The Health Service Executive Says You Must Drink Fluoridated Tapwater

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I would be more worried 97 % of the studies used to determine if Fluoride is safe/effective doesn't meet the criteria

You do understand why they don't meet the criteria?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You do understand why they don't meet the criteria?

Yes I read your link with the concerns from Wheldon .. I also read your reply where it states

Decision makers need to recognise that for some areas of research, the quality of the evidence will never be ’high’ and that, as for any intervention, the recommendation for its use depends not just upon the quality of the evidence but also on factors such as acceptability and cost-effectiveness (Burford 2012).”

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Yes I read your link with the concerns from Wheldon .. I also read your reply where it states

That reply is from Cochrane.

The impression I get from you is that you think the researchers are at fault for this?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

That reply is from Cochrane.

The impression I get from you is that you think the researchers are at fault for this?

Wel I think something is wrong if a renowned group like Cochrane dismisses 97% of research when looking at effectiveness of fluoridation

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Wel I think something is wrong if a renowned group like Cochrane dismisses 97% of research when looking at effectiveness of fluoridation

So you would welcome the introduction of fluoridation to an area that previously had a low base line level of fluoride to facilitate a study that could meet the "high" grade??

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So you would welcome the introduction of fluoridation to an area that previously had a low base line level of fluoride to facilitate a study that could meet the "high" grade??

I would welcome research that can be included in a report such as Cochrane ..... 97% didn't made the cut

I wonder what the result would be if Cochrane focuses on fluoridation safety reports

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I would welcome research that can be included in a report such as Cochrane ..... 97% didn't made the cut

I wonder what the result would be if Cochrane focuses on fluoridation safety reports

The 3% did show it to be effective so the anti-fluoridation people have to accept that.

If Cochrane focused on safety reports those reports wouldn't meet the required high rating either. Are you sure you understand why these pieces of research were rated as low?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I would welcome research that can be included in a report such as Cochrane ..... 97% didn't made the cut

I wonder what the result would be if Cochrane focuses on fluoridation safety reports

New review from Australia found no safety concerns re fluoridation. AFAIK all reviews agree it is safe.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

New review from Australia found no safety concerns re fluoridation. AFAIK all reviews agree it is safe.

A whole lot of reviews stated its effective as well ..Yet 97% was dismissed when critically reviewed resulting in insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults

jh79

weisses wrote: »

A whole lot of reviews stated its effective as well ..Yet 97% was dismissed when critically reviewed resulting in insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults

OK re-read the Whelton piece you obviously don't get the issue regarding the selection criteria.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

OK re-read the Whelton piece you obviously don't get the issue regarding the selection criteria.

What i do or don't get isn't the Issue here

Based on Cochrane's review there is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults

jh79

weisses wrote: »

What i do or don't get isn't the Issue here

Based on Cochrane's review there is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults

I take it then that you accept it is effective for kids?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I take it then that you accept it is effective for kids?

As we discussed in the other thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97459335&postcount=527

jh79

weisses wrote: »

As we discussed in the other thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97459335&postcount=527

I didn't ask if you accepted ingesting fluoride was of benefit.

I asked if you accepted the Cochrane reviews findings that water fluoridation is effective for kids?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I didn't ask if you accepted ingesting fluoride was of benefit.

I asked if you accepted the Cochrane reviews findings that water fluoridation is effective for kids?

Yes .. Although they also said its based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Yes .. Although they also said its based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today.

So at the time it was introduced it was an effective way to reduce cariers and therefore justified, now what is the justification for ending it , how are you going to prove that rate of effectiveness has dropped to zero?? How plausible is it that it has gone from 26% (?) to 0%?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So at the time it was introduced it was an effective way to reduce cariers and therefore justified, now what is the justification for ending it , how are you going to prove that rate of effectiveness has dropped to zero?? How plausible is it that it has gone from 26% (?) to 0%?

I repeat

Based on Cochrane's review there is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults.

They came up with that ....not me

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I repeat

Based on Cochrane's review there is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of water fluoridation on caries levels in adults.

They came up with that ....not me

So why isn't its effectiveness in children enough justification for it in your opinion?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So why isn't its effectiveness in children enough justification for it in your opinion?

I think we went over that numerous times in the other thread ... I didn't even find it justifiable if fluoridation would be effective in children and adults combined ... Let alone children.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I think we went over that numerous times in the other thread ... I didn't even find it justifiable if fluoridation would be effective in children and adults combined ... Let alone children.

At least take comfort in the fact that it is safe and effective.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

At least take comfort in the fact that it is safe and effective.

Effective ... For a small portion of the population, doesn't justify exposing the whole population to this chemical

Safe ?? ..97% of research showing fluoride is effective cannot be used ... I won't get my hopes up claiming it's safe

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Effective ... For a small portion of the population, doesn't justify exposing the whole population to this chemical

Safe ?? ..97% of research showing fluoride is effective cannot be used ... I won't get my hopes up claiming it's safe

It's enough justification for me as its completely harmless.

I take it then given the high standards you now expect for research in this area that you now reject the research from Grandjean and all the others that are of a "low" grade??

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

It's enough justification for me as its completely harmless.

I take it then given the high standards you now expect for research in this area that you now reject the research from Grandjean and all the others that are of a "low" grade??

Harmless ? ... Just wait after Cochrane reviewed studies claiming that

If you accept the same in regards to the 97% rejected by Cohrane

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Harmless ? ... Just wait after Cochrane reviewed studies claiming that

If you accept the same in regards to the 97% rejected by Cohrane

If I say yes, then fluoridation is effective in children and harmless and if I say no fluoridation is effective in children and it is highly likely that it is effective in adults too and really the position on adverse effects doesn't change as the evidence is poor anyways.

So whatever you fancy yourself.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

If I say yes, then fluoridation is effective in children and harmless and if I say no fluoridation is effective in children and it is highly likely that it is effective in adults too and really the position on adverse effects doesn't change as the evidence is poor anyways.

So whatever you fancy yourself.

I think you are making things up now at this stage, Or cherry picking the results

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I think you are making things up now at this stage, Or cherry picking the results

Maybe if you read the full version of Cochrane review then you'd understand.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I think you are making things up now at this stage, Or cherry picking the results

Anyways we've had 60+ years of fluoridation, thousands of papers and numerous reviews at this stage and we are still waiting on a decent argument against fluoridation.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Maybe if you read the full version of Cochrane review then you'd understand.

I just skip to the conclusions ..which are drawn from the report. They are pretty clear

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Anyways we've had 60+ years of fluoridation, thousands of papers and numerous reviews at this stage and we are still waiting on a decent argument against fluoridation.

There were numerous papers in regards to the effectiveness yet 97% was disregarded... I don't have many confidence in regards to he fluoride safety reports standing up to the "cochrane standard"

jh79

weisses wrote: »

There were numerous papers in regards to the effectiveness yet 97% was disregarded... I don't have many confidence in regards to he fluoride safety reports standing up to the "cochrane standard"

No such thing as safety reports, researchers try to link fluoride exposure to an adverse effect and as you know they don't stand up to normal scrutiny never mind "High" on the GRADE framework.

How do you think Grandjean / Peckhams or Mullinex papers would be viewed by Cochrane ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I just skip to the conclusions ..which are drawn from the report. They are pretty clear

Just as well they conclude fluoridation has been effective in reducing cariers in the past.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Just as well they conclude fluoridation has been effective in reducing cariers in the past.

In Children yes

Where does Cochrane share your view in regards to adults ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

In Children yes

Where does Cochrane share your view in regards to adults ?

Which justifies it existence so while there is a debate to be had on whether the GRADE framework was appropriate for the review i don't think you're here for a mature discussion on it.

So to stick to the tone of discussion you seem intend on having;

Flouridation has been shown to be effective in the past in children, there are no known adverse effects beyond cosmetic flecking of teeth.

Therfore totally justified. Its effectiveness is an established fact according to the Cochrane review whose findings are beyond reproach in your eyes.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Which justifies it existence so while there is a debate to be had on whether the GRADE framework was appropriate for the review i don't think you're here for a mature discussion on it.

So to stick to the tone of discussion you seem intend on having;

Flouridation has been shown to be effective in the past in children, there are no known adverse effects beyond cosmetic flecking of teeth.

Therfore totally justified. Its effectiveness is an established fact according to the Cochrane review whose findings are beyond reproach in your eyes.

That is not what I asked .....You seem to leap from one conclusion to the other without actually addressing the question

jh79

weisses wrote: »

That is not what I asked .....You seem to leap from one conclusion to the other without actually addressing the question

How can i adress the question if you won't read the full Cochrane review it's a complete waste of time.

Fluoridation is effective end of. It is written in the conclusion that is the be all and end all to you.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

How can i adress the question if you won't read the full Cochrane review it's a complete waste of time.

Is the quote below a conclusion from the Cohrane report yes or no

No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.

Within the ‘before and after’ studies we were looking for, we did not find any on the benefits of fluoridated water for adults.

jh79 wrote: »

Fluoridation is effective end of. It is written in the conclusion that is the be all and end all to you.

I found another one refuting you claim in the other thread about the poor kids

We found insufficient information to determine whether fluoridation reduces differences in tooth decay levels between children from poorer and more affluent backgrounds.

Its their conclusion ... They reached it .. It has nothing to do with the fact I read it or not


So I ask again

What is the Cochrane conclusion in regards to the fluoridation benefits for adults ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Is the quote below a conclusion from the Cohrane report yes or no







I found another one refuting you claim in the other thread about the poor kids



Its their conclusion ... They reached it .. It has nothing to do with the fact I read it or not


So I ask again

What is the Cochrane conclusion in regards to the fluoridation benefits for adults ?

Doesn't matter it is effective in children so fluoridation as a public health intervention is therefore effective.

Anything else re adults is a bonus.

You agreed that the research shows it to be effective in children so why is that not enough?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Doesn't matter it is effective in children so fluoridation as a public health intervention is therefore effective.

Anything else re adults is a bonus.

You agreed that the research shows it to be effective in children so why is that not enough?

Again you are dodging the very simple question i asked you

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Again you are dodging the very simple question i asked you

It's irrelevant now that its effectiveness is proven.

Its effectiveness is proven in a specific portion of the population. It's effectiveness has yet to be proven beyond doubt but there is evidence of a significant effect, according to Cochrane , in adults and even if this is not the case sure it is completely harmless anyways .

Is there a point to your question ?

jh79

How can you be against something that is proven to be effective in children and is completely harmless to those who recieve no benefit from it??

Can you explain the logic behind such a stance to me? Because the only thing i can come up with is that the people who hold such a viewpoint believe in the silly stuff like Nazis and NWO keeping us docile etc.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

It's irrelevant now that its effectiveness is proven.

In Children perhaps ... Not in adults as you acknowledge in you reply below

jh79 wrote: »

Its effectiveness is proven in a specific portion of the population. It's effectiveness has yet to be proven beyond doubt but there is evidence of a significant effect, according to Cochrane , in adults and even if this is not the case sure it is completely harmless anyways .

Is there a point to your question ?

Yes ... No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.

So you claiming Cochrane says it has a significant effect in adults is a non runner I'm afraid

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

How can you be against something that is proven to be effective in children and is completely harmless to those who recieve no benefit from it??

I hope for you the proven harmless quote can be validated in the 3% of studies deemed valid by Cochrane ... I doubt it however

jh79 wrote: »

Can you explain the logic behind such a stance to me? Because the only thing i can come up with is that the people who hold such a viewpoint believe in the silly stuff like Nazis and NWO keeping us docile etc.

No there is no logic in regards to fluoridation .... You agreed yourself its only effective for approx 10% of the population ... although that is also based on old studies

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I hope for you the proven harmless quote can be validated in the 3% of studies deemed valid by Cochrane ... I doubt it however



No there is no logic in regards to fluoridation .... You agreed yourself its only effective for approx 10% of the population ... although that is also based on old studies

The Cochrane reveiw didn't look at adverse effects .

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I hope for you the proven harmless quote can be validated in the 3% of studies deemed valid by Cochrane ... I doubt it however



No there is no logic in regards to fluoridation .... You agreed yourself its only effective for approx 10% of the population ... although that is also based on old studies

No , Cochrane doesn't say it is not effective in adults it says there is not enough evidence to determine its effectiveness.

If there isn't evidence of its effectiveness then what were the 97% papers about??

The aim of the review was to put a figure on this and they couldn't that what the conclusion states it doesn't say it is not effective in adults.

I can put up a link to science based medicine explaing what the results mean if you are genuinely interested un this subject?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I hope for you the proven harmless quote can be validated in the 3% of studies deemed valid by Cochrane ... I doubt it however

What studies have you seen that show or suggest adverse effects and pass the same criteria you are holding them to?

What are you using to suggest that any adverse effects might exist?

What's your opinion of the claims made by the OP?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The Cochrane reveiw didn't look at adverse effects .

Well if 97 % of the reviews cannot be used to show its effectiveness i have a vague feeling reviewing adverse effects will suffer the same faith

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

No , Cochrane doesn't say it is not effective in adults it says there is not enough evidence to determine its effectiveness.

If there isn't evidence of its effectiveness then what were the 97% papers about??

You just perfectly described the quality of research in the effectiveness of fluoride

No one can say its effective for adults ... because its not proven .... Same argument people use for "snake oil"

jh79 wrote: »

I can put up a link to science based medicine explaing what the results mean if you are genuinely interested un this subject?

I know what the results mean

As you said yourself

there is not enough evidence to determine its effectiveness

jh79

weisses wrote: »

You just perfectly described the quality of research in the effectiveness of fluoride

No one can say its effective for adults ... because its not proven .... Same argument people use for "snake oil"

I know what the results mean

As you said yourself

Yes the extent of its effectiveness is not proven, that is not the same as saying it is ineffective.

If Cochrane wanted to say it is not effective they wouldn't have used the word insufficient.

So combine this with the fact that it is definitely effective in children and no know adverse effects then your going to need something concrete to justify ending it.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Yes the extent of its effectiveness is not proven, that is not the same as saying it is ineffective.

Its effectiveness in adults is not proven .... despite the word games above

jh79 wrote: »

If Cochrane wanted to say it is not effective they wouldn't have used the word insufficient.

Instead they used the below

No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.

If you as a policy maker need to make a decision to fluoridate water you cannot do that with the above result

jh79 wrote: »

So combine this with the fact that it is definitely effective in children and no know adverse effects then your going to need something concrete to justify ending it.

You don't know if there is an adverse effect ... I would like for Cochrane to look into that as well .... What would be the percentage of studies not up to standard for a review by Cochrane ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Its effectiveness in adults is not proven .... despite the word games above




Instead they used the below



If you as a policy maker need to make a decision to fluoridate water you cannot do that with the above result



You don't know if there is an adverse effect ... I would like for Cochrane to look into that as well .... What would be the percentage of studies not up to standard for a review by Cochrane ?

All of the studies on adverse effects would not met the inclusion criteria. They suffer the same short comings and more as the studies rejected.

So if you are genuine in your stance you will reject all the adverse effects studies too?