Fluoride

[Garpal Gumnut]

Lol... reminds me of 'antique' Steptoe (and Son).

Perhaps it is just collectors of antiques, who have bad teeth. There could very well be something in the dust of old furniture and bric a brac that leaches fluoride from the body.

gg

 

[Whiskers]

lol.

Look, sometimes it is better to attack the person rather than provide evidence. I can see why you do not want to provide evidence, because there is none.

Look!? ... I asked you to clarify some of your broad "propaganda and hyperbole". The only evidence I need for that is the statements that you made.

Since you resort to personal attack and evading the point, it leaves you highly suspicious of being a stooge.

I love the S6 poison rubbish too. You can sell the community short with naive narrow minded uses of therapeutic agents. I'm sure if you had it your way, there would be no use for (in the old terminology) S4 or S8 medicines as well, since most are toxic if used incorrectly as well.

Why do you toss this in with me? I didn't make any comment towards you or about this. You sure have a lot of trouble focusing on the point for a health 'professional'.

As a response to the professionalism of my approach:

It is much more professional to support proven, undisputed public health initiatives where the benefit of the program clearly outweighs the cost, than to burden our young ones with propaganda and hyperbole.

I have also provided the youth with links to two peer reviewed journal articles to help them determine who is correct for themselves.

The papers you refer to (without URL links) does not provide undisputed proof of public health benifit, cost wise or otherwise. They also don't discuss or indicate looking for any adverse side effects other than fluorosis and certainly doesn't "help them determine who is correct" simply because it doesn't investigate other contributing factors like socio economic status, availability of prompt public dental services or any other contributing factors.

The data collection is objective, but your conclusion is clearly subjective, because of the lack of any holistic analysis as indicated above.

I followed the Qld legislation pretty closely. The Qld legislation path was heavily focused on the ideology of forcing fluoridation on everyone for their own good.

I did not see any economic study about the cost benifit of fluoridation. I've heard many generalised statements like yours that fluoridation is a cost effective public health initiative, but would like to see the actual economic data and forcasts.

If you are a health professional esp. doctor, you would have better access to and able to provide a good quality link to such an economic study and forcast?

 

[medicowallet]

Look!? ... I asked you to clarify some of your broad "propaganda and hyperbole". The only evidence I need for that is the statements that you made.

Since you resort to personal attack and evading the point, it leaves you highly suspicious of being a stooge.

LOL, accusing me of this is ridiculous.

Please, once, answer the question. I note that nobody does, and keep answering my questions, questions which would give you an argument which is irrefutable evidence with questions of your own.

You know that there is no evidence that the costs outweigh the benefits, otherwise you would proudly provide it and end this thread.

You know that the "evidence" you refer to is tainted and unprofessional, unpublished and inaccurate, so you fail to provide it. You know that educated scientists see right through it.

Why do you toss this in with me? I didn't make any comment towards you or about this. You sure have a lot of trouble focusing on the point for a health 'professional'.

You did refer to toxicity, and this explains that it is toxic, but in its indicated use, clearly has a public health benefit.

The papers you refer to (without URL links) does not provide undisputed proof of public health benifit, cost wise or otherwise. They also don't discuss or indicate looking for any adverse side effects other than fluorosis and certainly doesn't "help them determine who is correct" simply because it doesn't investigate other contributing factors like socio economic status, availability of prompt public dental services or any other contributing factors.

The data collection is objective, but your conclusion is clearly subjective, because of the lack of any holistic analysis as indicated above.

I followed the Qld legislation pretty closely. The Qld legislation path was heavily focused on the ideology of forcing fluoridation on everyone for their own good.

I did not see any economic study about the cost benifit of fluoridation. I've heard many generalised statements like yours that fluoridation is a cost effective public health initiative, but would like to see the actual economic data and forcasts.

If you are a health professional esp. doctor, you would have better access to and able to provide a good quality link to such an economic study and forcast?

1. I provided the journal, if you do not know how to find journal articles with the journal details, volume, pages etc, then how do you do your own research? or do you?

2. I did not post them to show that there were no side effects, only to show efficacy.

3. To disprove their safety, POST ONE PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED STUDY WHICH SHOWS THE COSTS OF FLUORIDE OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS!!!!!!!

4. No, my conclusion takes into account a clear public health benefit, versus no proven cost benefit loss against fluoridation.

Your conclusion is that it is bad, with no proven cost benefit loss against fluoridation. Your logic astounds me.

5. Once you provide me with ONE PEER REVIEWED PUBLISHED STUDY WHICH SHOWS THE COSTS OF FLUORIDE OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS!!!!!!!

I will provide you with THREE showing its benefit.

 

[Calliope]

I followed the Qld legislation pretty closely. The Qld legislation path was heavily focused on the ideology of forcing fluoridation on everyone for their own good.

Yeah, like seat belts or RBT.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Brainless

Yeah, like seat belts or RBT.

Another Brainless argument

Does wearing seatbelts or participating in RBT stops cause a multitude of documentmented problems?

 

[Calliope]

Re: Brainless

Another Brainless argument

Does wearing seatbelts or participating in RBT stops cause a multitude of documentmented problems?

Irrelevant. Whiskers was talking about forcing something on everybody for their own good.

 

[Whiskers]

Yeah, like seat belts or RBT.

I'm not sure what your point is here Calliope. Do you think compulsary fluoridation is a good thing or not and why?

I personally don't have any great problem with seat belts in road vehicles or RBT, but I fail to see any related comparason to fluoridation.

 

[medicowallet]

I'm not sure what your point is here Calliope. Do you think compulsary fluoridation is a good thing or not and why?

I personally don't have any great problem with seat belts in road vehicles or RBT, but I fail to see any related comparason to fluoridation.

But don't seat belts lacerate livers in some people?

Shock horror!!! Remove all seatbelts they KILL!

It is a conspiracy from GI surgeons who are trying to muster up business.

 

[Calliope]

I'm not sure what your point is here Calliope. Do you think compulsary fluoridation is a good thing or not and why?

I personally don't have any great problem with seat belts in road vehicles or RBT, but I fail to see any related comparason to fluoridation.

I have no intention of joining a debate that's going nowhere. I merely commented on your statement about forcing something "on everyone for their own good".

If I had known it was going to antagonise you and OWG I wouldn't have said it..:fan

 

[Ruby]

MW - try reading these........you asked to be pointed to some studies that showed fluoride in drinking water is not effective

http://www.fluoridealert.org/york-critique.htm

This is a review by Paul Connet PhD. At the end of it is a long list of references. Take your pick of the studies referred to there.

One of them is "The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay" by Mark Diedendorf:-

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/diesendorf.html
(Hmm! for some reason this link has been partially blocked, but if you Google the title you will find it.)

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/21263.php

I would also strongly suggest you watch the "Fire Water" videos, that is is you WANT to see some credible evidence that fluoride in drinking water is both useless and dangerous......... but I suspect you won't watch it, because you don't want to see the evidence. There are many reputable doctors, dentists and scientists quoted in this documentary. At least you should acquaint yourself with both sides of the picture!

 

[Whiskers]

I have no intention of joining a debate that's going nowhere. I merely commented on your statement about forcing something "on everyone for their own good".

If I had known it was going to antagonise you and OWG I wouldn't have said it..:fan

I'm not antagonised, far from it. I'm just curious why people have strong or even no opinion as I did before Julia started this thread.

 

[Whiskers]

Ok, medicowallet... lets start from the start.

As someone with some idea of public health initiatives I find this topic quite amusing.

I guess we all should have asked why you find this topic quite amusing?

Your statements have a clear disrespect for the cost and inconvenience to people who do not need or wish to consume more fluoride via fluoridation.

1. People have a choice to drink the water. If they are concerned then they can purchase bottled water, or use tank water etc. I am sure that most people have no problem with topical application of fluoride on their skin (but the crackpots probably do)

On the issue of efficiency and cost benifits... how much extra is a healthy person who doesn't need fluoridation going to have to pay for 'bottled water' or a 'water tank'?

Clearly it's going to accumulate into thousands of dollars per year.

The evidence is out there.... you know the evidence for the efficacy, NOT for the mind control effects of fluoride.

Efficiency means; the accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort.

Also, I note that, even with your self acknowledged expertise in studies, failed to provide a single published study proving that the cost of fluoride outweighs its benefits. I have provided 2 studies proving that dental health is improved.

These studies show less caries, BUT notes a trade off between less caries and increased dental fluorosis. Even without considering any other physiological effects, what is the cost benefit to the considerable number who suffer fluorisis?

'
It is much more professional to support proven, undisputed public health initiatives where the benefit of the program clearly outweighs the cost, than to burden our young ones with propaganda and hyperbole.

Julia,
As for why? It is obviously known that as a public health initiative, benefits outweigh costs.

You did refer to toxicity, and this explains that it is toxic, but in its indicated use, clearly has a public health benefit.

2. I did not post them to show that there were no side effects, only to show efficacy.

4. No, my conclusion takes into account a clear public health benefit, versus no proven cost benefit loss against fluoridation.

So in summary, you say fluoridation is an efficient way to reduce caries. I agree, albeit cheap and nasty because it's indiscriminate, not targeting the people with poor dental health because they drink less water (as opposed to sugary drinks) anyway.

You keep harping on about a clear public health benefit where the benefits outweigh the costs, yet have provided absolutely no evidence or links to economic studies, in particular including the costs transferred to local water authorities who have to wear and pass on increased running costs and to the general population who have to buy bottled water or install a water tank for reasons of allergies or other conditions reactive to fluoride, or not wanting or needing to ingest more fluoride.

 

[medicowallet]

Ok, medicowallet... lets start from the start.


I guess we all should have asked why you find this topic quite amusing?

Your statements have a clear disrespect for the cost and inconvenience to people who do not need or wish to consume more fluoride via fluoridation.

On the issue of efficiency and cost benifits... how much extra is a healthy person who doesn't need fluoridation going to have to pay for 'bottled water' or a 'water tank'?

Clearly it's going to accumulate into thousands of dollars per year.

Efficiency means; the accomplishment of or ability to accomplish a job with a minimum expenditure of time and effort.

These studies show less caries, BUT notes a trade off between less caries and increased dental fluorosis. Even without considering any other physiological effects, what is the cost benefit to the considerable number who suffer fluorisis?

So in summary, you say fluoridation is an efficient way to reduce caries. I agree, albeit cheap and nasty because it's indiscriminate, not targeting the people with poor dental health because they drink less water (as opposed to sugary drinks) anyway.

You keep harping on about a clear public health benefit where the benefits outweigh the costs, yet have provided absolutely no evidence or links to economic studies, in particular including the costs transferred to local water authorities who have to wear and pass on increased running costs and to the general population who have to buy bottled water or install a water tank for reasons of allergies or other conditions reactive to fluoride, or not wanting or needing to ingest more fluoride.

Wow.

Firstly, there is a difference between the word efficacy and efficiency, perhaps a google will help you.

Secondly, you and others seem to think that it is my argument that there is a benefit, perhaps you can read this and make up your mind from the document as to whether there is a benefit.

http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/cdoe319to321/en/index.html

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water/en/

thirdly, I don't think that the population of Australia should be hekd to ransiom by people who erroneously believe that fluoride is detrimental to the health of the community. For if we do, then the other minority groups (eg the anti-immunisation crowd) will be empowered to pursue their flawed campaigns too.

Why should the population have to pay more for medical care just because the smallest minority believe in a ridiculous conspiracy theory? Public health benefits the population, and unforunately in that situation, sometimes the minority is affected.

Let's take for example the medicare levy as a rough example. I pay it to insure others, do I need it? heck no, do I pay it, surely do, I pay quite a bit actually. If you have a perceived detrimental effect of fluoridation, why in fact you may experience a side effect eg fluorosis, but there ARE benefits such as less cardiac complication etc which unfortunately outweigh your problem, and which we have a duty to control.


Look I understand that you do not understand public health initiatives. That is ok, but you must understand that sometimes your personal choice is detrimental to the greater good, and in this case it clearly is.



Please, since nobody is actually answering the question I have posted numerous times

Does anyone here believe that the government is intentionally poisoning the community?

Why hasn't the government withdrawn fluoridation with the greens in control of the lower house?

 

[medicowallet]

MW - try reading these........you asked to be pointed to some studies that showed fluoride in drinking water is not effective

http://www.fluoridealert.org/york-critique.htm

This is a review by Paul Connet PhD. At the end of it is a long list of references. Take your pick of the studies referred to there.

One of them is "The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay" by Mark Diedendorf:-

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/diesendorf.html
(Hmm! for some reason this link has been partially blocked, but if you Google the title you will find it.)

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/21263.php

I would also strongly suggest you watch the "Fire Water" videos, that is is you WANT to see some credible evidence that fluoride in drinking water is both useless and dangerous......... but I suspect you won't watch it, because you don't want to see the evidence. There are many reputable doctors, dentists and scientists quoted in this documentary. At least you should acquaint yourself with both sides of the picture!

I think they are interesting reading.

I do not think that opinions of professionals in the area should be taken as gospel (which is why I merely regurgitate positions of bodies such as the WHO, or from positions formed by quality researchers in quality, peer reviewed journals).


"fire water"

written and researched by http://www.firewaterfilm.com/apps/profile/70833549/

Hardly a world expert on the subject. I note the degree qualifications, and hence will not waste my time watching his "stories" whilst I could read the WHO systematic reviews.

 

[Whiskers]

Wow.

Firstly, there is a difference between the word efficacy and efficiency, perhaps a google will help you.

Efficacy is the capacity for producing a desired (singular) result, effectiveness in reducing caries. That is the singular focus of many of the pro fluoride lobby.

You implied that efficacy was efficient with your much touted clear public health benifit where the benifits clearly outweigh the costs. That is why I refered to your reference as "albeit cheap and nasty".

You will notice that I introduced the word efficiency with cost benifit as a component of that supposedly clear cost benefit, ahead of your efficiacy quote... because efficiency involves competency in performance.

Secondly, you and others seem to think that it is my argument that there is a benefit, perhaps you can read this and make up your mind from the document as to whether there is a benefit.

http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/cdoe319to321/en/index.html

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water/en/

Where is the reference to an economic study of net community cost benifit, ie including taking into account all the passed on and off loaded costs by government.

thirdly, I don't think that the population of Australia should be hekd to ransiom by people who erroneously believe that fluoride is detrimental to the health of the community.

The ones that are "hekd to ransiom" are the majority of the population that have good teeth without fluoridation of the water supply. I have no problems with fluoride tooth paste etc. People can choose to use it or not at no extra cost to anyone. Most including me do use it as an adequate means of dental hygene.

For if we do, then the other minority groups (eg the anti-immunisation crowd) will be empowered to pursue their flawed campaigns too.

Struth, medicowallet... you sure have a lot of cynical bees under your bonnet. I'm more concerned, as you say you have a lot of experience in public health, that this sort of illogical, even non sensical rational is used in the health system to justify mass fluoridation.

Why should the population have to pay more for medical care just because the smallest minority believe in a ridiculous conspiracy theory?

A better and more relevant question is "Why should the population have to pay more for medical care just because the smallest minority" don't have good dental health?

Let's take for example the medicare levy as a rough example. I pay it to insure others, do I need it? heck no, do I pay it, surely do, I pay quite a bit actually. If you have a perceived detrimental effect of fluoridation, why in fact you may experience a side effect eg fluorosis, but there ARE benefits such as less cardiac complication etc which unfortunately outweigh your problem, and which we have a duty to control.

Really, reference to "less cardiac complication etc" please and particularly the cost analysis to show "which unfortunately outweigh your problem".

 

[medicowallet]

Efficacy is the capacity for producing a desired (singular) result, effectiveness in reducing caries. That is the singular focus of many of the pro fluoride lobby.

You implied that efficacy was efficient with your much touted clear public health benifit where the benifits clearly outweigh the costs. That is why I refered to your reference as "albeit cheap and nasty".

You will notice that I introduced the word efficiency with cost benifit as a component of that supposedly clear cost benefit, ahead of your efficiacy quote... because efficiency involves competency in performance.



Where is the reference to an economic study of net community cost benifit, ie including taking into account all the passed on and off loaded costs by government.



The ones that are "hekd to ransiom" are the majority of the population that have good teeth without fluoridation of the water supply. I have no problems with fluoride tooth paste etc. People can choose to use it or not at no extra cost to anyone. Most including me do use it as an adequate means of dental hygene.



Struth, medicowallet... you sure have a lot of cynical bees under your bonnet. I'm more concerned, as you say you have a lot of experience in public health, that this sort of illogical, even non sensical rational is used in the health system to justify mass fluoridation.



A better and more relevant question is "Why should the population have to pay more for medical care just because the smallest minority" don't have good dental health?



Really, reference to "less cardiac complication etc" please and particularly the cost analysis to show "which unfortunately outweigh your problem".

1. I wish I had the time to link to all your spelling mistakes. note that with held, k is next to l on the keyboard. Please don't resort to such pettiness.

2. I don't have to reference to cardiac benefits of good dental health, that is common knowledge so I shall not waste my time.

3. I never said that the WHO publication included the information that you bolded. I do not really know of any WHO public health initiative which costs the community more than the benefits, perhaps you do?

4. I think you will find that the cost benefit is in favour of fluoridation, that is why we do it!!

Why else would we do it?

 

[Ruby]

I do not think that opinions of professionals in the area should be taken as gospel (which is why I merely regurgitate positions of bodies such as the WHO, or from positions formed by quality researchers in quality, peer reviewed journals).


"fire water"

written and researched by http://www.firewaterfilm.com/apps/profile/70833549/

Hardly a world expert on the subject. I note the degree qualifications, and hence will not waste my time watching his "stories" whilst I could read the WHO systematic reviews.

You asked for some studies, and when I provided the links, you dismissed them.

So in other words you are not interested in listening to any opinions or points of view if they differ from yours, even the opinions of your peers - scientists, doctors, dentists - many of whom are violently opposed to the addition of fluoride to the water.

Clearly you also condone the principle of medicating people without permission - something a doctor is not allowed to do - and of using a non-pharmecutical grade substance, which has not been approved by the TGA, with which to medicate the population.

You have a very closed mind.

 

[medicowallet]

You asked for some studies, and when I provided the links, you dismissed them.

So in other words you are not interested in listening to any opinions or points of view if they differ from yours, even the opinions of your peers - scientists, doctors, dentists - many of whom are violently opposed to the addition of fluoride to the water.

Clearly you also condone the principle of medicating people without permission - something a doctor is not allowed to do - and of using a non-pharmecutical grade substance, which has not been approved by the TGA, with which to medicate the population.

You have a very closed mind.

No, I did not dismiss them out of denial, but out of lack of quality. There is a difference.

I said I was after peer reviewed published studies.

I do condone public health initiatives that give people the facts.

 

[Whiskers]

4. I think you will find that the cost benefit is in favour of fluoridation, that is why we do it!!

You "think"... thats a long way from a 'clear public health benefit'.

Medicowallet doesn't seem to be able to find any holistic economic study into the cost and cost shifting of fluoridation. Can anyone help us out with this one?

Why else would we do it?

Sometimes as a result of lobying from vested interest groups, ideoligical politicans and corrupt persuasion, just to name a few common reasons why poor, inefficient, economic and social decisions are often made by government.


I refer you back to your point of reference, Public Health.

The focus of public health intervention is to prevent rather than treat a disease through surveillance of cases and the promotion of healthy behaviors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health

Apart from the lack of holistic economic data to support the net total cost saving to the community of fluoridation, it goes against the notion of Public Health Intervention... ie to promote healthy behavours.

The Public Health Departments promotion of healthy behaviours for dental hygene is getting less and less.

This is what most people object to about flouridation. It's not about promoting healthy behavior, just mass medication to try to catch the few and limit the effects of their poor dental hygene rather than a bit more effort targeting them for education or treatment if necessary.

Often the best education on healthy behaviour in this issue is incorporated with the visits for treatment of existing decay.

 

[Julia]

1. I wish I had the time to link to all your spelling mistakes. note that with held, k is next to l on the keyboard. Please don't resort to such pettiness.

Oh dear, MW, how mean spirited to feel the need to pick on spelling errors, possibly typos, which make no difference to the sense of what Whiskers is saying.
Is that really the behaviour of someone confident in his argument? We all have different backgrounds. Some of us were rigidly schooled in spelling and others were not. It is not the mark of the person. Shame on you.

2. I don't have to reference to cardiac benefits of good dental health, that is common knowledge so I shall not waste my time.

How utterly patronising. We all acquire our 'knowledge' in different ways and from different sources. As you are so fond of telling us you are a Medical Health Professional, please note capitals according due respect to your status.

So we would expect you to be cognisant of various medical knowledge not widely accessed by the rest of us. If you were less conscious of maintaining your egocentricity, you would give Whiskers the information he has sought.

I've said all I have to say about the fluoridation of the water supply. I am opposed to it absolutely on the basis that it is mass medication when a valid alternative exists, i.e. those who want it can take supplementary fluoride.

And I don't want to become again embroiled in a squabble. I'm just disappointed that you are again doing what you do so consistently, MW, i.e. adopting some sort of moral, intellectual and educational high ground where you feel the need to put others down for their genuinely held views.