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??

Lawyer.02

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

King Mob wrote: »

So therefore you are concluding that fluoride must be ineffective, correct?

Incorrect ... fluoride is effective ... As I said numerous times

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I dismiss the idea that any conclusions on the effectiveness or necessity of fluoridation can be made based on DMFT data alone.

Why ? .... Its easy ... 97% of Europe don't fluoridate their water .... Are they doing worse on the mainland in regards to dental health ?

jh79 wrote: »

You are being evasive by refusing to explain this data relevance to fluoridation and how it carries more worth than studies using the exact same data but with stat controls.

There is nothing to explain therefore there is no reason to be evasive.

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

You can reach a conclusion in regards to these numbers ..

For example you can state that dental health across Europe has improved despite not having water fluoridation.

You don't need high grade research to reach that conclusion

So therefore you are concluding that fluoride must be ineffective, correct?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

If conclusions can't be reached on the numbers alone, why then are you quoting those numbers as support for the ending of fluoridation?

If that's not what you are doing, then what is your point in quoting those figures?

You can reach a conclusion in regards to these numbers ..

For example you can state that dental health across Europe has improved despite not having water fluoridation.

You don't need high grade research to reach that conclusion

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Then tell me where I am evasive

Do you dismiss the data in regards to DMFT levels in Europe ?

I dismiss the idea that any conclusions on the effectiveness or necessity of fluoridation can be made based on DMFT data alone.

You are being evasive by refusing to explain this data relevance to fluoridation and how it carries more worth than studies using the exact same data but with stat controls.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Explain the significance of your data to this discussion so , without being evasive .

Then tell me where I am evasive

Do you dismiss the data in regards to DMFT levels in Europe ?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

In regards to collecting dmft data vs Cochrane: These are two totally different things .. One is basically collecting data presented by dentists (DMFT index) nothing more nothing less .... peer reviewed studies are needed to reach conclusions in regards to that data. That is where Cochrane comes into play

Where did I back myself into a corner ?

If conclusions can't be reached on the numbers alone, why then are you quoting those numbers as support for the ending of fluoridation?

If that's not what you are doing, then what is your point in quoting those figures?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Just to remind you again ... You boasted about the Cochrane report I only quoted the findings ... The fact their conclusions give reason for thought is not my problem

In regards to collecting dmft data vs Cochrane: These are two totally different things .. One is basically collecting data presented by dentists (DMFT index) nothing more nothing less .... peer reviewed studies are needed to reach conclusions in regards to that data. That is where Cochrane comes into play

Where did I back myself into a corner ?

Explain the significance of your data to this discussion so , without being evasive .

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

It has nothing to do with variables in studies. He is stuck and is afraid to expand on his stance.

Weisses claimed that he would only accept studies that reach high on the Grade framework eg Cochrane. I warned him at the time that this would back him into a corner and now it has he is now claiming that studies are not even required anymore.

He is now pretending that studies use different data to come to their conclusions, what the difference is i don't know but that's where we stand at the moment.

Just to remind you again ... You boasted about the Cochrane report I only quoted the findings ... The fact their conclusions give reason for thought is not my problem

In regards to collecting dmft data vs Cochrane: These are two totally different things .. One is basically collecting data presented by dentists (DMFT index) nothing more nothing less .... peer reviewed studies are needed to reach conclusions in regards to that data. That is where Cochrane comes into play

Where did I back myself into a corner ?

[Deleted User]

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Have you taken diet into account? May have already been discussed but it is one of the most important factors is deciding if flouridation is effective or not.

Children in Ireland consume much more sugary confectionery than in almost all other EU countries. Because of this our dental health should be much, much worse than elsewhere in Europe. It isn't in fact as bad as it should be, because of fluoridation.

For example, if there was a new miracle drug for Ebola and it was put on trial across the EU it would look like it was not very effective. Since there's so few cases of Ebola the actual rate would change by very little if at all.
If you tested the drug across several African countries though you would clearly see the effectiveness.

So if the rate of dental caries and extractions in the EU and in Ireland are falling at similar rates, yet children here report eating far more sugary, sticky, acidic treats every day, we can say fluoridation is very effective in Ireland because of our diet, but less effective in the EU because they eat less sugary snacks in the first place.

It has nothing to do with variables in studies. He is stuck and is afraid to expand on his stance.

Weisses claimed that he would only accept studies that reach high on the Grade framework eg Cochrane. I warned him at the time that this would back him into a corner and now it has he is now claiming that studies are not even required anymore.

He is now pretending that studies use different data to come to their conclusions, what the difference is i don't know but that's where we stand at the moment.

Cianmcliam

Have you taken diet into account? May have already been discussed but it is one of the most important factors is deciding if flouridation is effective or not.

Children in Ireland consume much more sugary confectionery than in almost all other EU countries. Because of this our dental health should be much, much worse than elsewhere in Europe. It isn't in fact as bad as it should be, because of fluoridation.

For example, if there was a new miracle drug for Ebola and it was put on trial across the EU it would look like it was not very effective. Since there's so few cases of Ebola the actual rate would change by very little if at all.
If you tested the drug across several African countries though you would clearly see the effectiveness.

So if the rate of dental caries and extractions in the EU and in Ireland are falling at similar rates, yet children here report eating far more sugary, sticky, acidic treats every day, we can say fluoridation is very effective in Ireland because of our diet, but less effective in the EU because they eat less sugary snacks in the first place.

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

No ..

So how is improving dental health in europe a reason to end fluoridation in ireland if it has nothing to do with effectiveness or necessity?

So you must be you just pointing out an observation/ correlation ?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Ok so it is necessity your questioning?

No ..

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

So the figures from the states are also ludicrous ? How should we interpret them ?

Do you need a Cochrane study to determine someone needs a filling ?

Last time I checked that wasn't the case

And yes you would have more use from 2 excel sheets then a peer reviewed study gathering that information

This has nothing to do with studies on effectiveness of fluoridation and so it doesn't "reject" any of "my" studies

Ok so it is necessity your questioning?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

If you read it fully a sample size of 1 million was described as ludicrous. So you still have an issue with sample size preventing any real interpretation.

So the figures from the states are also ludicrous ? How should we interpret them ?

jh79 wrote: »

Another question I'd like an answer to is about the sample used by you and one of the criteria set my Cochrane.

Cochrane required two population sets both have to have at t=0 approximately a similar DMFT, fluoridation to be introduced in one population set and at least five years later the DMFT assessed again for both populations.

Now your excel sheet with two columns does not meet this criteria.

Do you now reject the criteria set by Cochrane?

or

Do you think this criteria is not necessary for your two columns?

If this is the case, can you explain why you reject studies that show fluoridation to be effective that also do not meet this criteria that use the same raw data but with stat models to reduce the effects of variables (even more of an issue with your large data set) eg the NI study?

We know Cochrane rejects them but they would also reject your "study" so you need to explain this discrepancy in your logic?

Do you need a Cochrane study to determine someone needs a filling ?

Last time I checked that wasn't the case

And yes you would have more use from 2 excel sheets then a peer reviewed study gathering that information

This has nothing to do with studies on effectiveness of fluoridation and so it doesn't "reject" any of "my" studies

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Fortunately that large size is nicely chopped up between different countries ...Which makes it less "dangerous"

But the trend among all these countries is a drop in DMFT

If you read it fully a sample size of 1 million was described as ludicrous. So you still have an issue with sample size preventing any real interpretation.

Another question I'd like an answer to is about the sample used by you and one of the criteria set my Cochrane.

Cochrane required two population sets both have to have at t=0 approximately a similar DMFT, fluoridation to be introduced in one population set and at least five years later the DMFT assessed again for both populations.

Now your excel sheet with two columns does not meet this criteria.

Do you now reject the criteria set by Cochrane?

or

Do you think this criteria is not necessary for your two columns?

If this is the case, can you explain why you reject studies that show fluoridation to be effective that also do not meet this criteria that use the same raw data but with stat models to reduce the effects of variables (even more of an issue with your large data set) eg the NI study?

We know Cochrane rejects them but they would also reject your "study" so you need to explain this discrepancy in your logic?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Ok weisses one issue your comparison has is size, 743 million is the population of Europe.

Here is a blog on the dangers of large sample sizes.

"Warning 1: Huge Samples Can Make the Insignificant...Significant"

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/statistics-and-quality-data-analysis/large-samples-too-much-of-a-good-thing

Fortunately that large size is nicely chopped up between different countries ...Which makes it less "dangerous"

But the trend among all these countries is a drop in DMFT

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

I am saying that according to the various statistics DMFT levels in non fluoridating countries are dropping at the same speed or faster then in Ireland

Studies in regards to effectiveness of water fluoridation did not meet the inclusion criteria of an institute hailed by yourself

I am not making this stuff up ... I'm quoting directly from the source

Ok weisses one issue your comparison has is size, 743 million is the population of Europe.

Here is a blog on the dangers of large sample sizes.

"Warning 1: Huge Samples Can Make the Insignificant...Significant"

http://blog.minitab.com/blog/statistics-and-quality-data-analysis/large-samples-too-much-of-a-good-thing

Overheal

Play nice folks..

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

I am saying that according to the various statistics DMFT levels in non fluoridating countries are dropping at the same speed or faster then in Ireland

Studies in regards to effectiveness of water fluoridation did not meet the inclusion criteria of an institute hailed by yourself

I am not making this stuff up ... I'm quoting directly from the source

And you should then also know becuase of the criteria set my Cochrane and the reasons for this set of criteria that no judgement on fluoridation can be made.

If you disagree then show which of the criteria set by Cochrane doesn't 't apply to your raw data?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Well yea, you could. You could explain what your point actually is and how it addresses the points I and jh have outlined.

But this would require that you are able to address them in the first place...

To understand my points YOU actually need to know what statistics I quote from

I assumed you knew because based on these figures you thought that you could accuse me of weaseling, being dishonest etc ... Now it turns out that you haven't the faintest idea what exact statistic I'm quoting from ... kinda odd isn't it ?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Ok so the figures you are presenting are just raw data adjusted for population.

And as you say above the "how/why/when" requires a study.

Saying fluoridation is not necessary based on these numbers requires a study .

If you disagree you need to say why and with detail especially given an Irish study which uses the same raw data as you is not evidence of effectiveness according to you. You can't say because Cochrane rejected it because that also invalidates your raw data comparison.

I am saying that according to the various statistics DMFT levels in non fluoridating countries are dropping at the same speed or faster then in Ireland

Studies in regards to effectiveness of water fluoridation did not meet the inclusion criteria of an institute hailed by yourself

I am not making this stuff up ... I'm quoting directly from the source

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

My opinion and what I could find is that they have a DMFT index and a DMFT survey as well ... More in depth (peer reviewed) research would be used to explain/investigate these figures ... One area has a much higher number on DMFT as the other for example(how/why/when ,,etc)

But the raw data is just a dentist ticking a box .. collect them and send them off ... as far as I could find out ...

Ok so the figures you are presenting are just raw data adjusted for population.

And as you say above the "how/why/when" requires a study.

Saying fluoridation is not necessary based on these numbers requires a study .

If you disagree you need to say why and with detail especially given an Irish study which uses the same raw data as you is not evidence of effectiveness according to you. You can't say because Cochrane rejected it because that also invalidates your raw data comparison.

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Its a pity basically that you accuse me of all kinds of dishonesty etc etc when you haven't got a clue what I'm referring to.

I am making my point all along when referencing to the WHO statistics ..I cannot be any clearer

Well yea, you could. You could explain what your point actually is and how it addresses the points I and jh have outlined.

But this would require that you are able to address them in the first place...

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I want an explanation on when DMFT data on its own is ok, when is a research study required and why or when a High on the Grade framework study is required.

All these use the same data so in your opinion what is the point of the various study methodologies and how do they all compare to each other?

My opinion and what I could find is that they have a DMFT index and a DMFT survey as well ... More in depth (peer reviewed) research would be used to explain/investigate these figures ... One area has a much higher number on DMFT as the other for example(how/why/when ,,etc)

But the raw data is just a dentist ticking a box .. collect them and send them off ... as far as I could find out ...

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Cochrane and SCHER plus the WHO ..... As said earlier when it comes to statistics you could use data that is merely collected ... You would not need a high grade peer reviewed research to collect these from dentists

I want an explanation on when DMFT data on its own is ok, when is a research study required and why or when a High on the Grade framework study is required.

All these use the same data so in your opinion what is the point of the various study methodologies and how do they all compare to each other?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

Cochrane and SCHER plus the WHO ..... As said earlier when it comes to statistics you could use data that is merely collected ... You would not need a high grade peer reviewed research to collect these from dentists

You know all my examples and your excel sheet use the same raw data ie DMFT / dmft?

[Deleted User]

weisses wrote: »

In regards to other questions ..Yes a 2 page excel sheet is more useful then a peer reviewed study when it comes to collecting DMFT statistics

They have a DMFT index and surveys are carried out all the time collecting data from dentists .. As said earlier .. its not rocket science

Are you serious ?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Ok weisses,

Can you answer the following please,

Could you rank the following please and explain why you have ranked them in that order with respect to their value to this discussion,

1: Your data taken from the SCHER report

2: The Irish and Scottish studies rejected by Cochrane or just the studies rejected in general

3:The Cochrane review

Could you explain why one out ranks the other.

It is not a trick question, if you believe your stats have worth you should have no problem explaining why.

Cochrane and SCHER plus the WHO ..... As said earlier when it comes to statistics you could use data that is merely collected ... You would not need a high grade peer reviewed research to collect these from dentists

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe instead of playing games and acting coy, you could just make your point and address my question. Otherwise: not interested because it's past being worth the effort.

Its a pity basically that you accuse me of all kinds of dishonesty etc etc when you haven't got a clue what I'm referring to.

I am making my point all along when referencing to the WHO statistics ..I cannot be any clearer

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the actual figures before asking questions that can actually be found in said figures.

In regards to other questions ..Yes a 2 page excel sheet is more useful then a peer reviewed study when it comes to collecting DMFT statistics

They have a DMFT index and surveys are carried out all the time collecting data from dentists .. As said earlier .. its not rocket science