for the US this makes meeting this criteria of having a time point prior to the introduction of CWF extremely difficult.

I'll stick up the blogs I read instead. Explains it really well.

“In the past 20 years, the majority of research evaluating the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries has been undertaken using cross-sectional studies with concurrent control, with improved statistical handling of confounding factors (Rugg-Gunn 2012). We acknowledge that there may be concerns regarding the exclusion of these studies from the current review. A previous review of these cross-sectional studies has shown a smaller measured effect in studies post-1990 than was seen in earlier studies, although the effect remains significant. It is suggested that this reduction in size of effect may be due to the diffusion effect (Rugg-Gunn 2012); this is likely to only occur in areas where a high proportion of the population already receive fluoridated water.”

“However, there has been much debate around the appropriateness of GRADE when applied to public health interventions, particularly for research questions where evidence from randomised controlled trials is never going to be available due to the unfeasibility of conducting such trials. Community water fluoridation is one such area.”

And:

“we accept that the terminology of ’low quality’ for evidence may appear too judgmental. We acknowledge that studies on water fluoridation, as for many public health interventions, are complex to undertake and that researchers are often constrained in their study design by practical considerations. For many public health interventions, the GRADE framework will always result in a rating of low or very low quality. Decision makers need to recognise that for some areas of research, the quality of the evidence will never be ’high’ and that, as for any intervention, the recommendation for its use depends not just upon the quality of the evidence but also on factors such as acceptability and cost-effectiveness (Burford 2012).”

weisses wrote: »

Thanks for the info ..It seems more aimed at bitching about anti fluoridists misrepresenting the report ...Again its an opinion of one person

http://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2015/06/29/cochrane-fluoridation-review-i-most-research-ignored/

This is what the report concluded

Water fluoridation has been effective at reducing caries in children in the past

We can't assume its effectiveness has dropped to zero from 35 / 26 / 15% reductions in cariers etc

Further studies will not reach GRADE standards so how do you suggest policy decisions be made?

If we drop standards to the best studies that are actually possible and allow the "cross-sectional studies with concurrent control, with improved statistical handling of confounding factors " we have evidence of effectiveness.

The Irish government will say the best available studies show effectiveness which is true. Critics such as yourself will say they should meet the GRADE standard and it will then be pointed out that this is impossible

weisses wrote: »

So now just to prove your and the other pro fluoridation supporters point of view we should consider dropping the standards ? That is not very scientific

imagine your reaction if an anti fluoridation supporter suggested that after the cochrane report concluded fluoridation is still very effective to date based on what they reviewed

How does that benefit the anti side?

The research that meets the GRADE criteria shows CWF to be effective.

The research that uses stats to account for confounders, while showing effectiveness, this is on the decrease and might someday show that it is not effective anymore.

Your shooting yourself in the foot with that attitude.

The authour of the New Zealand study that showed no link between CWF and IQ has replied to criticisms of his research by FAN.


http://msof.nz/2015/08/dr-connett-distorts-the-dunedin-iq-fluoride-study/

The pdf gives the authors reply to each criticism.

https://www.scimex.org/__data/assets/file/0017/106523/16399-NHMRC-Fluoride-Information.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/14/fluoride-in-water-safe-tooth-decay-iq-cancer

Australia’s chief health and medical research agency says fluoride in drinking water does not lower a person’s IQ, cause cancer or cause any other negative health effects.

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) analysis of more than 60 years of scientific research and 3,000 studies has backed adding fluoride to public drinking supplies as a safe and effective measure for preventing tooth decay.

The review shows there are no health effects or harm under the levels used in Australia, the NHMRC chief executive, Prof Anne Kelso, said.

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp2289/

Here is a nice summary of the research paper.

Curious to hear what anti- fluoridationists think of it. While it highlights a possible issue with pre-natal flouride exposure on a childs IQ it also debunks the finding of Grandjeans famous IQ paper and validates the findings of Broadbents New Zeland study in that fluoride exposure has no effect on childrens IQ subsequnetly.

Paul Connet is praising the paper but doesn't mention this part.