Fluoride update re IQ

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Basically the two stories confirm that fluoridation is not effective and only driven by politics

Policies re fluoride are based on flawed research as cochrane pointed out .. something you cannot deny i think

Waugh's letter only confirms that ending CWF would have very little impact on total fluoride consumption in Ireland and even then he is ignoring the fact that fluorsis is the only risk.

The Cochrane Review doesn't prove that it is ineffective it just cast doubts over the results of these studies as the methodologies used allow for bias to occur. We don't know what effect this had.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Waugh's letter only confirms that ending CWF would have very little impact on total fluoride consumption in Ireland and even then he is ignoring the fact that fluorsis is the only risk.

In other words ..people would not be better off nor worse off

So continuing fluoridation is a waste of money ..... besides the Ethical issues surrounding it

jh79 wrote: »

The Cochrane Review doesn't prove that it is ineffective it just cast doubts over the results of these studies as the methodologies used allow for bias to occur. We don't know what effect this had.

You know that policy making is based on studies that used these methodologies and thus allowed for bias to occur. which means policy based on those studies are wrong and should be revised

jh79

weisses wrote: »

In other words ..people would not be better off nor worse off

So continuing fluoridation is a waste of money ..... besides the Ethical issues surrounding it



You know that policy making is based on studies that used these methodologies and thus allowed for bias to occur. which means policy based on those studies are wrong and should be revised

While there are question marks over its effectiveness in the modern area we cannot say for certain it is ineffective.

Given that we know that it does no harm some would argue, me included, it is worth continuing with until we know for certain that it doesn't work.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

You know that policy making is based on studies that used these methodologies and thus allowed for bias to occur. which means policy based on those studies are wrong and should be revised

Cochrane is only saying that the methodologies used means that bias was possible not that it actually occurred. The findings could still be true.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

While there are question marks over its effectiveness in the modern area we cannot say for certain it is ineffective.

Given that we know that it does no harm some would argue, me included, it is worth continuing with until we know for certain that it doesn't work.

We all know it can do Harm depending on what you choose to believe.

Can you point out to 1 report that unequivocally states fluoride is save

As long as its effectiveness is not established it shouldn't be put into the water supply ..period

Could haves and would haves have no place in this

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Cochrane is only saying that the methodologies used means that bias was possible not that it actually occurred. The findings could still be true.

If this was the other way around you would have not accepted it as properly scientifically proven and thus would have dismissed it

jh79

weisses wrote: »

If this was the other way around you would have not accepted it as properly scientifically proven and thus would have dismissed it

I said there were question marks over its effectiveness based on what the Cochrane review reported.

As I said previously worse case scenario is we waste 4 million a year or 0.02% of GDP (i think).

It's not doing any harm so why not stick with it until we know for certain it is not effective?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

We all know it can do Harm depending on what you choose to believe.

Can you point out to 1 report that unequivocally states fluoride is save

As long as its effectiveness is not established it shouldn't be put into the water supply ..period

Could haves and would haves have no place in this

Can you name one adverse effect bar fluorosis at 0.7ppm?

The closest we got in the lifetime of this and other threads was Grandjean and even he said no judgement could be made on CWF based on the meta-analysis.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I said there were question marks over its effectiveness based on what the Cochrane review reported.

There should be no question marks regarding effectiveness when added to the water supply

jh79 wrote: »

As I said previously worse case scenario is we waste 4 million a year or 0.02% of GDP (i think)..

One of your reasons regarding fluoridation earlier was its cheap and effective and you went on and on about how much a toothbrush would cost etc etc

And now you post remarks like yours above ......

jh79 wrote: »

It's not doing any harm so why not stick with it until we know for certain it is not effective?

I ll ask again

Can you point out to 1 report that unequivocally states fluoride is save ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

There should be no question marks regarding effectiveness when added to the water supply

One of your reasons regarding fluoridation earlier was its cheap and effective and you went on and on about how much a toothbrush would cost etc etc

And now you post remarks like yours above ......

I ll ask again

Can you point out to 1 report that unequivocally states fluoride is save ?

You can't prove anything is safe, it is a scientific impossibility, what would you measure?

But all reviews to date say there is no evidence of adverse effects at 1ppm.

Again if you know of one I'd love to hear it?

As long as there is no evidence of toxicity then I can't see any reason to stop until we know for certain it is ineffective.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You can't prove anything is safe, it is a scientific impossibility, what would you measure?

But all reviews to date say there is no evidence of adverse effects at 1ppm.

Again if you know of one I'd love to hear it?

As long as there is no evidence of toxicity then I can't see any reason to stop until we know for certain it is ineffective.

Can you point out any research that actually thoroughly researched fluoridation safety regarding levels below 1 ppm ?

We already established fluoridation is probably useless ...

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Can you point out any research that actually thoroughly researched fluoridation safety regarding levels below 1 ppm ?

We already established fluoridation is probably useless ...

There are tons of papers out there plenty of which have come up on this and the other thread as you know. None of them amounted to much.

You previously agreed with me that there is no evidence of toxicity at sub 1ppm and nothing new has come out since then.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You previously agreed with me that there is no evidence of toxicity at sub 1ppm and nothing new has come out since then.

Correct but I asked then as well if there was actually any research done in toxicity below 1 ppm and just as then you cannot give a clear answer .. so I take that as a no then

There is no evidence either way because it was not researched properly at these levels

Which leaves us with a policy that is useless with no valid research regarding safety at these levels

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Correct but I asked then as well if there was actually any research done in toxicity below 1 ppm and just as then you cannot give a clear answer .. so I take that as a no then

There is no evidence either way because it was not researched properly at these levels

Which leaves us with a policy that is useless with no valid research regarding safety at these levels

Remember too it was 60 years ago , so yes it wasn't researched properly at the time so we were lucky there are no known adverse effects at 1PPM.

Why would anyone do research on sub 1ppm levels if the research to date fails to show toxicity at levels much higher than this?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Remember too it was 60 years ago , so yes it wasn't researched properly at the time so we were lucky there are no known adverse effects at 1PPM.

Why would anyone do research on sub 1ppm levels if the research to date fails to show toxicity at levels much higher than this?

Was that research aimed at finding out the safety sub 1ppm levels ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Was that research aimed at finding out the safety sub 1ppm levels ?

Not how it works. How would you even know where to start?

If I gave you a research grant what illness and concentration of fluoride would you look at and what would be your justification for your choices?

You would only look at the low ppm's if the previous research at higher levels suggested it would be worthwhile.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Not how it works. How would you even know where to start?

If I gave you a research grant what illness and concentration of fluoride would you look at and what would be your justification for your choices?

You would only look at the low ppm's if the previous research at higher levels suggested it would be worthwhile.

I will use it to establish adverse effects at low level intake during years and years of use

Fluoridation is not effective and there are doubts about its safety.. And with no extensive research aimed at continues exposure at low levels I could see no justification other then a political one to continue with this nonsense of a scheme

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I will use it to establish adverse effects at low level intake during years and years of use

Fluoridation is not effective and there are doubts about its safety.. And with no extensive research aimed at continues exposure at low levels I could see no justification other then a political one to continue with this nonsense of a scheme

While you may have a point re effectiveness what are the doubts regarding safety?

The research that is out there doesn't suggest much toxicity , look at the IQ studies up to 10ppm yet the difference in IQ was within error limits.

10ppm = small effect then it is only logical that 0.7ppm and under would have little or no effect. The NZ study confirmed this.

Can you think of an adverse effect that warrants further investigation?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I will use it to establish adverse effects at low level intake during years and years of use

What adverse effect would you monitor and why?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

While you may have a point re effectiveness what are the doubts regarding safety?

The research that is out there doesn't suggest much toxicity , look at the IQ studies up to 10ppm yet the difference in IQ was within error limits.

10ppm = small effect then it is only logical that 0.7ppm and under would have little or no effect. The NZ study confirmed this.

Can you think of an adverse effect that warrants further investigation?

Up to 10 ppm ..what is interesting is what low level they found adverse effects which they did as well ...
Regarding what adverse effects there are ...just google it I would suggest there are plenty mentioned

Re what I would monitor is not relevant ..I'm not a scientist

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Up to 10 ppm ..what is interesting is what low level they found adverse effects which they did as well ...
Regarding what adverse effects there are ...just google it I would suggest there are plenty mentioned

Re what I would monitor is not relevant ..I'm not a scientist

The point I am making is that research at low levels will only come about if there is research at higher levels suggesting it is worth investigating.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The point I am making is that research at low levels will only come about if there is research at higher levels suggesting it is worth investigating.

Plenty research is suggesting more investigation is needed ...

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Plenty research is suggesting more investigation is needed ...

Really ?

The IQ theory seems to have run its course with the NZ study and the recent thyroid study only showed a minor effect but they didn't account for diet or iodine deficiency so like the papers for effectiveness bias is a possibility.

For a supposedly toxic substance it is hiding it well.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Really ?

Yes and your reply always was that until new research was available we should assume it's safe

At least after hundreds of pages we can conclude fluoridation is not effective

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Yes and your reply always was that until new research was available we should assume it's safe

At least after hundreds of pages we can conclude fluoridation is not effective

We have to seeing as there is no other way of judging "safety ".

The conclusions of the Cochrane review cast doubt over its effectiveness in a modern setting only it does not say it is not effective.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The conclusions of the Cochrane review cast doubt over its effectiveness in a modern setting only

Please stop making things up .. Unless you can point out where the Cochrane report specifically discuss your point ... Then I apologise

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Please stop making things up .. Unless you can point out where the Cochrane report specifically discuss your point ... Then I apologise

"Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. It also increased the percentage of children with no decay by 15%. Although these results indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay in children's baby and permanent teeth, the applicability of the results to current lifestyles is unclear because the majority of the studies were conducted before fluoride toothpastes and the other preventative meaures were widely used in many communities around the world."

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

"Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. It also increased the percentage of children with no decay by 15%. Although these results indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay in children's baby and permanent teeth, the applicability of the results to current lifestyles is unclear because the majority of the studies were conducted before fluoride toothpastes and the other preventative meaures were widely used in many communities around the world."

I get your point ...only their doubt is spanning 4 decades after 1976 ....Hardly the modern day world/setting in terms of research ... But then it would mean also that the poor effect of fluoridation would also span 4 decades... What proper research did the Irish government use to base its fluoride policy on one could ask ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I get your point ...only their doubt is spanning 4 decades after 1976 ....Hardly the modern day world/setting in terms of research ... But then it would mean also that the poor effect of fluoridation would also span 4 decades... What proper research did the Irish government use to base its fluoride policy on one could ask ?

They have a disclaimer in the full version that their selection criteria may have been too severe and that policy makers should take this into account.

For example studies that didn't have data for prior to the introduction of CWF were excluded which meant all recent studies that could not gather data from 60 years prior eg Ireland or the US weren't taken into account. These studies show it to be effective , they confirm this.

I only read the plain english summary, but the full version paints a different picture according to a blog i read.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

They have a disclaimer in the full version that their selection criteria may have been too severe and that policy makers should take this into account.

For example studies that didn't have data for prior to the introduction of CWF were excluded which meant all recent studies that could not gather data from 60 years prior eg Ireland or the US weren't taken into account. These studies show it to be effective , they confirm this.

I only read the plain english summary, but the full version paints a different picture according to a blog i read.

Tis is the only disclaimer i see

Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.
• Cochrane Oral Health Group Global Alliance, UK. All reviews in the Cochrane Oral Health Group are supported by Global Alliance member organisations (British Association of Oral Surgeons, UK; British Orthodontic Society, UK; British Society of Paediatric Dentistry, UK; British Society of Periodontology, UK; Canadian Dental Hygienists Association, Canada; National Center for Dental Hygiene Research & Practice, USA; Mayo Clinic, USA; New York University College of Dentistry, USA; and Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, UK) providing funding for the editorial process

about selection criteria ... seems reasonable enough

Selection criteria
For caries data, we included only prospective studies with a concurrent control that compared at least two populations - one receiving fluoridated water and the other non-fluoridated water - with outcome(s) evaluated at at least two points in time. For the assessment of fluorosis, we included any type of study design, with concurrent control, that compared populations exposed to different water fluoride concentrations. We included populations of all ages that received fluoridated water (naturally or artificially fluoridated) or non- fluoridated water.

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