Fluoride update re IQ

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

"Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. It also increased the percentage of children with no decay by 15%."


Would you now agree that fluoridation is effective under certain circumstances?  

Do you accept that it shows the effectiveness of fluoridation under certain conditions?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The safety of fluoridation was reviewed only recently I posted a link to the full report.

The effect off fluoride was shown here via many reports as well .. now they are mostly considered inaccurate and biased

jh79 wrote: »

Will this report be highlighted by FAN and GAF ?
If they highlight it they will have to accept that fluoridation is effective under the right conditions.

I just checked that website and they mention fluoridation has an effect

http://fluoridealert.org/studies/caries04/

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Do you accept that it shows the effectiveness of fluoridation under certain conditions?

Yes certain limited conditions

As you said it yourself

jh79 wrote: »

Ingesting fluoride is of no benefit

Conclusion posted by SCHER contradicts some of the findings in the Cochrane report

What does that say about Alex White reffering to the SCHER report all the time ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

The effect off fluoride was shown here via many reports as well .. now they are mostly considered inaccurate and biased




I just checked that website and they mention fluoridation has an effect

http://fluoridealert.org/studies/caries04/

Well they say fluoride has an effect , no mention of water fluoridation being effective.

Do you accept that research has shown it to be effective?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Well they say fluoride has an effect , no mention of water fluoridation being effective.

look better

from that page

“it is now accepted that systemic fluoride plays a limited role in caries prevention.”

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Do you accept that research has shown it to be effective?

I answered that earlier .. or do you prefer moving the goalposts until you get you desired answer

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Yes certain limited conditions

As you said it yourself




Conclusion posted by SCHER contradicts some of the findings in the Cochrane report

What does that say about Alex White reffering to the SCHER report all the time ?

Does it? In what way?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I answered that earlier .. or do you prefer moving the goalposts until you get you desired answer

Only seen your post after i posted, sorry.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

look better

from that page

Fair enough.

So what is the justification for ending fluoridation in Ireland?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIbJausU84w

Just post it again because imo it perfectly explains the cochrane report

If there was any actual evidence of toxicity at sub 1ppm then this might be of relevance.

No need for political intervention because there is nothing to hide.

Mullen lost her job because she exaggerated the significance of a fairly run of the mill piece of research.

She can spin it anyway she likes but anyone who bothers to read the research will see through it.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Does it? In what way?

SCHER

The few studies of water fluoridation
discontinuation do not suggest significant increases in dental caries.

Cochrane

There is insufficient information to determine the effect of stopping water fluoridation programmes on caries levels

And I did not even tried looking for inconsistencies

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Mullen lost her job because she exaggerated the significance of a fairly run of the mill piece of research.

No ..That piece she produced was peer reviewed

Thats why her dismissal was deemed unlawful ..Which i showed to you in the other thread as well ...........Why bring this up when you know its not true

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys5qGpZj80E

explained from 01:41.06 if you are interested

jh79

weisses wrote: »

No ..That piece she produced was peer reviewed

Thats why her dismissal was deemed unlawful ..Which i showed to you in the other thread as well ...........Why bring this up when you know its not true

But her research had no relevance to water fluoridation!

Chlorine (another halogen) is also toxic but is still safe to use in water treatment.

Can you not see how ridiculous her actions were?

Her personal beliefs clouded her professional judgement.

You have said your yourself previously on this thread that there is no evidence of toxicity at 0.7ppm?

Why is political intervention needed if there is a paucity of evidence regarding toxicity?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

No ..That piece she produced was peer reviewed

Thats why her dismissal was deemed unlawful ..Which i showed to you in the other thread as well ...........Why bring this up when you know its not true

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys5qGpZj80E

explained from 01:41.06 if you are interested

To be honest i not interested in her employment status , her research told us nothing.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

But her research had no relevance to water fluoridation!

Chlorine (another halogen) is also toxic but is still safe to use in water treatment.

Can you not see how ridiculous her actions were?

Her personal beliefs clouded her professional judgement.

You have said your yourself previously on this thread that there is no evidence of toxicity at 0.7ppm?

Why is political intervention needed if there is a paucity of evidence regarding toxicity?

She was so wrong that she got a massive payout for her wrongful dismissal ....right

Ridiculous statements tbh .. more a form off character assassination

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

To be honest i not interested in her employment status , her research told us nothing.

Yeah got forbid you got your facts right when making statements about people

jh79

weisses wrote: »

She was so wrong that she got a massive payout for her wrongful dismissal ....right

All your points about her are ridiculous .. more a form off character assassination

Who would of thought that giving large quantities of a halogen to rats would result in toxic effects?

It is a nice conspiracy alright just the research isn't relevant to low level fluoride exposure.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Yeah got forbid you got your facts right when making statements about people

Her research is publicly available , it has no relevance to water fluoridation at sub 1ppm.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

SCHER



Cochrane



And I did not even tried looking for inconsistencies

Maybe you should read this again

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Maybe you should read this again

I did

SCHER states The few studies of water fluoridation discontinuation do not suggest significant increases in dental caries

Cochrane states There is insufficient information to determine the effect of stopping water fluoridation programmes on caries levels

So one states there would be no significant issues if fluoridation stops and the other says that there is insufficient info regarding that

Was i reading it correctly ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I did

SCHER states The few studies of water fluoridation discontinuation do not suggest significant increases in dental caries

Cochrane states There is insufficient information to determine the effect of stopping water fluoridation programmes on caries levels

So one states there would be no significant issues if fluoridation stops and the other says that there is insufficient info regarding that

Was i reading it correctly ?

Where's the contradiction though? SCHER states that a few studies show this and doesn't commit to a firm conclusion.

Anyways not really important I thought you were going to go down a completely different route!

weisses

Im curious thought though on what recent valid research the Irish government is basing their fluoridation policy on .... Cochrane was pretty clear on the quality of all the studies



Ohh and just to add to the former point a SCHER should not be reporting on issues they cannot report on

making statements in their final paper saying discontinuation of fluoridation does not suggest significant increases in dental caries without the valid research to back it up is sloppy

And the government is gonna make policy partly based on their conclusions ...terrific

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Im curious thought though on what recent valid research the Irish government is basing their fluoridation policy on .... Cochrane was pretty clear on the quality of all the studies



Ohh and just to add to the former point a SCHER should not be reporting on issues they cannot report on

making statements in their final paper saying discontinuation of fluoridation does not suggest significant increases in dental caries without the valid research to back it up is sloppy

And the government is gonna make policy partly based on their conclusions ...terrific

I surprised your criticizing SCHER on this point seeing as it benefits your cause.

Disagree with you on SCHER anyway , it is just highlighting that the papers exist.

Both SCHER and the Cochrane reports agree that fluoridation is effective.

The Cochrane Review does advise caution based on the age of these studies.

Is this really enough for a change in policy?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I surprised your criticizing SCHER on this point seeing as it benefits your cause.

So now all of a sudden you agree SCHER has point that benefits my cause?

jh79 wrote: »

Disagree with you on SCHER , it is just highlighting that the papers exist.

Disagree with you there .. they made that statement based on papers they researched ..why else mention it in the report ?

jh79 wrote: »

Both SCHER and the Cochrane reports agree that fluoridation fluoride is effective.

FYP

jh79 wrote: »

The Cochrane Review does advise caution based on the age of these studies.

Is this really enough for a change in policy?

If the effect of fluoridation is based on 4 decade old research .. then Yes of course the policy must be changed, specialy with the controversy surrounding it

What is your opinion on the Irish government basing their position on the recent studies mentioned in the SCHER report?

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

"Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. It also increased the percentage of children with no decay by 15%."
 

They found fluoridation to be effective, as did SCHER .

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Yes certain limited conditions

As you said it yourself




Conclusion posted by SCHER contradicts some of the findings in the Cochrane report

What does that say about Alex White reffering to the SCHER report all the time ?

You agreed only a few post back that fluoridation is effective under certain conditions.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

So now all of a sudden you agree SCHER has point that benefits my cause?



Disagree with you there .. they made that statement based on papers they researched ..why else mention it in the report ?



FYP



If the effect of fluoridation is based on 4 decade old research .. then Yes of course the policy must be changed, specialy with the controversy surrounding it

What is your opinion on the Irish government basing their position on the recent studies mentioned in the SCHER report?

We know that it is effective under certain circumstances .

They can only go on the research that is available and they all show it to be effective .

Neither of us can say for certain what the impact of the bias and flaws in these studies might be but i would think that it is unlikely that it is enough to wipe out the positive effects that were observed.

Throw in its low cost of 4m pa and no known adverse effects, i can't see any justification for ending fluoridation just yet.

Worst case scenario is we are wasting 4 million a year.

weisses

Good summary of the Cochrane report

http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251

Shocking part is that this government/fluoride panel are basing their policy mostly on the latest studies ...which are flawed

I'm not surprised really ...Its all politics

And an excellent piece from Waugh ... Could have written this myself

http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2015/07/hrb-review-failed-measure-fluoride-exposure-population.html

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Good summary of the Cochrane report

http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251

Shocking part is that this government/fluoride panel are basing their policy mostly on the latest studies ...which are flawed

I'm not surprised really ...Its all politics

And an excellent piece from Waugh ... Could have written this myself

http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2015/07/hrb-review-failed-measure-fluoride-exposure-population.html

I take it then that we should ignore the two papers he mentions and pretty much every claim he has ever made about adverse effects associated with fluoridation as that research generally doesn't quantify fluoride exposure either?

Does he think we are all terrible at maths or something? All he is confirming is that a persons total fluoride intake is not overly influenced by CWF.

End CWF and 2l a day of water equates to possible loss of 0.8 mg of fluoride

One cup of tea less a day your intake is reduced by more than 4mg.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I take it then that we should ignore the two papers he mentions and pretty much every claim he has ever made about adverse effects associated with fluoridation as that research generally doesn't quantify fluoride exposure either?

Does he think we are all terrible at maths or something? All he is confirming is that a persons total fluoride intake is not overly influenced by CWF.

End CWF and 2l a day of water equates to possible loss of 0.8 mg of fluoride

One cup of tea less a day your intake is reduced by more than 4mg.

Basically the two stories confirm that fluoridation is not effective and only driven by politics

Policies re fluoride are based on flawed research as cochrane pointed out .. something you cannot deny i think

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Basically the two stories confirm that fluoridation is not effective and only driven by politics

Policies re fluoride are based on flawed research as cochrane pointed out .. something you cannot deny i think

Waugh's letter only confirms that ending CWF would have very little impact on total fluoride consumption in Ireland and even then he is ignoring the fact that fluorsis is the only risk.

The Cochrane Review doesn't prove that it is ineffective it just cast doubts over the results of these studies as the methodologies used allow for bias to occur. We don't know what effect this had.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Waugh's letter only confirms that ending CWF would have very little impact on total fluoride consumption in Ireland and even then he is ignoring the fact that fluorsis is the only risk.

In other words ..people would not be better off nor worse off

So continuing fluoridation is a waste of money ..... besides the Ethical issues surrounding it

jh79 wrote: »

The Cochrane Review doesn't prove that it is ineffective it just cast doubts over the results of these studies as the methodologies used allow for bias to occur. We don't know what effect this had.

You know that policy making is based on studies that used these methodologies and thus allowed for bias to occur. which means policy based on those studies are wrong and should be revised

jh79

weisses wrote: »

In other words ..people would not be better off nor worse off

So continuing fluoridation is a waste of money ..... besides the Ethical issues surrounding it



You know that policy making is based on studies that used these methodologies and thus allowed for bias to occur. which means policy based on those studies are wrong and should be revised

While there are question marks over its effectiveness in the modern area we cannot say for certain it is ineffective.

Given that we know that it does no harm some would argue, me included, it is worth continuing with until we know for certain that it doesn't work.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

You know that policy making is based on studies that used these methodologies and thus allowed for bias to occur. which means policy based on those studies are wrong and should be revised

Cochrane is only saying that the methodologies used means that bias was possible not that it actually occurred. The findings could still be true.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

While there are question marks over its effectiveness in the modern area we cannot say for certain it is ineffective.

Given that we know that it does no harm some would argue, me included, it is worth continuing with until we know for certain that it doesn't work.

We all know it can do Harm depending on what you choose to believe.

Can you point out to 1 report that unequivocally states fluoride is save

As long as its effectiveness is not established it shouldn't be put into the water supply ..period

Could haves and would haves have no place in this

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Cochrane is only saying that the methodologies used means that bias was possible not that it actually occurred. The findings could still be true.

If this was the other way around you would have not accepted it as properly scientifically proven and thus would have dismissed it

jh79

weisses wrote: »

If this was the other way around you would have not accepted it as properly scientifically proven and thus would have dismissed it

I said there were question marks over its effectiveness based on what the Cochrane review reported.

As I said previously worse case scenario is we waste 4 million a year or 0.02% of GDP (i think).

It's not doing any harm so why not stick with it until we know for certain it is not effective?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

We all know it can do Harm depending on what you choose to believe.

Can you point out to 1 report that unequivocally states fluoride is save

As long as its effectiveness is not established it shouldn't be put into the water supply ..period

Could haves and would haves have no place in this

Can you name one adverse effect bar fluorosis at 0.7ppm?

The closest we got in the lifetime of this and other threads was Grandjean and even he said no judgement could be made on CWF based on the meta-analysis.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I said there were question marks over its effectiveness based on what the Cochrane review reported.

There should be no question marks regarding effectiveness when added to the water supply

jh79 wrote: »

As I said previously worse case scenario is we waste 4 million a year or 0.02% of GDP (i think)..

One of your reasons regarding fluoridation earlier was its cheap and effective and you went on and on about how much a toothbrush would cost etc etc

And now you post remarks like yours above ......

jh79 wrote: »

It's not doing any harm so why not stick with it until we know for certain it is not effective?

I ll ask again

Can you point out to 1 report that unequivocally states fluoride is save ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

There should be no question marks regarding effectiveness when added to the water supply

One of your reasons regarding fluoridation earlier was its cheap and effective and you went on and on about how much a toothbrush would cost etc etc

And now you post remarks like yours above ......

I ll ask again

Can you point out to 1 report that unequivocally states fluoride is save ?

You can't prove anything is safe, it is a scientific impossibility, what would you measure?

But all reviews to date say there is no evidence of adverse effects at 1ppm.

Again if you know of one I'd love to hear it?

As long as there is no evidence of toxicity then I can't see any reason to stop until we know for certain it is ineffective.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You can't prove anything is safe, it is a scientific impossibility, what would you measure?

But all reviews to date say there is no evidence of adverse effects at 1ppm.

Again if you know of one I'd love to hear it?

As long as there is no evidence of toxicity then I can't see any reason to stop until we know for certain it is ineffective.

Can you point out any research that actually thoroughly researched fluoridation safety regarding levels below 1 ppm ?

We already established fluoridation is probably useless ...

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Can you point out any research that actually thoroughly researched fluoridation safety regarding levels below 1 ppm ?

We already established fluoridation is probably useless ...

There are tons of papers out there plenty of which have come up on this and the other thread as you know. None of them amounted to much.

You previously agreed with me that there is no evidence of toxicity at sub 1ppm and nothing new has come out since then.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You previously agreed with me that there is no evidence of toxicity at sub 1ppm and nothing new has come out since then.

Correct but I asked then as well if there was actually any research done in toxicity below 1 ppm and just as then you cannot give a clear answer .. so I take that as a no then

There is no evidence either way because it was not researched properly at these levels

Which leaves us with a policy that is useless with no valid research regarding safety at these levels

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Correct but I asked then as well if there was actually any research done in toxicity below 1 ppm and just as then you cannot give a clear answer .. so I take that as a no then

There is no evidence either way because it was not researched properly at these levels

Which leaves us with a policy that is useless with no valid research regarding safety at these levels

Remember too it was 60 years ago , so yes it wasn't researched properly at the time so we were lucky there are no known adverse effects at 1PPM.

Why would anyone do research on sub 1ppm levels if the research to date fails to show toxicity at levels much higher than this?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Remember too it was 60 years ago , so yes it wasn't researched properly at the time so we were lucky there are no known adverse effects at 1PPM.

Why would anyone do research on sub 1ppm levels if the research to date fails to show toxicity at levels much higher than this?

Was that research aimed at finding out the safety sub 1ppm levels ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Was that research aimed at finding out the safety sub 1ppm levels ?

Not how it works. How would you even know where to start?

If I gave you a research grant what illness and concentration of fluoride would you look at and what would be your justification for your choices?

You would only look at the low ppm's if the previous research at higher levels suggested it would be worthwhile.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Not how it works. How would you even know where to start?

If I gave you a research grant what illness and concentration of fluoride would you look at and what would be your justification for your choices?

You would only look at the low ppm's if the previous research at higher levels suggested it would be worthwhile.

I will use it to establish adverse effects at low level intake during years and years of use

Fluoridation is not effective and there are doubts about its safety.. And with no extensive research aimed at continues exposure at low levels I could see no justification other then a political one to continue with this nonsense of a scheme

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I will use it to establish adverse effects at low level intake during years and years of use

Fluoridation is not effective and there are doubts about its safety.. And with no extensive research aimed at continues exposure at low levels I could see no justification other then a political one to continue with this nonsense of a scheme

While you may have a point re effectiveness what are the doubts regarding safety?

The research that is out there doesn't suggest much toxicity , look at the IQ studies up to 10ppm yet the difference in IQ was within error limits.

10ppm = small effect then it is only logical that 0.7ppm and under would have little or no effect. The NZ study confirmed this.

Can you think of an adverse effect that warrants further investigation?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I will use it to establish adverse effects at low level intake during years and years of use

What adverse effect would you monitor and why?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

While you may have a point re effectiveness what are the doubts regarding safety?

The research that is out there doesn't suggest much toxicity , look at the IQ studies up to 10ppm yet the difference in IQ was within error limits.

10ppm = small effect then it is only logical that 0.7ppm and under would have little or no effect. The NZ study confirmed this.

Can you think of an adverse effect that warrants further investigation?

Up to 10 ppm ..what is interesting is what low level they found adverse effects which they did as well ...
Regarding what adverse effects there are ...just google it I would suggest there are plenty mentioned

Re what I would monitor is not relevant ..I'm not a scientist