Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fluoride update re IQ

Options
1…78101213…18

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    1.2 is still considered within the safe range , the idea is that you use the lowest effective amount.

    The research you posted doesn't prove adverse effects at these levels as stated by the authors

    The strength of the observed correlations is dependent on how significant or otherwise you believe the flaws are which for some reason you won't discuss.

    As i said earlier if you insist on taking the research you posted as beyond reproach then you are still lumbered with the fact that the research doesn't or can't show fluoride causes hypothyroidism.


    Fine by me .... we just discard peer reviewed research and discuss this using opinions from skeptic blogs


  • Options
    #273
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,228 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Fine by me .... we just discard peer reviewed research and discuss this using opinions from skeptic blogs

    The hold point of peer review is constructive. criticism you are the one avoiding discussing these papers

    if peer reviewed papers are beyond criticisms how do you explain papers on the same subject
    that contradict each other?

    It is in your interest to discuss these flaws, not mine, remember the authors says these do not constitute proof of adverse effects.


  • Options
    #274
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    The hold point of peer review is constructive. criticism you are the one avoiding discussing these papers

    if peer reviewed papers are beyond criticisms how do you explain papers on the same subject
    that contradict each other?

    It is in your interest to discuss these flaws, not mine, remember the authors says these do not constitute proof of adverse effects.

    Sorry is it not up to you that if you do not agree with peer reviewed research you put something to the table that can be accepted as valid? ... I do not count a skeptic blog as valid specially if they don't address the issues with evidence that contradicts what is said in the peer reviewed papers

    Peer reviewed research is not beyond criticism ... Its the source and validity of criticism that matters


  • Options
    #275
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,228 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Sorry is it not up to you that if you do not agree with peer reviewed research you put something to the table that can be accepted as valid? ... I do not count a skeptic blog as valid specially if they don't address the issues with evidence that contradicts what is said in the peer reviewed papers

    Peer reviewed research is not beyond criticism ... Its the source and validity of criticism that matters

    The link i provided was interviews with 4 scientists including the author himself!


  • Options
    #276
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    The link i provided was interviews with 4 scientists including the author himself!

    Yes they gave their opinion ... so did the author

    Headline "flawed study" Based on what research?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,228 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes they gave their opinion ... so did the author

    Headline "flawed study" Based on what research?

    No idea what this question is meant to mean.

    The study is flawed based on the conclusions of the authors, i thought that was obvious.

    If the authors gave more realistic conclusions then the study wouldn't be flawed.


  • Options
    #278
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    No idea what this question is meant to mean.

    The study is flawed based on the conclusions of the authors, i thought that was obvious.

    If the authors gave more realistic conclusions then the study wouldn't be flawed.

    Ohh so now what research did the author use to make such a claim ?


  • Options
    #279
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,228 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Ohh so now what research did the author use to make such a claim ?

    What ?

    His research doesn't justify his conclusions.


  • Options
    #280
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    What ?

    His research doesn't justify his conclusions.

    But it was peer reviewed so it was not only his conclusion

    But hey someone posting in a blog knows better


  • Options
    #281
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Another one

    More conspiracy material
    The Department of Health referred him to the regional health boards. He wrote to all eight, requesting the same information.

    One week later on a Friday afternoon, he received a telephone call from a senior dental surgeon at a health board outside his locality. The surgeon asked him what the relevance of his questions were, whether he planned to publish the results, and most surprisingly of all, what his political affiliations were.

    The health board in question has admitted these enquiries were made. They acknowledge it is a matter of regret that the situation arose and have apologised for any offence caused.

    However, other influences were brought to bear on Mac Auley by health board officials in the form of further telephone calls urging him to withdraw his Freedom of Information request and conform to IDA policy.

    ``I was completely amazed. I couldn't believe that the details of what I thought was a confidential request had been revealed. I contacted my solicitor who advised me to persevere with my enquiries.''

    an old one but showing the inadequacy displayed in this country

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fluoride-in-our-water-are-we-brushing-with-danger-26123011.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,228 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    But it was peer reviewed so it was not only his conclusion

    But hey someone posting in a blog knows better

    Peer reviews involves only a few , not sure exactly how many . And it just means they agreed it was a reasonable conclusion not the only conclusion.

    If you want to go down that route it is a still a factual statement that at sub 1ppm levels no known adverse effects exist bar cosmetic flecking of teeth.


  • Options
    #283
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Peer reviews involves only a few , not sure exactly how many . And it just means they agreed it was a reasonable conclusion not the only conclusion.

    If you want to go down that route it is a still a factual statement that at sub 1ppm levels no known adverse effects exist bar cosmetic flecking of teeth.

    I am not going down any route

    Paper got peer reviewed and published ...Some blog says that they are wrong other link you posted says it was flawed... You decide to believe what was said in blog .... I have not seen any research that actually shows why they are wrong... I even asked you for it but you keep hiding behind what was said on a website

    So their peers concluded it was reasonable ... are all of them wrong ? incompetent ?


  • Options
    #284
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,228 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I am not going down any route

    Paper got peer reviewed and published ...Some blog says that they are wrong other link you posted says it was flawed... You decide to believe what was said in blog .... I have not seen any research that actually shows why they are wrong... I even asked you for it but you keep hiding behind what was said on a website

    So their peers concluded it was reasonable ... are all of them wrong ? incompetent ?

    Your questions don't make sense, research showing they were wrong? The scientists in the blogs are questioning their subjective conclusions not the research data.

    The research doesn't account for iodine deficiency that is a fact. Whether they should have or not is worthy of discussion in my opinion .

    So if discussing the methodology of these papers is out of the question only thing left is can you show peer reviewed data showing fluoride causes hypothyroidism ?

    If not then there are still no known adverse effects bar cosmetic flecking.

    Makes the thread rather pointless but i have tried.


  • Options
    #285
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    So if discussing the methodology of these papers is out of the question only thing left is can you show peer reviewed data showing fluoride causes hypothyroidism ?

    Isn't or Shouldn't the methodology and any possible flaws be addressed by their peers ? before publishing ?


  • Options
    #286
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,228 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Isn't or Shouldn't the methodology and any possible flaws be addressed by their peers ? before publishing ?

    It should and some journals are harder to get into than others.

    Impact factor is one way of judging the quality
    of a journal.

    And the peer review involves between 2 and 4 scientists generally .


  • Options
    #287
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,228 ✭✭✭jh79


    Did you not dismiss the NZ study that showed no effect on IQ? That was published in a peer reviewed journal.


  • Options
    #288
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    It should and some journals are harder to get into than others.

    Impact factor is one way of judging the quality
    of a journal.

    And the peer review involves between 2 and 4 scientists generally .

    But they had no issues with publishing... so one must assume methodology used was correct


  • Options
    #289
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,228 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    But they had no issues with publishing... so one must assume methodology used was correct

    So does that mean the NZ study was correct?


  • Options
    #290
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Did you not dismiss the NZ study that showed no effect on IQ? That was published in a peer reviewed journal.

    Ohh yeah .. and plenty more probably

    Issue is with pointing out something, CT'ers are usually accused of quoting from crap websites to make their point ... And now its just the other way around .... Can't win


  • Options
    #291
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    So does that mean the NZ study was correct?

    Don't shift the goalposts I was not talking about the NZ study... I don't even know what was wrong with it thinking back... scale and scope maybe ??

    No lower IQ ... contradicting the Harvard study by Grandjjean was it ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,228 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Don't shift the goalposts I was not talking about the NZ study... I don't even know what was wrong with it thinking back... scale and scope maybe ??

    No lower IQ ... contradicting the Harvard study by Grandjjean was it ?

    I'm not just showing your respect and interpretation of the peer review process is dependent on whether you like the conclusions.

    You said the peer reviewer ensures the methodology supports the conclusions so if that is the case surely you have to accept the outcome kf this study?


  • Options
    #293
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    I'm not just showing your respect and interpretation of the peer review process is dependent on whether you like the conclusions.

    You said the peer reviewer ensures the methodology supports the conclusions so if that is the case surely you have to accept the outcome kf this study?

    Nope ...I go with the grandjean study that is not in line with the NZ one

    http://fluoridealert.org/news/study-claiming-fluoride-does-not-lower-iq-is-flawed/

    You do the same into only believing the peer reviewed studies that support your opinion .. Which is even worse because you always seem to be on the scientific side of the debate (only if it suits now it seems)


  • Options
    #294
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,228 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Nope ...I go with the grandjean study that is not in line with the NZ one

    http://fluoridealert.org/news/study-claiming-fluoride-does-not-lower-iq-is-flawed/

    You do the same into only believing the peer reviewed studies that support your opinion .. Which is even worse because you always seem to be on the scientific side of the debate (only if it suits now it seems)

    But both are peer reviewed and you said that the peer review process ensures that the conclusions are correct. How do you explain that?


  • Options
    #295
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,228 ✭✭✭jh79


    So if the NZ study is flawed even though it went through the peer review process is not possible that the Kent study is flawed seeing as it went through the same process?


  • Options
    #296
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    But both are peer reviewed and you said that the peer review process ensures that the conclusions are correct. How do you explain that?

    How do you explain? .. you don't agree with grandjean ? ....

    So using your above statement .. why do you post websites and agreeing with their statements stating the peer reviewed research is flawed


  • Options
    #297
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,228 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    How do you explain? .. you don't agree with grandjean ? ....

    So using your above statement .. why do you post websites and agreeing with their statements stating the peer reviewed research is flawed

    Look back at your posts you are saying they must be the correct conclusions / finding because they are in a peer review paper. Obviously if this was the case there wouldn't be conflicting conclusions..

    I'm just saying if you agree or disagree with a paper give a reason don't just say well it is in a peer review paper.


  • Options
    #298
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    I'm just saying if you agree or disagree with a paper give a reason don't just say well it is in a peer review paper.

    I did give a reason why I disagreed with th NZ study last year 1 the grand jean study and 2. The explanation given on the link a few posts ago .

    My issue is with the double standard used by pro fluoridists who dismiss opinions on a website using the reason that it's not proven etc but when presented with peer review studies showing the possible danger of fluoridation, resorting back to a blog and interview supposedly countering the research.


  • Options
    #299
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,228 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I did give a reason why I disagreed with th NZ study last year 1 the grand jean study and 2. The explanation given on the link a few posts ago .

    My issue is with the double standard used by pro fluoridists who dismiss opinions on a website using the reason that it's not proven etc but when presented with peer review studies showing the possible danger of fluoridation, resorting back to a blog and interview supposedly countering the research.

    No your recent posts generally consisted of "it can't be flawed it's peer reviewed " which makes absolutely no sense given peer reviewed papers regularly are at odds with each other eg Grandjean and the NZ study.


  • Options
    #300
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,228 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I did give a reason why I disagreed with th NZ study last year 1 the grand jean study and 2. The explanation given on the link a few posts ago .

    My issue is with the double standard used by pro fluoridists who dismiss opinions on a website using the reason that it's not proven etc but when presented with peer review studies showing the possible danger of fluoridation, resorting back to a blog and interview supposedly countering the research.

    What is the point of this thread if we can't discuss the merits of these peer reviewed papers ?

    If we can't discuss these things then all we are left with is that there are no known adverse effects at sub 1ppm levels and therefore no justification to ending fluoridationn


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    What is the point of this thread if we can't discuss the merits of these peer reviewed papers ?

    If we can't discuss these things then all we are left with is that there are no known adverse effects at sub 1ppm levels and therefore no justification to ending fluoridationn

    But we are discussing it .. The only thing I disagree with is that you use two skeptic websites to discredit the peer reviewed papers ...

    You can talk about and disagree with the merits but at least use a source dealing specifically with that paper and show some proof as to why the research is flawed


Advertisement