nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Fluoride, Makes us Docile and Passive? Thoughts??

Ireland has massive amounts of Fluoride in the water.
It's in our toothpaste.

I cant get my head around the fact that if its so terrible for us, then why and what is it doing in our water. Some countries have it banned (!)

I've watched documentarys on it. Read research on it.
It doesn't sound like something that should consumed - Obviously.

The idea that it's making us Docile, Passive and Susceptible though (?)
Interested to hear other peoples opinion and thoughts on it...

Find more posts tagged with

government

ireland

fluoride

fluoridation

Quick Links

Comments

jh79 wrote: »

No don't think there are any.

So why should fluorodation stop?

So there are no studies that will meet the standard used by Cochrane

A standard you and I agree is the proper standard

SO what is said below is BS ... right ?

http://fluorideinfo.org/safety.html

From Quackwatch

Don't Be Misled

As a public health measure, fluoridation is unusual in several ways. It is a copy of a naturally occurring phenomenon. It is supported by libraries full of articles that document its safety and effectiveness—more so than any other public health measure. It is supported by a variety of health, scientific, and civic groups that could hardly be expected to agree on any other single measure. But most significant, it is the only health measure that is often put to public vote.If you live in a community with fluoridated water, consider yourself lucky. If you do not, don't let the poisonmongers scare you. Fluoridation is still a modern health miracle.

Also Rubbish ... It doesn't meet the Cochrane standard

weisses wrote: »

So there are no studies that will meet the standard used by Cochrane

A standard you and I agree is the proper standard

SO what is said below is BS ... right ?

http://fluorideinfo.org/safety.html

From Quackwatch

Also Rubbish ... It doesn't meet the Cochrane standard

Sorry weisses it is a standard you insist is whats required, you are refusing to recognise anything that doesn't meet high on the Grade framework so with that in mind what is the justification for ending it when the only high standard studies we have says it is effective?

jh79 wrote: »

Sorry weisses it is a standard you insist is whats required, you are refusing to recognise anything that doesn't meet high on the Grade framework so with that in mind what is the justification for ending it when the only high standard studies we have says it is effective?

And do the studies mentioned in my linkies live up to that standard ?

Plus

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101513914&postcount=91

weisses wrote: »

So there are no studies that will meet the standard used by Cochrane

A standard you and I agree is the proper standard

Not even Cochrane agrees it is the appropriate standard for a public health intervention.

weisses wrote: »

And do the studies mentioned in my linkies live up to that standard ?

Plus

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101513914&postcount=91

You tell me, you are forming an opinion on fluoridation based exclusively on high quality papers so which papers informed your stance that fluoridation needs to be stopped?

jh79 wrote: »

You tell me, you are forming an opinion on fluoridation based exclusively on high quality papers so which papers informed your stance that fluoridation needs to be stopped?

No ... 97% of studies did not meet the Cochrane requirement ... A standard you and I agree is a proper one.

I bet the studies mentioned in the linkies dont meet that criteria (or at least a good portion of them ... Do you agree ?

Water in Irish prisons has fluoride. It doesn't do anything to make them less violent.
One of the many false claims about fluoride

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Water in Irish prisons has fluoride. It doesn't do anything to make them less violent.
One of the many false claims about fluoride

Soo so many false claims ... like the one claiming its effective in adults ...etc ..etc

Soo to recap ... There are various policies resulting in stopping, banning or not even introducing water fluoridation effecting 97% of the European population. And most have equally or better dental health then the 3% subjected to fluoridation. Stopping fluoridation is a no brainer really

weisses wrote: »

No ... 97% of studies did not meet the Cochrane requirement ... A standard you and I agree is a proper one.

I bet the studies mentioned in the linkies dont meet that criteria (or at least a good portion of them ... Do you agree ?

I don't agree that the standard for clinical trials is appropriate but that's irrelevant, you are against fluoridation but also insist that studies meet this standard, so again what is the basis for your stance on fluoridation and what research influenced it?

weisses wrote: »

Soo to recap ... There are various policies resulting in stopping, banning or not even introducing water fluoridation effecting 97% of the European population. And most have equally or better dental health then the 3% subjected to fluoridation. Stopping fluoridation is a no brainer really

That's not a well designed scientific study now is it??

weisses wrote: »

Soo to recap ... There are various policies resulting in stopping, banning or not even introducing water fluoridation effecting 97% of the European population. And most have equally or better dental health then the 3% subjected to fluoridation. Stopping fluoridation is a no brainer really

But why should it be stopped when it's shown to be at least effective in children and there is no evidence at all to indicate any negative effects?

weisses wrote:

Soo so many false claims ... like the one claiming its effective in adults ...etc ..etc

I get that. I'm not sure if we should have fluoride in the water. But I know we don't need misleading information either. It's like the water meter gang claiming meters will kill us with radiation. Then the same people glued to their smartphone and that puts out much more radiation than any water meter.

jh79 wrote: »

That's not a well designed scientific study now is it??

Correct its just adding and deducting to reach these figures

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I get that. I'm not sure if we should have fluoride in the water. But I know we don't need misleading information either. It's like the water meter gang claiming meters will kill us with radiation. Then the same people glued to their smartphone and that puts out much more radiation than any water meter.

I agree ...those people tend to do more harm then good in these kind of discussions

weisses wrote: »

Correct its just adding and deducting to reach these figures

So what high quality research leads you to believe that fluoridation should stop?

I work in retail and can confirm daily that either most people aren't drinking any water or its all a load of bs

jh79 wrote: »

So what high quality research leads you to believe that fluoridation should stop?

It has nothing to do with research ... you don't need research to reach the 97% fluoridation free percentage of the EU

weisses wrote: »

It has nothing to do with research ... you don't need research to reach the 97% fluoridation free percentage of the EU

I already know you don't want fluoridation i want to know why.

jh79 wrote: »

I already know you don't want fluoridation i want to know why.

We are discussing this long enough ... If you say that I don't want fluoridation you should also know why.

weisses wrote: »

We are discussing this long enough ... If you say that I don't want fluoridation you should also know why.

Ok but you'd agree that there are no proven adverse effects so that cannot be a reason, that you'd agree it has been proven to be effective in children as per the Cochrane review so it can't be effectiveness, so it's just the bodily integrity argument left?

jh79 wrote: »

Ok but you'd agree that there are no proven adverse effects so that cannot be a reason, that you'd agree it has been proven to be effective in children as per the Cochrane review so it can't be effectiveness, so it's just the bodily integrity argument left?

A: What research claiming no adverse effects will stand the Cochrane standard ? You said NONE ... so that point is mute

B: Over the years we have gone from the best thing in the last century to it is usefull for small children

about 0.3% of european children do get fluoridated water ... I dont see the rest doing much worse

I think there are other more effective ways to serve that group other then exposing other then a whole country or continent swallowing the stuff

weisses wrote: »

A: What research claiming no adverse effects will stand the Cochrane standard ? You said NONE ... so that point is mute

B: Over the years we have gone from the best thing in the last century to it is usefull for small children

about 0.3% of european children do get fluoridated water ... I dont see the rest doing much worse

I think there are other more effective ways to serve that group other then exposing other then a whole country or continent swallowing the stuff

But you don't have any high quality research that shows there are other more effective ways and you are the person that insisted on this level of research. So be consistent. What you think isn't a good enough reason to end something proven to be effective.

jh79 wrote: »

But you don't have any high quality research that shows there are other more effective ways and you are the person that insisted on this level of research. So be consistent. What you think isn't a good enough reason to end something proven to be effective.

We talk about research into adverse effects which you said would not meet the Cochrane standard

effective for .... wait for it ........................0.3 % of EU population

weisses wrote: »

We talk about research into adverse effects which you said would not meet the Cochrane standard

effective for .... wait for it ........................0.3 % of EU population

But there is no evidence of harm that meet your high standards so what does it matter that it's effectiveness in adults is not proven?

Do you believe fluoridation is harmful yes or no?

And if yes how can you hold such an opinion if you are not aware of any studies that would meet high on the Grade framework?

You set the benchmark now explain how your argument against fluoridation reconciles with this benchmark?

jh79 wrote: »

But there is no evidence of harm that meet your high standards so what does it matter that it's effectiveness in adults is not proven?

My High standard ? No

Cochrane set that

As for the rest of your post ...Just read over it until you actually realize what you are saying

Neither of us is aware of any high on the Grade framework research that shows Flouridation to be ineffective an/or harmful , would that be a fair statement?

weisses wrote: »

My High standard ? No

Cochrane set that

As for the rest of your post ...Just read over it until you actually realize what you are saying

I assumed you'd remember it is proven to be effective in children for gods sake they are the only studies that reach the standard you are insisting on.

jh79 wrote: »

I assumed you'd remember it is proven to be effective in children for gods sake they are the only studies that reach the standard you are insisting on.

Yes .... That is the 0.3% figure I posted

I hope you also remember that it was YOU who pointed out that Cochrane was studying fluoride research and how good they were ...

I am not insisting anything ... I only quoted directly from that report