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: »

Look what I found via your link

http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/prevention-dental-caries-through-use-fluoride/en/

Can yu explain where WHO has gone wrong?

You have to ask Cochrane that question

Did they include the WHO stance ..I honestly don't know

weisses wrote: »

You have to ask Cochrane that question

Did they include the WHO stance ..I honestly don't know

Can you explain the bias that meant Cochrane felt it had to reject certain studies and how that bias doesn't apply to your data?

jh79 wrote: »

Can you explain the bias that meant Cochrane felt it had to reject certain studies and how that bias doesn't apply to your data?

I think we need to distinguish between statistical data and studies.

I don't know what studies they rejected ...What I do think to know is that they did not reject statistics ... just because they are statistics

weisses wrote: »

I think we need to distinguish between statistical data and studies.

I don't know what studies they rejected ...What I do think to know is that they did not reject statistics ... just because they are statistics

The studies on are based on the same stats i don't know how you have decided there is a difference.

For the NI v Ireland study that data comes from a dentist so where is the difference?

weisses wrote: »

Sorry but 97% of Europe doesn't fluoridate their water ... fact ...those 10 countries I mentioned don't fluoridate anything

Yes, but as you have admitted, you don't know how much other methods of fluoridation effect your statistics. So you cannot use all of those countries to support your conclusion.
Pretending that you can is simply dishonest.

weisses wrote: »

I did account for that factor

How? Please be specific. How can you have accounted for this when you have admitted that you don't know how big the effect is?

weisses wrote: »

Nope ... I mentioned a few

You mention one. You do not mention anything else. Here is the post your linked. I'm not sure why you are trying to lie about this.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101640385&postcount=276

weisses wrote: »

Use of fluoride tooth paste, Fluoridated salt, milk

I think they count for some influence on both sides of the argument

Fluoridated salt on the mainland vs fluoride toothpaste use in Ireland for example

There are however many European countries that don't use the fluoridated salt and milk an there the statistics show a sharp decline in fillings as well

So yes I think you can safely say Water fluoridation is not effective ( again Cochrane had issues with the effectiveness as well)

It all comes together

So again. What other factors would influence your statistics?

weisses wrote: »

Nope ... I dont know if they used that data just as much as you they didn't use it

Cochrane has access to all figures ... what they did with them I could not tell

So they have access to the same figures you have and they must have at least the same level of expertise in analysing data as you.
So therefore they must reach the same conclusion you do.

Again, why do you think they did not mention this at all? Do you think that they are hiding this conclusion cause they are part of a conspiracy? Do you think that you are just simply smarter than then and are better at statistics and data analysis than trained scientists and statisticians?
Or could it be that your claims might be wrong?

weisses wrote: »

You could use simple statistics to reach a conclusion yes ....

You could use simple statistics to claim road safety in Ireland is worse then other countries ... You need research to find out why that is the case

I don't know .... post them and we will see

Why do you need research? You said that simple statistics is enough to reach a conclusion.
Why do some statistics need research before you can reach a conclusion and others don't?

You are contradicting yourself as well as avoiding the very simple yes or no question I asked.
This shows exactly how consistent and honest your logic is.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, but as you have admitted, you don't know how much other methods of fluoridation effect your statistics. So you cannot use all of those countries to support your conclusion.
Pretending that you can is simply dishonest.

Admitting ... being dishonest ... here you go again

All the things You have issues with I already mentioned myself ... Even the stats I am referring to all the time have all the data in regards to salt and milk fluoridation in percentages.

What about this can you not grasp ?

King Mob wrote: »

How? Please be specific. How can you have accounted for this when you have admitted that you don't know how big the effect is?

How can I admit to something that I brought in myself in the first place .... Or do you use it for dramatic effect ?

I suggest you look up what I meant by factoring it in .... Its only a few posts back ... And NO its not about evading but I am not in the habit of spoonfeeding all the time

King Mob wrote: »

You mention one. You do not mention anything else. Here is the post your linked. I'm not sure why you are trying to lie about this.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101640385&postcount=276

So again. What other factors would influence your statistics?

I see 3 in the part in bold

Accusing me of lying goes a bit far don't you think ?

You could also post factors that you think influence the statistics ... Its kinda how a discussion works

King Mob wrote: »

So they have access to the same figures you have and they must have at least the same level of expertise in analysing data as you.
So therefore they must reach the same conclusion you do.

Again, why do you think they did not mention this at all? Do you think that they are hiding this conclusion cause they are part of a conspiracy? Do you think that you are just simply smarter than then and are better at statistics and data analysis than trained scientists and statisticians?
Or could it be that your claims might be wrong?

Seeing as they could not find any research in regards to effectiveness that reached their standard ...I don't think we disagree much

And what claims of me are wrong exactly ?

King Mob wrote: »

Why do you need research? You said that simple statistics is enough to reach a conclusion.
Why do some statistics need research before you can reach a conclusion and others don't?.

You can reach a conclusion from statistics ... claiming otherwise is just ridiculous

King Mob wrote: »

You are contradicting yourself as well as avoiding the very simple yes or no question I asked.
This shows exactly how consistent and honest your logic is.

I am here to discuss not being subjected to a third degree hearing

Now are you gonna post these statistics so I can honestly answer your yes/ no question

How logical would it be to form an opinion on statistics I havent seen ?:o

jh79 wrote: »

The studies on are based on the same stats i don't know how you have decided there is a difference.

For the NI v Ireland study that data comes from a dentist so where is the difference?

Can we agree there is a difference between A: statistics and B: conclusions drawn from researching statistics ?

weisses wrote: »

Admitting ... being dishonest ... here you go again

All the things You have issues with I already mentioned myself ... Even the stats I am referring to all the time have all the data in regards to salt and milk fluoridation in percentages.

What about this can you not grasp ?

But again, and please actually read and try to understand this part:
You do not know how big the effect is.
Claiming that these figures support your conclusion when you cannot exclude this factor is plain dishonest.

weisses wrote: »

How can I admit to something that I brought in myself in the first place .... Or do you use it for dramatic effect ?

I suggest you look up what I meant by factoring it in .... Its only a few posts back ... And NO its not about evading but I am not in the habit of spoonfeeding all the time

You have not explained this at all. I have been asking you to outline exactly this for several pages but you continue to be evasive.

Please explain in detail how you are sure that the above factor does not effect your conclusion.
Please explain it to me like I am stupid.

weisses wrote: »

I see 3 in the part in bold

Pedantics to evade the question.:rolleyes:
Is there any other factors? Yes or No?

weisses wrote: »

You could also post factors that you think influence the statistics ... Its kinda how a discussion works

I have done so several times. jh79 posted a big long list. You ignored them
What was that about spoon feeding and re-reading things?

But here you go. Here's a tight concise list.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101575468&postcount=203

weisses wrote: »

Seeing as they could not find any research in regards to effectiveness that reached their standard ...I don't think we disagree much

Again, evading simple questions.
You are saying that the evidence is clear and obvious. They make no mention of it at all.
If they saw your evidence, they would have surely stated "fluoridation is ineffective"
But they don't.
Which part of this are you disagreeing with?

weisses wrote: »

And what claims of me are wrong exactly ?

I've been very clear on this.
1. That statistics alone without excluding confounding factors are enough to reach scientific conclusions.
2. That water fluoridation has been proven to be ineffective.

weisses wrote: »

You can reach a conclusion from statistics ... claiming otherwise is just ridiculous

weisses wrote: »

I am here to discuss not being subjected to a third degree hearing

Now are you gonna post these statistics so I can honestly answer your yes/ no question

How logical would it be to form an opinion on statistics I havent seen ?:o

Again, you say that statistics are enough to reach a conclusion. But then that some statistics might not be enough to reach a conclusion.
If this isn't the case, why do you need to see the statistics first?

This is you being evasive. You don't want to pin yourself down to what you know is a ridiculous stance in case you have to wiggle out of it later. And you don't want to explain why the stance is ridiculous because then it would expose how flawed your above claim is.

weisses wrote: »

Can we agree there is a difference between A: statistics and B: conclusions drawn from researching statistics ?

Yes , my issue isn't with the data it's your conclusions on the data .

King Mob wrote: »

But again, and please actually read and try to understand this part:
You do not know how big the effect is.
Claiming that these figures support your conclusion when you cannot exclude this factor is plain dishonest.

Correct ... I never claimed I did .. I gave my opinion based on the statistics

King Mob wrote: »

You have not explained this at all. I have been asking you to outline exactly this for several pages but you continue to be evasive.

Please explain in detail how you are sure that the above factor does not effect your conclusion.
Please explain it to me like I am stupid.

You got it wrong from the start so that is why you are probably confused

If you say

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so we have a factor that would influence your statistics. You have not excluded how it might influence your statistics. And you don't know by how much it would effect your statistics.

The statistics are showing DMFT and what fluoridation options are available

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, we've addressed that one. Are you claiming that it is the only factor that could influence your statistics?

I never claimed anything of the sorts

Plus If you look back on this particular subject I noticed you are constantly moving the goalposts ...

I said I used my own judgement in regards to these factors ... You might not like it but I never claimed otherwise

King Mob wrote: »

Pedantics to evade the question.:rolleyes:
Is there any other factors? Yes or No?

I have done so several times. jh79 posted a big long list. You ignored them
What was that about spoon feeding and re-reading things?

But here you go. Here's a tight concise list.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101575468&postcount=203

You havent done anything bar thanking his post ... I missed that one

Have read them now and many of the points he raised are reflected in the statistics I am reffering to ... Which you should know if you actually examined them

King Mob wrote: »

Again, evading simple questions.
You are saying that the evidence is clear and obvious. They make no mention of it at all.

Okay just to be clear here .. where did I state that the evidence is clear and obvious ? ... quote me on it so I can see the context

King Mob wrote: »

I've been very clear on this.
1. That statistics alone without excluding confounding factors are enough to reach scientific conclusions.
2. That water fluoridation has been proven to be ineffective.

1: You CAN reach a simple conclusion from statistics .... As I said numerous times ... statistics show 97% of Europe don't fluoridate their water .. that figure can be used without inclusion of confounding factors

2:It has not been proven to be effective .... Using statistics in regards to Europe I conclude it is not effective ... (something you can disagree with)

King Mob wrote: »

This is you being evasive. You don't want to pin yourself down to what you know is a ridiculous stance in case you have to wiggle out of it later. And you don't want to explain why the stance is ridiculous because then it would expose how flawed your above claim is.

I just repeat my last post:

I am here to discuss not being subjected to a third degree hearing

Now are you gonna post these statistics so I can honestly answer your yes/ no question

How logical would it be to form an opinion on statistics I havent seen ?

Don't you think its evasive to wave with figures and not post them despite several requests for it ?

jh79 wrote: »

Yes , my issue isn't with the data it's your conclusions on the data .

In regards to NI .. I did not conclude anything other then the study is 16 years old ... I dont know if it was included in the Cochrane review .. etc

weisses wrote: »

In regards to NI .. I did not conclude anything other then the study is 16 years old ... I dont know if it was included in the Cochrane review .. etc

https://www.stephenhancocks.com/view.php?article_id=959&journal_id=119

Here is a link to the study. You probably don't need the full pdf to answer the questions. Enough info is in the description.

You need to explain how this study using the same raw data but with better controls came to a different conclusion than you?

Because Cochrane didn't accept it isn't an answer as they wouldn't accept yours either. And the comparison is between your data and this.

They observed a lower level of cariers in Ireland.

Are you saying there are not a lower level of cariers in Ireland v N Ireland?..so are you saying this is a fraudulent study?

The statical controls they used had the opposite effect and actually increased bias ? If this is your theory how did it go wrong? Should we reject all studies using these methods.

Is the study design wrong? If so how.

What are the implications for you assertion that the assesment of public health issues do not require studies to control for bias to reach a conclusion?

Could you answer each of the above individually please?

Wow the level of pedentary is getting intense...

weisses wrote: »

Correct ... I never claimed I did .. I gave my opinion based on the statistics

So then is it possible then that in those countries without it the effect of Water fluoridation is replaced by other sources of fluoridation.
Yes or no?

weisses wrote: »

You got it wrong from the start so that is why you are probably confused

If you say

The statistics are showing DMFT and what fluoridation options are available

Again, stop being evasive and explain it if this is the case.

weisses wrote: »

I never claimed anything of the sorts

Ok, what other factors are there?

weisses wrote: »

Plus If you look back on this particular subject I noticed you are constantly moving the goalposts ...

Ok, where am I moving the goalposts?

weisses wrote: »

I said I used my own judgement in regards to these factors ... You might not like it but I never claimed otherwise

And here is the core of the problem
Your personal judgement isn't worth anything to anyone.

You are not a scientist or a statistician. You have no idea how either the science or how statistics work.

You with your layman's knowledge, and clear biases are simply unable to dismiss possible factors simply because you decide they aren't important.

You know how ridiculous this is, hence your evasiveness.

weisses wrote: »

You havent done anything bar thanking his post ... I missed that one

Lol, what does this even mean?

weisses wrote: »

Have read them now and many of the points he raised are reflected in the statistics I am reffering to ... Which you should know if you actually examined them

How are they reflected in the statistics? Be specific.

weisses wrote: »

Okay just to be clear here .. where did I state that the evidence is clear and obvious ? ... quote me on it so I can see the context

Lol more pedantry and evasiveness to avoid the question.
Are you saying now that the evidence is not clear or obvious?
Are you saying that the scientists and statisticians working in this field studying this exact topic were not able to come to the same conclusion you did?

You already agree that they had the evidence and saw it and you have been arguing that the conclusion is obvious. You are arguing it implicitly because you say you can reach this conclusion despite your complete lack of expertise and education in the field.

So yea, if you are not saying that the evidence is clear and obvious, stop evasive and explain what you are saying.

weisses wrote: »

1: You CAN reach a simple conclusion from statistics .... As I said numerous times ... statistics show 97% of Europe don't fluoridate their water .. that figure can be used without inclusion of confounding factors

You have not explained why you don't have to include these. You argue that these kinds of factors must be included to reach conclusions when the situation suits you.

weisses wrote: »

2:It has not been proven to be effective .... Using statistics in regards to Europe I conclude it is not effective ... (something you can disagree with)

You are saying that the statistics prove that it's not effective.

If you are now going to move your goalposts and declare "you're just stating your opinion".
Then yea, your opinion is not worth spit.

weisses wrote: »

I just repeat my last post:

I am here to discuss not being subjected to a third degree hearing

Now are you gonna post these statistics so I can honestly answer your yes/ no question

How logical would it be to form an opinion on statistics I havent seen ?

How logical would it be for me to waste my time and dig up these stats and be hounded for excruciating detail when you won't even commit to your own ridiculous logic?

If I did dig these out, you wouldn't accept them. And even then you'd start arguing how there's a bunch of confounding factors involved.

weisses wrote: »

Don't you think its evasive to wave with figures and not post them despite several requests for it ?

Where did I say I had the numbers?

King Mob wrote: »

How logical would it be for me to waste my time and dig up these stats and be hounded for excruciating detail

Who is being hounded here for excruciating detail ? Ill exclude 1 person ... you

Here are the stats ... again

You compare and decide where I displayed weaseling, dishonesty, pedantics, evasiveness ... etc

http://fluoridealert.org/studies/caries01/

For the rest of your last post ... There is so much misrepresentation in that,.. I just give up replying/ repeating myself

jh79 wrote: »

https://www.stephenhancocks.com/view.php?article_id=959&journal_id=119

Here is a link to the study. You probably don't need the full pdf to answer the questions. Enough info is in the description.

You need to explain how this study using the same raw data but with better controls came to a different conclusion than you?

Because Cochrane didn't accept it isn't an answer as they wouldn't accept yours either. And the comparison is between your data and this.

They observed a lower level of cariers in Ireland.

Are you saying there are not a lower level of cariers in Ireland v N Ireland?..so are you saying this is a fraudulent study?

The statical controls they used had the opposite effect and actually increased bias ? If this is your theory how did it go wrong? Should we reject all studies using these methods.

Is the study design wrong? If so how.

What are the implications for you assertion that the assesment of public health issues do not require studies to control for bias to reach a conclusion?

Could you answer each of the above individually please?

I dont know if the study design is wrong ... But this study targets Children, and I think we are not in disagreement in regards to that

One point though is that Cochrane concluded

There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels.

While Hancock claims

Socio economic factors are important variables to take into account whencomparing caries levels amongst different communities

weisses wrote: »

Who is being hounded here for excruciating detail ? Ill exclude 1 person ... you

Here are the stats ... again

You compare and decide where I displayed weaseling, dishonesty, pedantics, evasiveness ... etc

http://fluoridealert.org/studies/caries01/

For the rest of your last post ... There is so much misrepresentation in that,.. I just give up replying/ repeating myself

No where in that or in the statistics do they address any of the factors that could possibly confound them. You have been lying.

Please refer back to this list i posted
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101575468&postcount=203
And show how those raw statistics deal with those speficically.

You wouldn't have to worry about being accused of evasiveness and misrepresentation and having to repeat yourself if you stop trying to dodge our points and dealt with them directly and honestly.

King Mob wrote: »

No where in that or in the statistics do they address any of the factors that could possibly confound them. You have been lying.

Please refer back to this list i posted
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101575468&postcount=203
And show how those raw statistics deal with those speficically.

You wouldn't have to worry about being accused of evasiveness and misrepresentation and having to repeat yourself if you stop trying to dodge our points and dealt with them directly and honestly.

At least half of his points are in the statistics

Milk/salt usage is in the statistics

Differentiation between adults and children is in there

Time frame is in there

That is just at first glance

Added that with the points I brought up myself, where exactly was I lying ?

weisses wrote: »

Milk/salt usage is in the statistics

Milk is not included in the statistics, only salt. Nor is fluoridated toothpaste.
It does not state whether or not the number of people who do us fluoridated salt and products have been removed from the total number.

Are they still included, yes or no? Or do you not know?

What about the people in countries who have partial natural fluoridation in some countries? No mention there.

weisses wrote: »

Differentiation between adults and children is in there

It states that it is in 12 year olds only.
You have agreed that water fluoridation is effective in children.

Are these statistics wrong? Are you now changing your answer and stating that it is not effective in children and that Cochrane is wrong?

weisses wrote: »

Time frame is in there

Ok, yes this is true.
It does not however address the point following that:

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

weisses wrote: »

That is just at first glance

There are still a bunch more factors that aren't accounted for at all.

For example it does not account for the differing diets of people between countries and how said diets change over time.
It does not account for the differing policies in dental health between countries or how they have changed over time.
It does not account for the cost and availability of dental care in different countries and how that changes over time.

You have said that these factors either have been addressed in those figures or they don't matter cause you just say so.
Hence, you have been lying.

weisses wrote: »

I dont know if the study design is wrong ... But this study targets Children, and I think we are not in disagreement in regards to that

One point though is that Cochrane concluded

While Hancock claims

So you accept that the NI suggests fluoridation is still effective in children? Notice i say suggests not prove and i hope you would agree that this suggestion carries more wieight than your data because of the controls? If not you need to say where the controls and study design went wrong.

Please don't take this as a dig but you have said that english isn't your first language and i think this has led to you misunderstanding what Cochrane's says.

He says that there is not enough evidence that fluoridation works better in poorer areas. This does not mean studies no longer need to correct for socio economic factors

Studies correcting for social economic factors do it to reduce bias. Different diets, access to health care etc all do have an influence on DMFT.

The studies Cochrane rejected purposely introduce this bias to see if there is more of an effect in one type of community over the other.

Basically two completely unrelated things.

I didn't know where this data came from but now i know i'm shocked. This is just bizarre but quite funny.

The data is on 12 yr old children and in the time frame that the Cochrane review covers!

DMFT reduced in areas without fluoridation at the same time that studies proved without doubt (95% CI) that the DMFT reduces by 25% or so with fluoridation.

The timeframe involved disproves your own conclusions and shows that simple stats are not to be trusted.

Cochrane's says the following about confounders

"We found all studies to be at high risk of bias for confounding. We considered confoundng factors for this outcome to be sugar consumption/dietary habits, SES, ethnicity and the use of other fluoride sources. We would have judged studies to be at low risk of confounding bias only if they had successfully controlled for all factors"

All studies are at risk so what controls did you use?

King Mob wrote: »

Milk is not included in the statistics, only salt. Nor is fluoridated toothpaste.
It does not state whether or not the number of people who do us fluoridated salt and products have been removed from the total number.

Are they still included, yes or no? Or do you not know?

What about the people in countries who have partial natural fluoridation in some countries? No mention there.

It states that it is in 12 year olds only.
You have agreed that water fluoridation is effective in children.

Are these statistics wrong? Are you now changing your answer and stating that it is not effective in children and that Cochrane is wrong?

Ok, yes this is true.
It does not however address the point following that:

There are still a bunch more factors that aren't accounted for at all.

For example it does not account for the differing diets of people between countries and how said diets change over time.
It does not account for the differing policies in dental health between countries or how they have changed over time.
It does not account for the cost and availability of dental care in different countries and how that changes over time.

You have said that these factors either have been addressed in those figures or they don't matter cause you just say so.
Hence, you have been lying.

There would be things in there not covered by JH ... Does that mean Im lying ?

You asked for other factors besides the one I posted .. .and they are in there I never said otherwise ...

See below

King Mob wrote: »

But again you have avoided the question.
I asked if there were any other factors you believe that would influence the statistics. Please address this.

If you would have actually looked at the statistics as I said you should you would know this

jh79 wrote: »

So you accept that the NI suggests fluoridation is still effective in children? Notice i say suggests not prove and i hope you would agree that this suggestion carries more wieight than your data because of the controls? If not you need to say where the controls and study design went wrong.

Please don't take this as a dig but you have said that english isn't your first language and i think this has led to you misunderstanding what Cochrane's says.

He says that there is not enough evidence that fluoridation works better in poorer areas. This does not mean studies no longer need to correct for socio economic factors

Studies correcting for social economic factors do it to reduce bias. Different diets, access to health care etc all do have an influence on DMFT.

The studies Cochrane rejected purposely introduce this bias to see if there is more of an effect in one type of community over the other.

Basically two completely unrelated things.

But still the study was aimed at children ..The working there is something I'm not disputing .

jh79 wrote: »

I didn't know where this data came from but now i know i'm shocked. This is just bizarre but quite funny.

The data is on 12 yr old children and in the time frame that the Cochrane review covers!

DMFT reduced in areas without fluoridation at the same time that studies proved without doubt (95% CI) that the DMFT reduces by 25% or so with fluoridation.

The timeframe involved disproves your own conclusions and shows that simple stats are not to be trusted.

Cochrane's says the following about confounders

"We found all studies to be at high risk of bias for confounding. We considered confoundng factors for this outcome to be sugar consumption/dietary habits, SES, ethnicity and the use of other fluoride sources. We would have judged studies to be at low risk of confounding bias only if they had successfully controlled for all factors"

All studies are at risk so what controls did you use?

Then there is no other options then to discard the results in regards to fluoride when its from the WHO, SHER etc

Cannot have it both ways

weisses wrote: »

Then there is no other options then to discard the results in regards to fluoride when its from the WHO, SHER etc

Cannot have it both ways

I know that's why i said you would back yourself into a corner by insisting on High Grade studies. Now what?

weisses wrote: »

There would be things in there not covered by JH ... Does that mean Im lying ?

You asked for other factors besides the one I posted .. .and they are in there I never said otherwise ...

See below

You are lying because you claimed repeatedly that the statistics addresses all of the factors we have been bringing up.
This is a lie. The statistics do no such thing.

I have been asking you to explain what factors you would accept, but you have been avoiding this question.
We finally dragged out one set from you, but your counter was that you just ignored it.

Do you believe all of these factors might effect the statistics? Yes or no?
If yes, then how do you factor them in other than "your judgement".
if no, then why not?

Is fluoride effective in children?
You say your statistics say no.
But you agree with Cochrane's conclusions, which say yes.
You cannot hold these stances at the same time.

weisses wrote: »

If you would have actually looked at the statistics as I said you should you would know this

If you had just posted them when asked instead of being coy and evasive then maybe we wouldn't have to keep asking you stuff 500 times...

jh79 wrote: »

I know that's why i said you would back yourself into a corner by insisting on High Grade studies. Now what?

I think both sides need to watch out for that ... Poor old Wheldon has more things to worry about then me

King Mob wrote: »

You are lying because you claimed repeatedly that the statistics addresses all of the factors we have been bringing up.
This is a lie. The statistics do no such thing.

Nope I said they cover other statistics ...Just as you asked

King Mob wrote: »

I have been asking you to explain what factors you would accept, but you have been avoiding this question.
We finally dragged out one set from you, but your counter was that you just ignored it.

Wrong again ... Other factors are in the statistics I am referencing from all the time ... If you would actually had looked at them you would know that

King Mob wrote: »

Do you believe all of these factors might effect the statistics? Yes or no?
If yes, then how do you factor them in other than "your judgement".
if no, then why not?

As I said earlier ... every factor could influence statistics

King Mob wrote: »

Is fluoride effective in children?
You say your statistics say no.
But you agree with Cochrane's conclusions, which say yes.
You cannot hold these stances at the same time.

Statistics say yes ... Cochrane says yes ... Cannot make it any clearer I'm afraid

King Mob wrote: »

If you had just posted them when asked instead of being coy and evasive then maybe we wouldn't have to keep asking you stuff 500 times...

I already posted them a good while back ... and if you didn't know what I was referring to when I mentioned these statistics for about 30 times ....... Just ask, Nowhere in this thread did you ask what kind of statistics I was talking about. It would have saved you a lot of trouble.

weisses wrote: »

I think both sides need to watch out for that ... Poor old Wheldon has more things to worry about then me

To be fair weisses the Cochrane review explains why this standard may not be appropriate for a public health intervention you just chose to ignore that part of the review.

Also Wheltons paper goes through this in great detail again you chose to ignore it.

weisses wrote: »

Nope I said they cover other statistics ...Just as you asked

That's not what I've been asking for at all.
I asked quite clearly how you address these factors before you came to your conclusion. You did not address these factors, therefore your conclusion based on the statistics alone is worthless.

weisses wrote: »

Wrong again ... Other factors are in the statistics I am referencing from all the time ... If you would actually had looked at them you would know that

No other factors are covered by the statistics you posted at all.
You were quite clear about how they simply only provide the number of fillings and how that "you don't need a study for that."
However now you are claiming that they have other factors accounted for... which is false:

They mention the percentage of salt fluoridation only, without mentioning whether they are included or excluded from the figure.
There is no mention of fluoridated milk or toothpaste.
There is no mention of partial fluoridation by natural sources.
There is no mention of the differences caused by various policies between countries.
There is no mention of the differences caused by the difference of availability and cost of dental care.
There is no mention of the differences caused by the various diets of children between countries.
There is no mention of how any of these factors might have changed over time.

They are not mentioned, and you have not explained how you conclude that they don't influence your conclusion.

If I am wrong, point out where exactly you do this or where these points are addressed in your statistics.

weisses wrote: »

As I said earlier ... every factor could influence statistics

So why do you think your conclusion is at all valid when you do not know how these factors influence the statistics?
Just ignore them?

weisses wrote: »

Statistics say yes ... Cochrane says yes ... Cannot make it any clearer I'm afraid

Sorry, I said "fluoride" when I meant to say "water fluoridation". Allow me to rephrase:

Is water fluoridation effective in children?
You say your statistics say no.
But you agree with Cochrane's conclusions, which say yes.
You cannot hold these stances at the same time.

King Mob wrote: »

That's not what I've been asking for at all.
I asked quite clearly how you address these factors before you came to your conclusion. You did not address these factors, therefore your conclusion based on the statistics alone is worthless.

Yes you did

King Mob wrote: »

But again you have avoided the question.
I asked if there were any other factors you believe that would influence the statistics. Please address this.

And i answered that

King Mob wrote: »

No other factors are covered by the statistics you posted at all.
You were quite clear about how they simply only provide the number of fillings and how that "you don't need a study for that."
However now you are claiming that they have other factors accounted for... which is false:

They mention the percentage of salt fluoridation only, without mentioning whether they are included or excluded from the figure.
There is no mention of fluoridated milk or toothpaste.
There is no mention of partial fluoridation by natural sources.
There is no mention of the differences caused by various policies between countries.
There is no mention of the differences caused by the difference of availability and cost of dental care.
There is no mention of the differences caused by the various diets of children between countries.
There is no mention of how any of these factors might have changed over time.

They are not mentioned, and you have not explained how you conclude that they don't influence your conclusion.

If I am wrong, point out where exactly you do this or where these points are addressed in your statistics.

It doesn't matter ... They don't fluoridate their water ... Which is the point I am trying to make all along ... Do they use other methods of fluoride ? yes ... Did I ever claimed fluoride is not working ? No

King Mob wrote: »

So why do you think your conclusion is at all valid when you do not know how these factors influence the statistics?
Just ignore them?

No not ignore them .... Used my judgement .. As I said 3 times earlier

King Mob wrote: »

Sorry, I said "fluoride" when I meant to say "water fluoridation". Allow me to rephrase:

Is water fluoridation effective in children?
You say your statistics say no.
But you agree with Cochrane's conclusions, which say yes.
You cannot hold these stances at the same time.

Statistics say yes ...Are you even looking at them ?