Brainwash Mouthwash?

[Chinahand]

a) there is no statistically valid data showing that adding fluoride at 1ppm will cause a [fluorosis] problem

b) there is no statistically valid data showing that adding fluoride at 1ppm will not cause a [fluorosis] problem

c) there is no statistically valid data on which to base a conclusion either way. (no confidence that it will or will not cause a problem).

Following on from what I posted above what you say above is also over done.

 

I would write:

 

a) there is no statistically valid data showing that adding fluoride at 1ppm will cause a fluorosis problem

b) there is statistically valid data showing that adding fluoride at 1ppm will not cause a fluorosis problem above a prevelence of 13.6%, and it MAY cause no increase

c) there is no statistically valid data to make a more definite statement than this, but reasearch is ongoing to understand this better. But even so the WHO organization, the CDC etc still believe fluoridation is worthwhile, economic and will improve overall dental health.

 

Plus note the Medical Research Coucil's follow up report on the York report said their data on fluorosis was over conservative.

[Skeddan]

Chinahand - the point wasn't just over fluorosis - it was about how slanted the 'no evidence of a problem' can be - when the reality is the evidence is lacking or inconclusive as to whether or not there is a problem.

 

It is useful though in terms of getting a statement that might be a bit more impartial. What do you think needs adding / changing in the following:

 

 

There is no statistically valid data which conclusively proves that adding fluoride at 1ppm will cause health problems.

 

There is inconclusive evidence that water fluoridation may cause about 1 in 22 people to have dental fluorosis to an extent serious enough to be of cosmetic concern (images showing exactly what the teeth might look like).

 

While evidence shows no clear association with cancer or skeletal fluorosis, there is no statistically valid data showing that adding fluoride at 1ppm will not cause other health problems.

 

There is no statistically valid data from which one may arrive at conclusive conclusions about the safety of water fluoridation (no confidence that it will or will not cause any health problems). The Medical Research Council has recommended that research using appropriate methodologies be conducted to address this question.

 

Many health bodies and organisations such as WHO believe that water fluoridation is an economic way of improving the dental health of children and young people whose dental care is sub-standard, particularly in the developing world.

 

There are other ways of treating these dental problems, including primary dental care, education, and provision of fluoride tablets and toothpastes to at risk families. Depending on the level of investment, such alternatives may or may not be more effective in improving the dental health of children with sub-standard dental health care. In IoM it is unclear whether such alternatives might provide these improvements as cheaply as water fluoridation.

 

While a number of local authorities in the United States and New Zealand have long standing practices of water fluoridation and believe it worthwhile, in other countries such as Japan and Sweden water fluoridation has been discontinued or banned.

[ballaughbiker]

Lonan- you're giving dentist a hard time and I think its a bit unfair. Government policy (UK which IOM followed) reduced the earnings of NHS dentists over a period of time from Thatcher in the 1980s right through to present times. New contracts were forced on them in about 1992 and recently making earning a living much harder. They were forced to go 'private' or earn less than plumbers. Now I do a bit of plumbing and I respect plumber's skills but would that be right?

 

I told the IOM gov in late 1991/early 1992 that they would regret introducing the UK new contract and I think history now confirms that to be the case.

 

I understand that you feel, having paid NI, that the service should be as available as a GPs is and I probably agree it should be. However only a very small part of NI goes to dentistry as well as all the other stuff like pensions. To make dentistry that available would have to involve a big increase in taxes. Maybe that's what should happen but I doubt it ever will.

 

So, I think you have a point about gov responsibility but I know many dentists who worked for the NHS for 40 years and have recently been forced to 'go private'. I don't think they did that to get rich quick. Forcing a small percentage of work to be NHS isn't a bad concept though. As dentists own their own practices including the equipment I doubt if that really could be forced in anycase.

[VinnieK]

Chinahand - the point wasn't just over fluorosis - it was about how slanted the 'no evidence of a problem' can be - when the reality is the evidence is lacking or inconclusive as to whether or not there is a problem.

 

 

While evidence shows no clear association with cancer or skeletal fluorosis, there is no statistically valid data showing that adding fluoride at 1ppm will not cause other health problems.

 

This is just getting silly now. Of course there's no statistically valid data showing that adding fluoride will not cause any other health problems; that's because what you're expecting is a proof of a negative, and science doesn't work that way.

 

All science can do is offer existential proofs. The very best that science can do in an instance like this is say "well, we've done a shedload of tests, and we can't find evidence of this, that, or the other, so it's probably fine". It might not be very satisfying, and some might not even find it particularly reassuring, but that's just the way things are - welcome to the limitations of science! Similarly, we can't prove that aspirin is "safe", just that it seems safe enough and can't find enough links with nasty conditions to describe it as dangerous.

[Skeddan]

VinnieK - I know what you are saying, and maybe phrased it badly, but...

 

having done a 'shedload of tests' you can state no association has been found between X and Y. There are all sorts of tests which can show whether there is a correlation or not - to give very simple example.

 

MRC say there is no association between water fluoridation and cancers or skeletal fluorosis - something based on a shedload of tests.

 

MRC do not say there is no association between water fluoridation and other potential problems. What they say is that more research needs to be done. There is not a shedload of tests and research of any decent quality.

 

As I said I find it sufficiently reassuring that a shedload of tests found no link with cancer - and while not 100% certain, this is good enough to satisfy me - until something turns up to disconfirm that.

 

What I don't find reassuring is that a shedload of tests haven't been conducted into other health hazards that one might reasonably suspect fluoride might be associated with.

 

You are right though - I should have rephrased this, perhaps something along the lines of:

 

While evidence shows no clear association with cancer or skeletal fluorosis, there is insufficient research to conclude that adding fluoride at 1ppm will not cause other health problems.

 

As you know, you also need to specify your alpha level for significance. p<.05 is fine for a psych experiment, p<0.01 is better. For drug approvals etc. this is very much more stringent p<0.0001 and the like.

 

With water fluoridation I haven't seen anything like the kinds of study one would expect for a substance with known neurotoxic effects which is being proposed to be added to the water supply to be ingested as a treatment by people.

 

If I proposed that as an experiment, gave this so-called evidence for fluoride at this level being 'safe', and suggested 30 subjects should be recruited into the study without their informed consent, the ethics committee would throw it out (and think I was utterly bonkers - 'mad scientist' type).

 

I'm a sceptic - I don't believe it's safe when there isn't any decent data or halfway decent research to tell me that.

 

I'll be satisfied when the type of research MRC recommends - with a shedload of tests is done. Then it will be clearer whether or not water fluoridation poses a health hazard. If the research shows not, I'll be happily reassured. Till then, to suggest it is safe is simply a misleading distortion. I trust you can see that - even if not terribly well expressed here.

[VinnieK]

With water fluoridation I haven't seen anything like the kinds of study one would expect for a substance with known neurotoxic effects which is being proposed to be added to the water supply to be ingested as a treatment by people.

 

This isn't a reference to the work of Mulinex is it? From what I gather her work has already been called into question for inadequacies in her experiments (such as not using a control group, and drawing conclusions from rats that had been subjected to over 125 times the optimal level of fluoridated water) and her conclusions (there's a suggestion that her results were tainted by analytical error, and that her conclusions can also be explained without resorting mechanisms other than neurotoxicity) - Ross, Daston, and Whitford.

 

As you know, you also need to specify your alpha level for significance. p<.05 is fine for a psych experiment, p<0.01 is better. For drug approvals etc. this is very much more stringent p<0.0001 and the like.

 

I'm not sure you can really draw a comparison between fluoride and drug trials. Typically trials of drugs are so stringent precisely because they are a leap into the unknown, and people are naturally cautious when it comes to introducing a new synthetic compound into their bodies. Fluoride, by comparison, is a natural element with which humans have a significant amount of experience, including in our drinking water (as a result of both deliberate management of water supplies and natural processes). As a result, you're not going to get the same kind of intensive controlled laboratory experiments because it's felt that much can be gleaned from existing data sets and surveys of the population "in the wild".

 

Also, completely unrelated, but I think the thread has reached that point in the natural lifespan of a discussion's integrity where random comments can be shoved in there: Nine times out of ten, I'd prefer to take advice from a crazy shouting tramp or voodoo priest than pay attention to a filthy statsmo.

 

Also: I'm a big fan of red leicester.

[Lonan3]

Also: I'm a big fan of red leicester.

Which should automatically bar you from any discussion regarding both additives and taste.

Annatto (E160b) the additive that gives it the 'red' colour, has been linked with many cases of food-related allergies and is the only natural food coloring known to cause as many or more reactions than artificial food colouring.

[Skeddan]

Fluoride, by comparison, is a natural element with which humans have a significant amount of experience, including in our drinking water (as a result of both deliberate management of water supplies and natural processes). As a result, you're not going to get the same kind of intensive controlled laboratory experiments because it's felt that much can be gleaned from existing data sets and surveys of the population "in the wild".

Lead is also a natural element which occurs at high levels in the drinking water in some areas. The data sets of the 'significant amount of experience' (e.g. medieval medical records) don't show this to be a problem.

with Fluoridation I find it very hard to believe that there is insufficient evidence that it is safe considering the numbers involved.

Like Lost Login I also found it very hard to believe that there is insufficient evidence that it is safe - I'd assumed it was, and then - as a result of an earlier thread - looked into the research out of interest, and was incredulous at what wasn't there. My real world experience is also that governments can make huge cock-ups, and things that were 'assumed safe' (e.g. lead in petrol, radiation levels) subsequently get revised as more is found out.

 

The Medical Research Council state that more research is required. They obviously don't feel that enough can be gleaned from existing data sets.

 

As I said, if you want to hold an opinion it's safe, fine. But in an 'evidenced based' approach, there simply isn't the evidence - otherwise I'm sure the Medical Research Council would have noted this and wouldn't be recommending otherwise redundant studies.

 

No, fluoride and lead are not the same as drugs. Maybe alpha levels of p<0.0001 are not appropriate. Maybe it should be p<0.001 or p<0.01. But there doesn't even seem to be the research which would pass muster in a peer reviewed journal to show that there is no significant relationship between water fluoridation and various health problems at even these levels.

 

Also take into account Type I and Type II errors. i.e. a false positive (mistakenly taking wF to be safe) vs. a false negative (mistakenly taking wF to be unsafe). What is the relative cost / damage from these errors. If wrongly work on the assumption that it is unsafe, it may result in using slightly more expensive ways of treating sub-standard dental health. If wrongly work on the assumption it it safe, then it may result in health problems that massively outweigh these savings and a disastrous decision one comes to deeply regret.

 

It is bogus psuedo-science to say that science shows that water fluoridation is safe. If you choose to believe there is no risk, or want to ignore such risks, and are sure you want to have it, go right ahead. Just don't claim this is a rational 'evidence based' decision backed by scientific authority showing it is safe.

[VinnieK]

Lead is also a natural element which occurs at high levels in the drinking water in some areas. The data sets of the 'significant amount of experience' (e.g. medieval medical records) don't show this to be a problem.

 

Actually, the dangers of lead poisoning via the water supply were already known and common knowledge by the classical era (the Romans were well aware of it, but considered the benefits of a freely available water supply to outweigh the hazards).

 

No, fluoride and lead are not the same as drugs. Maybe alpha levels of p<0.0001 are not appropriate. Maybe it should be p<0.001 or p<0.01. But there doesn't even seem to be the research which would pass muster in a peer reviewed journal to show that there is no significant relationship between water fluoridation and various health problems at even these levels.

 

Also take into account Type I and Type II errors. i.e. a false positive (mistakenly taking wF to be safe) vs. a false negative (mistakenly taking wF to be unsafe).

 

We really do need to curtail the AS-Level stats in this thread, it's not really adding anything to the discussion and isn't making anyone look any cleverer. Plenty of reputable sources have stated a lack of high quality research into the issue (such as the York report), removing the necessity for us to dig out a moth eaten copy of Statistical Methods for Scientists and Engineers and talk about alpha values and Type errors.

 

Also: Try dipping Twix into melted extra mature cheddar, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the result.

[Chinahand]

I'm even more skeptical than you VinnieK - Skeddan is making out that the medical community is admitting there's a huge black hole in its knowledge and oh gosh yes fluoridation has to be investigated as we've been unaware of all the risks of sterility, developmental defects etc.

 

That quite definitely isn't what the Medical Research Council is saying - they have concentrated on fluorosis, any difference between naturally and artificially fluorinated water (their research shows no difference) and cancer (see below).

 

On other issues they state:

 

Additional health outcomes suggested by some to be associated with fluoride ingestion include effects on

the immune system, reproductive and developmental (birth) defects, and effects on the kidney and

gastrointestinal tract. Other concerns are related to the chemicals that are added during the fluoridation

process, and to indirect effects such as increased leaching of lead from pipes and aluminium from cooking

utensils and altered uptake or toxicity of these substances.There is no evidence for any significant health

effects of this type and no specific research is recommended, although it is appropriate to keep the area

under review.

 

This is good typical science - research is ongoing, we know of no reason at the moment to say the observed gains of fluoridation are at risk from other effects, but we'll keep our eyes open and things under review.

 

If you read the details of this report you'll find again and again on the above issues statements like this:

 

Human and experimental animal data suggest that drinking even high levels of fluoride in water does not

cause birth defects, though there may be adverse consequences for bone ossification at very high

exposure levels. Further work on this aspect is not considered to be of high priority.

 

They make basically the same statements for Bone Health, Immunological effects, Effects on reproduction, Birth defects, Renal effects, Gastrointestinal tract, Intelligence, Thyroid (goitre), Effects on the pineal gland, Senile dementia, Age at menarche, Anaemia during pregnancy, Sudden Infant Death syndrome, Primary degenerative dementia.

 

This is a good part of the laundry list the crazies throw out to make a scatter gun claim of the dangers of fluoride

 

The fact is even though large amounts of research are undertaken no link to Fluoride has been seen and so the Medical Research Council sees no need to prioritize research into these (or any other) complaint AND fluoride - they'll leave the general research to continue and review it. As an example note todays announcement concerning ADHD.

 

On the cancer risk further research and reviews have been undertaken and the MRC state:

 

The evidence available does not suggest that fluoridation of water increases the risk for cancer in general

or for any particular type of cancer, including osteosarcoma. ...

 

An updated analysis of ecological data in the UK on fluoridation and cancer rates is required. It would

be relatively straightforward to analyse recent cancer incidence and mortality data from ONS in

relation to residence in fluoridated areas. Comparisons could be made between similar cities, and data

on potentially confounding variables might also be incorporated.The long period since fluoridation

began would give a new analysis the possibility to detect any effect on cancer rates after long

exposure.

 

These comments are very similar to my understanding and are very much at varience with Skeddan's claims that this research is so difficult as to leave large areas of uncertainty where problems may be occuring unnoticed.

[VinnieK]

I'm even more skeptical than you VinnieK - Skeddan is making out that the medical community is admitting there's a huge black hole in its knowledge and oh gosh yes fluoridation has to be investigated as we've been unaware of all the risks of sterility, developmental defects etc.

 

Oh, don't mistake me - I'm as skeptical as hell at the moment. This ongoing googlespunk of minutiae is a manifestation of the crammer's dictum: masses of detail combined with endless speculation and garnished with a smattering of introductory or basic terms (no matter how poorly they are used) is equivalent to understanding. I'm not even in favour of fluoridation and it's getting on my tits.

 

Still, anyone with any sense will have stopped taking the thread too seriously way back, so it can't do that much harm.

 

Vinnie's culinary tip: try adding a fistful of mincemeat to the mix next time you're making spongecake.

[Skeddan]

Actually, the dangers of lead poisoning via the water supply were already known and common knowledge by the classical era (the Romans were well aware of it, but considered the benefits of a freely available water supply to outweigh the hazards).

Ha! Silly me. In all this talk of public health issues effecting the entire population, it hadn't occurred to me that we should be assured by what the Romans may or may not have noticed.

 

Now I understand why Chinahand is so sceptical of any suggestion it might present any health problem whatsoever.

[VinnieK]

Actually, the dangers of lead poisoning via the water supply were already known and common knowledge by the classical era (the Romans were well aware of it, but considered the benefits of a freely available water supply to outweigh the hazards).

Ha! Silly me. In all this talk of public health issues effecting the entire population, it hadn't occurred to me that we should be assured by what the Romans may or may not have noticed.

 

Very good. Now try and deal with the comment in its original context, i.e. as a response to your post. On second thoughts, don't bother. I don't think I can bare to watch you vomiting up another chunk of half digested facts and mangled references to the scientific process: it'd probably be best for the discussion at hand and the forums in general if you just stuck to misunderstanding side issues and trivia.

[Lost Login]

Like Lost Login I also found it very hard to believe that there is insufficient evidence that it is safe - I'd assumed it was, and then - as a result of an earlier thread - looked into the research out of interest, and was incredulous at what wasn't there. My real world experience is also that governments can make huge cock-ups, and things that were 'assumed safe' (e.g. lead in petrol, radiation levels) subsequently get revised as more is found out.

Don't bring me into this but, but since you have I believe there is plenty of evidence it is safe. It is Millions of people drinking fluoridated for decades if artificial, or millions of years if natural. Let alone that absorb it via toothpaste, or via milk in other countries etc, etc. Now they not may have not done control tests as for medicinal drugs but there is enough natural data in the from the general population to provide the answer. It is asfe, it is not causing huge amounts of side effects.

 

Now that is not to say that will always be the case and that as times change and science develops they might find that after x generations it is harmful. That is not a reason to describe that it is not known that it is safe as it would apply many many things that we now treat as safe and take for granted.

 

Finally if we are onto cheese, a nice bit of mature chedder goes well with chocolate cake. A health warning though to Skeddan. I believe though that there has been no scientific reasearch on whether eating both together is safe so you better assume that it is not rather than risk it although I have never known anybody get side effects from the combination

[VinnieK]

Finally if we are onto cheese, a nice bit of mature chedder goes well with chocolate cake. A health warning though to Skeddan. I believe though that there has been no scientific reasearch on whether eating both together is safe so you better assume that it is not rather than risk it although I have never known anybody get side effects from the combination

 

I think you're simplifying the issue somewhat. I have found no serious studies conclusively demonstrating the safety of either chocolate cake or cheese, never mind in combination where it's reasonable to suppose that they exacerbate one another's harmful potential. ERROR BARS! In fact there are plenty of reasons to suppose that this is in fact true:

 

MICHELSBLAP AND UNGERBERRY (1994, www.ihatecheeseandamnotthatfondofcake.com/archives) "CHRONIC DEATH INCIDENCES IN RATS SUBJECTED TO CHEESE AND CHOCOLATE CAKE" demonstrated that rats displayed a number of problems with their health after being injected with 5 kg of cheese and chocolate cake each. GAUSSIAN DISTRIBUTION!

 

ZHEZHE ET AL. (1734, www.ihatecheeseandamnotthatfondofcake.com/archives) "ON THE PERCULIARITIES, INSTABILITIES AND MOST ABOMINABLE AND UNFATHOMABLE MALAISE THAT CHEESE LADEN CHOCOLATE BECAKERY HAS INFLICTED UPON MY POOR AND LONG SUFFERING PRIMATE COMPANION, BOBO" found that replacing sections of a chimp's brain with chocolate cake and cheese resulted in a myriad of neurological and psychological disorders that could not be explained by any other biological mechanism.

 

SPECKLEBAUM, GRUNDERWORTH, AND LION-O (1967, www.ihatecheeseandamnotthatfondofcake.com/archives) "FUCKING HELL, WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!" Conclusively proved that not only do regular dosages of cheese and chocolate cake fail as a long term solution to malnutrition and world hunger, but an awful lot of the test subjects got fat. Also, neither cheese or chocolate cake, individually or combined, were effective in warding off the dark magics of Mumm-Ra and his forces of evil.

 

I have no reason NULL HYPOTHESIS! to doubt any of these CENTRAL LIMIT THEOREM studies, and every single reason imaginable to doubt everyone STANDARD DEVIATION! else, ever, who has a contrasting point MARKOV CHAINS! of view.