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

The Health Service Executive Says You Must Drink Fluoridated Tapwater

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    It's irrelevant now that its effectiveness is proven.

    In Children perhaps ... Not in adults as you acknowledge in you reply below
    jh79 wrote: »
    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 ?

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

    So you claiming Cochrane says it has a significant effect in adults is a non runner I'm afraid


  • Options
    #93
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    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??

    I hope for you the proven harmless quote can be validated in the 3% of studies deemed valid by Cochrane ... I doubt it however
    jh79 wrote: »
    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.

    No there is no logic in regards to fluoridation .... You agreed yourself its only effective for approx 10% of the population ... although that is also based on old studies


  • Options
    #94
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I hope for you the proven harmless quote can be validated in the 3% of studies deemed valid by Cochrane ... I doubt it however



    No there is no logic in regards to fluoridation .... You agreed yourself its only effective for approx 10% of the population ... although that is also based on old studies

    The Cochrane reveiw didn't look at adverse effects .


  • Options
    #95
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I hope for you the proven harmless quote can be validated in the 3% of studies deemed valid by Cochrane ... I doubt it however



    No there is no logic in regards to fluoridation .... You agreed yourself its only effective for approx 10% of the population ... although that is also based on old studies

    No , Cochrane doesn't say it is not effective in adults it says there is not enough evidence to determine its effectiveness.

    If there isn't evidence of its effectiveness then what were the 97% papers about??

    The aim of the review was to put a figure on this and they couldn't that what the conclusion states it doesn't say it is not effective in adults.

    I can put up a link to science based medicine explaing what the results mean if you are genuinely interested un this subject?


  • Options
    #96
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I hope for you the proven harmless quote can be validated in the 3% of studies deemed valid by Cochrane ... I doubt it however
    What studies have you seen that show or suggest adverse effects and pass the same criteria you are holding them to?

    What are you using to suggest that any adverse effects might exist?

    What's your opinion of the claims made by the OP?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    The Cochrane reveiw didn't look at adverse effects .

    Well if 97 % of the reviews cannot be used to show its effectiveness i have a vague feeling reviewing adverse effects will suffer the same faith


  • Options
    #98
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    No , Cochrane doesn't say it is not effective in adults it says there is not enough evidence to determine its effectiveness.

    If there isn't evidence of its effectiveness then what were the 97% papers about??

    You just perfectly described the quality of research in the effectiveness of fluoride

    No one can say its effective for adults ... because its not proven .... Same argument people use for "snake oil"
    jh79 wrote: »
    I can put up a link to science based medicine explaing what the results mean if you are genuinely interested un this subject?

    I know what the results mean

    As you said yourself
    there is not enough evidence to determine its effectiveness


  • Options
    #99
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    You just perfectly described the quality of research in the effectiveness of fluoride

    No one can say its effective for adults ... because its not proven .... Same argument people use for "snake oil"

    I know what the results mean

    As you said yourself

    Yes the extent of its effectiveness is not proven, that is not the same as saying it is ineffective.

    If Cochrane wanted to say it is not effective they wouldn't have used the word insufficient.

    So combine this with the fact that it is definitely effective in children and no know adverse effects then your going to need something concrete to justify ending it.


  • Options
    #100
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Yes the extent of its effectiveness is not proven, that is not the same as saying it is ineffective.

    Its effectiveness in adults is not proven .... despite the word games above

    jh79 wrote: »
    If Cochrane wanted to say it is not effective they wouldn't have used the word insufficient.

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

    If you as a policy maker need to make a decision to fluoridate water you cannot do that with the above result
    jh79 wrote: »
    So combine this with the fact that it is definitely effective in children and no know adverse effects then your going to need something concrete to justify ending it.

    You don't know if there is an adverse effect ... I would like for Cochrane to look into that as well .... What would be the percentage of studies not up to standard for a review by Cochrane ?


  • Options
    #101
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Its effectiveness in adults is not proven .... despite the word games above




    Instead they used the below



    If you as a policy maker need to make a decision to fluoridate water you cannot do that with the above result



    You don't know if there is an adverse effect ... I would like for Cochrane to look into that as well .... What would be the percentage of studies not up to standard for a review by Cochrane ?

    All of the studies on adverse effects would not met the inclusion criteria. They suffer the same short comings and more as the studies rejected.

    So if you are genuine in your stance you will reject all the adverse effects studies too?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    All of the studies on adverse effects would not met the inclusion criteria. They suffer the same short comings and more as the studies rejected.

    So there is a good chance there are adverse effects ...

    Paints a different picture to the claims made in your post below

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101119376&postcount=528
    jh79 wrote: »
    So if you are genuine in your stance you will reject all the adverse effects studies too?

    Only the ones not making the cut


  • Options
    #103
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    So there is a good chance there are adverse effects ...

    Paints a different picture to the claims made in your post below

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101119376&postcount=528



    Only the ones not making the cut

    So all of them?


  • Options
    #104
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    So all of them?

    You said it yourself .... No studies would meet the inclusion criteria. They suffer the same short comings.

    So posting some Australian study claiming its safe .. well ... I let you fill in the rest regarding its validity


  • Options
    #105
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    So there is a good chance there are adverse effects ...

    Paints a different picture to the claims made in your post below

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101119376&postcount=528

    Only the ones not making the cut

    For the effectiveness studies in adults a strong correlation between CWF and reduction in cariers is repeatedly observed .

    For adverse effects the correlations are weak or not at the correct concentration.

    A genuine person will recognise the significance of this.

    Someone with an agenda like you can either accept both or reject both.

    Accept both and argue that the adverse effects justify cessation but at the same time you are allowing research that shiws effectiveness in adults too

    Or

    Reject both but your still left with its effectiveness in children.

    It really doesn't matter the path you take.


  • Options
    #106
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    You said it yourself .... No studies would meet the inclusion criteria. They suffer the same short comings.

    So posting some Australian study claiming its safe .. well ... I let you fill in the rest regarding its validity

    So you regard Grandjean study as "invalid"?


  • Options
    #107
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    So has been effective in children and there are no known studies that meet high on the GRADE framework that show adverse effects.

    Is the above a fair statement?


  • Options
    #108
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    So you regard Grandjean study as "invalid"?

    If it doesn't make the cut, it would be "invalid" yes


  • Options
    #109
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    For the effectiveness studies in adults a strong correlation between CWF and reduction in cariers is repeatedly observed .

    For adverse effects the correlations are weak or not at the correct concentration.

    A genuine person will recognise the significance of this.

    Someone with an agenda like you can either accept both or reject both.

    Accept both and argue that the adverse effects justify cessation but at the same time you are allowing research that shiws effectiveness in adults too

    Or

    Reject both but your still left with its effectiveness in children.

    It really doesn't matter the path you take.

    Out of curiosity ... What is my agenda?


  • Options
    #110
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    If it doesn't make the cut, it would be "invalid" yes

    It definitely wouldn't make the cut . So are there any studies that would make the cut?


  • Options
    #111
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    So has been effective in children and there are no known studies that meet high on the GRADE framework that show adverse effects.

    Is the above a fair statement?

    unfortunately they will not meet the requirements to be included in a Cochrane study


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Out of curiosity ... What is my agenda?

    Anti-fluoridation irrespective of what the evidence says.


  • Options
    #113
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    It definitely wouldn't make the cut . So are there any studies that would make the cut?

    According to you No .... I'm not to sure however

    It really undermines ones position claiming there are no adverse effects as studies shows, and then claims no studies looking into adverse effects would be good enough to be included in a Cochrane review


  • Options
    #114
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Anti-fluoridation irrespective of what the evidence says.

    Cochrane says that effectiveness of fluoridation in adults is not proven

    Why are you distorting the facts all the time and then blame me for having an agenda ?


  • Options
    #115
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    According to you No .... I'm not to sure however

    It really undermines ones position claiming there are no adverse effects as studies shows, and then claims no studies looking into adverse effects would be good enough to be included in a Cochrane review

    So explain your stance clearly regarding effectiveness in adults and adverse effects?

    Do you reject all these studies?


  • Options
    #116
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    So explain your stance clearly regarding effectiveness in adults and adverse effects?

    Do you reject all these studies?

    You know my stance

    What I would like is for Cochrane to have a look at the adverse effects as well

    According to you NO study to date will meet the criteria ... which is quite shocking tbh


  • Options
    #117
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    You know my stance

    What I would like is for Cochrane to have a look at the adverse effects as well

    According to you NO study to date will meet the criteria ... which is quite shocking tbh

    Which suggests that the GRADR framework might not be appropriate in this case.

    Read Wheltons piece you are shooting yourself in the foot with your stance


  • Options
    #118
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users Posts: 14,003 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Putting aside the discussion about the studies on the effectiveness of distribution by tap water for a moment, I believe it can be agreed that fluoride is effective in preventing carries, at minimum in children, and possibly in adults.

    Starting from that basis now, and if fluoride had never previously been introduced into potable water in the history of man, what would be the most effective means of 'treating' the target population, with little or no possible impact on the rest of the population?

    IMO, that is the question we should be considering most seriously.
    If the answer is 'dose tap water' then so be it. Continue as we are.
    If the answer is something different then we should change what we are doing and adopt the best practice for the time we live in.


  • Options
    #119
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Which suggests that the GRADR framework might not be appropriate in this case.

    Read Wheltons piece you are shooting yourself in the foot with your stance

    No I'm not ... Whelton is as pro fluoridation as it gets

    She claims it works and Cochrane states there is no sufficient evidence (and that after examining more then 100 studies)

    Im not the one with holes in my foot Im affraid


  • Options
    #120
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    Putting aside the discussion about the studies on the effectiveness of distribution by tap water for a moment, I believe it can be agreed that fluoride is effective in preventing carries, at minimum in children, and possibly in adults.

    Starting from that basis now, and if fluoride had never previously been introduced into potable water in the history of man, what would be the most effective means of 'treating' the target population, with little or no possible impact on the rest of the population?

    IMO, that is the question we should be considering most seriously.
    If the answer is 'dose tap water' then so be it. Continue as we are.
    If the answer is something different then we should change what we are doing and adopt the best practice for the time we live in.

    It was already determined and agreed by many that fluoride works best when applied directly to the teeth

    If one had to decide policy based on Cochranes review there would be No basis to start with fluoridation imo


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    No I'm not ... Whelton is as pro fluoridation as it gets

    She claims it works and Cochrane states there is no sufficient evidence (and that after examining more then 100 studies)

    Im not the one with holes in my foot Im affraid

    Her appraisals applies to studies showing adverse effects too. That's why you are shooting yourself in the foot.


Advertisement