Fluoride update re IQ

weisses · 14-03-2015 12:07PM

jh79 wrote: »

There is a section on the study design limitations in the discusssion.

Ohh so you always go for that ? ... Try looking for study design limitations in pro fluoride studies.... There are always limitations in studies

You're grasping at straws now here

they conclude

In summary, this study has empirically demonstrated an association between more
widespread exposure to fluoridated water and increased ADHD prevalence in U.S. children
and adolescents, even after controlling for SES. The findings suggest that fluoridated water
may be an environmental risk factor for ADHD. Population studies designed to examine
possible mechanisms, patterns and levels of exposure, covariates and moderators of this
relationship are warranted.

You disagree ?? fine then explain why with backed up counter studies

weisses · 14-03-2015 12:08PM

jh79 wrote: »

Out of interest is diagnosis rate of ADHD static in areas without fluoridation?

Find out if you are interested ??

14-03-2015 12:13PM

weisses wrote: »

Ohh so you always go for that ? ... Try looking for study design limitations in pro fluoride studies.... There are always limitations in studies

You're grasping at straws now here

they conclude

You disagree ?? fine then explain why with backed up counter studies

The limitations in the study prevents a conclusion being draw that links the two. That is what the paper says.

Are you seriously suggesting that this is conclusive proof the two are linked?

weisses · 14-03-2015 12:14PM

Ahh look wat the governments mouth :pac: Piece spit out

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0310/685980-research-link-between-fluoridation-and-oral-health/

14-03-2015 12:14PM

weisses wrote: »

Find out if you are interested ??

If the same diagnosis methods are used ADHD are broadly the same worldwide yet fluoride levels aren't.

weisses · 14-03-2015 12:16PM

jh79 wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that this is conclusive proof the two are linked?

No ... You could read that in the quote provided

Are you seriously suggesting that after reading the links and research I posted that there is nothing wrong ??

14-03-2015 12:17PM

weisses wrote: »

Ahh look wat the governments mouth :pac: Piece spit out

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0310/685980-research-link-between-fluoridation-and-oral-health/

Trinity college is a government mouth piece?

14-03-2015 12:22PM

weisses wrote: »

No ... You could read that in the quote provided

Are you seriously suggesting that after reading the links and research I posted that there is nothing wrong ??

Yes because the design of the study only allows a conclusion that further research is warranted. My position is more in line with the authors than yours.

weisses · 14-03-2015 12:31PM

jh79 wrote: »

If the same diagnosis methods are used ADHD are broadly the same worldwide yet fluoride levels aren't.

Then show how ?!

weisses · 14-03-2015 12:33PM

jh79 wrote: »

Yes because the design of the study only allows a conclusion that further research is warranted. My position is more in line with the authors than yours.

Great ... author also stated

this study has empirically demonstrated an association between more
widespread exposure to fluoridated water and increased ADHD prevalence in U.S. children
and adolescents, even after controlling for SES

Glad we agree

weisses · 14-03-2015 12:38PM

jh79 wrote: »

Trinity college is a government mouth piece?

Never mind

There are however limitations with these results as tooth loss could be the result of other processes such as gum disease, wear, trauma and access to dental care.

"In addition, it was not possible to assess the impact of other sources of fluoride, such as diet, toothpaste and mouth rinses which could all have an impact on oral health," he said.

I meant RTE (as mouth piece)

14-03-2015 12:40PM

weisses wrote: »

Great ... author also stated

Glad we agree

Does the author explicitly state fluoride exposure causes ADHD?

Can you explain why ADHD is increasing when fluoride is pretty static according to their figures? (2003 onwards ). That correlation is equally as valid .

weisses · 14-03-2015 12:52PM

jh79 wrote: »

Does the author explicitly state fluoride exposure causes ADHD?

Can you explain why ADHD is increasing when fluoride is pretty static according to their figures? (2003 onwards ). That correlation is equally as valid .

The author stated what I posted .. and you agreed more with the author then I did (apparently)

I must assume they used all their findings to reach a conclusion and had it peer reviewed before publication

14-03-2015 12:56PM

weisses wrote: »

The author stated what I posted .. and you agreed more with the author then I did (apparently)

I must assume they used all their findings to reach a conclusion and had it peer reviewed before publication

They concluded that there is an apparent association between the two that warrants further research. That is all . When that research is carried out then a discussion on Irish fluoridation policies would be appropriate .

weisses · 14-03-2015 01:18PM

jh79 wrote: »

They concluded that there is an apparent association between the two that warrants further research. That is all . When that research is carried out then a discussion on Irish fluoridation policies would be appropriate .

You stating: apparently

They stating: empirically

See the difference ?

There are a lot of findings lately regarding fluoride that needs more investigation ... a lot of valid research suggest its not safe, but yet in the mean time the last few remaining governments just close their eyes and carry on with adding it to the water supply......

14-03-2015 02:19PM

weisses wrote: »

You stating: apparently

They stating: empirically

See the difference ?

There are a lot of findings lately regarding fluoride that needs more investigation ... a lot of valid research suggest its not safe, but yet in the mean time the last few remaining governments just close their eyes and carry on with adding it to the water supply......

Ok it is a definite observation but there is no evidence that they are linked that is what you are ignoring.

I sure obesity levels rose during the same timeframe and like above this would be emprical evidence but ultimately meaningless without further investigation.

Until a bettor designed study shows this to be a strong correlation then nothing will or should change.

Like any correlation it could be just a coincidence and it would be a reasonable assumption that this is the case as ADHD diagnosis would be on the rise anyways.

There has not be alot of finding recently in fairness.

What about the research reported by rte? Do you accept that shows benefits to fluoridation?

Do you accept that there are benefits to fluoridation bcked up by empirical evidence?

weisses · 14-03-2015 03:03PM

jh79 wrote: »

Ok it is a definite observation but there is no evidence that they are linked that is what you are ignoring.

I sure obesity levels rose during the same timeframe and like above this would be emprical evidence but ultimately meaningless without further investigation.

Until a bettor designed study shows this to be a strong correlation then nothing will or should change.

Like any correlation it could be just a coincidence and it would be a reasonable assumption that this is the case as ADHD diagnosis would be on the rise anyways.

There has not be alot of finding recently in fairness.

What about the research reported by rte? Do you accept that shows benefits to fluoridation?

Do you accept that there are benefits to fluoridation bcked up by empirical evidence?

So you basically ignore that all the objections you are offering are actually considered by the researchers ?

Do you think none of the researchers would have said during their research that there are other factors at play as well regarding obesity ?

If not you could send them an e-mail as to why they did not account for that when publishing their peer reviewed research

The only one ignoring things here would be you I'm afraid

14-03-2015 03:08PM

weisses wrote: »

So you basically ignore that all the objections you are offering are actually considered by the researchers ?

Do you think none of the researchers would have said during their research that there are other factors at play as well regarding obesity ?

If not you could send them an e-mail as to why they did not account for that when publishing their peer reviewed research

The only one ignoring things here would be you I'm afraid

They only measured two things ??

The research are only saying there is a correlation between the two you are assuming there is causation.

weisses · 14-03-2015 03:21PM

jh79 wrote: »

They only measured two things ??

The research are only saying there is a correlation between the two you are assuming there is causation.

Nope I'm only quoting from the articles

The only thing you try to do is discredit the research with non valid assertions

14-03-2015 03:29PM

ote="weisses;94683799"]Nope I'm only quoting from the articles

The only thing you try to do is discredit the research with non valid assertions[/quote]

No all i'm saying is its significance to water fluoridation is unknown until further research shows there is some substance to this correlation which puts me in complete agreement with the authors.

They don't state anything more than there is a correlation between the 2. The limited nature of the study, by there own admission, doesn't allow any more of an conclusion.

weisses · 14-03-2015 04:41PM

jh79 wrote: »

They don't state anything more than there is a correlation between the 2. The limited nature of the study, by there own admission, doesn't allow any more of an conclusion.

But you know well this is not the only study coming to the conclusion fluoride might have a negative impact on our health

You must admit it is worrying more and more proper research is leaning towards the notion that fluoride poses a health risk

14-03-2015 04:53PM

weisses wrote: »

But you know well this is not the only study coming to the conclusion fluoride might have a negative impact on our health

You must admit it is worrying more and more proper research is leaning towards the notion that fluoride poses a health risk

Separate studies not related to each other. The individual merit of each remains low.

14-03-2015 05:39PM

weisses wrote: »

But you know well this is not the only study coming to the conclusion fluoride might have a negative impact on our health

You must admit it is worrying more and more proper research is leaning towards the notion that fluoride poses a health risk

Like it or not there is a reason this research is published in a low impact journal , the method employed is too simple to draw any sort of conclusion.

If this data was significant why did they chose a journal that has a poor history of citation? Why did they aim so low?

weisses · 14-03-2015 07:05PM

jh79 wrote: »

Separate studies not related to each other. The individual merit of each remains low.

But all reaching the same conclusion ..... give it time

14-03-2015 07:44PM

weisses wrote: »

But all reaching the same conclusion ..... give it time

We can only go on the research available to us.

14-03-2015 07:56PM

jh79 wrote: »

Can i ask you a question regarding the common argument about uncontrolled dose?

Asked this earlier can we discuss this?

weisses · 15-03-2015 08:31AM

jh79 wrote: »

Asked this earlier can we discuss this?

Fire away

15-03-2015 12:48PM

weisses wrote: »

Fire away

The whole idea that we receive an uncontrolled dose is a flawed idea.

Take tea ( be warned my figures come from Waugh ) for example.

At 4 cups water fluoridation is only 10% of the total , at 8 cups it becomes 5%. So the further you deviate from the average the less significant fluoridation becomes.

Can you explain why anti-fluoride side use this argument?

weisses · 15-03-2015 03:21PM

jh79 wrote: »

The whole idea that we receive an uncontrolled dose is a flawed idea.

Take tea ( be warned my figures come from Waugh ) for example.

At 4 cups water fluoridation is only 10% of the total , at 8 cups it becomes 5%. So the further you deviate from the average the less significant fluoridation becomes.

Can you explain why anti-fluoride side use this argument?

I don't know ... on the other thread I pointed out many factors regarding the uncontrolled dose ... reaching about 4 ppm per day if Im not mistaken

Strange is however that 1 ppm is considered to high and 0.7 ideal

So somehow they agreed the uncontrolled dose to be roughly 0.3 ppm ?

15-03-2015 03:44PM

weisses wrote: »

I don't know ... on the other thread I pointed out many factors regarding the uncontrolled dose ... reaching about 4 ppm per day if Im not mistaken

Strange is however that 1 ppm is considered to high and 0.7 ideal

So somehow they agreed the uncontrolled dose to be roughly 0.3 ppm ?

Don't think you understand what the optimal dose refers to.

The optimal dose of 0.7ppm is for water fluoridation only not for total intake.

It just means that at this level there are no observed / proven adverse effects making the actual total intake irrelevant.

Fluoride update re IQ

Comments