The Health Service Executive Says You Must Drink Fluoridated Tapwater

King Mob

Atomicjuicer0 wrote: »

Because my tap water smells like chlorine.

This doesn't answer my question unfortunately.

I asked why do you trust the claims of anti-fluoridation campaigners when they stand to profit from causing fear of fluoride?

And what exactly does chlorine have to do with anything? Are you suggesting we don't chlorinate water also?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

There is no detailed summary just the actual full report.

This is the Cochrane group abstract

http://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-prevent-tooth-decay

So is the conclusion below correct or incorrect ?

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

There is uncertainty around the size of effect of water fluoridation in populations today

It is likely that new studies, in areas with greater use of fluoride toothpastes and other caries preventive measures, lower caries levels and different dietary patterns, will show a reduced effect of water fluoridation

There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on disparities in caries levels across socio-economic status

There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults

There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of removing water fluoridation programmes from areas where they already exist

There is an association between fluoridated water and dental fluorosis

The review does not provide a comprehensive review of harms

jh79

weisses wrote: »

This is the Cochrane group abstract

http://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-prevent-tooth-decay

So is the conclusion below correct or incorrect ?

You've asked this question before and backed your self into a corner.

If you insist on only including studies that rate high on the GRADE system then all you are left with is that fluoridation has been shown to be effective in the past.

Future research that might paint fluoridation in a bad light will also fail to meet this criteria and will have to be ignored.

Are you sure that is the way you want the discussion to go??

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You've asked this question before and backed your self into a corner.

If you insist on only including studies that rate high on the GRADE system then all you are left with is that fluoridation has been shown to be effective in the past.

Future research that might paint fluoridation in a bad light will also fail to meet this criteria and will have to be ignored.

Are you sure that is the way you want the discussion to go??

I asked a question in regards to pieces directly from the Cochrane report

But apparently to make fluoridation stick we need to include low quality research

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).”

ceegee

FourAM wrote: »

Ìn point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death and it causes it faster than any other chemical. It only takes 1 gram of fluoride to kill a child, the same amount of fluoride in a tube of toothpaste. Fluoride has been linked to lower IQ in children, learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, rapid aging, decrease in bone density and strength, metabolic dysfunction, autoimmune disease, cognitive decline and cancer. Why was fluoride in Nazi prison camp water? Why is fluoride a main ingredient in Prozac and Sarin Nerve Gas? Why is it added to tap water? Fluoride is a cumulative toxin, which can lead to more serious health concerns than Dental Fluorosis. It is a toxic industrial waste product that is poison to your body and in no way a nutrient to your body, offering no benefits at all to the human body. Fluoridation of drinking water is mass intoxication of a population equivalent to low level poisoning. Preliminary data from recent health studies in a memo by the Environmental Protection Agency indicate that fluoride may be a carcinogen. Doctor Yiamouylannis concluded that it poisons over 100 enzymes, depletes calcium and magnesium, essential for many bodily functions and increases the risk of cancer and osteoporosis. Who controls each individual dose that a person consumes? Nobody. Who knows their average daily fluoride intake? Nobody. Many countries have banned fluoridation of public drinking water. Have you ever thought to question why that is? Even Guinness beer is heavily fluoridated.

According to the fluoridesandhealth Ireland website, the Health Service Executive says that you must consume fluoride with your tap water because "Ireland is amongst the worst countries in Europe for high frequency consumption of sweets and confectionery by children and adolescents, therefore the use of fluoridated toothpastes alone is insufficient to prevent tooth decay."

I don't know your opinion on this, but this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Fluoride is linked to so many health problems. We don't need to be told by daddy government what we have to consume. Fluoride is more harmful than cannabis, which, stupidly, is illegal because it helps people. Fluoridating the water is done in total disregard for the public. Fluoride is poison. Not to mention I get a massive headache that will not go away if I drink too much of it. There's a petition to stop the fluoridation, I wish more people would sign it.

I'm not alone in my thinking and anyone who disagrees is blindly disagreeing with no evidence to even disagree with and they are most likely a troll as well. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a health nut and I don't like consuming things that I'm unsure of. Aren't you concerned with what you put in your body?

Fluoride isnt a main ingredient in prozac or sarin.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I asked a question in regards to pieces directly from the Cochrane report

But apparently to make fluoridation stick we need to include low quality research

No, because it is not possible to design a study that meets this criteria so the "lower" quality research needs to be considered . So what do you suggest??

Look at it this way;

The high quality research without doubt shows it was effective in the past.

All subsequent research shows it to be effective too but due to limitations in the study design the level of effectiveness can not be determined for certain.

They do not say it is ineffective.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

No, because it is not possible to design a study that meets this criteria so the "lower" quality research needs to be considered . So what do you suggest??

Look at it this way;

The high quality research without doubt shows it was effective in the past.

But it doesn't meet the criteria ... period

jh79 wrote: »

All subsequent research shows it to be effective too but due to limitations in the study design the level of effectiveness can not be determined for certain.

They do not say it is ineffective.

And why were those limitations in place ? .... Something to do with studies that are not up to standard perhaps

If you cherrypick your studies you can indeed show it to be effective ... Same goes for the opposite desired result

Cochrane used a different standard and reached the conclusions I posted earlier

jh79

weisses wrote: »

But it doesn't meet the criteria ... period



And why were those limitations in place ? .... Something to do with studies that are not up to standard perhaps

If you cherrypick your studies you can indeed show it to be effective ... Same goes for the opposite desired result

Cochrane used a different standard and reached the conclusions I posted earlier

Already addressed by Cochrane the studies don't meet a criteria that may not be appropriate.

“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.”

Also I didn't cherry pick, this quote is taken from Cochrane ;

"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.”

If you dismiss the above then you'll have to dismiss all future research in this area and will be stuck with the fact that the only research that is acceptable to you shows it to be effective

or

You accept the best available research shows it is still effective and hope in the future newer research will suggest otherwise.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

And why were those limitations in place ? .... Something to do with studies that are not up to standard perhaps

Answered in the following;

http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v220/n7/full/sj.bdj.2016.257.html

"Many of the early evaluations of the effectiveness of water fluoridation were repeated cross-sectional studies in both the community about to implement water fluoridation and also in a control (or reference) community receiving drinking water with an unadjusted, low fluoride concentration. Evaluations took place before fluoridation began (baseline) to determine comparability between the two communities, and after a suitable number of years (very often five years). This design is known as a non-randomised, concurrent-control, before-and-after study."

"Over time, in many countries, coverage of the population with water fluoridation schemes was almost complete, at least to the limits of public health requirements and technical feasibility. In such jurisdictions, the priority for health authorities was to monitor the continued effectiveness of existing schemes. Most recent evaluations of water fluoridation have been of this type, using the most appropriate design, which is a single cross-sectional survey of fluoridated and non-fluoridated groups with control for confounding factors. One of the critical problems with the 2015 Cochrane Review is that these data have been excluded from the Review. This important point will be discussed further below."

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Answered in the following;

http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v220/n7/full/sj.bdj.2016.257.html

"Many of the early evaluations of the effectiveness of water fluoridation were repeated cross-sectional studies in both the community about to implement water fluoridation and also in a control (or reference) community receiving drinking water with an unadjusted, low fluoride concentration. Evaluations took place before fluoridation began (baseline) to determine comparability between the two communities, and after a suitable number of years (very often five years). This design is known as a non-randomised, concurrent-control, before-and-after study."

"Over time, in many countries, coverage of the population with water fluoridation schemes was almost complete, at least to the limits of public health requirements and technical feasibility. In such jurisdictions, the priority for health authorities was to monitor the continued effectiveness of existing schemes. Most recent evaluations of water fluoridation have been of this type, using the most appropriate design, which is a single cross-sectional survey of fluoridated and non-fluoridated groups with control for confounding factors. One of the critical problems with the 2015 Cochrane Review is that these data have been excluded from the Review. This important point will be discussed further below."

Sooo you are basically disagreeing with the Cochrane study

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You accept the best available research shows it is still effective and hope in the future newer research will suggest otherwise.

Rightttt ...

And what is the best available ? Let me guess the ones left out bij Cochrane :rolleyes:

atticu

Were did the OP disappear to?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Rightttt ...

And what is the best available ? Let me guess the ones left out bij Cochrane :rolleyes:

So lets leave them out;

The only evidence that meets the "high" criteria on the GRADE system shows fluoridation to be effective according to the Cochrane review.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So lets leave them out;

The only evidence that meets the "high" criteria on the GRADE system shows fluoridation to be effective according to the Cochrane review.

So then you agree with the Cochrane report ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

So then you agree with the Cochrane report ?

Let me guess ? You found something in the report so want me to say yes and then spring it on me?

So what is it?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Let me guess ? You found something in the report so want me to say yes and then spring it on me?

So what is it?

Nope .. I just want to know where you stand in regards to the report ...

Usually you agree with Wheldon... who is critical

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Nope .. I just want to know where you stand in regards to the report ...

Usually you agree with Wheldon... who is critical

She is critical that 97% of the studies were excluded which does seem excessive and Cochrane does raise the idea that the GRADE framework might not be appropriate in this case.

They both agree it is effective though.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

She is critical that 97% of the studies were excluded which does seem excessive and Cochrane does raise the idea that the GRADE framework might not be appropriate in this case.

They both agree it is effective though.

Ohh fluoride is

Fluoridation .. That's a different story

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

There is uncertainty around the size of effect of water fluoridation in populations today

It is likely that new studies, in areas with greater use of fluoride toothpastes and other caries preventive measures, lower caries levels and different dietary patterns, will show a reduced effect of water fluoridation

There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on disparities in caries levels across socio-economic status

There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults

There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of removing water fluoridation programmes from areas where they already exist

There is an association between fluoridated water and dental fluorosis

The review does not provide a comprehensive review of harms

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Ohh fluoride is

Fluoridation .. That's a different story

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

It evens tells you the % effectiveness, we went through this before.

"There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults"

This means to determine the % effectiveness , it doesn't mean there is no evidence of effectiveness.

Also this is based on only assessing studies that meet the high grade which Cochrane says may not be appropriate for water fluoridation.

Any future studies that may show fluoride to be ineffective will also not meet this standard so will you dismiss these studies too if they ever happen?

No matter how you spin it it is not good for the anti-flouride agenda.

Insist on the GRADE system and the only studies that meet the criteria support CWF

Or

Loosen the criteria, which strengthens the CWF argument even more and hope in the future dental hygiene and diet leads to CWF not being effective anymore.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

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

It evens tells you the % effectiveness, we went through this before.

"There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults"

This means to determine the % effectiveness , it doesn't mean there is no evidence of effectiveness.

Also this is based on only assessing studies that meet the high grade which Cochrane says may not be appropriate for water fluoridation.

Any future studies that may show fluoride to be ineffective will also not meet this standard so will you dismiss these studies too if they ever happen?

No matter how you spin it it is not good for the anti-flouride agenda.

Insist on the GRADE system and the only studies that meet the criteria support CWF

Or

Loosen the criteria, which strengthens the CWF argument even more and hope in the future dental hygiene and diet leads to CWF not being effective anymore.

I would be more worried 97 % of the studies used to determine if Fluoride is safe/effective doesn't meet the criteria

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I would be more worried 97 % of the studies used to determine if Fluoride is safe/effective doesn't meet the criteria

You do understand why they don't meet the criteria?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You do understand why they don't meet the criteria?

Yes I read your link with the concerns from Wheldon .. I also read your reply where it states

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).”

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Yes I read your link with the concerns from Wheldon .. I also read your reply where it states

That reply is from Cochrane.

The impression I get from you is that you think the researchers are at fault for this?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

That reply is from Cochrane.

The impression I get from you is that you think the researchers are at fault for this?

Wel I think something is wrong if a renowned group like Cochrane dismisses 97% of research when looking at effectiveness of fluoridation

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Wel I think something is wrong if a renowned group like Cochrane dismisses 97% of research when looking at effectiveness of fluoridation

So you would welcome the introduction of fluoridation to an area that previously had a low base line level of fluoride to facilitate a study that could meet the "high" grade??

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So you would welcome the introduction of fluoridation to an area that previously had a low base line level of fluoride to facilitate a study that could meet the "high" grade??

I would welcome research that can be included in a report such as Cochrane ..... 97% didn't made the cut

I wonder what the result would be if Cochrane focuses on fluoridation safety reports

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I would welcome research that can be included in a report such as Cochrane ..... 97% didn't made the cut

I wonder what the result would be if Cochrane focuses on fluoridation safety reports

The 3% did show it to be effective so the anti-fluoridation people have to accept that.

If Cochrane focused on safety reports those reports wouldn't meet the required high rating either. Are you sure you understand why these pieces of research were rated as low?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I would welcome research that can be included in a report such as Cochrane ..... 97% didn't made the cut

I wonder what the result would be if Cochrane focuses on fluoridation safety reports

New review from Australia found no safety concerns re fluoridation. AFAIK all reviews agree it is safe.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

New review from Australia found no safety concerns re fluoridation. AFAIK all reviews agree it is safe.

A whole lot of reviews stated its effective as well ..Yet 97% was dismissed when critically reviewed resulting in insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults

jh79

weisses wrote: »

A whole lot of reviews stated its effective as well ..Yet 97% was dismissed when critically reviewed resulting in insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults

OK re-read the Whelton piece you obviously don't get the issue regarding the selection criteria.