Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Fluoride, Makes us Docile and Passive? Thoughts??
Options
Comments
-
It does matter because you have admitted you don:t know the size of the effect, so you have no idea how much it impacts your conclusion.It doesn't matter ... They don't fluoridate their water ... Which is the point I am trying to make all along ... Do they use other methods of fluoride ? yes ... Did I ever claimed fluoride is not working ? No
It matters cause that is not the only factor I pointed out. I pointed out several more that are not about fluoride from other sources. Pretending I didnt point them does not make them go away.
Again, you have no idea of the size of those factors, because 1. it:s clear that you had no idea about them until I spelled them out for you. And 2. you cannot know the size of their effects without a study...
You have claimed repeatedly that all of these factors are included and addressed in your statistics. But it is clear that they are not and you were lying.
If this is not the case, show where each of these factors (Not just fluoridated salt) are included in the statistics you provided.
Yes, you have said. But what I dont understand is why you think your judgement is accurate or valid.No not ignore them .... Used my judgement .. As I said 3 times earlier
As I pointed out above, you have no idea of the size of the effects of the factors involved. You are not a scientist or dentist or statistician and have showed a poor understanding of all of those subjects.
So what is your judgement based on?
Why do you think that it:s accurate?
How is it different from just ignoring all of those factors?Statistics say yes ...Are you even looking at them ?
So water fluoridation is effective in children according to your statistics?
Then why did you say, (while totting those exact same statistics...)?
and2:It has not been proven to be effective .... Using statistics in regards to Europe I conclude it is not effective ... (something you can disagree with)
AndBecause I think water fluoridation is ineffectiveSo 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
Do you believe that water fluoridation is effective in children? Yes or no?0 -
It does matter because you have admitted you don:t know the size of the effect, so you have no idea how much it impacts your conclusion.
It matters cause that is not the only factor I pointed out. I pointed out several more that are not about fluoride from other sources. Pretending I didnt point them does not make them go away.
Again, you have no idea of the size of those factors, because 1. it:s clear that you had no idea about them until I spelled them out for you. And 2. you cannot know the size of their effects without a study...
A:I cannot admit to something that I repeatedly said is my conclusion
B:I already said at the start that you can reach a conclusion from statistics but you need a study into the implications .. Example: 97% of Europe dont fluoridate their water ... Its a fact that can be drawn from simple statistics
C:A couple of the other sources were in the Stats ... That is all you asked forYou have claimed repeatedly that all of these factors are included and addressed in your statistics. But it is clear that they are not and you were lying.
No I did not ... Quote me on it !!Yes, you have said. But what I dont understand is why you think your judgement is accurate or valid.
As I pointed out above, you have no idea of the size of the effects of the factors involved. You are not a scientist or dentist or statistician and have showed a poor understanding of all of those subjects.
So what is your judgement based on?
Why do you think that it:s accurate?
How is it different from just ignoring all of those factors?
It is a simple conclusion I reached ... 97% of Europe is doing well without water fluoridation ...Fluoride products are also widely available in Ireland ... Cochrane could not find a proper review in regards to effectiveness ... etc
So water fluoridation is effective in children according to your statistics?
Then why did you say, (while totting those exact same statistics...)?
Do you believe that water fluoridation is effective in children? Yes or no?
From my link with referencesPUBLISHED RESEARCH AND COMMENTARY ON THE DECLINE IN TOOTH DECAY IN THE WESTERN WORLD:
“Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition.”
SOURCE: Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335(7622):699-702.
“In most European countries, where community water fluoridation has never been adopted, a substantial decline in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades, with reductions in lifetime caries experience exceeding 75%.”
SOURCE: Pizzo G, et al. (2007). Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. Clinical Oral Investigations 11(3):189-93.
“Graphs of tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in 24 countries, prepared using the most recent World Health Organization data, show that the decline in dental decay in recent decades has been comparable in 16 nonfluoridated countries and 8 fluoridated countries which met the inclusion criteria of having (i) a mean annual per capita income in the year 2000 of US$10,000 or more, (ii) a population in the year 2000 of greater than 3 million, and (iii) suitable WHO caries data available. The WHO data do not support fluoridation as being a reason for the decline in dental decay in 12 year olds that has been occurring in recent decades.”
SOURCE: Neurath C. (2005). Tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in nonfluoridated and fluoridated countries. Fluoride 38:324-325.
“It is remarkable… that the dramatic decline in dental caries which we have witnessed in many different parts of the world has occurred without the dental profession being fully able to explain the relative role of fluoride in this intriguing process. It is a common belief that the wide distribution of fluoride from toothpastes may be a major explanation, but serious attempts to assess the role of fluoridated toothpastes have been able to attribute, at best, about 40-50% of the caries reduction to these fluoride products. This is not surprising, if one takes into account the fact that dental caries is not the result of fluoride deficiency.”
SOURCE: Aoba T, Fejerskov O. (2002). Dental fluorosis: chemistry and biology. Critical Review of Oral Biology and Medicine 13: 155-70.
“A very marked decline in caries prevalence [in Europe] was seen in children and adolescents…The number of edentulous adults in Europe has also been declining considerably.”
SOURCE: Reich E. (2001). Trends in caries and periodontal health epidemiology in Europe. International Dentistry Journal 51(6 Suppl 1):392-8.
“The caries attack rate in industrialized countries, including the United States and Canada, has decreased dramatically over the past 40 years.”
SOURCE: Fomon SJ, Ekstrand J, Ziegler EE. (2000). Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis: trends in fluoride intake with special attention to infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60: 131-9.
“Since the 1960s and 70s, however, a continuous reduction (in tooth decay) has taken place in most ‘westernized’ countries, it is no longer unusual to be caries-free… During the decades of caries decline, a number of actions have been taken to control the disease, and the literature describes numerous studies where one or several factors have been evaluated for their impact. Still, it is difficult to get a full picture of what has happened, as the background is so complex and because so many factors may have been involved both directly and indirectly. In fact, no single experimental study has addressed the issue of the relative impact of all possible factors, and it is unlikely that such a study can ever be performed.”
SOURCE: Bratthall D, Hansel-Petersson G, Sundberg H. (1996). Reasons for the caries decline: what do the experts believe? European Journal of Oral Science 104:416-22.
“Caries prevalence data from recent studies in all European countries showed a general trend towards a further decline for children and adolescents…The available data on the use of toothbrushes, fluorides and other pertinent items provided few clues as to the causes of the decline in caries prevalence.”
SOURCE: Marthaler TM, O’Mullane DM, Vrbic V. (1996). The prevalence of dental caries in Europe 1990-1995. ORCA Saturday afternoon symposium 1995. Caries Research 30: 237-55
“The aim of this paper is to review publications discussing the declining prevalence of dental caries in the industrialized countries during the past decades…[T]here is a general agreement that a marked reduction in caries prevalence has occurred among children in most of the developed countries in recent decades.”
SOURCE: Petersson GH, Bratthall D. (1996). The caries decline: a review of reviews. European Journal of Oral Science 104: 436-43.
“The regular use of fluoridated toothpastes has been ascribed a major role in the observed decline in caries prevalence in industrialized countries during the last 20 to 25 years, but only indirect evidence supports this claim.”
SOURCE: Haugejorden O. (1996). Using the DMF gender difference to assess the “major” role of fluoride toothpastes in the caries decline in industrialized countries: a meta-analysis. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 24: 369-75.
“The marked caries reduction in many countries over the last two decades is thought to be mainly the result of the widespread and frequent use of fluoride-containing toothpaste… There seem to be no other factors which can explain the decline in dental caries, which has occurred worldwide during the same period, in geographic regions as far apart as the Scandinavian countries and Australia/New Zealand.”
SOURCE: Rolla G, Ekstrand J. (1996). Fluoride in Oral Fluids and Dental Plaque. In: Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt B, Eds. Fluoride in Dentistry, 2nd Edition. Munksgaard, Denmark. p 215.
“Although difficult to prove, it is reasonable to assume that a good part of the decline in dental caries over recent years in most industrialized countries, notably those Northern European countries without water fluoridation, can be explained by the widespread use of fluoride toothpastes. This reduction in caries has not been paralleled by a reduction in sugar intake…”
SOURCE: Clarkson BH, Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt BA. (1996). Rational Use of Fluoride in Caries Control. In: Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt B, Eds. Fluoride in Dentistry, 2nd Edition. Munksgaard, Denmark. p 354.
“During the past 40 years dental caries h as been declining in the US, as well as in most other developed nations of the world… The decline in dental caries has occurred both in fluoride and in fluoride-deficient communities, lending further credence to the notion that modes other than water fluoridation, especially dentrifices, have made a major contribution.”
SOURCE: Leverett DH. (1991). Appropriate uses of systemic fluoride: considerations for the ’90s. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 51: 42-7.
“In most European countries, the 12-year-old DMFT index is now relatively low as compared with figures from 1970-1974. WHO (World Health Organization) data relating to availability of fluoride in water and toothpaste appear reliable. However, these data did not explain differences between countries with respect to the DMFT index of 12-year-olds.”
SOURCE: Kalsbeek H, Verrips GH. (1990). Dental caries prevalence and the use of fluorides in different European countries. Journal of Dental Research 69(Spec Iss): 728-32.
“The most striking feature of some industrialized countries is a dramatic reduction of the prevalence of dental caries among school-aged children.”
SOURCE: Binus W, Lowinger K, Walther G. (1989). [Caries decline and changing pattern of dental therapy] [Article in German] Stomatol DDR 39: 322-6.
“The current reported decline in caries tooth decay in the US and other Western industrialized countries has been observed in both fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, with percentage reductions in each community apparently about the same.”
SOURCE: Heifetz SB, et al. (1988). Prevalence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in areas with optimal and above-optimal water-fluoride concentrations: a 5-year follow-up survey. Journal of the American Dental Association 116: 490-5.
“[D]uring the period 1979-81, especially in western Europe where there is little fluoridation, a number of dental examinations were made and compared with surveys carried out a decade or so before. It soon became clear that large reductions in caries had been occurring in unfluoridated areas. The magnitudes of these reductions are generally comparable with those observed in fluoridated areas over similar periods of time.”
SOURCE: Diesendorf, D. (1986). The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay. Nature 322: 125-129.
“Even the most cursory review of the dental literature since 1978 reveals a wealth of data documenting a secular, or long term, generalized decline in dental caries throughout the Western, industrialized world. Reports indicate that this decline has occurred in both fluoridated and fluoride-deficient areas, and in the presence and absence of organized preventive programs.”
SOURCE: Bohannan HM, et al. (1985). Effect of secular decline on the evaluation of preventive dentistry demonstrations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 45: 83-89.
“The decline in caries prevalence in communities without fluoridated water in various countries is well documented. The cause or causes are, at this time, a matter of speculation.”
SOURCE: Leverett DH. (1982). Fluorides and the changing prevalence of dental caries. Science 217: 26-30.Is water fluoridation effective in children?
You say your statistics say no.
No ...the statistics say yes ... what is it you don't understand ?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
You are moving your goalposts.
You have said repeatedly that your conclusion is that water fluoridation is not effective.Based on You said repeatedly that you reached this conclusion from "simple statistics". And when we pointed out the problem with this you rolled your eyes like we were saying something stupid.
Based on Cochrane yes ... are you disputing that? .... So no moving goalpostsNow you are saying that you need a study into the implications.
Which is what we have been trying to say to you..
Something I always said
Here:
There are many other examples, but not bothered to find them for you to ignore them.
There are ... I never said otherwise and as I showed in my previous reply to you you did not asked for ALLYou said that your reached your conclusion "based on simple statistics". Now you are saying that Cochrane's study is a part of why you reached your conclusion?
But again you avoid the question I asked. It's getting a bit sad now.
You say "97% of Europe is doing well without water fluoridation" as if it shows that water fluoridation is not effective.
However this cannot support your conclusion because you have not at all addressed any of the confounding factors.
For a hypothetical example, it could be that Ireland should have worse dental health than the rest of Europe due to Irish children eating more sugary food. However it could be that water fluoridation is countering that effect and keeping Ireland in line with the rest of Europe.
Please explain how you know for a fact this cannot be the case.
If you cannot do that, then why do you think your conclusion is sound?
In regards to Children there is no disagreement (cochrane)
Statistics with Cochranes review are painting a proper picture for me ... Just move on if you disagree, I know your view is differentI don't understand why you previously said that the statistics show that water fluoridation is not effective.
I don't understand why now you are saying that you conclude it's not effective when you now say the statistics you are using show that it is effective.
At this point, I don't even think you understand what you are saying anymore...
And remember all of this roundabout you start was supposed to be you explaining why we should stop water fluoridation.
It's effective in children at least. Why should we ditch that benefit?
Are you saying that we should just do what Europe are doing? If so, what is the rest of Europe doing that is effective and are you sure that Ireland is doing it?
RememberNo studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.
So you are willing to tout the line that it is effective ? ..... Based on what research ?
How can you with Cochrane in one hand and my link with statistics in the other Claim water fluoridation is effective ??0 -
-
Based on Cochrane yes ... are you disputing that? .... So no moving goalposts
Something I always said
There are ... I never said otherwise and as I showed in my previous reply to you you did not asked for ALL
In regards to Children there is no disagreement (cochrane)
Statistics with Cochranes review are painting a proper picture for me ... Just move on if you disagree, I know your view is different
Remember
So you are willing to tout the line that it is effective ? ..... Based on what research ?
How can you with Cochrane in one hand and my link with statistics in the other Claim water fluoridation is effective ??
You really don't understand your own position re types of studies that are acceptable??
The studies you are linking to are of a similar design to the studies rejected by Cochrane!!
If you are introducing these into the discussion then the effectiveness in adults is now on the table and you can't hide behind Cochrane.
So which is it?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement