Fluoride update re IQ

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Once you swallow water the fluoride in that portion is of no benefit ie ingested fluoride serves no purpose once adult teeth have erupted.

It is because of its contribution to the topical effect (raised fluoride in saliva) that fluoridation is effective.

That is not an answer to my simple question

jh79

weisses wrote: »

That is not an answer to my simple question

Ingesting fluoride is of no benefit to an adult is the simple answer.

The above has no bearing on the effectiveness of fluoridation because it has a topical mechanism of action.

How you think this is a justification for ending fluoridation I don't know.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

That is not an answer to my simple question

Fluoride Alert et al like people to get confused on this for obvious reasons, a systemic delivery method can have a topical mechanism of action. You can't consume food and beverages without it touching your teeth!

Unless you can show that water fluoridation doesn't contribute to the topical mechanism of action your argument falls on its face.

SCHER report just restates the now accepted theory that once adult teeth are formed the mechanism of action of systemic delivery systems such as water fluoridation are solely topical. Maybe it is worded badly but common sense should prevail in this case. You can't drink without it touching your teeth!

Bottom line cariers are reduced and SCHER does not disagree with this and nobody disagrees with SCHER when it says systemic is of no benefit once adult teeth are formed.

No matter what way you try and spin it there is no justification for ending fluoridation here.

A few simple questions for you;

A) Is mouthwash a systemic or topical delivery system?

If you swallow mouthwash is it a topical or systemic delivery system?

C) Is the mechanism of action of mouth wash systemic or topical and is it the same mechanism in A and B?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Fluoride Alert et al like people to get confused on this for obvious reasons, a systemic delivery method can have a topical mechanism of action. You can't consume food and beverages without it touching your teeth!

Unless you can show that water fluoridation doesn't contribute to the topical mechanism of action your argument falls on its face.

SCHER report just restates the now accepted theory that once adult teeth are formed the mechanism of action of systemic delivery systems such as water fluoridation are solely topical. Maybe it is worded badly but common sense should prevail in this case. You can't drink without it touching your teeth!

Bottom line cariers are reduced and SCHER does not disagree with this and nobody disagrees with SCHER when it says systemic is of no benefit once adult teeth are formed.

No matter what way you try and spin it there is no justification for ending fluoridation here.

A few simple questions for you;

A) Is mouthwash a systemic or topical delivery system?

If you swallow mouthwash is it a topical or systemic delivery system?

C) Is the mechanism of action of mouth wash systemic or topical and is it the same mechanism in A and B?

Why is it so difficult to answer one simple question ??

If SCHER states The effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride is questionable.. what are they referring to exactly ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Why is it so difficult to answer one simple question ??

If SCHER states The effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride is questionable.. what are they referring to exactly ?

Ingesting fluoride is of no benefit

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Ingesting fluoride is of no benefit

And thus the best thing they came up with is to put it in our drinking water ..terrific

jh79

weisses wrote: »

And thus the best thing they came up with is to put it in our drinking water ..terrific

But the ingested fluoride is harmless and that that remains in the saliva is beneficial.

"Water fluoridation as well as topical fluoride applications, e.g. fluoridated toothpaste or
varnish, appears to prevent caries, primarily on permanent dentition, but topical
application is the more efficient measure."

SCHER report

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

But the ingested fluoride is harmless and that that remains in the saliva is beneficial.

"Water fluoridation as well as topical fluoride applications, e.g. fluoridated toothpaste or
varnish, appears to prevent caries, primarily on permanent dentition, but topical
application is the more efficient measure."

SCHER report

Also SCHER

Systemic exposure to fluoride through drinking water is associated with an increased risk
of dental and bone fluorosis in a dose-response manner without a detectable threshold.
Limited evidence from epidemiological studies points towards other adverse health
effects following systemic fluoride exposure, e.g. carcinogenicity, developmental
neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Also SCHER

Read pg 39

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Read pg 39

I did

And page 30

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

And page 29

Figure 2 indicates that independent of the fluoridation policies across the EU Member
States, there has been a consistent decline over time in tooth decay in 12 year old
children from the mid-1970s, regardless of whether drinking water, milk or salt are
fluoridated

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I did

And page 30



And page 29

Overall conclusion is that it is effective and safe.

Again you are confusing effectiveness with necessity.

Unless you can show it is not necessary in Ireland what you are quoting is pointless. Continually pointing out that Ireland hasn't the best dental health in Europe isn't helping your argument.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I did

And page 30



And page 29

The SCHER report highlights all studies in this area, highlighting them doesn't validate them.

After reading all of these studies the people behind the SCHER report concluded that fluoridation was safe and effective.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Also SCHER

Systemic exposure to fluoride through drinking water is associated with an increased risk
of dental and bone fluorosis in a dose-response manner without a detectable threshold.
Limited evidence from epidemiological studies points towards other adverse health
effects following systemic fluoride exposure, e.g. carcinogenicity, developmental
neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity

What was the SHER reports conclusion based on these pieces of research??

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The SCHER report highlights all studies in this area, highlighting them doesn't validate them.

So if it highlights the positive effects of fluoridation it doesn't really validate them either then ?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Systemic exposure to fluoride through drinking water is associated with an increased risk
of dental and bone fluorosis in a dose-response manner without a detectable threshold.
Limited evidence from epidemiological studies points towards other adverse health
effects following systemic fluoride exposure, e.g. carcinogenicity, developmental
neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity

What was the SHER reports conclusion based on these pieces of research??

the application of the general rules of
the weight-of-evidence approach indicates that these observations cannot be
unequivocally substantiated.

There was evidence supporting it but SCHER found it was not enough ... does it rule out the conclusions ...I think not

jh79

weisses wrote: »

the application of the general rules of
the weight-of-evidence approach indicates that these observations cannot be
unequivocally substantiated.

There was evidence supporting it but SCHER found it was not enough ... does it rule out the conclusions ...I think not

Can't rule anything out but it doesn't come even close to being a justification for ending fluoridation.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

So if it highlights the positive effects of fluoridation it doesn't really validate them either then ?

But the conclusion does.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

But the conclusion does.

That also goes for the negative findings regarding fluoridation that where expressed in the report

jh79

weisses wrote: »

That also goes for the negative findings regarding fluoridation that where expressed in the report

How do you mean , the negative findings were dismissed?

The occurrence of endemic skeletal fluorosis has not been reported in the EU general
population.

There is not sufficient evidence linking fluoride in the drinking water to the development
of osteosarcoma.

Fluoride intake from drinking water at the level occurring in the EU does not appear to
hamper children’s neurodevelopment and IQ levels.

Human studies do not suggest adverse thyroid effects at realistic human exposures to
fluoride.

There is no new evidence from human studies indicating that fluoride in drinking water
influences male and female reproductive capacity.



How does this report help your cause in any way?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

How do you mean , the negative findings were dismissed?

The occurrence of endemic skeletal fluorosis has not been reported in the EU general
population.

There is not sufficient evidence linking fluoride in the drinking water to the development
of osteosarcoma.

Fluoride intake from drinking water at the level occurring in the EU does not appear to
hamper children’s neurodevelopment and IQ levels.

Human studies do not suggest adverse thyroid effects at realistic human exposures to
fluoride.

There is no new evidence from human studies indicating that fluoride in drinking water
influences male and female reproductive capacity.



How does this report help your cause in any way?

The points I raised earlier ??

jh79

weisses wrote: »

The points I raised earlier ??

That the report dismissed as insufficient is your argument against fluoridation??

jh79

So you are using the SCHER report as a source but are ignoring its findings, is that a fair summary?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

That the report dismissed as insufficient is your argument against fluoridation??

The effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride is questionable means the effect of fluoridation is questionable yes ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

The effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride is questionable means the effect of fluoridation is questionable yes ?

No it doesn't at all.

We covered this all ready. It is impossible to spin this to say fluoridation is not effective.

It increases fluoride in saliva it is a topical exposure.

The ingested (systemic) is of no benefit.

End result is, it is effective with reduced cariers.

You are purposely confusing topical / systemic delivery systems with topical / systemic mechanism of actions .

jh79

SCHER agrees that topical application of fluoride is most effective in preventing tooth decay. Topical fluoride sustains the fluoride levels in the oral cavity and helps to prevent caries, with reduced systemic availability.

Fluoridation contributes to this.

This really is one of the poorer arguments found on fluoride alert et al

jh79

If this is what you genuinely believe then you will have no problem answering these questions?

A) Is mouthwash a systemic or topical delivery system?

If you swallow mouthwash is it a topical or systemic delivery system?

C) Is the mechanism of action of mouth wash systemic or topical and is it the same mechanism in A and B?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

No it doesn't at all.

We covered this all ready. It is impossible to spin this to say fluoridation is not effective.

It increases fluoride in saliva it is a topical exposure.

The ingested (systemic) is of no benefit.

End result is, it is effective with reduced cariers.

You are purposely confusing topical / systemic delivery systems with topical / systemic mechanism of actions .

Then why are the results roughly the same in all other western countries who don't fluoridate regarding tooth decay ... for me it ads up

The effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride is questionable means the effect of fluoridation is questionable

Its even in the graph provided by SCHER

And I don't spin this ..I copy directly from the report

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Then why are the results roughly the same in all other western countries who don't fluoridate regarding tooth decay ... for me it ads up

The effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride is questionable means the effect of fluoridation is questionable

Its even in the graph provided by SCHER

And I don't spin this ..I copy directly from the report

You are spinning it, answer the mouthwash question so?

jh79

Another set of straightforward questions,

a) If I drink fluoridated water is it systemic or topical delivery?

b) If i spit it out is it systemic or topical delivery?

c) What are the possible mechanisms of action in each case?

If you are genuine then you wouldn't know which questions to avoid.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Another set of straightforward questions,

a) If I drink fluoridated water is it systemic or topical delivery?

b) If i spit it out is it systemic or topical delivery?

c) What are the possible mechanisms of action in each case?

If you are genuine then you wouldn't know which questions to avoid.

Systemic

Topical

I avoided question 3 ...... do i pass into round 2 now ...??

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Systemic

Topical

I avoided question 3 ...... do i pass into round 2 now ...??

I never believed that was your true interpretation of SCHER anyways.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I never believed that was your true interpretation of SCHER anyways.

Did i get the questions right ??

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Did i get the questions right ??

Fair play to you for keeping it up nearly thought it was what you actually believed!

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Fair play to you for keeping it up nearly thought it was what you actually believed!

But it is what I believe

Now did I get the questions right ? if not then my whole believe of what systemic means needs to be revised

jh79

weisses wrote: »

But it is what I believe

Now did I get the questions right ? if not then my whole believe of what systemic means needs to be revised

You avoided question c because you knew it wouldn't tally with your strange interpretation of what SCHER said.

jh79

are you serious?

If so you did answer right.

Now what about c?

Just to save time if you think there is a difference in the mechanisms for a and b could you explain why and how?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

are you serious?

If so you did answer right.

Now what about c?

Just to save time if you think there is a difference in the mechanisms for a and b could you explain why and how?

My understanding is that systemic involves the whole body and drinking it would be systemic ... brushing teeth and mouth rinsing fall not in that category

And I'm always serious .....almost .....sometimes

jh79

weisses wrote: »

My understanding is that systemic involves the whole body and drinking it would be systemic ... brushing teeth and mouth rinsing fall not in that category

And I'm always serious .....almost .....sometimes

Fair enough , hard to tell online sometimes.

So if you swallow your mouth wash by accident would you expect the fluoride to have an effect on your teeth, specifically the fluoride that is now in your stomach ie the systemic (ingested) fluoride?

Would you expect it to somehow travel to the oral cavity or to facilitate a chain of events that lead to improved dental health?

By swallowing the mouthwash have you in any way interfered with its normal topical mechanism of action?

I think it is pretty obvious that the answers to all of the above are no.

The use of systemic fluoride eg mouthwash accidentally drunk is questionable. Because like with fluoridated water this ingested fluoride is excreted or stored in the body without actually having any effect.

SCHER is only referring to the fluoride that is ingested not the fluoride that is left in the oral cavity after drinking.

It's effectiveness (drinking mouthwash) even when used systemically is not in doubt. Obviously not a good idea but that's not the point.

Fluoridated water is like a weak mouthwash that is safe to drink. The fact that it is ingested and is therefore a systemic delivery system has no bearing on its effectiveness because the consensus now is that it works topically by increasing fluoride levels in saliva.

Bottom line is if we stick to your interpretation then there is a contradiction between it and the conclusion of the report.

With my interpretation there is no contradiction.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

It is not

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15153698

http://fluoridealert.org/issues/caries/topical_systemic/

Fluoridation is systemic

It is even explained in your fluoridealert.org link!

"Based on these and other findings, researchers have now overwhelmingly rejected the notion that swallowing fluoride is either necessary or effective for preventing decay. Instead, the current consensus is that fluoride’s benefit (whatever it may be) comes from topical contact with teeth after the teeth have erupted into the mouth. As the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stated in 1999:"

"Unlike their predecessors, today’s advocates insist that fluoridated water provides an effective source of topical fluoride by increasing the fluoride content in both saliva and plaque".

I feel dirty after that!

Cianmcliam

My reading of SCHER's opinion is that there's no advantage to systemic exposure to fluoride compared to a situation where there is enough exposure via topical applications. So having fluoride in your entire body has no advantages over having it only in your mouth. This is slightly misleading though since it has been shown that fluoride protects teeth before they have even erupted, even the adult teeth as they are just being formed in the jaw.

In any case, the fluoride you drink enters your system and then becomes available in your saliva at all times. Even though it is at a low level, the fact that it is there 24 hours a day has huge advantages. I don't think that fluoride is available in saliva through direct contact with water in the mouth, not at helpful levels anyway.

Some places have of course seen little increase in decay after fluoridation was stopped. This is because these areas already achieved the kind of oral hygiene we can only wish for. Other places implemented the more expensive option of fluoride varnishes just before or after ending fluoridation since their dentists see most children regularly anyway, unlike the pathetic situation here. There's lots of good data showing a marked improvement after fluoridation is introduced, this is surely much better evidence since it is starting from a problem in need of a solution instead of a solution looking for a problem as in some countries.

jh79

Cianmcliam wrote: »

My reading of SCHER's opinion is that there's no advantage to systemic exposure to fluoride compared to a situation where there is enough exposure via topical applications. So having fluoride in your entire body has no advantages over having it only in your mouth. This is slightly misleading though since it has been shown that fluoride protects teeth before they have even erupted, even the adult teeth as they are just being formed in the jaw.

In any case, the fluoride you drink enters your system and then becomes available in your saliva at all times. Even though it is at a low level, the fact that it is there 24 hours a day has huge advantages. I don't think that fluoride is available in saliva through direct contact with water in the mouth, not at helpful levels anyway.

Some places have of course seen little increase in decay after fluoridation was stopped. This is because these areas already achieved the kind of oral hygiene we can only wish for. Other places implemented the more expensive option of fluoride varnishes just before or after ending fluoridation since their dentists see most children regularly anyway, unlike the pathetic situation here. There's lots of good data showing a marked improvement after fluoridation is introduced, this is surely much better evidence since it is starting from a problem in need of a solution instead of a solution looking for a problem as in some countries.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11961329

"The results indicate that consumption of fluoridated milk contributes to a F storing process with significantly elevated F concentrations in dental plaque up to 2 h after intake. Further studies are required to determine the 'therapeutic concentration' of F in dental plaque after intake of fluoridated milk."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15038789

"Consumption of snacks prepared with fluoridated table salt resulted in significantly increased fluoride levels in saliva and supragingival plaque for a period of at least two hours."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12418723

"The results showed a statistically significant 3-fold increase of the plaque fluoride levels up to 4 h after the intake"

"In conclusion, the findings support the suggestion that milk is a suitable vehicle for local fluoride administration into the oral cavity, also when consumed together with a meal."

I think there is a train of thought that the systemic delivery systems cause an increase in fluoride levels in saliva at the time of consumption rather than a steady level across 24 hours.

jh79

http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/57589

"A statistically significant (p < 0.05) increase of F was disclosed in saliva 15 min after drinking F-containing milk and water (0.052 and 0.058 mg F/l, respectively"

Here is one with F water

jh79

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/abstract

The Cochrane Review is out now.

Basically the studies showing effectiveness are old and the newer one are of poor quality.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/abstract

The Cochrane Review is out now.

Basically the studies showing effectiveness are old and the newer one are of poor quality.

So what other reason other then a political one can be found to continue water fluoridation ?

blatantrereg

pueblo wrote: »

Fluoride also calcifies the pineal gland (third eye)

http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html

At the levels found in tap water I think the main adverse effect is that it causes gradual calcification of the pineal gland. I think this makes people tend to sleep less, and that it might be the direct reason people generally sleep less as they get older. Referring to a gland as a third eye sounds bonkers though and really undermines any concerns about this.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

So what other reason other then a political one can be found to continue water fluoridation ?

But they say it was proven to be effective prior to 1975 but that the recent studies were of poor quality .

These studies while having elements of bias found cariers were reduced .

Only real question here is whether it is necessary in the modern age and in Ireland. I would say our obesity levels, consumption of sugar etc and mid ranking position in EU league tables suggests it is.

Might not be necessary in some other EU countries but this in part could be due to fluoridated milk and salt

jh79

weisses wrote: »

So what other reason other then a political one can be found to continue water fluoridation ?

"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?  

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/abstract

The Cochrane Review is out now.

Basically the studies showing effectiveness are old and the newer one are of poor quality.

The big question remains then:

What studies are used to determine fluoridation effectiveness and safety today ?

Its a bit daft now is it to ridicule the FAN website and its supporters while for the last 40 years a lot of the "official" studies into fluoridation seem to be of poor quality and biased

weisses

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

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

jh79

weisses wrote: »

The big question remains then:

What studies are used to determine fluoridation effectiveness and safety today ?

Its a bit daft now is it to ridicule the FAN website and its supporters while for the last 40 years a lot of the "official" studies into fluoridation seem to be of poor quality and biased

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

While the cochrane report found the studies to be of poor quality it still did find fluoridation to be effective.

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.