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
1…34689…14

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    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?

    It is your job ...You are saying it should be factored in ... so give the numbers so we can add them
    King Mob wrote: »
    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?

    Uhhh If Cochrane cannot reach that conclusion how can you ask me if I am acounting for cost of dental hygiene and care among different levels of wealth ? .... It cannot be used either way

    King Mob wrote: »
    No, that's why we're still asking.
    You are avoiding again.

    Again ... If you need to be spoonfed ... don't come to me
    King Mob wrote: »
    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.

    Show me where I adopt double standards ?

    And I do accept it is effective in children (also already discussed earlier with JH97)

    I think I even agreed with jh97 before Cochrane published their findings that it would be a good standard to go from


  • Options
    #153
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    It is your job ...You are saying it should be factored in ... so give the numbers so we can add them

    You've rejected studies like this because they were also rejected by Cochrane.

    Uhhh If Cochrane cannot reach that conclusion how can you ask me if I am acounting for cost of dental hygiene and care among different levels of wealth ? .... It cannot be used either way

    Your a bit confused here, Cochrane isn't saying this at all. Cochrane review states there was insufficient evidence that fluoridation had greater effect on poorer communities.

    What Kingmob is saying and what the various studies do is ensure that such factors do not skew the data so that a firm conclusion can be drawn. Either by selecting patients from a mix of backgrounds or by using statistical models to account for such things.If you select only people from a disadvantaged background then your conclusions only apply to them. If you have no controls on confounding factors your data is essentially worthless in the context of fluoridation.



    Again ... If you need to be spoonfed ... don't come to me

    Show me where I adopt double standards ?

    By claiming a single set of simple data was a sufficient reason to end fluoridation but that only high quality studies are sufficient to justify fluoridation. Surely you have come across the idea of controls and confounding factors given how many papers have been discussed on this and other threads

    And I do accept it is effective in children (also already discussed earlier with JH97)

    I think I even agreed with jh97 before Cochrane published their findings that it would be a good standard to go from

    Ok so it is effective in children and safe and we won't know otherwise until 2021 so why on earth should it end now?

    See in red


  • Options
    #154
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    It is your job ...You are saying it should be factored in ... so give the numbers so we can add them

    Again you are claiming that you can reach your conclusion without the need for studies.
    You are saying that it's simply a matter of comparing statistics. But it's not. Asking me for numbers isn't going to help you. You have to explain how these factors don't effect anything, or show that their numbers are low.
    You can't do this however because your claim is unfounded.
    weisses wrote: »
    Uhhh If Cochrane cannot reach that conclusion how can you ask me if I am acounting for cost of dental hygiene and care among different levels of wealth ? .... It cannot be used either way
    Again, you misunderstand.
    Cochrane states that they cannot reach a conclusion about it. They can't conclude whether or not it is a factor.
    You, by claiming that it's all a matter of statistics, are saying that you conclude it isn't a factor.

    So again, how do you know these factors I pointed out don't effect the statistics?
    weisses wrote: »
    Again ... If you need to be spoonfed ... don't come to me
    Not about being spoonfed, it's about you stating your case clearly and concisely. You have not done so. You have not provided any convincing reason why fluoridation should be stopped when at minimum it has benefit for children. Continuing to evade the question is not convincing.


  • Options
    #155
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    I am not talking about studies in regards to DMFT figures on the mainland

    These are statistics

    Do we need a high grade peer reviewed study to compare road deaths in Europe ?

    Its not rocket science lads


  • Options
    #156
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    I am not talking about studies in regards to DMFT figures on the mainland

    These are statistics

    Do we need a high grade peer reviewed study to compare road deaths in Europe ?

    Its not rocket science lads

    ok, try again so.

    Dental health is improving in the EU , why is that significant? What does it prove?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    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?

    How can they claim the part in Bold and the part below in the same report
    No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.


  • Options
    #158
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    How can they claim the part in Bold and the part below in the same report

    In children.


  • Options
    #159
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    ok, try again so.

    Dental health is improving in the EU , why is that significant? What does it prove?

    97% of the European population is not affected by water fluoridation and yet their dental health improves at the same rate or even faster then the people in Ireland

    What does that mean to you ? giving the fact Children in the age group it works for only counts for 8-10% of the population


  • Options
    #160
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I am not talking about studies in regards to DMFT figures on the mainland

    These are statistics

    Do we need a high grade peer reviewed study to compare road deaths in Europe ?

    Its not rocket science lads

    So the factors I outlined play no effect on the statistics and therefore your conclusion?
    How do you know this for a fact?


  • Options
    #161
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So the factors I outlined play no effect on the statistics and therefore your conclusion?
    How do you know this for a fact?

    Ohh they probably have some effect ....

    Cochrane
    There is low quality evidence to suggest fluoridated milk may be beneficial to schoolchildren

    A couple of countries have fluoridated salt available

    But if you have any statistics on the factors YOU outlined I'm all ears


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    97% of the European population is not affected by water fluoridation and yet their dental health improves at the same rate or even faster then the people in Ireland

    What does that mean to you ? giving the fact Children in the age group it works for only counts for 8-10% of the population

    It is a rehash of the effectiveness v necessity argument. Can you show that this rate of improvement would not be changed by the introduction of fluoridation?

    Your argument suggests you don't understand why studies are even necessary?


  • Options
    #163
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Ohh they probably have some effect ....

    Cochrane


    A couple of countries have fluoridated salt available

    But if you have any statistics on the factors YOU outlined I'm all ears

    That's why we need studies , how do you not get this??

    Your excel sheet with two columns is completely meaningless.


  • Options
    #164
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Ohh they probably have some effect ....

    Cochrane


    A couple of countries have fluoridated salt available

    But if you have any statistics on the factors YOU outlined I'm all ears
    Yes, that was one factor I mentioned. Another you conceded that there wasn't enough evidence to conclude on.

    Again, these factors influence the statistics. To exclude them and reach the conclusion you do, you need a study.


  • Options
    #165
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, that was one factor I mentioned. Another you conceded that there wasn't enough evidence to conclude on.

    Again, these factors influence the statistics. To exclude them and reach the conclusion you do, you need a study.

    No we dont ... They don't fluoridate their water ... I am not disputing if fluoride works or not ... 97% of Europe dont fluoridate their water and their dental health is up to par or better then the folks here in Ireland


  • Options
    #166
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ok, let's take this one step at a time...
    weisses wrote: »
    No we dont ... They don't fluoridate their water ... I am not disputing if fluoride works or not ... 97% of Europe dont fluoridate their water and their dental health is up to par or better then the folks here in Ireland
    Yes, but in some cases they fluoridate their salt and milk.
    How do you know for a fact that the reason their dental health is on par with Ireland's is not because this method of fluoridation produces a similar benefit?


  • Options
    #167
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    No we dont ... They don't fluoridate their water ... I am not disputing if fluoride works or not ... 97% of Europe dont fluoridate their water and their dental health is up to par or better then the folks here in Ireland

    So your saying that fluoridation is not necessary because dental health improves without it. Is this your argument against fluoridation?


  • Options
    #168
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, let's take this one step at a time...

    Yes, but in some cases they fluoridate their salt and milk.
    How do you know for a fact that the reason their dental health is on par with Ireland's is not because this method of fluoridation produces a similar benefit?

    And how do you know for a fact the fluoride toothpaste used in Ireland doesn't play a big role in dental health over here as well ?

    And as you say .. Salt and milk is available in some cases ... You could compare figures with countries that don't use fluoridated salt or milk.


  • Options
    #169
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    And how do you know for a fact the fluoride toothpaste used in Ireland doesn't play a big role in dental health over here as well ?

    And as you say .. Salt and milk is available in some cases ... You could compare figures with countries that don't use fluoridated salt or milk.

    That's why we have studies rather than an excel sheet with 2 columns.


  • Options
    #170
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    Ok weisses if basic comparisons are good enough for you all of a sudden then fluoridation must be effective in ireland because dental health is better here than in NI. Just stats no need for a study i believe you said? We fluoridate they don't so it must be effective??


  • Options
    #171
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Ok weisses if basic comparisons are good enough for you all of a sudden then fluoridation must be effective in ireland because dental health is better here than in NI. Just stats no need for a study i believe you said? We fluoridate they don't so it must be effective??

    Yes basic comparisons are good enough

    97% of Europe don't fluoridate their water (fact) ..And dental health is equally as good or better then in the countries that do fluoridate their water ..... What don't you understand in regards to these figures ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes basic comparisons are good enough

    97% of Europe don't fluoridate their water (fact) ..And dental health is equally as good or better then in the countries that do fluoridate their water ..... What don't you understand in regards to these figures ?

    This is how bad your argument against fluoridation has got??

    There is nothing to understand they are meaningless. As long as fluoridation is effective it is necessary. Imagine how good their dental health would be with fluoridation!

    According to Cochrane a 25 % reduction for children. Who wouldn't want that??


  • Options
    #173
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes basic comparisons are good enough

    97% of Europe don't fluoridate their water (fact) ..And dental health is equally as good or better then in the countries that do fluoridate their water ..... What don't you understand in regards to these figures ?

    So why not NI ? Why are we better than them?


  • Options
    #174
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    According to Cochrane a 25 % reduction for children. Who wouldn't want that??

    Easily achieved without water fluoridation ..As statistics show


  • Options
    #175
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    This is how bad your argument against fluoridation has got??

    Pot kettle ? ... The discussing in favor has gone from one of the greatest health achievements in the 20th century to ... But It works in Children


  • Options
    #176
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    And how do you know for a fact the fluoride toothpaste used in Ireland doesn't play a big role in dental health over here as well ?

    And as you say .. Salt and milk is available in some cases ... You could compare figures with countries that don't use fluoridated salt or milk.

    Not going to distract you with further questions you can deflect to.
    I want to see how you weasel your way out of this corner

    Northen Ireland doesn't fluoridate and it has worse dental health than Ireland.
    If we just stick with the statistics like you are now insisting, this means that fluoridation is effective.

    Please explain why you think this is not valid.


  • Options
    #177
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Easily achieved without water fluoridation ..As statistics show

    25% more would be achieved which you can't seem to grasp.

    You'll be reduced to fluoride and nazis soon.


  • Options
    #178
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Not going to distract you with further questions you can deflect to.
    I want to see how you weasel your way out of this corner

    What questions am i deflecting ? .... Other then the ones I already addressed in the years of debating water fluoridation ?


  • Options
    #179
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    25% more would be achieved which you can't seem to grasp.

    How ?

    Are you actually suggesting dental health among the children in the 97% would jump with 25% if they would start to fluoridate ?


  • Options
    #180
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    How ?

    Are you actually suggesting dental health among the children in the 97% would jump with 25% if they would start to fluoridate ?

    My God what do you think the Cochrane review was all about?

    That is exactly what their meta analysis found it is in your favoured plain english summary, the bottom line according to you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    My God what do you think the Cochrane review was all about?

    That is exactly what their meta analysis found it is in your favoured plain english summary, the bottom line according to you.

    Ohh okay
    These results are based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today

    Why did you not mentioned this ? ...Is it inconvenient ?

    Study in regards to NI is 14 years old correct ?


Advertisement