Fluoride In The Water

[saveourwater]

I have a bias based on two issues:

 

* I do not like the idea of fixing a 'problem' that can be dealt with by individuals themselves by imposing a solution that effects everyone irrespective of whether they want it or not (in my own case I use fluoridated toothpaste)

 

* Conducting opinion polls paid for by the taxpayers that exclude a significant proportion of people based on age, and that (if comments are correct) try to prompt a particular response pattern - is patently dishonest and unprofessional - and we pay our public servants to be professional and honest.

 

If public/media comment on the survey methodology is left until after the survey results are published the results will be presented as a fait accomplis provided they support the outcome that is wanted.

 

(Edit) At that point any counter arguments will be easy for the authorities to fend off - "we undertook a comprehensive survey using a leading international survey company and the results are fully supportive of our policy...."

 

Noted. This and other comments will be passed to Quintin Gill MHK. Hopefully he will suggest a course of action before the 26th.

[Chinahand]

...Of course Saveourwater, Incandescent et al will scream that this is biased, surpressed, etc the output of the enemy which brave Dr Connett is sueing for ethics violations etc. But for me it shows the CDC undertaking large scale research (1839 children) to attempt to quantify the issues. It discusses costs and benefits - exactly the issues I have been raising.

 

Chinahand, 1839 would be considered a small sample group with a low statistical power, when you consider the population size from which it is sampled.

 

Erm - no - that is a reasonable size used in a Phase 3 medical trial - the largest trial before approval. The Association of the

British Pharmaceutical Industry Link

 

That's all very well, but we are not talking about Phase 3 drug trials - we are talking about analysis of disease incidence/prevalence within a population. The regulation of clinical trials for new drugs is designed to strike a balance between safety and development costs, and was negotiated in part with the pharmaceutical industry. Many drugs get through trials on smaller trial cohort numbers and are withdrawn after disastrous side-effects are uncovered. Vioxx and myocardial infarctions, being a case in point.

I realize this is a controversial issue, but fluoridation isn't a new chemical being introduced into the environment. It is artificially replicating a natural environment existing elsewhere.

 

Millions of people have been taking part in a natural exeriment into the affects of fluoride in water since time in memorial. The health statistics for Naples, or Gatehead, are there to be examined, analysed and argued over.

 

These allow very clear epidemiological information to be prepared - the test "volunteers" were born, and bred drinking the stuff. Comparing a thousand people taking a novel chemical and extrapolating the results to a general population is VASTLY different from having a general population imbibing the substance and then sampling them. In one you are extapolating outwards, in the other inwards. In one there are no general health statistics to base the study on, in the other the general health environment is known.

 

Comparing fluoride to Vioxx is simply an invalid comparison, but a useful one - the ill effects of Vioxx became readily apparant, when the usage of the drug was a million fold less than the consumption of fluoride in drinking water. That is the rub - huge natural populations consume fluoride in their water, living adjacent to equally large populations who don't. The control is naturally available.

[The Voice of Reason]

I got a phone call from these polling people who said they wanted to talk to men under 55 and women under 35. I have no opinion on the matter of flouridation, good or bad (in fact I find the whole debate rather tedious) .However the questions asked, certainly when taken together with the pre-amble to each seemed designed to elicit pro-flouridation responses.

 

I found the whole thing a bit sinister really and certainly would not attach any credibility to the pollsters conclusions, given the skewed line of questioning.

[Grianane]

I got a phone call from these polling people who said they wanted to talk to men under 55 and women under 35. I have no opinion on the matter of flouridation, good or bad (in fact I find the whole debate rather tedious) .However the questions asked, certainly when taken together with the pre-amble to each seemed designed to elicit pro-flouridation responses.

 

I found the whole thing a bit sinister really and certainly would not attach any credibility to the pollsters conclusions, given the skewed line of questioning.

 

 

can you tell us what the actual questions are.

[The Voice of Reason]

can you tell us what the actual questions are.

 

See saveourwaters post 17th May 9.04pm

[saveourwater]

can you tell us what the actual questions are.

 

We are receiving some very interesting feedback on the telephone poll.

 

People who have been contacted have said that there is an ‘introduction’ to the issue before the questions take place. I guess depending on the speed that the interviewer talks this lasts between 1 and 2 minutes. The introduction is along the lines that fluoride is great and is supported by this agency and that agency etc.

 

Then the following questions are asked: -

 

Q1. Do you think tooth decay rates on the Isle of Man are above the average UK level, below it, or about the same?

Q2. In fact tooth decay levels on the Isle of Man are considerably higher than the average UK level. In many developed countries, and in some parts of the UK, fluoride is added to the water supply to reduce the levels of tooth decay. Would you favour or oppose fluoride being added to the water in the Isle of Man?

Q3. Record respondent gender.

Q4. What was your age last birthday?

Q5. Are there any children under 16 living in your household?

 

I just spoke with Quintin Gill MHK and he has said that there is no method of lodging a complaint about the poll apart from via a body such as Advertising Standards and he felt that even they would not wish to become involved.

 

They only thing people can officially do is to complain to the people conducting the poll and ask that they record the complaint. You could also write to the newspapers and your MHK and Minister Teare of the DHSS to lodge a complaint.

 

Apart from that it appears we are stuck with it, though as others have rightly pointed out how serious a result in favour of fluoridation can be taken after it has been so heavily biased in favour of that outcome is going to be very interesting indeed.

[Theodolite]

There will be question in Tynwald tomorrow

 

The following extracted from here:

http://www.tynwald.org.im/papers/questions.../tq20052008.pdf

 

19. The Hon Member of the Council, Mr Callister, to ask the Minister for Health and Social Security -

 

With reference to your Department’s published leaflet entitled “Water Fluoridation Information for Isle of Man Residents”, will you indicate which paragraphs/sections of the document provide a balanced view of fluoridation of the public water supply, taking into account numerous well-documented arguments against its use?

20. The Hon Member of the Council, Mr Callister, to ask the Minister for Health and Social Security -

 

Will you provide full details of the questions being asked in your Department’s telephone survey on fluoridation and the modus operandi adopted by the company carrying out the survey?

21. The Hon Member of the Council, Mr Callister, to ask the Minister for Health and Social Security -

 

Why did you have to withdraw the first edition of the leaflet entitled “Water Fluoridation Information for the Isle of Man Residents”?

 

Listen in to Manx Radio 1386am. Better still, pop in and see how they are getting on in there. Looks to me like the new fella has got himself stuck right in. Alan Crowe has been in there yonks and has said little more than half a dozen words it seems to me. Geoff Corkish is the same.

 

Anyway, good on ya Callister, you set your stall out and you're sticking by it.

[saveourwater]

Fluoridation Telephone Poll Complaints

 

After reading through the Market Research Society's LINK ‘Code of Conduct’ it would appear that people can make an official complaint through this organisation as GFK/NOP are MRS members.

 

Specifically under Section B.14 ‘Designing the Questionnaire : -

 

Designing the Questionnaire

B.14 Members must take reasonable steps to ensure all of the following:

● that questions are fit for purpose and Clients have been advised accordingly;

● that the design and content of questionnaires are appropriate for the audience

being researched;

● that Respondents are able to answer the questions in a way that reflects the

view they want to express;

● that Respondents are not led towards a particular answer;

● that answers are capable of being interpreted in an unambiguous way;

● that personal data collected is relevant and not excessive.

 

Please make your complaint to Julie Corney - Standards & Compliance Co-ordinator at the following e-mail address : -

 

julie.corney@mrs.org.uk

You need to complain about 'GFK/NOP' as they are the company that are doing the research on behalf of the government.

 

You may also wish to look at the full Code of Conduct which can be found HERE - LINK

[manshimajin]

Fluoridation Telephone Poll Complaints

 

Please make your complaint to Julie Corney - Standards & Compliance Co-ordinator at the following e-mail address : -

 

julie.corney@mrs.org.uk

You need to complain about 'GFK/NOP' as they are the company that are doing the research on behalf of the government.

 

Thank you - message sent. Will be interesting to see what reply I get.

 

From the safe distance of NZ at present I still wonder whether now is the time to get some comment into the press before the poll results are published?

 

This would put the DHSS into the position where it had to publically defend excluding older residents from its survey (ageism in a Department of Health????) and to also try and justify the survey methodology.

[Polaris]

So, it would appear we don't need to drink fluoridated water as fluoride's effect is topical. What an achievement. Commit an act of battery on hundreds of millions of people and actual bodily harm (dental fluorosis) on a sizeable percentage and 50+ years later issue a statement which means it's all been for nowt.

I really don't get this - as science has developed we have gained a better understanding of HOW water fluoridation protects teeth.

 

Look at the Irish data - huge epidemeological level research - there is a very clear benefit in reduced caries with only very small ill effects: 180 cavitites vrs less than 4 cases of aesthetically damaging fluorosis.

 

What else would account for the differences - the researchers matched the samples by income level etc.

 

Fluoridation reduces caries - that is as close to a scientific fact as you can get in population studies.

 

The majority of people in both the fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas use fluoride toothpaste scrub their teeth with the usual frequency etc. But EVEN with regular scrubbing etc the benefits of fluoridation still improve oral health significantly in those areas that have it compared to areas that don't.

 

The research you are quoting is investigating how fluoridation improves oral health.

 

Quite definitely it isn't saying "we don't need to drink fluorinated water" - its saying when you drink fluorinated water, or guiness, or eat potatos boiled in it, or whatever it helps your teeth develop resistence to caries. That resistence comes about whether you are 4 or 40 - which wouldn't happen if it only occurred during tooth formation.

 

Look at the data - drinking fluorinated water helps reduce cavities by alot - people in non fluorinated areas of ROI have 58% more cavities than those in fluorinated areas.

 

I find it incredible that that advantage is just dismissed especially for 2% fluorosis.

What is there not to get, fluoridation doesn’t work and is mass-medication to boot. Fluoridation can only take place when 100% of those affected have consented to it and any of those participating would have the right to withdraw at any time, so ending the particular scheme.

 

Epidemiology can identify trends but is not and should never be confused with high quality research – randomized, double-blind studies in which every conceivable confounding factor has been taken into account. You can stack epidemiology studies to the moon and beyond and it will not make fluoridation efficacy a fact.

 

One of the biggest confounding factors that yourself and BillyBiker conveniently ignore is expenditure on dental health. Save Our Water has very helpfully enlightened us to the greater use of sealants in the Republic of Ireland and this might indicate greater dental expenditure per head of population in Eire compared to Ulster.

 

If there is no point in ingesting fluoride and any claimed benefit from F in high concentration is topical (CDC 1999). What high-quality scientific evidence is there to support the claim that water containing fluorine ions to 1 ppm has any cariostatic effect?

 

If water containing fluorine ions to 1 ppm has any cariostatic effect why are toothpastes sold containing 1,400+ ppm?

 

If you are interested in epidemiology studies you may be interested in this graph: from: http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm

 

From what I’ve read thus far it's clear that fluoridation is a mad practice that only those of a mass-medicating totalitarian mindset would promote.

[Polaris]

...Of course Saveourwater, Incandescent et al will scream that this is biased, surpressed, etc the output of the enemy which brave Dr Connett is sueing for ethics violations etc. But for me it shows the CDC undertaking large scale research (1839 children) to attempt to quantify the issues. It discusses costs and benefits - exactly the issues I have been raising.

 

Chinahand, 1839 would be considered a small sample group with a low statistical power, when you consider the population size from which it is sampled.

 

Erm - no - that is a reasonable size used in a Phase 3 medical trial - the largest trial before approval. The Association of the

British Pharmaceutical Industry Link

 

That's all very well, but we are not talking about Phase 3 drug trials - we are talking about analysis of disease incidence/prevalence within a population. The regulation of clinical trials for new drugs is designed to strike a balance between safety and development costs, and was negotiated in part with the pharmaceutical industry. Many drugs get through trials on smaller trial cohort numbers and are withdrawn after disastrous side-effects are uncovered. Vioxx and myocardial infarctions, being a case in point.

I realize this is a controversial issue, but fluoridation isn't a new chemical being introduced into the environment. It is artificially replicating a natural environment existing elsewhere.

 

Millions of people have been taking part in a natural exeriment into the affects of fluoride in water since time in memorial. The health statistics for Naples, or Gatehead, are there to be examined, analysed and argued over.

 

These allow very clear epidemiological information to be prepared - the test "volunteers" were born, and bred drinking the stuff. Comparing a thousand people taking a novel chemical and extrapolating the results to a general population is VASTLY different from having a general population imbibing the substance and then sampling them. In one you are extapolating outwards, in the other inwards. In one there are no general health statistics to base the study on, in the other the general health environment is known.

 

Comparing fluoride to Vioxx is simply an invalid comparison, but a useful one - the ill effects of Vioxx became readily apparant, when the usage of the drug was a million fold less than the consumption of fluoride in drinking water. That is the rub - huge natural populations consume fluoride in their water, living adjacent to equally large populations who don't. The control is naturally available.

Fluoridation is a failed 60+ year experiment, which continues because the muppets promoting it lack the integrity to admit they got it wrong.

 

What systems are in place to look for harm from fluoridation other than dental fluorosis? In training, are doctors taught that fluoride is a cumulative poison with a toxicity close to that of arsenic?

 

In England, the West Midlands has dental health comparable to the home counties because spending per head of population in similar. But, dental health expenditure in the West Midlands is higher than in Manchester, another fluoridation target I believe. See: www.dpb.nhs.uk/archive/nhs_statistics/index.shtml and go figure. And swot up on confounding factors.

[Chinahand]

One of the biggest confounding factors that yourself and BillyBiker conveniently ignore is expenditure on dental health. Save Our Water has very helpfully enlightened us to the greater use of sealants in the Republic of Ireland and this might indicate greater dental expenditure per head of population in Eire compared to Ulster.

I haven't time at the moment to discuss most of your posts, but this is totally wrong.

 

The figures I've used do not compare ROI with Ulster. They compare Fluorinated areas of the ROI with unfluorinated areas of ROI. They have matched for income, sociological background etc.

 

Of course sealants etc have a role in reducing caries, but these are used generally throughout the ROI and so cannot explain the clear statistically valid differences in caries level between fluorinated and non fluorinated areas.

 

Put simply you do not believe the figures from the ROI, you ignore the efforts of dentists etc to ensure they control for confounding factors and believe the differences found between fluorinated and non-fluorinated areas of the ROI are a mirage.

 

I disagree profoundly with you on this. I see clear efforts to control for confounding factors, and simply do not understand why a dentist working in Cork, or County Donegal would distort the caries levels prevalent in their clinics.

 

Can you explain why they would compromise their scientific integrity? Are you really going to claim they don't understand the issues of confounding factors, or are in hoc to the fluoride manufacturers?

 

In this thread people are continually demanding that I go away and learn about this or that. Apart from the fact that I am reasonably aware of these things - I've undertaken extensive rigourous work in multivariate environments - my knowledge is irrelevant. What is relevant is that modern science is entirely predicated on isolating confounding factors. Researchers spend the vast majority of their time ensuring their control groups are matched.

 

Read the Irish reports - they go to great lengths to match their samples. They undertake multivarient analysis.

 

They are the people who say fluoride works, not me. I have only reported their work and tried to put it into context.

 

I link to papers from multiple sources, I use Pubmed and find thousands of papers investigating these issues. You lot seem to only publish stuff from the Fluoride Journal and make claims contradicting the World Health Organization and other massively respected bodies who's entire raison d'etre is to give unbiased scientific advice so that policy makers can make the political/ethical decisions based on good hard data.

 

I have never denied that there is an ethical debate about the mass use of fluoride in water - but what I have said is that this is a contested debate. There are moral arguments to be made in favour of it. As it is contested I believe that the burden should shift more to the science and the actual effectiveness of the results.

 

You say its a failed experiment - well if you say that you have to claim to know more than the World Health Organization, the CDC, the FDA, the Irish Health Ministry, the BMA, BDA etc etc.

 

I don't claim to know more than these people, I am fully aware that this is a highly contested and controversial area and that there are competing papers. You can compile lists of Nobel Prize winners etc: great, but these people have not presented a body of evidence sufficient to change the scientific consensus.

 

The bibliography for the York review contains over 300 papers – 8 of them are from “Fluoride” including one from Mr Colquhoun. That to me is a pretty good measure of the weight of evidence.

 

The York report’s multivariate meta analysis says the average improvement is 2.25 fewer cavities – the Irish data is 1.80 totally within the statistical range which is statistically robust – fluoridation results in fewer cavities.

 

The York reports multivariate meta analysis of fluorosis says that aesthetically concerning fluorosis will increase by a proportion of 4.5% going from low levels of fluoride to 1.0ppm. Ireland has an increase of 4.0% in any fluorosis above mild.

 

I think the context is clear – York says 225 cavities will be saved for every 100 people with 4.5 more cases of aesthetically concerning fluorosis. Ireland 180 cavities with 4 cases of fluorosis.

 

Yes it is sad that 4 or so people will get fluorosis and they will need to be treated. But it is also sad that 180 or so cavities could be saved. This is a trade off. That is what life is about.

[TomTucker]

I got a phone call, didnt like they way they said that they isle of man incidence of tooth decay was higher than uk,

told her i dont want her stinking flouride in my ushtey!

 

what we need is a decent dental service, i had a check up last month and cant have a scale and polish till July becasue the dental hygenist is in barbados or somewhere, why can the dentist scale and polish my teeth?

- cos hes too busy planning his extension to his fucking mansion

[Polaris]

One of the biggest confounding factors that yourself and BillyBiker conveniently ignore is expenditure on dental health. Save Our Water has very helpfully enlightened us to the greater use of sealants in the Republic of Ireland and this might indicate greater dental expenditure per head of population in Eire compared to Ulster.

I haven't time at the moment to discuss most of your posts, but this is totally wrong.

 

The figures I've used do not compare ROI with Ulster. They compare Fluorinated areas of the ROI with unfluorinated areas of ROI. They have matched for income, sociological background etc.

 

Of course sealants etc have a role in reducing caries, but these are used generally throughout the ROI and so cannot explain the clear statistically valid differences in caries level between fluorinated and non fluorinated areas.

 

Put simply you do not believe the figures from the ROI, you ignore the efforts of dentists etc to ensure they control for confounding factors and believe the differences found between fluorinated and non-fluorinated areas of the ROI are a mirage.

 

I disagree profoundly with you on this. I see clear efforts to control for confounding factors, and simply do not understand why a dentist working in Cork, or County Donegal would distort the caries levels prevalent in their clinics.

 

Can you explain why they would compromise their scientific integrity? Are you really going to claim they don't understand the issues of confounding factors, or are in hoc to the fluoride manufacturers?

 

In this thread people are continually demanding that I go away and learn about this or that. Apart from the fact that I am reasonably aware of these things - I've undertaken extensive rigourous work in multivariate environments - my knowledge is irrelevant. What is relevant is that modern science is entirely predicated on isolating confounding factors. Researchers spend the vast majority of their time ensuring their control groups are matched.

 

Read the Irish reports - they go to great lengths to match their samples. They undertake multivarient analysis.

 

They are the people who say fluoride works, not me. I have only reported their work and tried to put it into context.

 

I link to papers from multiple sources, I use Pubmed and find thousands of papers investigating these issues. You lot seem to only publish stuff from the Fluoride Journal and make claims contradicting the World Health Organization and other massively respected bodies who's entire raison d'etre is to give unbiased scientific advice so that policy makers can make the political/ethical decisions based on good hard data.

 

I have never denied that there is an ethical debate about the mass use of fluoride in water - but what I have said is that this is a contested debate. There are moral arguments to be made in favour of it. As it is contested I believe that the burden should shift more to the science and the actual effectiveness of the results.

 

You say its a failed experiment - well if you say that you have to claim to know more than the World Health Organization, the CDC, the FDA, the Irish Health Ministry, the BMA, BDA etc etc.

 

I don't claim to know more than these people, I am fully aware that this is a highly contested and controversial area and that there are competing papers. You can compile lists of Nobel Prize winners etc: great, but these people have not presented a body of evidence sufficient to change the scientific consensus.

 

The bibliography for the York review contains over 300 papers – 8 of them are from “Fluoride” including one from Mr Colquhoun. That to me is a pretty good measure of the weight of evidence.

 

The York report’s multivariate meta analysis says the average improvement is 2.25 fewer cavities – the Irish data is 1.80 totally within the statistical range which is statistically robust – fluoridation results in fewer cavities.

 

The York reports multivariate meta analysis of fluorosis says that aesthetically concerning fluorosis will increase by a proportion of 4.5% going from low levels of fluoride to 1.0ppm. Ireland has an increase of 4.0% in any fluorosis above mild.

 

I think the context is clear – York says 225 cavities will be saved for every 100 people with 4.5 more cases of aesthetically concerning fluorosis. Ireland 180 cavities with 4 cases of fluorosis.

 

Yes it is sad that 4 or so people will get fluorosis and they will need to be treated. But it is also sad that 180 or so cavities could be saved. This is a trade off. That is what life is about.

Point taken on the figures you’ve used but my point still stands - expenditure per head of population must be confounded for when comparing dental health statistics between Southern and Northern Ireland and when comparing fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas of Eire.

 

If would be interesting to see a breakdown of sealant use between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas in Eire. If the teeth are sealed, what possible benefit can be gained from fluoridated water with its non-existent cariostatic effect? (CDC 1999).

 

You profoundly disagree? How does this differ from simply disagreeing?

 

Individuals can know better than institutions. Who got it right about the nature of our solar system in the 16th century? The Church of Rome or Copernicus? CoR persecuted Galileo for promulgating the Copernican view because it could not be seen to have got it wrong (I believe Galileo was pardoned by CoR in the 1970s). The push for fluoridation continues because the mad mass-medicating fluoro-mullahs cannot admit they’ve got it so wrong and cling to poor-to-moderate studies, which are associated with high-to-moderate risk of bias. Let’s hope it doesn’t take the fluoridistas as long as CoR to realise what a monumnetal mistake they’ve made.

 

Replicating nature – give me a break. Just where does fluorosilicic acid occur naturally outside the confines of a super phosphate fertiliser factory?

 

Your point about the Fluoride Journal papers is silly. How many different journals published the remaining 292+ papers?

 

There isn’t any high quality research to support any claims of safety or efficacy for fluoridation. Even if there were it would still be wrong as our water supply should not be used as a means to medicate us without our individual informed consent.

 

“Yes it is sad that 4 or so people will get fluorosis…”. By advocating fluoridation you are committing an act of assault (the threat of violence – the administration of a unwanted substance), which could result in actual bodily harm (dental fluorosis). If you were to get your way the act of battery would be carried out by the Manx Water Authority. I believe Manx WA, you and other proponents would be liable for any harm and criminally so.

[Lonan3]

If you heard the Tynwald debate this morning you will be aware that the so-called 'Phone consultation' appears to be little more than a PR exercise for the pro-fluoride side of the debate.

If Fast Eddie dares to say that any kind of majority - in responding to such loaded questions - exists on the island for fluoridisation of our water supplies, he ought to resign.