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

weisses wrote: »

Ohh okay

Yes and until 2021 it is the only data available that meets your high standard .

An old study is betrer than no study.

You still have not addressed the NI issue?

weisses wrote: »

Ohh okay

Why did you not mentioned this ? ...Is it inconvenient ?

Study in regards to NI is 14 years old correct ?

If you have a newer study to counter it put up a link.

jh79 wrote: »

Yes and until 2021 it is the only data available that meets your high standard .

An old study is betrer than no study.

You still have not addressed the NI issue?

You brought up Cochrane as almost being the holy grail of research before the results were known... So its not my standard I'm afraid

NI lets see what Cochrane thinks about that

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

and

These results are based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today

Does that answer the NI issue ?

weisses wrote: »

What questions am i deflecting ? .... Other then the ones I already addressed in the years of debating water fluoridation ?

Well for one, the one about Northern Ireland.

The statistics clearly show that they have less dental health because they have no fluoridation if we are to stick with them as you insist.

Please explain why you disagree with this.

weisses wrote: »

You brought up Cochrane as almost being the holy grail of research before the results were known... So its not my standard I'm afraid

NI lets see what Cochrane thinks about that

and

Does that answer the NI issue ?

Nope, based on your logic of two excel columns being sufficient this proves fluoridation on this island is more effective than not flouridating.

King Mob wrote: »

Well for one, the one about Northern Ireland.

The statistics clearly show that they have less dental health because they have no fluoridation if we are to stick with them as you insist.

Please explain why you disagree with this.

Old statistics ... I know you want to hang on to them but I don't think they are valid today

jh79 wrote: »

Nope, based on your logic of two excel columns being sufficient this proves fluoridation on this island is more effective than not flouridating.

Okay let's play that game

Should we ignore the figures claiming dental health gain throughout Europe without water fluoridation yes or no ?

Why are you ignoring the Cochrane report when claiming water fluoridating is effective ? When Cohrane could not find any report that met the criteria to determine its effectiveness

weisses wrote: »

Okay let's play that game

Should we ignore the figures claiming dental health gain throughout Europe without water fluoridation yes or no ?

Why are you ignoring the Cochrane report when claiming water fluoridating is effective ? When Cohrane could not find any report that met the criteria to determine its effectiveness

Ok weissess to show you are genuine acknowledge that the full report says that the evidence points to a significant effect and that the selection policy may have been too harsh. You don't have to agree but at least have the guts to admit that is what the review says.

Or stick to what your doing and fluoridation is safe and effective at least until 2021.

weisses wrote: »

Okay let's play that game

Should we ignore the figures claiming dental health gain throughout Europe without water fluoridation yes or no ?

Why are you ignoring the Cochrane report when claiming water fluoridating is effective ? When Cohrane could not find any report that met the criteria to determine its effectiveness

Is this a tactic or a serious question??

Your data should not be ignored but should only be used to guide further study. In the hierarchy of evidence this is the lowest and no conclusion can be made from the data.

The studies Cochrane rejected compare areas with and without fluoridation but with stat methods to control for confounders and you hypocritically reject these while putting forward a lower class of data with no controls as evidence?? Explain this please ?

weisses wrote: »

Old statistics ... I know you want to hang on to them but I don't think they are valid today

Why does them being old statistics matter?
What has changed between then and now? How about the age of the statistics you are clinging to?

Do you agree then that fluoride was effective in the past since the statistics show that back then?

weisses wrote: »

Old statistics ... I know you want to hang on to them but I don't think they are valid today

But you won't be able to prove it until 2021.

So why should fluoridation end today without any proof it is no longer effective?

jh79 wrote: »

Ok weissess to show you are genuine acknowledge that the full report says that the evidence points to a significant effect and that the selection policy may have been too harsh. You don't have to agree but at least have the guts to admit that is what the review says.

Or stick to what your doing and fluoridation is safe and effective at least until 2021.

You slam anti fluoride research because it's not up to standard according to you ... And when conclusions reached by A researcher you hold in high regards are not going your way selection criteria are to harsh...

I go with what they concluded in the summary

It wasn't me who went on stating how good Cochrane was and that their conclusions would be a good indicator

And now that it's not to your liking you already start referring to a review due in 2021

King Mob wrote: »

Why does them being old statistics matter?
What has changed between then and now? How about the age of the statistics you are clinging to?

Do you agree then that fluoride was effective in the past since the statistics show that back then?

Wait what ?? .. When it suits your point 15 year old statistics are all of a sudden acceptable ? I thought a lot has happened in 15 years of dental awareness .... Statistics I refer to use a broad reach of years up to 2010 that show a constant decline in dmft all over Europe

And yes fluoride is as effective in the past as it is now ... I never argued it wasn't

weisses wrote: »

You slam anti fluoride research because it's not up to standard according to you ... And when conclusions reached by A researcher you hold in high regards are not going your way selection criteria are to harsh...

I go with what they concluded in the summary

It wasn't me who went on stating how good Cochrane was and that their conclusions would be a good indicator

And now that it's not to your liking you already start referring to a review due in 2021

You said that you only would accept studies that passed the criteria set by Cochrane so i went along with it. I warned you at the time you would back yourself into a corner with such a stance and you have. It your own fault for trying to win the next post rather than producing a coherent and consistent argument

weisses wrote: »

Wait what ?? .. When it suits your point 15 year old statistics are all of a sudden acceptable ? I thought a lot has happened in 15 years of dental awareness .... Statistics I refer to use a broad reach of years up to 2010 that show a constant decline in dmft all over Europe

No, I'm asking you to explain your logic, because it appears to be flawed.
You are stating that simple statistics are enough when they suit you.
However, now we've pointed out statistics you don't like, you are trying to weasel out of your claim.

Now you are saying that different levels of dental awareness can effect statistics.
So why isn't this a factor in the statistics you like? How do you account for this (and other factors) to reach your conclusion?
How do you do this without a study?

weisses wrote: »

And yes fluoride is as effective in the past as it is now ... I never argued it wasn't

So it is effective. Great.
Then why should it be stopped?

weisses wrote: »

And yes fluoride is as effective in the past as it is now ... I never argued it wasn't

So what's your point ? A rehash of the necessity argument that didn't work before?

King Mob wrote: »

No, I'm asking you to explain your logic, because it appears to be flawed.
You are stating that simple statistics are enough when they suit you.
However, now we've pointed out statistics you don't like, you are trying to weasel out of your claim.

A statistic is a statistic ... How is my logic flawed if I pull these figures from the WHO

King Mob wrote: »

Now you are saying that different levels of dental awareness can effect statistics.

No I am saying that a lot can happen in 15 years ... policy changes .. public awareness etc

King Mob wrote: »

So why isn't this a factor in the statistics you like? How do you account for this (and other factors) to reach your conclusion?

How many years did the NI study cover (to show trends for example)

King Mob wrote: »

So it is effective. Great.
Then why should it be stopped?

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

Plus 12% of people suffer from fluorosis

weisses wrote: »

A statistic is a statistic ... How is my logic flawed if I pull these figures from the WHO

There's a difference between "logic" and "stating statistics".
The figures you are quoting are not flawed. Your conclusion is flawed. That's where your logic is and where you are going wrong.

You are stating that simple statistics are enough. They are not because they do not account for confounding factors. You have not addressed how you exclude other factors.

weisses wrote: »

No I am saying that a lot can happen in 15 years ... policy changes .. public awareness etc

So differences in policy and public awareness effect the statistics then?
So why does this not apply to your prefered numbers?

weisses wrote: »

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

But you've agreed that fluoride is effective and that fluoridation help children.
So water fluoridation provides a benefit.

weisses wrote: »

Plus 12% of people suffer from fluorosis

Well I'm going to have to get you to back that up and give it some context, then explain why it is a reason to stop...

King Mob wrote: »

There's a difference between "logic" and "stating statistics".
The figures you are quoting are not flawed. Your conclusion is flawed. That's where your logic is and where you are going wrong.

You are stating that simple statistics are enough. They are not because they do not account for confounding factors. You have not addressed how you exclude other factors.

Isn't that something that should be factored in statistics in general ?

Okay then please outline where my logic is now and where it needs to be in regards to these statistics ?

King Mob wrote: »

So differences in policy and public awareness effect the statistics then?
So why does this not apply to your prefered numbers?

They do .. they show a constant decline in dmft

King Mob wrote: »

But you've agreed that fluoride is effective and that fluoridation help children.
So water fluoridation provides a benefit.

Fluoride is effective ...

But studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults didn't meet the Cochrane's criteria ...

Do you disagree with these conclusions

As it goes for children .... Based on old studies so that could have changed as well (cohrane ... not me stating that)

King Mob wrote: »

Well I'm going to have to get you to back that up and give it some context, then explain why it is a reason to stop...

Cochrane review .. What context do you need ? its a result of to much fluoride.

weisses wrote: »

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

Plus 12% of people suffer from fluorosis

Fluorosis is flecking of the teeth so hardly something you suffer!

Yes they didn't met the criteria. This does not mean fluoridation is ineffective in adults.

Now you presented simple stats as evidence, now the next step up , and a significant step up at that, are the studies that were rejected. These indicate but do not prove it is effective in adults.

So from this side of the fence we have definitive proof of effectiveness in children and a strong indication of effectiveness in adults and no adverse effects bar cosmetic fluorosis (proving btw that water fluoridation has a topical mode of action).

On your side of the fence it is definitely effective in children. No evidence that it is ineffective in adults and no known adverse effects bar cosmetic fluorosis.

It can't be spun any other way.

weisses wrote: »

Isn't that something that should be factored in statistics in general ?

Okay then please outline where my logic is now and where it needs to be in regards to these statistics ?

They do .. they show a constant decline in dmft

Fluoride is effective ...

As it goes for children .... Based on old studies so that could have changed as well (cohrane ... not me stating that)

Cochrane review .. What context do you need ? its a result of to much fluoride.

To factor it in you need a study so present a study to back your claim otherwise it is meaningless.

Yes the studies are old but you won't accept newer studies because Cochrane doesn't so you'll have to wait until 2021.

Fluorisis is too minor to be a concern at all. At least you now accept this is the only known adverse effect

Ok weisses lets discuss your study /simple stats.

Can you sperate children from adults from your data as we know for certain it is effective in children?

What time frame are you looking at?

What was the difference in DmFT between Ireland and Europe at t=0, were they the same?

Wouldn't rate of change be more appropriate to account for differing DMFT at t=0

Did you remove the Spain and the UK from your analysis given that they partly fluoridate and therefore would add bias to the result?

Volvic and water in Italy, France and parts of eastern europe has the same fluoride as us, how did you account for this?

Ireland has a rate of sugar compustion higher than most of Europe , how did you account for this?

If you have not accounted for any of these how can we trust your comparison to be a true reflection of the situation?

weisses wrote: »

Isn't that something that should be factored in statistics in general ?

No, not always, and not in the numbers you are quoting. Most people who use statistics honestly understand that, which is why studies are conducted.

weisses wrote: »

Okay then please outline where my logic is now and where it needs to be in regards to these statistics ?

Again, I have been pointing this out. Yu have been failing to understand.
How are you excluding other factors that influence the statistics when you make you conclusion?
Are you doing this at all?

weisses wrote: »

They do .. they show a constant decline in dmft

So, then would differences between the policy and public awareness between different countries effect statistics?
Is so, how did you factor it in before your reached you conclusion?
Did you factor it in?

weisses wrote: »

Fluoride is effective ...

But studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults didn't meet the Cochrane's criteria ...

Do you disagree with these conclusions

I don't disagree with cochranes conclusions. I disagree with your flawed understanding of them or the massive conclusions you reach based on your interpretation of them.
Jh79 has already explained in detail to you how you are failing to understand what you read.

weisses wrote: »

As it goes for children .... Based on old studies so that could have changed as well (cohrane ... not me stating that)

But again, you've admitted it's effective in children. You can't squirm out of that now unfortunately.

weisses wrote: »

Cochrane review .. What context do you need ? its a result of to much fluoride.

The context I would like is the different levels of fluorosis. Is it 12% of all paitents suffering severe fluorosis? Is it minor?
Cause if its the case of that 12% having barely noticeable browning of their teeth, then I don't think it's worth the bother to stop when it at the very least benefits children. Even if all of those cases are severe, i still don't think it tips the balance.

Also, I would like to know that if fluoride isn't working, how can it give people fluorosis?
Do those 12% have the benefits from fluoride?

jh79 wrote: »

Fluorosis is flecking of the teeth so hardly something you suffer!

Yes they didn't met the criteria. This does not mean fluoridation is ineffective in adults.

Now you presented simple stats as evidence, now the next step up , and a significant step up at that, are the studies that were rejected. These indicate but do not prove it is effective in adults.

So from this side of the fence we have definitive proof of effectiveness in children and a strong indication of effectiveness in adults and no adverse effects bar cosmetic fluorosis (proving btw that water fluoridation has a topical mode of action).

On your side of the fence it is definitely effective in children. No evidence that it is ineffective in adults and no known adverse effects bar cosmetic fluorosis.

It can't be spun any other way.

Okay I get it

We discard all the evidence gathered by whelton an Mullane stating its effective as well then ... where does that leave the justification for water fluoridation ?

And there is No strong evidence in regards to adults ... please stop that obvious spin ..At least if you respect the Cochrane findings

weisses wrote: »

Okay I get it

We discard all the evidence gathered by whelton an Mullane stating its effective as well then ... where does that leave the justification for water fluoridation ?

And there is No strong evidence in regards to adults ... please stop that obvious spin ..At least if you respect the Cochrane findings

Ok so no more nonsense about stats from Europe?

King Mob wrote: »

No, not always, and not in the numbers you are quoting. Most people who use statistics honestly understand that, which is why studies are conducted.

Again, I have been pointing this out. Yu have been failing to understand.
How are you excluding other factors that influence the statistics when you make you conclusion?
Are you doing this at all?

How am I doing that when Im only referencing directly from these statistics?

I am not adding stuff myself These statistics are a result of data gathering in regards to dmft and they show a steady decline in dmft in non fluoridated countries ... Where do I display dishonesty ?

King Mob wrote: »

So, then would differences between the policy and public awareness between different countries effect statistics?
Is so, how did you factor it in before your reached you conclusion?
Did you factor it in?

Of course there are differences .. Where did I say the whole of Europe is the same ?

King Mob wrote: »

I don't disagree with cochranes conclusions. I disagree with your flawed understanding of them or the massive conclusions you reach based on your interpretation of them.
Jh79 has already explained in detail to you how you are failing to understand what you read.

Again ...I quote directly from the summary ..which states studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults didn't meet the Cochrane's criteria ...

What don't you understand from that conclusion ?

King Mob wrote: »

But again, you've admitted it's effective in children. You can't squirm out of that now unfortunately.

Yes and as JH97 can attest I did not say otherwise I only added another conclusion of Cochrane stating that these results are based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today.

Where did I engage in squirming ?

King Mob wrote: »

The context I would like is the different levels of fluorosis. Is it 12% of all paitents suffering severe fluorosis? Is it minor?
Cause if its the case of that 12% having barely noticeable browning of their teeth, then I don't think it's worth the bother to stop when it at the very least benefits children. Even if all of those cases are severe, i still don't think it tips the balance.

I would suggest you read the summary, Its a bit strange you say that you agree with the Cochrane findings in the same sentence saying I have a flawed understanding of them, without knowing at least the summary of the report (slow handclap)

King Mob wrote: »

Also, I would like to know that if fluoride isn't working, how can it give people fluorosis?
Do those 12% have the benefits from fluoride?

Below a reply from me a few posts back

weisses wrote: »

And yes fluoride is as effective in the past as it is now ... I never argued it wasn't

What part of that quote don't you understand ?

jh79 wrote: »

Ok so no more nonsense about stats from Europe?

If you want to rule out the WHO as a source ? ... by all means

What are we left with ?

weisses wrote: »

Okay I get it

We discard all the evidence gathered by whelton an Mullane stating its effective as well then ... where does that leave the justification for water fluoridation ?

And there is No strong evidence in regards to adults ... please stop that obvious spin ..At least if you respect the Cochrane findings

The Cochrane reveiw states it is effective in children.

It found insufficient evidence for the rest but admits its criteria was extremely strict and virtually imposible to meet. It also states the results it rejected were postive for fluoridation.

I quoted the relevant section previously so you can't deny this.

I think that 1.5 million could be better spent than placating a few cranks who won't accept the results of study if they don't like them anyways.

Water fluoridation is cheap at 4m a year ( as a % of GDP it's nothing) and completely harmless.

Now if the Conspiracy did not exist would anyone care that the research in adults isn't the best possible?? I doubt it.

Imagine telling a person that the government could add a completely harmless amount of a naturally occurring element to water that would definitely reduce cariers in children and possibly in adults would they insist on a 1.5m pound study or say sure why not?? Your judgement is clouded by the conspiracy.

jh79 wrote: »

The Cochrane reveiw states it is effective in children.

It found insufficient evidence for the rest but admits its criteria was extremely strict and virtually imposible to meet. It also states the results it rejected were postive for fluoridation.

I quoted the relevant section previously so you can't deny this.

I think that 1.5 million could be better spent than placating a few cranks who won't accept the results of study if they don't like them anyways.

Water fluoridation is cheap at 4m a year ( as a % of GDP it's nothing) and completely harmless.

Now if the Conspiracy did not exist would anyone care that the research in adults isn't the best possible?? I doubt it.

Imagine telling a person that the government could add a completely harmless amount of a naturally occurring element to water that would definitely reduce cariers in children and possibly in adults would they insist on a 1.5m pound study or say sure why not?? Your judgement is clouded by the conspiracy.

I thought its strictness was hailed as one of the benefits ... And it should be strict

What conspiracy is clouding my judgement when I'm using fluoride myself ?

weisses wrote: »

How am I doing that when Im only referencing directly from these statistics?

I am not adding stuff myself These statistics are a result of data gathering in regards to dmft and they show a steady decline in dmft in non fluoridated countries ... Where do I display dishonesty ?

Because again, you are claiming it's a matter of comparing two statistics.
Like for example below:

weisses wrote: »

Of course there are differences .. Where did I say the whole of Europe is the same ?

So you acknowledge that there are differences in different countries.

Yet you have not explained how you factor this into your conclusion, because you didn't factor it into your conclusion. Yet, you are dishonestly pretending as if this and other factors don't effect the numbers.
Which part of this do you have issues with understanding?

weisses wrote: »

I would suggest you read the summary, Its a bit strange you say that you agree with the Cochrane findings in the same sentence saying I have a flawed understanding of them, without knowing at least the summary of the report (slow handclap)

Lol, you've again avoided the issue.
You are now claiming that this 12% of fluorosis victims is a good reason to stop fluoridation. But you know how ridiculous this is, so you are now trying to avoid the topic.

Why would this outweigh the benefit of fluoridation?