staaue Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 So did anyone read what John Colquhoun had to say on this subject? You all seem interested in sticking your penny's worth in, why is what he says of little value to this argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermes Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 ...The medical risks of this huge experiment have been shown to be probabilistically so close to zero that conjecture that fluoride is a pressing medical risk is dismissable as a scientific hypothesis... ..There is only one York report on the internet, and only a couple of World Health Organization papers - the fact that these examines hundreds of scientific studies use complex mathematics and truly huge samples is ignored by the thousands of web pages of scare mongering anti-science that exists on the web etc... Science nowadays is too often linked with conspirators foisting their money making schemes upon the innocent - that is the way to the Endarkenment and a vast distortion. Especially when compared to the methods of the scaremongerers. Staaue goes on about using conjecture and probability - and then ignores vast amounts of evidence that shows hisposition is probabilistically and conecturally untenable - what a world we live in. Hmm... That argument is not in fact wholly valid, either. Upon reading the York Report you will note that the authors go to pains to point out that of all the studies into fluoridation that they looked at, these were generally flawed and of poor scientific rigor. They actually had to publish a statement reminding everyone that this was their conclusion when it was picked upon as evidence for the safety of fluoridation. Anyone actually properly conversant with the scientific data and evidence around water fluoridation (and Dr Emerson is perhaps not one of these people from reading his press releases) will realise that the argument has not been made either way. You cannot, for example, prove from Birmingham or the Northeast's medical data that there has been a reduction in dental caries caused by fluoridation. There are too many historical and environmental confounding factors to allow that judgement to be made, including deficiency of pre-fluoride records, changes in case reporting and social change as a whole. In addition, the actual evidence of how water fluoridation works in addition to fluoridated toothpaste is similarly lacking or based on imperfect science. The original 'scientific' work that proved it was a good idea does not stand up to moderrn standards and scrutiny. I have to say, though, that the anti-fluoride lobby seem to have an even more dodgy grasp on facts. There is a certain amusement in watching what turns out to be two equally deluded parties slogging it out over who is 'right'. The bottom line is that fluoride added to the water supply is NOT an essential nutrient added to treat a deficiency which is causing dental caries: It is actually an interventional therapy being forced on the consumer. No doctor can force a drug on a patient, except in very special situations, and this stricture should apply to water fluoridation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 No doctor can force a drug on a patient, except in very special situations, and this stricture should apply to water fluoridation. I think you will find on the Isle of man where /drawling Manx accent on "we can do what we like" /accent off that doctors or even less qualified medical staff can and do force drugs on patients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staaue Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 ...The medical risks of this huge experiment have been shown to be probabilistically so close to zero that conjecture that fluoride is a pressing medical risk is dismissable as a scientific hypothesis... ..There is only one York report on the internet, and only a couple of World Health Organization papers - the fact that these examines hundreds of scientific studies use complex mathematics and truly huge samples is ignored by the thousands of web pages of scare mongering anti-science that exists on the web etc... Science nowadays is too often linked with conspirators foisting their money making schemes upon the innocent - that is the way to the Endarkenment and a vast distortion. Especially when compared to the methods of the scaremongerers. Staaue goes on about using conjecture and probability - and then ignores vast amounts of evidence that shows hisposition is probabilistically and conecturally untenable - what a world we live in. Hmm... That argument is not in fact wholly valid, either. Upon reading the York Report you will note that the authors go to pains to point out that of all the studies into fluoridation that they looked at, these were generally flawed and of poor scientific rigor. They actually had to publish a statement reminding everyone that this was their conclusion when it was picked upon as evidence for the safety of fluoridation. Anyone actually properly conversant with the scientific data and evidence around water fluoridation (and Dr Emerson is perhaps not one of these people from reading his press releases) will realise that the argument has not been made either way. You cannot, for example, prove from Birmingham or the Northeast's medical data that there has been a reduction in dental caries caused by fluoridation. There are too many historical and environmental confounding factors to allow that judgement to be made, including deficiency of pre-fluoride records, changes in case reporting and social change as a whole. In addition, the actual evidence of how water fluoridation works in addition to fluoridated toothpaste is similarly lacking or based on imperfect science. The original 'scientific' work that proved it was a good idea does not stand up to moderrn standards and scrutiny. I have to say, though, that the anti-fluoride lobby seem to have an even more dodgy grasp on facts. There is a certain amusement in watching what turns out to be two equally deluded parties slogging it out over who is 'right'. The bottom line is that fluoride added to the water supply is NOT an essential nutrient added to treat a deficiency which is causing dental caries: It is actually an interventional therapy being forced on the consumer. No doctor can force a drug on a patient, except in very special situations, and this stricture should apply to water fluoridation. Well said Hermes.. But it is plain for everyone who knows how to read that there is the potential for great risk. Fluoride is not some inert substance. I don't want some toxin in drinking water that can potentially mess with my bone or cellular structure. I seem to be getting called a scaremonger; I am trying to keep things simple so those among us with less understanding can follow. I apologise for the conspiracy stuff, our Gov't only ever does what is in our best interest..... MEA, POLICE SCANDLES, FIRE SERVICES, DHSS SCANDLE AND RICHARD & JUDY, there's more but you get the idea... So the potential dangers of Fluorination aren't real or don''t worry you; yes there is poor evidence on both sides, but if you don't take a firm stand on this the Gov't will ride rough shot over us. Nipper is correct, this is also the same in England and elsewhere, you may not be physically forced to take medication; but you will be penalised via benifits etc for not doing so, and thusly forced by proxy. Staaue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I am trying to keep things simple so those among us with less understanding can follow. As a rule, being patronising towards people only works when you're smarter than them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I am trying to keep things simple so those among us with less understanding can follow. As a rule, being patronising towards people only works when you're smarter than them. Seriously, can anyone tell me if there's a filter that can remove the fluoride from water for those who object to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 http://www.uk-water-filters.co.uk/water_pr...m_fluoride.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 ...The medical risks of this huge experiment have been shown to be probabilistically so close to zero that conjecture that fluoride is a pressing medical risk is dismissable as a scientific hypothesis... ..There is only one York report on the internet, and only a couple of World Health Organization papers - the fact that these examines hundreds of scientific studies use complex mathematics and truly huge samples is ignored by the thousands of web pages of scare mongering anti-science that exists on the web etc... Hmm... That argument is not in fact wholly valid, either. Upon reading the York Report you will note that the authors go to pains to point out that of all the studies into fluoridation that they looked at, these were generally flawed and of poor scientific rigor. They actually had to publish a statement reminding everyone that this was their conclusion when it was picked upon as evidence for the safety of fluoridation. Erm ... careful. The York Report examined 216 published peer reviewed papers on Water Fluoridation. The study designs used included 45 ‘before and after’ studies, 102 cross-sectional studies, 47 ecological studies, 13 cohort (prospective or retrospective) studies and 7 case-control studies. Of these they used 26 studies to calculate the effect of fluoride on tooth decay rates as these were deemed to be of good enough quality to be used. You are correct no randomized double blind studies were used. But from the Executive Summary of the York Report: All but three of the [26] studies included were before-after studies, two included studies used prospective cohort designs, and one used a retrospective cohort design. To claim that these 26 large scale peer reviewed studies do not make for a comprehensive analysis is deeply flawed: evidentially it is massively superior to the doubters claims. The meta analysis of these studies showed statistically valid reductions in the number of cavities at 95% probability, they found the evidence that fluorosis significantly increases due to fluoridization was NOT statistically valid - it exists in fluorinated and non-fluorinated areas and is not significantly worse due to fluorination. From the Executive Summary of the York Report The best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean change in dmft/DMFT score. ... In those studies completed after 1974, a beneficial effect of water fluoridation was still evident in spite of the assumed exposure to non-water fluoride in the populations studied. The metaregression conducted for Objective 1 confirmed this finding. there is no clear association of hip fracture with water fluoridation. There is no clear association between water fluoridation and overall cancer incidence and mortality. This was also true for osteosarcoma and bone/joint cancers. ... [t]wo studies considered thyroid cancer and neither found a statistically significant association with water fluoridation. Anyone actually properly conversant with the scientific data and evidence around water fluoridation (and Dr Emerson is perhaps not one of these people from reading his press releases) will realise that the argument has not been made either way. You cannot, for example, prove from Birmingham or the Northeast's medical data that there has been a reduction in dental caries caused by fluoridation. There are too many historical and environmental confounding factors to allow that judgement to be made, including deficiency of pre-fluoride records, changes in case reporting and social change as a whole. Hermes - I think you are wrong on this - the York report specifically looked at this - its objective 2 of the report and as I've quoted they say that there is a reduction even accounting for the historical/environmental factors and non-water fluoride etc. The science is overwhelmingly in favour of it being a safe way of reducing caveties. That does not mean that there can't be more science done - science is eternal! But at a policy level to pretend that there is a balanced case on both the pro and anti side is simply not true. I am reasonably neutral about fluorination - my children are taking fluoride tablets and will have a fluoride treatment when there adult teeth come through - worked for me - zero cavities (so far!), but I cannot abide the abuse of good science that the anti-fluoride scaremongers are using to make their case. It is unethical and a massive distortion of evidence. Disgraceful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontiuspilot Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 "Where do you get the 1ppm from, funnily enough 1ppm = 1mm3 which is 1/1000000 of a litre. Thats 0.001gram in a litre of water, I'd leave the maths to the people smarter than us." staaue, the above quote of yours is meaningless, in what sense could 1ppm( a ratio) Equal 1cubic millilitre (a quantity)? you are rightabout one thing though,you should certianly leave the maths and the logic to some one smart than you at least. the scaremongering about Fluoride toxicity relates to the pure compund of a fluoride salt not the quantities found in water supplies. as for conspiracies, please, if there was a conspiracy and i can't thing for the life of me to what ends such a thing would be undertaken, wouldn't the "conspirators" do it secretly without telling anyone? and not have a public consultation before hand. please enlighten me as to the details of the conspiracy that you seem to think exsists. as far as i can see it is merely an attempt to improve dental health, the only issue is how we go about achieving that aim. i.e. via the water supply or incouraging people to brush thier teeth more. further more staaue, your lack of any chemical knowledge is quite apparent also, this is the main reason for you stance i think, an ignorant fear of the unknown. please learn some relevant chemistry before wading in again, i would be only too happy to guide you in the right direction where you to ask regards Pontiuspilot B.Sc(HONS);M.R.S.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feelslikeitshould Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 B.Sc(HONS);M.R.S.C. Is that a disease? Will floride help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 What's floride then FLIS? University... pfft - they'll give anyone a degree these days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feelslikeitshould Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 What's floride then FLIS? University... pfft - they'll give anyone a degree these days! Dunno, I thought it was like a log flume....I'd welcome the Government putting that in the water! Some of the those reservoirs are well high up, you'd get some speed coming down the pipes! Not sure how anyone would fit out of the tap though. Anyways, I only learned about bricks n diggin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontiuspilot Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 What's floride then FLIS? University... pfft - they'll give anyone a degree these days! should have been fluoride, falling into american spelling, drat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontiuspilot Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 What's floride then FLIS? quite right, will correct spelling mistake presently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 quite right, will correct spelling mistake presently There's plenty more where that came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.