The Health Service Executive Says You Must Drink Fluoridated Tapwater

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

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

What i do or don't get isn't the Issue here

Based on Cochrane's review there is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults

jh79

weisses wrote: »

What i do or don't get isn't the Issue here

Based on Cochrane's review there is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults

I take it then that you accept it is effective for kids?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I take it then that you accept it is effective for kids?

As we discussed in the other thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97459335&postcount=527

jh79

weisses wrote: »

As we discussed in the other thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97459335&postcount=527

I didn't ask if you accepted ingesting fluoride was of benefit.

I asked if you accepted the Cochrane reviews findings that water fluoridation is effective for kids?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I didn't ask if you accepted ingesting fluoride was of benefit.

I asked if you accepted the Cochrane reviews findings that water fluoridation is effective for kids?

Yes .. Although they also said its based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Yes .. Although they also said its based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today.

So at the time it was introduced it was an effective way to reduce cariers and therefore justified, now what is the justification for ending it , how are you going to prove that rate of effectiveness has dropped to zero?? How plausible is it that it has gone from 26% (?) to 0%?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So at the time it was introduced it was an effective way to reduce cariers and therefore justified, now what is the justification for ending it , how are you going to prove that rate of effectiveness has dropped to zero?? How plausible is it that it has gone from 26% (?) to 0%?

I repeat

Based on Cochrane's review there is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults.

They came up with that ....not me

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I repeat

Based on Cochrane's review there is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults.

They came up with that ....not me

So why isn't its effectiveness in children enough justification for it in your opinion?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So why isn't its effectiveness in children enough justification for it in your opinion?

I think we went over that numerous times in the other thread ... I didn't even find it justifiable if fluoridation would be effective in children and adults combined ... Let alone children.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I think we went over that numerous times in the other thread ... I didn't even find it justifiable if fluoridation would be effective in children and adults combined ... Let alone children.

At least take comfort in the fact that it is safe and effective.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

At least take comfort in the fact that it is safe and effective.

Effective ... For a small portion of the population, doesn't justify exposing the whole population to this chemical

Safe ?? ..97% of research showing fluoride is effective cannot be used ... I won't get my hopes up claiming it's safe

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Effective ... For a small portion of the population, doesn't justify exposing the whole population to this chemical

Safe ?? ..97% of research showing fluoride is effective cannot be used ... I won't get my hopes up claiming it's safe

It's enough justification for me as its completely harmless.

I take it then given the high standards you now expect for research in this area that you now reject the research from Grandjean and all the others that are of a "low" grade??

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

It's enough justification for me as its completely harmless.

I take it then given the high standards you now expect for research in this area that you now reject the research from Grandjean and all the others that are of a "low" grade??

Harmless ? ... Just wait after Cochrane reviewed studies claiming that

If you accept the same in regards to the 97% rejected by Cohrane

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Harmless ? ... Just wait after Cochrane reviewed studies claiming that

If you accept the same in regards to the 97% rejected by Cohrane

If I say yes, then fluoridation is effective in children and harmless and if I say no fluoridation is effective in children and it is highly likely that it is effective in adults too and really the position on adverse effects doesn't change as the evidence is poor anyways.

So whatever you fancy yourself.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

If I say yes, then fluoridation is effective in children and harmless and if I say no fluoridation is effective in children and it is highly likely that it is effective in adults too and really the position on adverse effects doesn't change as the evidence is poor anyways.

So whatever you fancy yourself.

I think you are making things up now at this stage, Or cherry picking the results

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I think you are making things up now at this stage, Or cherry picking the results

Maybe if you read the full version of Cochrane review then you'd understand.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I think you are making things up now at this stage, Or cherry picking the results

Anyways we've had 60+ years of fluoridation, thousands of papers and numerous reviews at this stage and we are still waiting on a decent argument against fluoridation.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Maybe if you read the full version of Cochrane review then you'd understand.

I just skip to the conclusions ..which are drawn from the report. They are pretty clear

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Anyways we've had 60+ years of fluoridation, thousands of papers and numerous reviews at this stage and we are still waiting on a decent argument against fluoridation.

There were numerous papers in regards to the effectiveness yet 97% was disregarded... I don't have many confidence in regards to he fluoride safety reports standing up to the "cochrane standard"

jh79

weisses wrote: »

There were numerous papers in regards to the effectiveness yet 97% was disregarded... I don't have many confidence in regards to he fluoride safety reports standing up to the "cochrane standard"

No such thing as safety reports, researchers try to link fluoride exposure to an adverse effect and as you know they don't stand up to normal scrutiny never mind "High" on the GRADE framework.

How do you think Grandjean / Peckhams or Mullinex papers would be viewed by Cochrane ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I just skip to the conclusions ..which are drawn from the report. They are pretty clear

Just as well they conclude fluoridation has been effective in reducing cariers in the past.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Just as well they conclude fluoridation has been effective in reducing cariers in the past.

In Children yes

Where does Cochrane share your view in regards to adults ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

In Children yes

Where does Cochrane share your view in regards to adults ?

Which justifies it existence so while there is a debate to be had on whether the GRADE framework was appropriate for the review i don't think you're here for a mature discussion on it.

So to stick to the tone of discussion you seem intend on having;

Flouridation has been shown to be effective in the past in children, there are no known adverse effects beyond cosmetic flecking of teeth.

Therfore totally justified. Its effectiveness is an established fact according to the Cochrane review whose findings are beyond reproach in your eyes.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Which justifies it existence so while there is a debate to be had on whether the GRADE framework was appropriate for the review i don't think you're here for a mature discussion on it.

So to stick to the tone of discussion you seem intend on having;

Flouridation has been shown to be effective in the past in children, there are no known adverse effects beyond cosmetic flecking of teeth.

Therfore totally justified. Its effectiveness is an established fact according to the Cochrane review whose findings are beyond reproach in your eyes.

That is not what I asked .....You seem to leap from one conclusion to the other without actually addressing the question

jh79

weisses wrote: »

That is not what I asked .....You seem to leap from one conclusion to the other without actually addressing the question

How can i adress the question if you won't read the full Cochrane review it's a complete waste of time.

Fluoridation is effective end of. It is written in the conclusion that is the be all and end all to you.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

How can i adress the question if you won't read the full Cochrane review it's a complete waste of time.

Is the quote below a conclusion from the Cohrane report yes or no

No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.

Within the ‘before and after’ studies we were looking for, we did not find any on the benefits of fluoridated water for adults.

jh79 wrote: »

Fluoridation is effective end of. It is written in the conclusion that is the be all and end all to you.

I found another one refuting you claim in the other thread about the poor kids

We found insufficient information to determine whether fluoridation reduces differences in tooth decay levels between children from poorer and more affluent backgrounds.

Its their conclusion ... They reached it .. It has nothing to do with the fact I read it or not


So I ask again

What is the Cochrane conclusion in regards to the fluoridation benefits for adults ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Is the quote below a conclusion from the Cohrane report yes or no







I found another one refuting you claim in the other thread about the poor kids



Its their conclusion ... They reached it .. It has nothing to do with the fact I read it or not


So I ask again

What is the Cochrane conclusion in regards to the fluoridation benefits for adults ?

Doesn't matter it is effective in children so fluoridation as a public health intervention is therefore effective.

Anything else re adults is a bonus.

You agreed that the research shows it to be effective in children so why is that not enough?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Doesn't matter it is effective in children so fluoridation as a public health intervention is therefore effective.

Anything else re adults is a bonus.

You agreed that the research shows it to be effective in children so why is that not enough?

Again you are dodging the very simple question i asked you

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Again you are dodging the very simple question i asked you

It's irrelevant now that its effectiveness is proven.

Its effectiveness is proven in a specific portion of the population. It's effectiveness has yet to be proven beyond doubt but there is evidence of a significant effect, according to Cochrane , in adults and even if this is not the case sure it is completely harmless anyways .

Is there a point to your question ?

jh79

How can you be against something that is proven to be effective in children and is completely harmless to those who recieve no benefit from it??

Can you explain the logic behind such a stance to me? Because the only thing i can come up with is that the people who hold such a viewpoint believe in the silly stuff like Nazis and NWO keeping us docile etc.