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…6791112…14

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Ok so it is necessity your questioning?


    No ..


  • Options
    #243
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    No ..

    So how is improving dental health in europe a reason to end fluoridation in ireland if it has nothing to do with effectiveness or necessity?

    So you must be you just pointing out an observation/ correlation ?


  • Options
    #244
    Cianmcliam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Cianmcliam


    Have you taken diet into account? May have already been discussed but it is one of the most important factors is deciding if flouridation is effective or not.

    Children in Ireland consume much more sugary confectionery than in almost all other EU countries. Because of this our dental health should be much, much worse than elsewhere in Europe. It isn't in fact as bad as it should be, because of fluoridation.

    For example, if there was a new miracle drug for Ebola and it was put on trial across the EU it would look like it was not very effective. Since there's so few cases of Ebola the actual rate would change by very little if at all.
    If you tested the drug across several African countries though you would clearly see the effectiveness.

    So if the rate of dental caries and extractions in the EU and in Ireland are falling at similar rates, yet children here report eating far more sugary, sticky, acidic treats every day, we can say fluoridation is very effective in Ireland because of our diet, but less effective in the EU because they eat less sugary snacks in the first place.


  • Options
    #245
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    Cianmcliam wrote: »
    Have you taken diet into account? May have already been discussed but it is one of the most important factors is deciding if flouridation is effective or not.

    Children in Ireland consume much more sugary confectionery than in almost all other EU countries. Because of this our dental health should be much, much worse than elsewhere in Europe. It isn't in fact as bad as it should be, because of fluoridation.

    For example, if there was a new miracle drug for Ebola and it was put on trial across the EU it would look like it was not very effective. Since there's so few cases of Ebola the actual rate would change by very little if at all.
    If you tested the drug across several African countries though you would clearly see the effectiveness.

    So if the rate of dental caries and extractions in the EU and in Ireland are falling at similar rates, yet children here report eating far more sugary, sticky, acidic treats every day, we can say fluoridation is very effective in Ireland because of our diet, but less effective in the EU because they eat less sugary snacks in the first place.

    It has nothing to do with variables in studies. He is stuck and is afraid to expand on his stance.

    Weisses claimed that he would only accept studies that reach high on the Grade framework eg Cochrane. I warned him at the time that this would back him into a corner and now it has he is now claiming that studies are not even required anymore.

    He is now pretending that studies use different data to come to their conclusions, what the difference is i don't know but that's where we stand at the moment.


  • Options
    #246
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    It has nothing to do with variables in studies. He is stuck and is afraid to expand on his stance.

    Weisses claimed that he would only accept studies that reach high on the Grade framework eg Cochrane. I warned him at the time that this would back him into a corner and now it has he is now claiming that studies are not even required anymore.

    He is now pretending that studies use different data to come to their conclusions, what the difference is i don't know but that's where we stand at the moment.

    Just to remind you again ... You boasted about the Cochrane report I only quoted the findings ... The fact their conclusions give reason for thought is not my problem

    In regards to collecting dmft data vs Cochrane: These are two totally different things .. One is basically collecting data presented by dentists (DMFT index) nothing more nothing less .... peer reviewed studies are needed to reach conclusions in regards to that data. That is where Cochrane comes into play

    Where did I back myself into a corner ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Just to remind you again ... You boasted about the Cochrane report I only quoted the findings ... The fact their conclusions give reason for thought is not my problem

    In regards to collecting dmft data vs Cochrane: These are two totally different things .. One is basically collecting data presented by dentists (DMFT index) nothing more nothing less .... peer reviewed studies are needed to reach conclusions in regards to that data. That is where Cochrane comes into play

    Where did I back myself into a corner ?

    Explain the significance of your data to this discussion so , without being evasive .


  • Options
    #248
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    In regards to collecting dmft data vs Cochrane: These are two totally different things .. One is basically collecting data presented by dentists (DMFT index) nothing more nothing less .... peer reviewed studies are needed to reach conclusions in regards to that data. That is where Cochrane comes into play

    Where did I back myself into a corner ?
    If conclusions can't be reached on the numbers alone, why then are you quoting those numbers as support for the ending of fluoridation?

    If that's not what you are doing, then what is your point in quoting those figures?


  • Options
    #249
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Explain the significance of your data to this discussion so , without being evasive .

    Then tell me where I am evasive

    Do you dismiss the data in regards to DMFT levels in Europe ?


  • Options
    #250
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Then tell me where I am evasive

    Do you dismiss the data in regards to DMFT levels in Europe ?

    I dismiss the idea that any conclusions on the effectiveness or necessity of fluoridation can be made based on DMFT data alone.

    You are being evasive by refusing to explain this data relevance to fluoridation and how it carries more worth than studies using the exact same data but with stat controls.


  • Options
    #251
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    If conclusions can't be reached on the numbers alone, why then are you quoting those numbers as support for the ending of fluoridation?

    If that's not what you are doing, then what is your point in quoting those figures?

    You can reach a conclusion in regards to these numbers ..

    For example you can state that dental health across Europe has improved despite not having water fluoridation.

    You don't need high grade research to reach that conclusion


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    You can reach a conclusion in regards to these numbers ..

    For example you can state that dental health across Europe has improved despite not having water fluoridation.

    You don't need high grade research to reach that conclusion
    So therefore you are concluding that fluoride must be ineffective, correct?


  • Options
    #253
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    I dismiss the idea that any conclusions on the effectiveness or necessity of fluoridation can be made based on DMFT data alone.

    Why ? .... Its easy ... 97% of Europe don't fluoridate their water .... Are they doing worse on the mainland in regards to dental health ?
    jh79 wrote: »
    You are being evasive by refusing to explain this data relevance to fluoridation and how it carries more worth than studies using the exact same data but with stat controls.

    There is nothing to explain therefore there is no reason to be evasive.


  • Options
    #254
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So therefore you are concluding that fluoride must be ineffective, correct?

    Incorrect ... fluoride is effective ... As I said numerous times


  • Options
    #255
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Incorrect ... fluoride is effective ... As I said numerous times
    Then are you using those numbers to conclude that water fluoridation is ineffective?


  • Options
    #256
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Incorrect ... fluoride is effective ... As I said numerous times

    So it is not necessary ?


  • Options
    #257
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    Or is the plan to make obviously contradictory posts until the thread gets locked for circular arguments?


  • Options
    #258
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Then are you using those numbers to conclude that water fluoridation is ineffective?

    Yes ....

    Even Cochrane has trouble in regards to effectiveness
    No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.


  • Options
    #259
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes ....

    Even Cochrane has trouble in regards to effectiveness

    You said only a couple of posts ago that a study is needed for determining effectiveness??


  • Options
    #260
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Or is the plan to make obviously contradictory posts until the thread gets locked for circular arguments?

    No

    There is a clear distinction between the different uses of fluoride and water fluoridation .... Yes ?

    I did never argue otherwise


  • Options
    #261
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    No

    There is a clear distinction between the different uses of fluoride and water fluoridation .... Yes ?

    I did never argue otherwise

    Ok weisses, if you believe in your argumemt spell it out in detail to avoid pointless back and forths.

    Are you exclusively referring to adults?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    You said only a couple of posts ago that a study is needed for determining effectiveness??

    Context please


  • Options
    #263
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes ....

    Even Cochrane has trouble in regards to effectiveness
    But how can you conclude that without a study.

    You already admitted that there are factors that influence the statistics.
    You already admitted that studies are required to reach conclusions like this.
    You already admitted that water fluoridation is effective in children as per Cochrane. Which in turn would also be another factor that would influence the statistics.

    You are contradicting yourself very blatantly.


  • Options
    #264
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    Ok weisses, if you believe in your argumemt spell it out in detail to avoid pointless backa nd forths.

    Are you exclusively referring to adults?

    Is fluoride effective ...Yes

    Is water fluoridation effective ...No

    Is it effective in children ... yes ... However mainly based on old studies (cochrane mentioned this)


    We discussed this numerous times ... Topical applications ...etc


  • Options
    #265
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Context please

    Yes an explanation would be good regarding context

    Do you even have an argument anymore ? Waiting on a mod to close the thread?


  • Options
    #266
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    jh79 wrote: »
    You said only a couple of posts ago that a study is needed for determining effectiveness??

    Just quote me where i said that so we can see the context ....


  • Options
    #267
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭jh79


    weisses wrote: »
    Just to remind you again ... You boasted about the Cochrane report I only quoted the findings ... The fact their conclusions give reason for thought is not my problem

    In regards to collecting dmft data vs Cochrane: These are two totally different things .. One is basically collecting data presented by dentists (DMFT index) nothing more nothing less .... peer reviewed studies are needed to reach conclusions in regards to that data. That is where Cochrane comes into play

    Where did I back myself into a corner ?

    Here


  • Options
    #268
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Just quote me where i said that so we can see the context ....
    weisses wrote: »
    Just to remind you again ... You boasted about the Cochrane report I only quoted the findings ... The fact their conclusions give reason for thought is not my problem

    In regards to collecting dmft data vs Cochrane: These are two totally different things .. One is basically collecting data presented by dentists (DMFT index) nothing more nothing less .... peer reviewed studies are needed to reach conclusions in regards to that data. That is where Cochrane comes into play

    Where did I back myself into a corner ?
    You are making a conclusion on that data.
    You have not explained how or if you have excluded the various factors that would influence the data.
    That's what studies are for, so I don't think you have at all. So your conclusion is worthless.

    What you are claiming is going against the conclusions of Cochrane, so are you now just rejecting that entirely?


  • Options
    #269
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    But how can you conclude that without a study.

    You already admitted that there are factors that influence the statistics.
    You already admitted that studies are required to reach conclusions like this.
    You already admitted that water fluoridation is effective in children as per Cochrane. Which in turn would also be another factor that would influence the statistics.

    You are contradicting yourself very blatantly.

    I think its widely accepted through various studies that the use of fluoride is beneficial ... The problem is HOW you use it which creates a discussion

    Again Cochrane reached these conclusion in regards to water fluoridation and its effectiveness

    As a general rule there are always factors that influence statistics ... its a given

    In children yes (pre eruptive is a term widely used)

    I dont see where I am contradicting myself ... other then you misrepresenting my stance to reach that ... .Example is that you state
    You already admitted that studies are required to reach conclusions like this.

    Post the proper context and you will see the contradiction is gone


  • Options
    #270
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    As a general rule there are always factors that influence statistics ... its a given
    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    You are making a conclusion on that data.
    You have not explained how or if you have excluded the various factors that would influence the data.
    That's what studies are for, so I don't think you have at all. So your conclusion is worthless.

    What you are claiming is going against the conclusions of Cochrane, so are you now just rejecting that entirely?

    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


Advertisement