Fluoride, Makes us Docile and Passive? Thoughts??

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I make a conclusion in regards to the statistics

Is the statement that 97% of Europe don't use water fluoridation based on

A: basic statistics

B: Peer reviewed High grade research

So in reality you are just stating an observation with no conclusions ( you don't have a study to make a conclusion).

Still think you want the thread locked there is nothing remotely logical about your posts.

jh79

So what type of study in your opinion is required to determine the effectiveness or necessity of fluoridation?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I make a conclusion in regards to the statistics

Is the statement that 97% of Europe don't use water fluoridation based on

A: basic statistics

B: Peer reviewed High grade research

Lol, this is getting a bit sad.

But ok, let's play along to see how far you can dig yourself.

The statement that 97% of Europe don't use water fluoridation is based on A) basic statistics.

King Mob

jh79 wrote: »

So in reality you are just stating an observation with no conclusions ( you don't have a study to make a conclusion).

Still think you want the thread locked there is nothing remotely logical about your posts.

But this is contradicted here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101640163&postcount=258
Where he says exactly that he's reaching a conclusion.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, which factors might influence the statistics in question and how did you ensure that they weren't influencing the statistics before you reached your conclusion?

Use of fluoride tooth paste, Fluoridated salt, milk

I think they count for some influence on both sides of the argument

Fluoridated salt on the mainland vs fluoride toothpaste use in Ireland for example

There are however many European countries that don't use the fluoridated salt and milk an there the statistics show a sharp decline in fillings as well

So yes I think you can safely say Water fluoridation is not effective ( again Cochrane had issues with the effectiveness as well)

It all comes together

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Use of fluoride tooth paste, Fluoridated salt, milk

I think they count for some influence on both sides of the argument

Fluoridated salt on the mainland vs fluoride toothpaste use in Ireland for example

There are however many European countries that don't use the fluoridated salt and milk an there the statistics show a sharp decline in fillings as well

So yes I think you can safely say Water fluoridation is not effective ( again Cochrane had issues with the effectiveness as well)

It all comes together

Wow this just gets better.

So why was the Cocbrane review even necessary if that data was sufficent??

Are you going to get your research published?

jh79

Could you apply your logic to other public bealth interventions? It would save millions on studies.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Wow this just gets better.

So why was the Cocbrane review even necessary if that data was sufficent??

Are you going to get your research published?

Don't you think the use of fluoridated tooth paste here and The use of fluoridated salt, milk in some countries on the mainland could have some influence on how the DMFT index is build ?

Cochrane

There was also substantial variation between the results of the studies, many of which took place before the introduction of fluoride toothpaste. This makes it difficult to be confident of the size of the effects of water fluoridation on tooth decay

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Use of fluoride tooth paste, Fluoridated salt, milk

I think they count for some influence on both sides of the argument

Fluoridated salt on the mainland vs fluoride toothpaste use in Ireland for example

Well how do you know how much of an influence this is? How do you know that these two effects cancel each other out exactly?
How do you know for a fact that the effect of one is not bigger than you expect?

weisses wrote: »

There are however many European countries that don't use the fluoridated salt and milk an there the statistics show a sharp decline in fillings as well

So that's the only factor that could possibly be in play?
Cause we listed quite a few.
Do you exclude all of the countries were fluoridated salt and milk are available from your conclusion? Cause that doesn't seem likely with how you keep refering to 97% and all...

weisses wrote: »

U
So yes I think you can safely say Water fluoridation is not effective ( again Cochrane had issues with the effectiveness as well)

It all comes together

But you are mis-representing again. Cochrane doesn't conclude one way or the other. It says that there is no good evidence to conclude that it's ineffective.
But you are now saying that there is ample evidence to conclude that it's ineffective.

So why didn't Cochrane mention your statistics and how they prove that water fluoridation is ineffective?
Were they (expert researchers researching the topic) not aware of them while you (a complete non-expert) were aware of them?
Were they unable to find them?

If they genuinely didn't have access to them, why did they bother with doing a meta-analysis in the first place?

jh79

Hilarious that we have gone from Cochrane to the Declan Waugh school of science.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Hilarious that we have gone from Cochrane to the Declan Waugh school of science.

Actually while we are on it do you now believe that adverse effects can also be proven with raw data.

Are we about to go "full Waugh "ðŸ˜

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Well how do you know how much of an influence this is? How do you know that these two effects cancel each other out exactly?

I don't

King Mob wrote: »

So that's the only factor that could possibly be in play?
Cause we listed quite a few.

10 countries that Don't fluoridate their water,salt,milk and have equally or better dental health ....

Some countries do ....

King Mob wrote: »

But you are mis-representing again. Cochrane doesn't conclude one way or the other. It says that there is no good evidence to conclude that it's ineffective.
But you are now saying that there is ample evidence to conclude that it's ineffective.

No they say that the studies that aimed in determining the effectiveness of water fluoridation did not meet their standard ...

So me saying Cochrane had issues with the studies in regards to effectiveness is not mis representing .... sorry

King Mob wrote: »

So why didn't Cochrane mention your statistics?
Were they (expert researchers researching the topic) not aware of them while you (a complete non-expert) were aware of them?
Were they unable to find them?

If they genuinely didn't have access to them, why did they bother with doing a meta-analysis in the first place?

I dont know if they used these stats yes or No

http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/9789241548649/en/

http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/pepannex1formadulttooth.pdf?ua=1

Not rocket science lads

King Mob

jh79 wrote: »

Actually while we are on it do you now believe that adverse effects can also be proven with raw data.

Are we about to go "full Waugh "ðŸ˜

Ireland compared to the rest of Europe does not have any weird unexplainable spikes in any illnesses or disabilities.

Therefore we can conclude that fluordiated water has no ill effects.

I look forward to seeing how weiss will address his own logic...

jh79

King Mob wrote: »

Ireland compared to the rest of Europe does not have any weird unexplainable spikes in any illnesses or disabilities.

Therefore we can conclude that fluordiated water has no ill effects.

I look forward to seeing how weiss will address his own logic...

Contradictory posts until a mod rescues him?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Actually while we are on it do you now believe that adverse effects can also be proven with raw data.

Are we about to go "full Waugh "ðŸ˜

What are you on about ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

What are you on about ?

What's the difference between your ridiculous stance and Waugh's many attempts at pseudoscience regarding adverse effects, cancer is higher in Ireland therefore fluoridation caused it.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Ireland compared to the rest of Europe does not have any weird unexplainable spikes in any illnesses or disabilities.

Therefore we can conclude that fluordiated water has no ill effects.

I look forward to seeing how weiss will address his own logic...

Isn't that what Cochrane is publishing in 2020 ?

Do you have a link to these statistics displaying all the illnesses or disabilities across Europe ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I don't

Ok, so we have a factor that would influence your statistics. You have not excluded how it might influence your statistics. And you don't know by how much it would effect your statistics.

So why do you believe your conclusion is still sound?

weisses wrote: »

10 countries that Don't fluoridate their water,salt,milk and have equally or better dental health ....

Some countries do ....

Yet you still quote 97%...

But again you have avoided the question.
I asked if there were any other factors you believe that would influence the statistics. Please address this.

weisses wrote: »

No they say that the studies that aimed in determining the effectiveness of water fluoridation did not meet their standard ...

So me saying Cochrane had issues with the studies in regards to effectiveness is not mis representing .... sorry

Again, if they were studying the effectiveness of fluoridation, why didn't they reach the same conclusion as you?

weisses wrote: »

I dont know if they used these stats yes or No

Not rocket science lads

But they must have known about them if you are able to find them so easily.
Are you saying they didn't?

Why, if the conclusion is so obvious that even you, an amateur with zero expertise in science and statistics can make a solid scientific judgement using only two sets of data, why didn't they state something in agreement with your conclusion?
Are they part of a conspiracy perhaps?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Isn't that what Cochrane is publishing in 2020 ?

Do you have a link to these statistics displaying all the illnesses or disabilities across Europe ?

Just so we are clear. If I actually do post these statistics, and they do indeed show that Ireland has no weird blip, does that mean that you will agree that fluoridation is proven safe?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, so we have a factor that would influence your statistics. You have not excluded how it might influence your statistics. And you don't know by how much it would effect your statistics.

So why do you believe your conclusion is still sound?

Given the vast vast Majority that dont Have their water fluoridated plus fluoridated toothpaste available in Ireland .... Its more using my judgement I think

King Mob wrote: »

et you still quote 97%...

Correct that figure didn't change ... right ?

King Mob wrote: »

But again you have avoided the question.
I asked if there were any other factors you believe that would influence the statistics. Please address this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101640385&postcount=276

:rolleyes:

King Mob wrote: »

Again, if they were studying the effectiveness of fluoridation, why didn't they reach the same conclusion as you?

Because I think water fluoridation is ineffective

King Mob wrote: »

But they must have known about them if you are able to find them so easily.
Are you saying they didn't?

Why, if the conclusion is so obvious that even you, an amateur with zero expertise in science and statistics can make a solid scientific judgement using only two sets of data, why didn't they state something in agreement with your conclusion?
Are they part of a conspiracy perhaps?

Who said they did not use these figures ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Isn't that what Cochrane is publishing in 2020 ?

Do you have a link to these statistics displaying all the illnesses or disabilities across Europe ?

It's not Cochrane it a uk group whose experimemtal design meets high on the Grade framework.

Cochrane just do meta analysis reviews on data you seem to think doesn't require analysis.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Just so we are clear. If I actually do post these statistics, and they do indeed show that Ireland has no weird blip, does that mean that you will agree that fluoridation is proven safe?

I think you should post these statistics if you make that claim ...Regardless what I think about them before even had a chance to look at them

jh79

So you agree with the methods employed by Declan Waugh then?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I think you should post these statistics if you make that claim ...Regardless what I think about them before even had a chance to look at them

Do you believe fluoride reduces IQ based on Grandjeans simple comparisons in China?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Because I think water fluoridation is ineffective

Who said they did not use these figures ?

Ok weissess what you are basing your opinion on are the same as a case study. A v B the lowest form of evidence.

We have numerous cohort studies with controls that invalidate your interpretation these studies are recognised internartionally to be a higher standard than yours.

So while we can't say it is effectibe to x % we can says there is a possibility based on grade III studies.

You have absolutely nothing. Hence the embarrassing Waugh lite theories and the contradictory posts in the hope of locking the thread.

ancapailldorcha

jh79 wrote: »

Contradictory posts until a mod rescues him?

There is absolutely no need for this sort of dig. No more please.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Given the vast vast Majority that dont Have their water fluoridated plus fluoridated toothpaste available in Ireland .... Its more using my judgement I think

Well for one, you haven't shown it's the vast majority. You said it's only 10 countries who do not Fluoridate anything. 10 countries is not 97% of Europe nor a majority.

Since you are now admitting that you didn't account for that factor at all, you have to exclude such countries from you conclusion until you can account for it.
The way you account for it is to conduct a study.

weisses wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101640385&postcount=276

:rolleyes:

Ok, we've addressed that one. Are you claiming that it is the only factor that could influence your statistics?

weisses wrote: »

Because I think water fluoridation is ineffective

weisses wrote: »

Who said they did not use these figures ?

Again, dodging the question.

So you believe that Cochrane had access to your figures. So therefore, they must also actually agree with you since the evidence is so strong and clear, correct?
If this is the case, why didn't they mention it? Do they not agree with your conclusion?

weisses wrote: »

I think you should post these statistics if you make that claim ...Regardless what I think about them before even had a chance to look at them

I'm not going to bother doing that until you actually stand behind your logic.
There's no point in actually expending the effort in finding the exact figures you'll demand only for you to wiggle away from your claim.

You are claiming that simple statistics are enough.
So if simple statistics show that Ireland is just as healthy as the rest of Europe, does this mean that fluoride is proven safe?
Yes or no?

jh79

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There is absolutely no need for this sort of dig. No more please.

Sorry about that got a bit frustrated won't happen again.

Sorry weisses also.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I dont know if they used these stats yes or No

http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/9789241548649/en/

http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/pepannex1formadulttooth.pdf?ua=1

Not rocket science lads

Look what I found via your link

http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/prevention-dental-caries-through-use-fluoride/en/

Can yu explain where WHO has gone wrong?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Well for one, you haven't shown it's the vast majority. You said it's only 10 countries who do not Fluoridate anything. 10 countries is not 97% of Europe nor a majority.

Sorry but 97% of Europe doesn't fluoridate their water ... fact ...those 10 countries I mentioned don't fluoridate anything

King Mob wrote: »

Since you are now admitting that you didn't account for that factor at all, you have to exclude such countries from you conclusion until you can account for it.
The way you account for it is to conduct a study..

I did account for that factor ..I do however and Cochrane adresses that point as well that to be perfectly exact you need to study that ... something i also said earlier ... But I think you could make a judgement using various countries to see what the result of water fluoridation is ...

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, we've addressed that one. Are you claiming that it is the only factor that could influence your statistics?

Nope ... I mentioned a few

King Mob wrote: »

Again, dodging the question.

Nope ... I dont know if they used that data just as much as you they didn't use it

King Mob wrote: »

So you believe that Cochrane had access to your figures. So therefore, they must also actually agree with you since the evidence is so strong and clear, correct?
If this is the case, why didn't they mention it? Do they not agree with your conclusion?

Cochrane has access to all figures ... what they did with them I could not tell

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not going to bother doing that until you actually stand behind your logic.

Of course you would not bother ... Why contribute to a discussion

King Mob wrote: »

You are claiming that simple statistics are enough.
So if simple statistics show that Ireland is just as healthy as the rest of Europe, does this mean that fluoride is proven safe?
Yes or no?

You could use simple statistics to reach a conclusion yes ....

You could use simple statistics to claim road safety in Ireland is worse then other countries ... You need research to find out why that is the case

I don't know .... post them and we will see