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
13567…14

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Was that reviewed as well by them?

    If you want to play that game the recent review by the Aussie was less strigent than Cochrane and still no adverse effects


  • Options
    #63
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Article 11 of the constitution ...
    This was refering to the new claim you are making that it is banned in Sweden.
    Please point to the law in Sweden that bans it.
    weisses wrote: »
    They used jurisprudence of the State Council and the Supreme court in regards to the debate in the sixties and seventies on drinking water fluoridation
    Again, source please. What are you basing this on?
    weisses wrote: »
    What header is that now ?
    http://www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm
    Despite dental pressure, 99% of western continental Europe
    has rejected, banned, or stopped fluoridation due to
    environmental, health, legal, or ethical concerns

    Lol, I just noticed that not even this site is supporting the idea that it's banned in the Netherlands.
    Rather than say it's BANNED like the do with Sweden on that page, the simply state: "THE NETHERLANDS STOPPED FLUORIDATION"

    How come they don't refer to that as "banned" or legally prohibited?


  • Options
    #64
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then, it's not "legal prohibited" either as has been explained to you.
    Or do you disagree with the opinions of the people on the Legal Discussion forum?

    I disagree with peregrinus yes

    King Mob wrote: »
    Here's what the actual constitution says:

    http://www.ivir.nl/syscontent/pdfs/144.pdf
    No mention of Fluoride.

    The translation of the website you posted does not support your claim that the article was specifically added to address fluoride.

    And given how you interpretations of quotes in English don't always match up with reality, I don't have much confidence in your interpretation of something that has been google translated.

    That's why I posted the dutch version so you can translate it yourself .... I am not a native English speaker.

    It is a proper Website where even dentists go to

    Another website talking about this and also mentioning article 11

    http://www.gewina-studium.nl/articles/10.18352/studium.8193/

    King Mob wrote: »
    So again: Fluoride is not banned anywhere, neverrmind in 95% of Europe.

    Again ... I never claimed that ...

    Now that we are at it ... how many people are there in europe ? I ask you because otherwise we have a debate on that as well


  • Options
    #65
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    This was refering to the new claim you are making that it is banned in Sweden.
    Please point to the law in Sweden that bans it.

    Shouldn't that be the 1971 repeal to the 1962 act ?

    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, source please. What are you basing this on?

    Same article ... Translate it ... Apperantly Im making balls of it
    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol, I just noticed that not even this site is supporting the idea that it's banned in the Netherlands.
    Rather than say it's BANNED like the do with Sweden on that page, the simply state: "THE NETHERLANDS STOPPED FLUORIDATION"

    How come they don't refer to that as "banned" or legally prohibited?

    And ? ... They stopped it ...article 11 is there now in place to prevent it from being added again ...At this stage fluoridation is legally prohibited


  • Options
    #66
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    If you want to play that game the recent review by the Aussie was less strigent than Cochrane and still no adverse effects

    I am not playing games

    You asked me about my new found standards ... In regards to Cochrane they don't change much.

    You moving the goalposts however is a different story


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I am not playing games

    You asked me about my new found standards ... In regards to Cochrane they don't change much.

    You moving the goalposts however is a different story

    So are you applying these standards to just fluoridation or to all science based CT's?

    It's a straight forward and perfectly valid question.


  • Options
    #68
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I disagree with peregrinus yes
    Why? On what basis?

    I think, had he agreed with you, you'd been claiming that he was unquestionable expert who's word was law...
    weisses wrote: »
    That's why I posted the dutch version so you can translate it yourself .... I am not a native English speaker.

    It is a proper Website where even dentists go to

    Another website talking about this and also mentioning article 11

    http://www.gewina-studium.nl/articles/10.18352/studium.8193/
    But the link you posted mentioned nothing about article 11.
    This one again, does not support what you claim.
    weisses wrote: »
    Again ... I never claimed that ...
    Yes, but the sites you link and the people in your camp do claim that repeatedly.
    Do you reject this claim as untrue?
    Why do you think that anti-fluordiationists make this claim? Do you think it's acceptable that they do, among other myths?
    weisses wrote: »
    Shouldn't that be the 1971 repeal to the 1962 act ?
    No, that's not how laws work. Please post the law that specifically prohibits fluoridation in Sweden.
    weisses wrote: »
    And ? ... They stopped it ...article 11 is there now in place to prevent it from being added again ...At this stage fluoridation is legally prohibited
    Again, not true as has been explained to you.

    However, again you have avoided a question.
    The site you are quoting claims that it is banned in Sweden and China.
    They do not repeat the claim about the Netherlands.
    If they thought that it was banned in the Netherlands, why wouldn't they say it's banned?


  • Options
    #69
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why? On what basis?

    Him not being fully informed ... He doesn't know about the artile 11 addition in the constitution regarding fluoride etc etc
    King Mob wrote: »
    I think, had he agreed with you, you'd been claiming that he was unquestionable expert who's word was law...

    Which you wouldn't agree with in return
    King Mob wrote: »
    But the link you posted mentioned nothing about article 11.

    Article 11 is mentioned in there as well
    King Mob wrote: »
    This one again, does not support what you claim.

    http://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/9353000/1/j9vvihlf299q0sr/vgrnblu821m2

    Article states no one can force any medicine onto you
    And fluoride is seen as an medical additive ... as is shown in the letter
    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, but the sites you link and the people in your camp do claim that repeatedly.
    Do you reject this claim as untrue?
    Why do you think that anti-fluordiationists make this claim? Do you think it's acceptable that they do, among other myths?

    I use fluoride remember

    King Mob wrote: »
    No, that's not how laws work. Please post the law that specifically prohibits fluoridation in Sweden.

    The law doesn't change if i do or don't post the relevant sections
    The specific law was mentioned in that letter ...

    It falls under the drinking water ordinance SLV FS 1993:35 ... section 11 annex 2 ... I suggest you brush up on your swedish first

    King Mob wrote: »
    The site you are quoting claims that it is banned in Sweden and China.
    They do not repeat the claim about the Netherlands.
    If they thought that it was banned in the Netherlands, why wouldn't they say it's banned?

    Ask them .... According to you they are crap sites anyway

    If you think they are correct about the Netherlands then you probably will agree with their conclusion about Sweden


  • Options
    #70
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    So are you applying these standards to just fluoridation or to all science based CT's?

    It's a straight forward and perfectly valid question.

    We are talking about fluoridation now ... Cochrane was the standard according to you .... what is the issue ?


  • Options
    #71
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    We are talking about fluoridation now ... Cochrane was the standard according to you .... what is the issue ?

    None sure they concluded it is effective in children and that the newer research still shows a siginifcant effect just they can't say how significant for sure. Good news all round.

    So what's the issue is correct.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Him not being fully informed ... He doesn't know about the artile 11 addition in the constitution regarding fluoride etc etc
    Not sure how those alter any of the points he made. And again, you pointed these things out and it didn't change his opinion.
    weisses wrote: »
    Article 11 is mentioned in there as well

    Article states no one can force any medicine onto you
    And fluoride is seen as an medical additive ... as is shown in the letter
    The article does not state that. And Fluoride has not been ruled to be a medical additive.

    None of the articles you are posting are backing up your claims. You just keep making new ones.
    weisses wrote: »
    I use fluoride remember
    Again avoiding questions:
    Do you reject this claim as untrue?
    Why do you think that anti-fluordiationists make this claim?
    Do you think it's acceptable that they do, among other myths?
    weisses wrote: »
    The law doesn't change if i do or don't post the relevant sections
    The specific law was mentioned in that letter ...

    It falls under the drinking water ordinance SLV FS 1993:35 ... section 11 annex 2 ... I suggest you brush up on your swedish first
    Do you have a link for this? Or can you quote it? Or should I just take your word for it?
    weisses wrote: »
    Ask them .... According to you they are crap sites anyway

    If you think they are correct about the Netherlands then you probably will agree with their conclusion about Sweden
    Again you avoid the question because you don't like the answer.
    I'm asking you about your opinion.
    They obviously have no problem stating when they believe something is banned.
    If they thought that it was banned in the Netherlands, there's no reason why they wouldn't state that in big scary red letters like they do with Sweden.
    But they don't.

    This is because they know that the claim that it's banned in the Netherlands doesn't hold up. They don't agree with you.
    You don't agree with their claims either...


  • Options
    #73
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Not sure how those alter any of the points he made. And again, you pointed these things out and it didn't change his opinion. .

    I am still discussing this over there
    King Mob wrote: »
    The article does not state that. And Fluoride has not been ruled to be a medical additive.

    None of the articles you are posting are backing up your claims. You just keep making new ones..

    Nope Im just posting reputable sources .. Article 11 was amended based on earlier jurisprudence in regards to fluoridation .... If you have issues with that .....Not my problem

    King Mob wrote: »
    Again avoiding questions:
    Do you reject this claim as untrue?
    Why do you think that anti-fluordiationists make this claim?
    Do you think it's acceptable that they do, among other myths?

    I am not a spokesperson for the anti fluoridation movement I don't know anyone in "my" camp so I cannot speak for them .... You should know by now my stance on the use of fluoride and fluoridation ... Again If not I suggest you do some reading up

    King Mob wrote: »
    Do you have a link for this? Or can you quote it? Or should I just take your word for it?.

    No Im not in the habit of spoonfeeding ... I believe what is in that letter to be accurate ... If you have issues with that i suggest you do the research and post whatever you find ...

    King Mob wrote: »
    Again you avoid the question because you don't like the answer.
    I'm asking you about your opinion.
    They obviously have no problem stating when they believe something is banned.
    If they thought that it was banned in the Netherlands, there's no reason why they wouldn't state that in big scary red letters like they do with Sweden.
    But they don't.

    I believe it to be banned they don't ..... I am capable of making up my own mind ..And even can back up my position
    King Mob wrote: »
    This is because they know that the claim that it's banned in the Netherlands doesn't hold up. They don't agree with you.
    You don't agree with their claims either...

    Again ... how is that my problem ... I don't blindly follow everything that is written ... You should Try it


  • Options
    #74
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Again ... how is that my problem ... I don't blindly follow everything that is written ... You should Try it
    Again, it shows a hypocrisy. You leap down anyone's throats when you believe that we have made a false claim and argue it past the point of redefining words and basic grammar.

    But then some one posts something that is anti-fluordiation but an obvious, easily disprovable lie, you fall silent. You even refuse to address it's existence.

    Do you think that anti-fluordiation campaigners use faulty evidence and disproved myths as scaremongering tactics?
    Yes or no?


  • Options
    #75
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, it shows a hypocrisy. You leap down anyone's throats when you believe that we have made a false claim and argue it past the point of redefining words and basic grammar.

    Nope I try to discuss it with counter arguments ... backed up with resources ...

    Is the part in bold some cheap dig towards me ? If not explain what you mean by that
    King Mob wrote: »
    But then some one posts something that is anti-fluordiation but an obvious, easily disprovable lie, you fall silent. You even refuse to address it's existence.

    I think my first (sarcastic) reply was at least picked up by some on your side of the debate .... So me being silent ... Nehhh

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101444435&postcount=2

    King Mob wrote: »
    Do you think that anti-fluordiation campaigners use faulty evidence and disproved myths as scaremongering tactics?
    Yes or no?

    Yes I do think some anti fluoridation campaigners use faulty evidence etc ..... Same goes for the pro camp ... (discussed at length in other threads)


  • Options
    #76
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    None sure they concluded it is effective in children and that the newer research still shows a siginifcant effect just they can't say how significant for sure. Good news all round.

    So what's the issue is correct.


    I must be reading the wrong report then
    No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.

    Please stick to the facts


  • Options
    #77
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I must be reading the wrong report then



    Please stick to the facts

    Please read the whole report, i've quoted the relevant section previously.

    But if you want to pretend that part doesn't exist , fine, the facts are still and always will be that fluoridation is effective.

    No new studies are likely to met the high grade so fluoridation will always be effective.

    How does this benefit your argument?? Do you not understand the consequences of your stance??


  • Options
    #78
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    By the way if you decide that your reply is that it was effective but is likely to be less effective well you can't without allowing the lesser quality papers in to the discussion.

    The opinion that it is less effective now is based on these papers and these papers according to the full Cochrane review still show a significant effect.


  • Options
    #79
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Please read the whole report, i've quoted the relevant section previously.

    But if you want to pretend that part doesn't exist , fine, the facts are still and always will be that fluoridation is effective.

    No new studies are likely to met the high grade so fluoridation will always be effective.

    How does this benefit your argument?? Do you not understand the consequences of your stance??

    I am posting from their summary ... They wrote that .... not me, don't make it look like its something its not

    Most likely ..maybe ... could well be .. as it stands, No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria. ... end off

    Which makes sense in a way ...97% of the EU population is not subjected to water fluoridation and yet dental health is as good or better then the people in the 3%


  • Options
    #80
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I am posting from their summary ... They wrote that .... not me, don't make it look like its something its not

    Most likely ..maybe ... could well be .. as it stands, No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria. ... end off

    Which makes sense in a way ...97% of the EU population is not subjected to water fluoridation and yet dental health is as good or better then the people in the 3%

    But you accept that it is effective in children as stated in the Cochrane review so what's the basis for your opposition given there are no known adverse effects?


  • Options
    #81
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    But you accept that it is effective in children as stated in the Cochrane review so what's the basis for your opposition given there are no known adverse effects?

    Did the Cochrane report state there were no adverse effects ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Did the Cochrane report state there were no adverse effects ?

    Didn't look at them and unless you can put forward a High on the Grade framework paper there are none.


  • Options
    #83
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Didn't look at them and unless you can put forward a High on the Grade framework paper there are none.

    So its possible 97% of the studies on adverse effects doesn't make the cut either ?


  • Options
    #84
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    So its possible 97% of the studies on adverse effects doesn't make the cut either ?

    Possibly more, so can you link any adverse effect to fluoridation with a paper to the same standard required by Cochrane?


  • Options
    #85
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Possibly more, so can you link any adverse effect to fluoridation with a paper to the same standard required by Cochrane?

    No paper comes in mind, Grandjean will probably not make the cut.

    Can you name any than can ?


  • Options
    #86
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    No paper comes in mind, Grandjean will probably not make the cut.

    Can you name any than can ?

    No don't think there are any.

    So why should fluorodation stop?


  • Options
    #87
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    No don't think there are any.

    So why should fluorodation stop?

    So many ....many reasons I think we went over them all the last couple of years

    Its kinda strange No study looking at adverse effects would meet the Cochrane standard


  • Options
    #88
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    So many ....many reasons I think we went over them all the last couple of years

    Its kinda strange No study looking at adverse effects would meet the Cochrane standard

    Why strange ?


  • Options
    #89
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Why strange ?

    Should possible adverse effects not being ruled out using the best research before even implementing fluoridation ?


  • Options
    #90
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Should possible adverse effects not being ruled out using the best research before even implementing fluoridation ?

    How would you know what to study?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    How would you know what to study?


    How would you know it is safe ?


Advertisement