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: »

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 ?

Interesting that you say it should be strict, why do you believe this to be the case?

It is illogical to want to end something that is harmless that has proven benefits, how else would you explain it?

jh79 wrote: »

It is illogical to want to end something that is harmless that has proven benefits, how else would you explain it?

This is why all anti-fluoridationist campaigners have to invent lies to make it seem like it's an important issue and to get people to care about it.
That's why this issue is being discussed in Conspiracy Theories and not Dental Health.

The science doesn't matter, the only reason anyone thinks it's an actual issue is because they believe the government is after their precious bodily fluids.

King Mob wrote: »

This is why all anti-fluoridationist campaigners have to invent lies to make it seem like it's an important issue and to get people to care about it.
That's why this issue is being discussed in Conspiracy Theories and not Dental Health.

The science doesn't matter, the only reason anyone thinks it's an actual issue is because they believe the government is after their precious bodily fluids.

If weisses reads the link for the study to be published in 2021 he would see that the reason it has taken so long is due to oppostion from the anti fluoride side! To carry out such a study fluoridation needs to be introduced to a region.

How can you call for better studies and also that fluoridation should end it's crazy.

King Mob wrote: »

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

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?

Do you even know what statistics we are talking about ?

King Mob wrote: »

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.

Where do I avoid the issue ?

Bit difficult now is it as I am the one who mentioned it

But from your posts I get it that you didn't read the report (summary) and you have no clou what statistics I'm referring to

And yet you accuse me of weaseling, being dishonest ... etc etc ... The mind boggles

King Mob wrote: »

Why would this outweigh the benefit of fluoridation?

What would outweigh the benefit of fluoridation ... ?

jh79 wrote: »

Interesting that you say it should be strict, why do you believe this to be the case?

It is illogical to want to end something that is harmless that has proven benefits, how else would you explain it?

A: you don't know if its harmless, As you said yourself ..research in that would not make the Cochrane standard

B: Kinda proven In kids

King Mob wrote: »

The science doesn't matter, the only reason anyone thinks it's an actual issue is because they believe the government is after their precious bodily fluids.

Unfortunately science to you only matters depending on what side of the debate you dug yourself into

jh79 wrote: »

How can you call for better studies and also that fluoridation should end it's crazy.

Sure ... fortunately 97% of the EU population kinda proves you wrong

weisses wrote: »

And yet you accuse me of weaseling, being dishonest ... etc etc ... The mind boggles

Yes, because again, you've avoided the issue because you can't address it directly and honestly.

You have not explained how you account for the various confounding factors when you compare statistics. This is because you haven't.

The only way you can, and then use to statistics in the proper way is to conduct a study.
You are continuing to claim that you don't need a study, contrary to science, basic logic and your own twisted, inconsistent rules.

weisses wrote: »

What would outweigh the benefit of fluoridation ... ?

You tell me, you're the one who thinks it should stop and are scrambling for any excuse for it beyond conspiratorial paranoia.

12% of people suffering from fluorosis, which amounts to a slight browning of the teeth, is not a good reason to give up the benefit to children.
Can you explain why anyone should accept otherwise?

weisses wrote: »

Unfortunately science to you only matters depending on what side of the debate you dug yourself into

Ok, here's a challenge for you. Point out one single anti-fluoridation activist group that doesn't support anti-science rhetoric or doesn't use false, debunked claims.
Just one.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, because again, you've avoided the issue because you can't address it directly and honestly.

You have not explained how you account for the various confounding factors when you compare statistics. This is because you haven't.

The only way you can, and then use to statistics in the proper way is to conduct a study.
You are continuing to claim that you don't need a study, contrary to science, basic logic and your own twisted, inconsistent rules.

Then post the statistics and explain where I am being dishonest and weaseling ... You can only do that with these statistics in one hand and my posts in the other

weisses wrote: »

Then post the statistics and explain where I am being dishonest and weaseling ... You can only do that with these statistics in one hand and my posts in the other

Again, avoiding all of those points I just made, and all the the posts I've made for the last few pages where I detail exactly the factors I am talking about (and where jh79 explained even more).

What you are asking for is in that post or literally any other one of mine in the last few pages. If you genuinely want an answer, try actually reading and understanding them for a change.

Not once did you explain how you address those factors. You avoided and ignored and then made up more claims to deflect.
It's plain to see by anyone who cares to read it. But there's no point in trying to convince you of it when you're the one who's spend the last umpteen pages actually avoiding my points.

I asked you simple direct questions, you can't answer them honestly without revealing the flaws in your position.

Now can you point to any anti-fluoride group at all that doesn't promote or rely on bogus anti-science claims?

King Mob wrote: »

Again, avoiding all of those points I just made, and all the the posts I've made for the last few pages where I detail exactly the factors I am talking about (and where jh79 explained even more).

What you are asking for is in that post or literally any other one of mine in the last few pages. If you genuinely want an answer, try actually reading and understanding them for a change.

Not once did you explain how you address those factors. You avoided and ignored and then made up more claims to deflect.
It's plain to see by anyone who cares to read it. But there's no point in trying to convince you of it when you're the one who's spend the last umpteen pages actually avoiding my points.

I asked you simple direct questions, you can't answer them honestly without revealing the flaws in your position.

Now can you point to any anti-fluoride group at all that doesn't promote or rely on bogus anti-science claims?

I am not avoiding anything

One of your last questions was

So you acknowledge that there are differences in different countries.

What do the statistics say ? ... The ones I'm referring to all the time

If you dont know what the statistics say you did not read them .. so claiming Im dishonest weaseling etc doesnt fly

If you can point out to what the statistics I am referring to are saying your question is mute.

So what is it ?

weisses wrote: »

King Mob wrote: »

Again, avoiding all of those points I just made, and all the the posts I've made for the last few pages where I detail exactly the factors I am talking about (and where jh79 explained even more).

What you are asking for is in that post or literally any other one of mine in the last few pages. If you genuinely want an answer, try actually reading and understanding them for a change.

Not once did you explain how you address those factors. You avoided and ignored and then made up more claims to deflect.
It's plain to see by anyone who cares to read it. But there's no point in trying to convince you of it when you're the one who's spend the last umpteen pages actually avoiding my points.

I asked you simple direct questions, you can't answer them honestly without revealing the flaws in your position.

Now can you point to any anti-fluoride group at all that doesn't promote or rely on bogus anti-science claims?

I am not avoiding anything

One of your last questions was

So you acknowledge that there are differences in different countries.

What do the statistics say ? ... The ones I'm referring to all the time

If you dont know what the statistics say you did not read them .. so claiming Im dishonest weaseling etc doesnt fly

If you can point out to what the statistics I am referring to are saying your question is mute.

So what is it ?

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.

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.

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

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 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 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?

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?

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 ...

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 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.

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

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 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?

Play nice folks..

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

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

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?

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

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?