Fluoride update re IQ

18-03-2015 08:06PM

weisses wrote: »

Nope its one source disagreeing with it referring to study done 9 years earlier

Having read neither how do you know which one is best?

weisses · 18-03-2015 09:05PM

jh79 wrote: »

Having read neither how do you know which one is best?

I dont ... and that is not the point either

The concern of people with knowledge on the subject is enough for me ... and should be for anyone

18-03-2015 09:16PM

weisses wrote: »

I dont ... and that is not the point either

The concern of people with knowledge on the subject is enough for me ... and should be for anyone

But your looking for policy change based on a single piece of research.

From what I've read there was a 0.5% difference and links to iodine deficiency complicates things. Counter iodine deficiency and there might be no difference.

Major sources of iodine include dairy and meat and organic milk has 40% less iodine. Modern diet fads could be a problem here.

weisses · 20-03-2015 10:22AM

jh79 wrote: »

But your looking for policy change based on a single piece of research.

From what I've read there was a 0.5% difference and links to iodine deficiency complicates things. Counter iodine deficiency and there might be no difference.

Major sources of iodine include dairy and meat and organic milk has 40% less iodine. Modern diet fads could be a problem here.

I posted 2 pieces of research

If professionals are saying fluoride could be an issue I will take their word over your description above

20-03-2015 10:46AM

weisses wrote: »

I posted 2 pieces of research

If professionals are saying fluoride could be an issue I will take their word over your description above

But your not saying it could be a problem you are saying it is a problem.

The majority professionals say it isn't , why are you discounting their opinions?

weisses · 20-03-2015 01:55PM

jh79 wrote: »

But your not saying it could be a problem you are saying it is a problem.

The majority professionals say it isn't , why are you discounting their opinions?

I just say could because if I say that it is an issue you would probably reply back that its a possible issue (like you did earlier)

Where are the Majority of professionals debunking/disproving what was said in the 2 links I posted ?

A link to it would suffice (just make sure its a response to the latest findings and not something they stated years ago

20-03-2015 02:06PM

weisses wrote: »

I just say could because if I say that it is an issue you would probably reply back that its a possible issue (like you did earlier)

Where are the Majority of professionals debunking/disproving what was said in the 2 links I posted ?

A link to it would suffice (just make sure its a response to the latest findings and not something they stated years ago

Check your link for the thyroid paper. I think some guy from the American Dental Association said it wasn't enough as a single piece of research to change policy and previous more rigorous studies could find no link. Newer doesn't mean better. So the majority of studies on fluoride and thyroid disorders do not show any link.

As for the ADHD, it is a simple correlation in a low impact journal , it will go completely unnoticed unless they follow it up with something more substantial.

weisses · 20-03-2015 04:43PM

jh79 wrote: »

Check your link for the thyroid paper. I think some guy from the American Dental Association said it wasn't enough as a single piece of research to change policy and previous more rigorous studies could find no link. Newer doesn't mean better. So the majority of studies on fluoride and thyroid disorders do not show any link.

As for the ADHD, it is a simple correlation in a low impact journal , it will go completely unnoticed unless they follow it up with something more substantial.

That's a no so on providing anything substantial information countering the claims made in the research I posted

20-03-2015 05:02PM

weisses wrote: »

That's a no so on providing anything substantial information countering the claims made in the research I posted

When were they published ? Last few weeks, how long before you will except that these papers aren't going to change anything? How long did it take you to realize that the Grandgjean papers weren't a turning point?

Don't know if you are a football fan but you remind me of a Liverpool fan, "our year"!

The thyroid paper is in the minority in that it shows an association where all other papers have not but it still doesn't show causation.

It is an anomaly until another study shows similar and even then someone would need to show that it wasn't just a case of iodine deficiency.

The anti-fluoride side like to bring up the precautionary principle, obviously that ship has sailed but at the moment there is more risk with ending fluoridation than continuing with it.

The ADHD paper is such early days there really isn't much that can be said.

20-03-2015 05:25PM

weisses wrote: »

That's a no so on providing anything substantial information countering the claims made in the research I posted

Neither of use have read any of these ADHD papers so what do we know.

But the American Dental Association say this new research is less rigorous than the previous research .

So from the info you posted it seems the consensus, given we are dealing with an association versus a few individuals, is that there is no link between the two.

weisses · 20-03-2015 08:55PM

jh79 wrote: »

So from the info you posted it seems the consensus, given we are dealing with an association versus a few individuals, is that there is no link between the two.

No you gave your opinion about it and kept referring to older research done.

Look if you don't want to take this new research seriously that is fine but at least show some proper research debunking/disagreeing with what I posted that supports why you are sticking to your opinion

20-03-2015 09:32PM

weisses wrote: »

No you gave your opinion about it and kept referring to older research done.

Look if you don't want to take this new research seriously that is fine but at least show some proper research debunking/disagreeing with what I posted that supports why you are sticking to your opinion

Can you explain why the guy from the American Dental Association is wrong and the significance of 9 years time difference ?

20-03-2015 10:03PM

So Prof Peckham is involved in the anti fluoride movement in the uk, he has previously published in some dodgy journals with some Waugh and Connet style "research ".

Here is a link highlighting the response to his latest work.

http://theconversation.com/flawed-study-overstates-link-between-fluoride-and-ill-health-experts-37973

Iodine deficiency is big issue for this study and there is little evidence of the ability of fluoride to influence the thyroid at such small levels .

“While this is the first study to look at fluoride and hypothyroidism in a large population, and cannot prove that fluoride causes hypothyroidism,” he said, “it is a comprehensive and methodologically solid study and should be an important red flag.”

So even Peckham says it is not sufficient evidence.

20-03-2015 11:07PM

https://skeptoid.com/blog/2015/02/28/fluoridation-and-hypothyroidism/

Covers the weak points of this research.

weisses · 21-03-2015 08:30AM

jh79 wrote: »

https://skeptoid.com/blog/2015/02/28/fluoridation-and-hypothyroidism/

Covers the weak points of this research.

Ohh great another Blog

Critic stating

It is recommended that water be fluoridated in the target range of 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L, depending on climate, to balance reduction of dental caries and occurrence of dental fluorosis.”

What rock was he hiding under

Also the Blog is not countering the claim

do they cover this as well ?

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/s12940-015-0003-1.pdf

21-03-2015 09:49AM

No they are not countering there claims , there is nothing wrong with the research it just the conclusions of the author are not justified .

These are all valid criticisms of the paper, the author had the chance to address them and chose not to.

Bottom line is the research doesn't show fluoride causes hypothyroidism as stated by Peckham himself.

The ADHD won't even get discussed , it is just a comparison of two pieces of census data in a low impact journal. No firm conclusions can be drawn.

What is the point of ignoring these flaws in there research? At the end of the day those in charge won't.

21-03-2015 09:55AM

jh79 wrote: »

So Prof Peckham is involved in the anti fluoride movement in the uk, he has previously published in some dodgy journals with some Waugh and Connet style "research ".

Here is a link highlighting the response to his latest work.

http://theconversation.com/flawed-study-overstates-link-between-fluoride-and-ill-health-experts-37973

Iodine deficiency is big issue for this study and there is little evidence of the ability of fluoride to influence the thyroid at such small levels .

“While this is the first study to look at fluoride and hypothyroidism in a large population, and cannot prove that fluoride causes hypothyroidism,” he said, “it is a comprehensive and methodologically solid study and should be an important red flag.”

So even Peckham says it is not sufficient evidence.

So are the criticisms of the paper justified in your opinion? If not why not?

Why didn't he address them when asked?

Do you disagree with the authors when they say it is not sufficient evidence to say fluoride causes hypothyroidism ?

weisses · 21-03-2015 10:24AM

jh79 wrote: »

So are the criticisms of the paper justified in your opinion? If not why not?

Why didn't he address them when asked?

Do you disagree with the authors when they say it is not sufficient evidence to say fluoride causes hypothyroidism ?

Sorry but I post research and you reply with a skeptic Blog ranting about procedures

If it was the other way around you would be complaining about that as well

Post some valid counter claims as to why the peer reviewed research I posted is flawed...

21-03-2015 10:30AM

weisses wrote: »

Sorry but I post research and you reply with a skeptic Blog ranting about procedures

If it was the other way around you would be complaining about that as well

Post some valid counter claims as to why the peer reviewed research I posted is flawed...

Did you not read the article in which Peckham took part?

21-03-2015 10:36AM

jh79 wrote: »

So Prof Peckham is involved in the anti fluoride movement in the uk, he has previously published in some dodgy journals with some Waugh and Connet style "research ".

Here is a link highlighting the response to his latest work.

http://theconversation.com/flawed-study-overstates-link-between-fluoride-and-ill-health-experts-37973

Iodine deficiency is big issue for this study and there is little evidence of the ability of fluoride to influence the thyroid at such small levels .

“While this is the first study to look at fluoride and hypothyroidism in a large population, and cannot prove that fluoride causes hypothyroidism,” he said, “it is a comprehensive and methodologically solid study and should be an important red flag.”

So even Peckham says it is not sufficient evidence.

This link here, he takes part in the discussion and a number if issues are highlighted.

weisses · 21-03-2015 10:49AM

jh79 wrote: »

This link here, he takes part in the discussion and a number if issues are highlighted.

Great another blog/opinion

Researchers have widely criticised a new study that questions the safety of water fluoridation, arguing the findings were overstated and the study poorly designed.

What researchers based on what evidence/research ?

So I must assume next time You post peer reviewed research you would agree with the opinions aired in a blog disagreeing with that research ?

21-03-2015 11:02AM

weisses wrote: »

Great another blog/opinion

What researchers based on what evidence/research ?

So I must assume next time You post peer reviewed research you would agree with the opinions aired in a blog disagreeing with that research ?

Depends on whether I believed their critism was valid, the whole point of publishing research is for others to give constructive critism.

Why are you not willing to discuss these criticisms? If they are without basis why not point it out?

Sure it will be a rather pointless thread otherwise, the author himself said the paper does not show fluoride causes hypotrophism.

weisses · 21-03-2015 11:14AM

jh79 wrote: »

Depends on whether I believed their critism was valid, the whole point of publishing research is for others to give constructive critism.

Why are you not willing to discuss these criticisms? If they are without basis why not point it out?

Sure it will be a rather pointless thread otherwise, the author himself said the paper does not show fluoride causes hypotrophism.

I am discussing them ... those people even stating 1.1 ppm is okay ... and yet the US is lowering it to 0.7 because they found out its to high

21-03-2015 11:44AM

weisses wrote: »

I am discussing them ... those people even stating 1.1 ppm is okay ... and yet the US is lowering it to 0.7 because they found out its to high

What about the other link? Which criticism to you have a problem with?

weisses · 21-03-2015 12:03PM

jh79 wrote: »

What about the other link? Which criticism to you have a problem with?

Which other link ?

21-03-2015 12:24PM

jh79 wrote: »

So Prof Peckham is involved in the anti fluoride movement in the uk, he has previously published in some dodgy journals with some Waugh and Connet style "research ".

Here is a link highlighting the response to his latest work.

http://theconversation.com/flawed-study-overstates-link-between-fluoride-and-ill-health-experts-37973

Iodine deficiency is big issue for this study and there is little evidence of the ability of fluoride to influence the thyroid at such small levels .

“While this is the first study to look at fluoride and hypothyroidism in a large population, and cannot prove that fluoride causes hypothyroidism,” he said, “it is a comprehensive and methodologically solid study and should be an important red flag.”

So even Peckham says it is not sufficient evidence.

This one

weisses · 21-03-2015 12:39PM

jh79 wrote: »

This one

Yes thats the one with the 1.1 ppm is safe statement

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/media/releases/2015/ceo-statement-water-fluoridation

21-03-2015 12:48PM

weisses wrote: »

Yes thats the one with the 1.1 ppm is safe statement

http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/media/releases/2015/ceo-statement-water-fluoridation

I can't see it in the article i linked to but this is considered the case in the US and UK presently.

What about the paper are they valid criticism s?

weisses · 21-03-2015 01:11PM

jh79 wrote: »

I can't see it in the article i linked to but this is considered the case in the US and UK presently.

What about the paper are they valid criticism s?

US is looking to lower it to 0.7 ppm because 1 ppm is to much ... something you are aware of and we discussed earlier

Why all these tactics to steer away from the research I posted ?

So here I am dealing with the criticisms and you come back asking me another question without even addressing/ acknowledging your previous one,

Ill try one more time ... I posted links containing peer reviewed research... Do you have anything valid that disproves that research other then a blog that support safe levels that are not even considered safe anymore ?

21-03-2015 01:22PM

weisses wrote: »

US is looking to lower it to 0.7 ppm because 1 ppm is to much ... something you are aware of and we discussed earlier

Why all these tactics to steer away from the research I posted ?

So here I am dealing with the criticisms and you come back asking me another question without even addressing/ acknowledging your previous one,

Ill try one more time ... I posted links containing peer reviewed research... Do you have anything valid that disproves that research other then a blog that support safe levels that are not even considered safe anymore ?

1.2 is still considered within the safe range , the idea is that you use the lowest effective amount.

The research you posted doesn't prove adverse effects at these levels as stated by the authors

The strength of the observed correlations is dependent on how significant or otherwise you believe the flaws are which for some reason you won't discuss.

As i said earlier if you insist on taking the research you posted as beyond reproach then you are still lumbered with the fact that the research doesn't or can't show fluoride causes hypothyroidism.

Fluoride update re IQ

Comments