King Mob wrote: » Not really my job. You are claiming that this doesn't factor in. So what leads you to believe this? How do you know that the number of people who do use these products does not effect statistics? Do you think they they might effect the statistics?
King Mob wrote: » Again, you seem to be misreading then redefining things. Cochrane says that it cannot make a conclusion because there is insufficient evidence. You are making a conclusion that there is no difference based on socio econmonic factors. What evidence do you have to show this?
King Mob wrote: » No, that's why we're still asking. You are avoiding again.
King Mob wrote: » Nope, it's just the one thing you have to accept because of the double standards you are accepting. Even with your strict interpretations and sudden desire to stick to only what you've decided to be the highest quality evidence, you still must accept that it has been shown to be effective in children. You have yet to show a convincing reason to forgo even that benefit.
weisses wrote: » It is your job ...You are saying it should be factored in ... so give the numbers so we can add themYou've rejected studies like this because they were also rejected by Cochrane. Uhhh If Cochrane cannot reach that conclusion how can you ask me if I am acounting for cost of dental hygiene and care among different levels of wealth ? .... It cannot be used either wayYour a bit confused here, Cochrane isn't saying this at all. Cochrane review states there was insufficient evidence that fluoridation had greater effect on poorer communities. What Kingmob is saying and what the various studies do is ensure that such factors do not skew the data so that a firm conclusion can be drawn. Either by selecting patients from a mix of backgrounds or by using statistical models to account for such things.If you select only people from a disadvantaged background then your conclusions only apply to them. If you have no controls on confounding factors your data is essentially worthless in the context of fluoridation. Again ... If you need to be spoonfed ... don't come to me Show me where I adopt double standards ?By claiming a single set of simple data was a sufficient reason to end fluoridation but that only high quality studies are sufficient to justify fluoridation. Surely you have come across the idea of controls and confounding factors given how many papers have been discussed on this and other threads And I do accept it is effective in children (also already discussed earlier with JH97) I think I even agreed with jh97 before Cochrane published their findings that it would be a good standard to go fromOk so it is effective in children and safe and we won't know otherwise until 2021 so why on earth should it end now?
weisses wrote: » It is your job ...You are saying it should be factored in ... so give the numbers so we can add them
weisses wrote: » Uhhh If Cochrane cannot reach that conclusion how can you ask me if I am acounting for cost of dental hygiene and care among different levels of wealth ? .... It cannot be used either way
weisses wrote: » Again ... If you need to be spoonfed ... don't come to me
weisses wrote: » I am not talking about studies in regards to DMFT figures on the mainland These are statistics Do we need a high grade peer reviewed study to compare road deaths in Europe ? Its not rocket science lads
jh79 wrote: » And until some of those countries introduce fluoridation and then in five years time re-asses DMFT and dmft levels that observation is completely meaningless. Cochrane reviews have found fluoridation to be effective in children and to be the most effective public intervention measure, can you explain the reasons for now rejecting these findings and how your two columns in excel is proof that these findings should be rejected?
No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.
weisses wrote: » How can they claim the part in Bold and the part below in the same report
jh79 wrote: » ok, try again so. Dental health is improving in the EU , why is that significant? What does it prove?
King Mob wrote: » So the factors I outlined play no effect on the statistics and therefore your conclusion? How do you know this for a fact?
There is low quality evidence to suggest fluoridated milk may be beneficial to schoolchildren
weisses wrote: » 97% of the European population is not affected by water fluoridation and yet their dental health improves at the same rate or even faster then the people in Ireland What does that mean to you ? giving the fact Children in the age group it works for only counts for 8-10% of the population
weisses wrote: » Ohh they probably have some effect .... Cochrane A couple of countries have fluoridated salt available But if you have any statistics on the factors YOU outlined I'm all ears
King Mob wrote: » Yes, that was one factor I mentioned. Another you conceded that there wasn't enough evidence to conclude on. Again, these factors influence the statistics. To exclude them and reach the conclusion you do, you need a study.
weisses wrote: » No we dont ... They don't fluoridate their water ... I am not disputing if fluoride works or not ... 97% of Europe dont fluoridate their water and their dental health is up to par or better then the folks here in Ireland
King Mob wrote: » Ok, let's take this one step at a time... Yes, but in some cases they fluoridate their salt and milk. How do you know for a fact that the reason their dental health is on par with Ireland's is not because this method of fluoridation produces a similar benefit?
weisses wrote: » And how do you know for a fact the fluoride toothpaste used in Ireland doesn't play a big role in dental health over here as well ? And as you say .. Salt and milk is available in some cases ... You could compare figures with countries that don't use fluoridated salt or milk.
jh79 wrote: » Ok weisses if basic comparisons are good enough for you all of a sudden then fluoridation must be effective in ireland because dental health is better here than in NI. Just stats no need for a study i believe you said? We fluoridate they don't so it must be effective??
weisses wrote: » Yes basic comparisons are good enough 97% of Europe don't fluoridate their water (fact) ..And dental health is equally as good or better then in the countries that do fluoridate their water ..... What don't you understand in regards to these figures ?
jh79 wrote: » According to Cochrane a 25 % reduction for children. Who wouldn't want that??
jh79 wrote: » This is how bad your argument against fluoridation has got??
weisses wrote: » Easily achieved without water fluoridation ..As statistics show
King Mob wrote: » Not going to distract you with further questions you can deflect to. I want to see how you weasel your way out of this corner
jh79 wrote: » 25% more would be achieved which you can't seem to grasp.
weisses wrote: » How ? Are you actually suggesting dental health among the children in the 97% would jump with 25% if they would start to fluoridate ?
jh79 wrote: » My God what do you think the Cochrane review was all about? That is exactly what their meta analysis found it is in your favoured plain english summary, the bottom line according to you.
These results are based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b1a2e86cedae1628937f4503f2281da.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)