Fluoride in tap water

weisses

alastair wrote: »

The science behind the argument is what determines credibility. Can't speak for what mechanisms you apply.

And what about your own ?? you claim lack of credibility without presenting how

weisses

alastair wrote: »

I guess the CDC might be a little blinkered to health advancements outside their particular field.

Yup ... The politics of fluoridation

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Of course you wouldn't because claiming lack of credibility is different then actually presenting it

Just as an aid to comprehension - as stated - it's already been presented.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Yup ... The politics of fluoridation

Not quite. Immunisation.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

And what about your own ?? you claim lack of credibility without presenting how

If you've forgotten what's already been presented in this thread - feel free to review.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Does the position of these councils being a minority in the UK make their position any less credible ?. using your criteria i say they are

None of those councils is making any of those claims against fluoridation, so eh, no.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Just as an aid to comprehension - as stated - it's already been presented.

Oohh ... you posted something and automatically that became fact, is that the same report that i showed you is full of contradictions ? that is also been presented here with quotes and all from the report.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

None of those councils is making any of those claims against fluoridation, so eh, no.

But they are a Minority when it comes to using mass fluoridation ... so they must be wrong, according to your own logic applied here

alastair

weisses wrote: »

Oohh ... you posted something and automatically that became fact, is that the same report that i showed you is full of contradictions ? that is also been presented here with quotes and all from the report.

You've been repeatedly directed to the positions and reports of the most authoritive scientific bodies that validate the benefit and safety of fluoridation. You can stick your fingers in your ears all you like, but that's the reality of the situation. The scientific consensus doesn't support the claims made by the anti-fluoridation lobby.

Again, as an example, probably the most recent national review of the scientific position on fluoridation risks and benefits: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh41_1.pdf

alastair

weisses wrote: »

But they are a Minority when it comes to using mass fluoridation ... so they must be wrong, according to your own logic applied here

Maybe you should review what I actually wrote, and then have a ponder on what logic means to you?

weisses

alastair wrote: »

If you've forgotten what's already been presented in this thread - feel free to review.

I didn't think i forgot something ... You are stating

that The science behind the argument is what determines credibility

By that you are saying that the science behind the argument presented by those biochemists is wrong, without showing how,

Where on this thread did you present the science behind their concerns and the specific flaws in their findings ?

I hope its not in the european report, that's already full of contradictions

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Again, as an example, probably the most recent national review of the scientific position on fluoridation risks and benefits: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh41_1.pdf

And the mcdonagh et al study used in that report states

Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is
surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken.
(McDonagh et al. 2000)

http://afamildura.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/sept7-2011-thiessen.pdf

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Maybe you should review what I actually wrote, and then have a ponder on what logic means to you?

You

There are minority contrarians in every field - it doesn't make their position any more credible.

The contrarian in my example being the Councils ( the Ones who takes a contrary view ) regarding the fluoridation of water and are in a Minority ... representing less then 10% of the people

weisses

alastair wrote: »

You've been repeatedly directed to the positions and reports of the most authoritive scientific bodies that validate the benefit and safety of fluoridation. You can stick your fingers in your ears all you like, but that's the reality of the situation. The scientific consensus doesn't support the claims made by the anti-fluoridation lobby.

Again, as an example, probably the most recent national review of the scientific position on fluoridation risks and benefits: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh41_1.pdf

And again,, I cannot find anything in that report that deals with The science behind the argument about the biochemists and their opposition against fluoridation. And the conclusion by the report about their credibility

as in your quote below

The science behind the argument is what determines credibility

alastair

weisses wrote: »

And the mcdonagh et al study used in that report states



http://afamildura.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/sept7-2011-thiessen.pdf

As the woman says:

These comments are not to be considered a comprehensive review of fluoride exposure or toxicity. Opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

And again,, I cannot find anything in that report that deals with The science behind the argument about the biochemists and their opposition against fluoridation.

Perhaps you might actually reference some specific claim? I've no idea what you're looking for.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

You



The contrarian in my example being the Councils ( the Ones who takes a contrary view ) regarding the fluoridation of water and are in a Minority ... representing less then 10% of the people

You're pretty much ignoring the substance of my point:

that The science behind the argument is what determines credibility

No council in the UK (whether in a majority or minority regarding fluoridation) is making any claims as to the safety or efficiency of fluoridation. The minority status of anti-fluoridation advocates within science, is entirely to do with the credibility of the science presented - nothing else.

alastair

weisses wrote: »

And the mcdonagh et al study used in that report states



http://afamildura.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/sept7-2011-thiessen.pdf

That link isn't to the McDonagh report btw.

The McDonagh report's conclusions:

What is already known on this topic

Dental caries cause morbidity and suffering and incur costs

Artificial water fluoridation has been used as a community intervention to reduce the prevalence of dental caries for decades in some communities, but its use remains controversial


What this study adds

A systematic review of water fluoridation reveals that the quality of the evidence is low

Overall, reductions in the incidence of caries were found, but they were smaller than previously reported

The prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) is highly associated with the concentration of fluoride in drinking water

An association of water fluoride with other adverse effects was not found

weisses

alastair wrote: »

As the woman says:

Yes and? is she wrong in her conclusions ? if so why ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Its funny though that some of the earliest opponents to fluoridation were biochemists.

Not really.
You might have to explain the joke to me.
and then explain the relevance to my point.

I'm sure that some of the earliest objections to Newton's gravity/Einstein's relativity were from physicists.
However simply because some one has qualifications in a field it does not make them infallible.

And you might haveto explain why we should trust one lot of experts based on their credentials, but assume that the other lot of experts with the same credentials are completely corrupt and incompetent.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

That link isn't to the McDonagh report btw.

The McDonagh report's conclusions:

The link i posted was of things the report lacked

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

And you might have to explain why we should trust one lot of experts based on their credentials, but assume that the other lot of experts with the same credentials are completely corrupt and incompetent.

You shouldn't trust anyone

But your statement above works also when you turn it around

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Perhaps you might actually reference some specific claim? I've no idea what you're looking for.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86631996&postcount=1123

alastair

weisses wrote: »

The link i posted was of things the report lacked

Is it a peer-reviewed scientific report?

(Clue. It's not)

alastair

weisses wrote: »

You shouldn't trust anyone

But your statement above works also when you turn it around

So, you're closing your ears to everything then. :rolleyes:

alastair

weisses wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86631996&postcount=1123

Are you actually going to provide a specific claim to debunk?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

You shouldn't trust anyone

But your statement above works also when you turn it around

And this doesn't answer why you trust your preferred experts over others, besides that they appear to be anti government.

I trust experts who provide well supported peer reviewed research.

I also know read research beyond out of context snippets.

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Is it a peer-reviewed scientific report?

(Clue. It's not)

No I didn't think you needed one to reach a conclusion about a report

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair

That's about a controversy on a peer reviewed study

Was there another peer reviewed study done to dismiss this one ?

I dont think so

Because of that is it still possible to have legitimate concerns about it

I wont go into this case further ... its just to show you the flaws in your argumentation

weisses

alastair wrote: »

Are you actually going to provide a specific claim to debunk?

uhh you said

alastair wrote: »

Just as an aid to comprehension - as stated - it's already been presented.

regarding that point you made

Im just waiting for you to show me where it was presented as i asked you already

weisses wrote: »

By the science behind the argument presented by those biochemists is wrong,
Where on this thread did you present the science behind their concerns and the specific flaws in their findings ?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

And this doesn't answer why you trust your preferred experts over others, besides that they appear to be anti government.

I like to keep an open mind about it specially when its not the common tin foil hat community that shows concern

King Mob wrote: »

I trust experts who provide well supported peer reviewed research.

Isn't that what peer reviewed means (supposed to be) by default .... well supported ??

And well supported can also mean support from both sides on a peer reviewed study ....