Fluoride, Makes us Docile and Passive? Thoughts??

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Yes .... That is the 0.3% figure I posted

I hope you also remember that it was YOU who pointed out that Cochrane was studying fluoride research and how good they were ...

I am not insisting anything ... I only quoted directly from that report

Are you now saying that you accept as valid studies that dont meet Cochranes standard?

What standard do you personally use to judge studies?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Are you now saying that you accept as valid studies that dont meet Cochranes standard?

What standard do you personally use to judge studies?

Im not saying that at all ...That 0.3% figure has nothing to do with any standard or study

I don't hold a personal standard in regards to studies

Blazer

Docile??? That's a laugh, I imagine none of the scumbags in Ireland drink tap water for fear it might make them docile.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Im not saying that at all ...That 0.3% figure has nothing to do with any standard or study

I don't hold a personal standard in regards to studies

Out of interest where does that figure come from?

Why isn't its effectiveness in children enough for you? Adverse effects are out of the question as there is no high quality research available to support such a stance.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Im not saying that at all ...That 0.3% figure has nothing to do with any standard or study

I don't hold a personal standard in regards to studies

Ok, so what studies do you accept as valid? All? None?

jh79

Came across the following on the Cochrane website

Community-based population-level interventions for promoting child oral health

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009837.pub2/full

From the conclusion;

"This review provides evidence of low certainty suggesting that community-based oral health promotion interventions that combine oral health education with supervised toothbrushing or professional preventive oral care can reduce dental caries in children. Other interventions, such as those that aim to promote access to fluoride, improve children's diets or provide oral health education alone, show only limited impact"


In more detail. The DMFT and the dmft are the most relevant ones.

Meta-analyses of the effects of OHE alone on caries may show little or no effect on DMFT (two studies, mean difference (MD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.11 to 0.36, low-quality evidence), dmft (three studies, MD -0.3, 95% CI -1.11 to 0.52, low-quality evidence) and DMFS (one study, MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.22, very low-quality evidence). Analysis of studies testing OHE in combination with supervised toothbrushing with fluoridated toothpaste may show a beneficial effect on dmfs (three studies, MD -1.59, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.52, low-quality evidence) and dmft (two studies, MD -0.97, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.89, low-quality evidence) but may show little effect on DMFS (two studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.10, low-quality evidence) and DMFT (three studies, MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07, moderate-quality evidence). Meta-analyses of two studies of OHE in an educational setting combined with professional preventive oral care in a dental clinic setting probably show a very small effect on DMFT (-0.09 weighted mean difference (WMD), 95% CI -0.1 to -0.08, moderate-quality evidence).

jh79

A date for your diaries, April 2021.

This study is designed to meet the criteria set by Cochrane and will look at the effectiveness and associated adverse effects, if any of, fluoridation.

http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/phr/12300040

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

A date for your diaries, April 2021.

This study is designed to meet the criteria set by Cochrane and will look at the effectiveness and associated adverse effects, if any of, fluoridation.

http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/phr/12300040

Until then lads ....:D

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

A date for your diaries, April 2021.

This study is designed to meet the criteria set by Cochrane and will look at the effectiveness and associated adverse effects, if any of, fluoridation.

http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/phr/12300040

Forgot to mention this is for children only.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Until then lads ....:D

I know you're joking but given that a Cochrane review found other public health interventions not to be very effective would you agree that fluoridation is the best option for carier reduction in children presently?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I know you're joking but given that a Cochrane review found other public health interventions not to be very effective would you agree that fluoridation is the best option for carier reduction in children presently?

No not in my opinion .... As the stats from non fluoridating countries vs Ireland for example are clearly showing

jh79

weisses wrote: »

No not in my opinion .... As the stats from non fluoridating countries vs Ireland for example are clearly showing

But that's not even a study it's just a basic correlation it doesn't even exist on the Grade framework

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

But that's not even a study it's just a basic correlation it doesn't even exist on the Grade framework

You don't need a peer reviewed study to get these numbers ... its statistics

jh79

weisses wrote: »

You don't need a peer reviewed study to get these numbers ... its statistics

Seriously?? Wow.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

You don't need a peer reviewed study to get these numbers ... its statistics

You do realise these studies have a control ie people not exposed to fluoridation, can you explain why these people have more cariers in these high quality studies?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You do realise these studies have a control ie people not exposed to fluoridation, can you explain why these people have more cariers in these high quality studies?

I am not talking about studies ... Im talking statistics (fillings in children etc)

That is information which is there

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I am not talking about studies ... Im talking statistics (fillings in children etc)

That is information which is there

Those reviews are meta-analyses;

Definition. A subset of systematic reviews; a method for systematically combining pertinent qualitative and quantitative study data from several selected studies to develop a single conclusion that has greater statistical power.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Those reviews are meta-analyses;

Definition. A subset of systematic reviews; a method for systematically combining pertinent qualitative and quantitative study data from several selected studies to develop a single conclusion that has greater statistical power.

Again you dont need studies and reviews to add up how many fillings there are placed in certain areas ... You collect the data from dentists and you add them up and split them into age groups ....Not rocket science really

Or are you saying the data stating dental health across the continent is improving is incorrect ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Again you dont need studies and reviews to add up how many fillings there are placed in certain areas ... You collect the data from dentists and you add them up and split them into age groups ....Not rocket science really

Or are you saying the data stating dental health across the continent is improving is incorrect ?

You should contact that research group in the uk spending 1.5 million to produce a study of sufficient quality to reach High on the Grade framework and tell them not to bother, sure you have an excel sheet with 2 columns on it!

Anyways Weisses effectiveness v necessity has been covered already. The two are inextricably linked.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You should contact that research group in the uk spending 1.5 million to produce a study of sufficient quality to reach High on the Grade framework and tell them not to bother, sure you have an excel sheet with 2 columns on it!

Anyways Weisses effectiveness v necessity has been covered already. The two are inextricably linked.

Water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay

On the header of the Cochrane report

Doesn't apply to 97 % of the EU population

You don't need to score high on the grade framework to pull up statistics on dental health ... either you had a filling or you don't ...

What did that group in the UK study ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

On the header of the Cochrane report

Doesn't apply to 97 % of the EU population

You don't need to score high on the grade framework to pull up statistics on dental health ... either you had a filling or you don't ...

What did that group in the UK study ?

You mean to tell me after all these years and God knows how many posts across various threads that you weren't aware that the effectiveness of fluoridation was / is based in part on fillings data obtained from dental surgeries??

DMFT Definition
The decay-missing-filled (DMF) index or decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT) index is one of the most common methods in oral epidemiology for assessing dental caries prevalence as well as dental treatment needs among populations and has been used for about 75 years.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You mean to tell me after all these years and God knows how many posts across various threads that you weren't aware that the effectiveness of fluoridation was / is based in part on fillings data obtained from dental surgeries??

DMFT Definition
The decay-missing-filled (DMF) index or decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT) index is one of the most common methods in oral epidemiology for assessing dental caries prevalence as well as dental treatment needs among populations and has been used for about 75 years.

But in the end it only matters if there was a filling or not

These statistics on the continent have feck all to do with if fluoridation is effective or not simply because they don't fluoridate ... but it doesn't mean these statistics cannot be used to compare to the Irish situation

I am saying for years that despite no water fluoridation on the continent dental health there is equally as good or better then in Ireland ....

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

These statistics on the continent have feck all to do with if fluoridation is effective or not simply because they don't fluoridate ... but it doesn't mean these statistics cannot be used to compare to the Irish situation
.

But they do fluoridate. Some of them fluoridate things like milk and salt.
How are you excluding that from your numbers?

How are you accounting for the differences between dental health care and the availability and cost of dental hygiene and care among different levels of wealth?

You've again avoided the question:
Why should it be stopped when it's been shown to be effective in some circumstances and there are no downsides?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

But in the end it only matters if there was a filling or not

These statistics on the continent have feck all to do with if fluoridation is effective or not simply because they don't fluoridate ... but it doesn't mean these statistics cannot be used to compare to the Irish situation

I am saying for years that despite no water fluoridation on the continent dental health there is equally as good or better then in Ireland ....

How does that prove that fluoirdation isn't necessary? Are you saying that dental health is at its peak either here or on the continent ? There is no possibility or room for improvement?

Can you explain how your two columns on excel of age v DMFT thrumps 2 Cochrane meta analyses??

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But they do fluoridate. Some of them fluoridate things like milk and salt.
How are you excluding that from your numbers?

Well if you can come up with the numbers how many people are taking that milk and salt then we can maybe add them to the numbers

King Mob wrote: »

How are you accounting for the differences between dental health care and the availability and cost of dental hygiene and care among different levels of wealth?

Luckily Cochrane looked into that as wel

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

There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels.

So how are you accounting for that ?

King Mob wrote: »

You've again avoided the question:
Why should it be stopped when it's been shown to be effective in some circumstances and there are no downsides?

Nope .. discussed and answered that numerous times during the years and various threads

I am happy however that fluoridation went from as being described as one of the greatest public health success stories of the century to shown to be effective in some circumstances

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

How does that prove that fluoirdation isn't necessary? Are you saying that dental health is at its peak either here or on the continent ? There is no possibility or room for improvement?

Nope Im only stating that caries levels are dropping at the same speed or faster in countries that Don't fluoridate

jh79 wrote: »

Can you explain how your two columns on excel of age v DMFT thrumps 2 Cochrane meta analyses??

Can you explain why you need high grade research to collect and process simple non arbitrary data

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Can you explain why you need high grade research to collect and process simple non arbitrary data

To draw a meaningful conclusion.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I am happy however that fluoridation went from as being described as one of the greatest public health success stories of the century to shown to be effective in some circumstances

And in 5 years time we will see if fluoridation is still effective in children.

If it is shown to be still effective in children will you change your opinion on it and if not what would be the basis of your opposition?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Nope Im only stating that caries levels are dropping at the same speed or faster in countries that Don't fluoridate

And until some of those countries introduce fluoridation and then in five years time re-asses DMFT and dmft levels that observation is completely meaningless.

Cochrane reviews have found fluoridation to be effective in children and to be the most effective public intervention measure, can you explain the reasons for now rejecting these findings and how your two columns in excel is proof that these findings should be rejected?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Well if you can come up with the numbers how many people are taking that milk and salt then we can maybe add them to the numbers

Not really my job. You are claiming that this doesn't factor in. So what leads you to believe this? How do you know that the number of people who do use these products does not effect statistics?
Do you think they they might effect the statistics?

weisses wrote: »

Luckily Cochrane looked into that as well

So how are you accounting for that ?

Again, you seem to be misreading then redefining things.
Cochrane says that it cannot make a conclusion because there is insufficient evidence.

You are making a conclusion that there is no difference based on socio econmonic factors.
What evidence do you have to show this?

Nor does this address the other point about the difference between availability, cost and quality of dental care between countries.

weisses wrote: »

Nope .. discussed and answered that numerous times during the years and various threads

No, that's why we're still asking.
You are avoiding again.

weisses wrote: »

I am happy however that fluoridation went from as being described as one of the greatest public health success stories of the century to shown to be effective in some circumstances

Nope, it's just the one thing you have to accept because of the double standards you are accepting.
Even with your strict interpretations and sudden desire to stick to only what you've decided to be the highest quality evidence, you still must accept that it has been shown to be effective in children.
You have yet to show a convincing reason to forgo even that benefit.