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
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    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

    Again why is its proven effectiveness in children not enough?


  • Options
    #123
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Her appraisals applies to studies shkwing adverse effects too.

    Which will not be included in a Cochrane review


  • Options
    #124
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Again why is its proven effectiveness in children not enough?

    I already answered that


  • Options
    #125
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I already answered that

    But seeimg as it has no proven adverse effects you have no justifiable reason to be agaisnt it.


  • Options
    #126
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users Posts: 13,999 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


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

    There was a national discussion on this that I missed?
    If one had to decide policy based on Cochranes review there would be No basis to start with fluoridation imo


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    But seeimg as it has no proven adverse effects you have no justifiable reason to be agaisnt it.

    Plenty studies showed it to be effective for adults

    Look what happened when a reputable group examined these studies


  • Options
    #128
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    There was a national discussion on this that I missed?

    I think you have to look beyond Irish borders

    Perhaps its the reason the vast .. vast majority of civilized countries don't fluoridate their water


  • Options
    #129
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Plenty studies showed it to be effective for adults

    Look what happened when a reputable group examined these studies

    Ok but the studies are also reputable they are not bad quality by design but by circumstance.


  • Options
    #130
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users Posts: 13,999 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    weisses wrote: »
    I think you have to look beyond Irish borders

    Perhaps its the reason the vast .. vast majority of civilized countries don't fluoridate their water

    fluoridation of water is NOT what I was addressing.

    It is high time a proper discussion was held on the best way to administer this 'treatment' that has been shown to be effective for some, and possibly all, of OUR population.


  • Options
    #131
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    fluoridation of water is NOT what I was addressing.

    It is high time a proper discussion was held on the best way to administer this 'treatment' that has been shown to be effective for some, and possibly all, of OUR population.

    Yes and applying fluoride directly (topical) seems to be the most effective way to achieve that .... I think most people can agree on that, plus you can opt out if it is not to your liking ... win win


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes and applying fluoride directly (topical) seems to be the most effective way to achieve that .... I think most people can agree on that, plus you can opt out if it is not to your liking ... win win

    Fluoridation is a systemic delivery system with a topical mode of action. The fact that fluoridation is proven to be effective in children suggest parents are not doing enough and it is therefore justified.


  • Options
    #133
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Fluoridation is a systemic delivery system with a topical mode of action. The fact that fluoridation is proven to be effective in children suggest parents are not doing enough and it is therefore justified.

    Sure ... Now its the parents fault as well .... keep grasping at straws

    We are down to 10% of the population benefiting from fluoridation


  • Options
    #134
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users Posts: 13,999 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    jh79 wrote: »
    Fluoridation is a systemic delivery system with a topical mode of action. The fact that fluoridation is proven to be effective in children suggest parents are not doing enough and it is therefore justified.

    When fluoridation was introduced the vast majority had never seen, nor could afford, toothpaste, so it was probably the best means at the time.

    That time is long since past ...... over 50 years now since it was first introduced ...... and peoples' living standards have risen hugely and I doubt there is now anyone who is not aware of toothpaste and dental hygiene.

    It is well past time for a re-assessment of the delivery method to better target the vulnerable portion of the population.


  • Options
    #135
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Sure ... Now its the parents fault as well .... keep grasping at straws

    We are down to 10% of the population benefiting from fluoridation

    And why is that not enough seeing as it does no harm?


  • Options
    #136
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    When fluoridation was introduced the vast majority had never seen, nor could afford, toothpaste, so it was probably the best means at the time.

    That time is long since past ...... over 50 years now since it was first introduced ...... and peoples' living standards have risen hugely and I doubt there is now anyone who is not aware of toothpaste and dental hygiene.

    It is well past time for a re-assessment of the delivery method to better target the vulnerable portion of the population.

    And this can be done in parallel with fluoridation .


  • Options
    #137
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users Posts: 13,999 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    When fluoridation was introduced the vast majority had never seen, nor could afford, toothpaste, so it was probably the best means at the time.

    That time is long since past ...... over 50 years now since it was first introduced ...... and peoples' living standards have risen hugely and I doubt there is now anyone who is not aware of toothpaste and dental hygiene.

    It is well past time for a re-assessment of the delivery method to better target the vulnerable portion of the population.
    jh79 wrote: »
    And this can be done in parallel with fluoridation .

    Sure it can or not as the case might be.

    The point is that it needs to take place.


  • Options
    #138
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    And why is that not enough seeing as it does no harm?

    No Harm ? Not so sure about that

    Not so long ago it was effective in adults as well .. and now there is no evidence meeting the Cochrane criteria

    I don't hold my hopes up when they are gonna look into adverse effects


  • Options
    #139
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    No Harm ? Not so sure about that

    Not so long ago it was effective in adults as well .. and now there is no evidence meeting the Cochrane criteria

    I don't hold my hopes up when they are gonna look into adverse effects

    So you don't think the evidence claiming adverse effects is any good?


  • Options
    #140
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    No Harm ? Not so sure about that
    What studies are you using to indicate that there might be harm?
    What leads you to believe that there is any harm?

    What about the claims made in the first post that are often repeated by anti-fluordiation campaigners? Do you think they are accurate or justified?


  • Options
    #141
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    When fluoridation was introduced the vast majority had never seen, nor could afford, toothpaste, so it was probably the best means at the time.

    That time is long since past ...... over 50 years now since it was first introduced ...... and peoples' living standards have risen hugely and I doubt there is now anyone who is not aware of toothpaste and dental hygiene.

    It is well past time for a re-assessment of the delivery method to better target the vulnerable portion of the population.
    But even now, toothpaste and dental hygiene aren't always affordable by everyone, so there is always going to be some benefit. No-one has ever been able to show any harm. So there is no real down side to continuing it.
    The issue of removing it and replacing it are very low priority even if the arguments about it's effectiveness hold out.

    However if it is stopped on the basis of unfounded fears spread by anti fluordiation activists, it sets a dangerous precedent.
    If people are able to stop something because they believe is complete and utter misinformation like as presented in the original post, then what's to stop them from outlawing vaccines? Or Wifi?

    If people against it would stick with the points about personal choice and evidence for effectiveness today, then they might have a point. However most campaigns either promote or just accept the anti-science rhetoric because it is more useful to them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    When fluoridation was introduced the vast majority had never seen, nor could afford, toothpaste, so it was probably the best means at the time.

    That time is long since past ...... over 50 years now since it was first introduced ...... and peoples' living standards have risen hugely and I doubt there is now anyone who is not aware of toothpaste and dental hygiene.

    It is well past time for a re-assessment of the delivery method to better target the vulnerable portion of the population.

    So how do we re-assess it ?


  • Options
    #143
    Johnboy1951
    Registered Users Posts: 13,999 ✭✭✭✭Johnboy1951


    jh79 wrote: »
    So how do we re-assess it ?

    You think there would be a difficulty is assessing the efficacy of various delivery methods?


  • Options
    #144
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Johnboy1951 wrote: »
    You think there would be a difficulty is assessing the efficacy of various delivery methods?

    Depends on the delivery system, fluoridated milk / salt etc?


  • Options
    #145
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    So how do we re-assess it ?

    Look at countries around you ....

    Like what was said earlier ... Dental care has come a long way since the fifties ... There are plenty examples regarding various policies in regards to fluoride.

    There is even no evidence it benefits the poor
    We found insufficient information to determine whether fluoridation reduces differences in tooth decay levels between children from poorer and more affluent backgrounds.]


  • Options
    #146
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Look at countries around you ....

    Like what was said earlier ... Dental care has come a long way since the fifties ... There are plenty examples regarding various policies in regards to fluoride.

    There is even no evidence it benefits the poor

    Insufficient means not enough. There is not enough evidence that it benefits the poor.

    A study showing that ending fluoridation doesn't lead to an increase in cariers would need to be done.

    This would have to me in one part of the country first and to meet the High Criteria on the Grade framework would take a minimum of 5 years, amomg other things.

    You can't end a public health interventions proven to be effective in children on a hunch.


  • Options
    #147
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Insufficient means not enough. There is not enough evidence that it benefits the poor.

    A study showing that ending fluoridation doesn't lead to an increase in cariers would need to be done.

    This would have to me in one part of the country first and to meet the High Criteria on the Grade framework would take a minimum of 5 years, amomg other things.

    You can't end a public health interventions proven to be effective in children on a hunch.

    Uhhh again .. Look at the vast majority of civilized countries who are doing equally or better then Ireland and don't fluoridate their water ... Its not rocket science


  • Options
    #148
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Uhhh again .. Look at the vast majority of civilized countries who are doing equally or better then Ireland and don't fluoridate their water ... Its not rocket science

    That's some turnaround from only accepting studies that rate "high" on the GRADE system.


  • Options
    #149
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,448 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    That's some turnaround from only accepting studies that rate "high" on the GRADE system.

    No it's perfectly in line with the Cochrane findings

    remember the effectiveness in adults. ?


  • Options
    #150
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    No it's perfectly in line with the Cochrane findings

    remember the effectiveness in adults. ?

    Remember Cochrane says there is not enough evidence to determine effectiveness. This means that there is also not enough evidence that it is ineffective. The studies are the same, cariers vs fluoride exposure. If fluoridation is ineffective why isn't this reflected in the studies?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    No it's perfectly in line with the Cochrane findings

    remember the effectiveness in adults. ?

    Using the Cochrane reveiw can you find a study that shows fluoridation to be not effective ie 0% difference in cariers / DMFT and could you also include its rating on the GRADE framework?

    If you can't do this then you have no evidence that fluoridation is ineffective.


Advertisement