Fluoride

[medicowallet]

Very likely true but I suppose it's another example of benefits v risks in consideration of skin cancers. It could be argued that a melanoma is probably a greater risk than osteoporosis.
At least some of the risk of reduced Vit D seems to have been addressed with the addition of Vit D to most of the bone building medications prescribed for osteoporosis.

I agree, I was just using it to highlight some evidence of Vit D deficiency.

 

[Whiskers]

I'm reluctant to enter the fray on this. However, that's a reasonable point to make.
But I'm not sure such a comment is always completely valid on the basis that many publications have their own agenda, and will refuse to publish what doesn't accord with that agenda. Ditto in some cases the peer review process.

Julia, I'm on a fishing trip with these fella's, but the highlighted bit is the point I'm after.
____________________________________

Just to recap my point from a few posts back now, for all my followers that Billyb in particular seems to fear , there are many qualifications in the research that we are presented with that the average person isn't aware of and extremists try to gloss over or omit to consider all together.

Often what is not said or present(ed) can say or pose more questions than answers.


The ARCPOH child dental health surveys for example:

1. Data items are not collected uniformly across all states and territories.
   
2. New South Wales are excluded due to a lack of representativeness of the sample.
   
3. There are no formal sessions of calibration or instruction in diagnosis undertaken for the purpose of the survey, and there are no repeat examinations for the purpose of assessing inter- or intra-examiner reliability.
   
4. The data for the Child Dental Health Survey are derived from routine examinations of children enrolled in the school dental services. Children not enrolled with the school dental service are not represented in the sample.
5. the estimates cannot be applied to children who are not enrolled in the school dental services. Consequently, the results do not represent the complete Australian child population.​
6. There are some variations among state and territory programs with respect to priority age groups and the nature of services. As a consequence, there are variations in the extent of enrolment in school dental services, with some jurisdictions serving more than 80% of primary school children and others serving lower percentages.​

1, So it isn't published, nor peer reviewed...

That was my point... it was not published, nor mentioned anywhere to qualify the research presented by ARCPOH in the Child Dental Health Survey.

The obvious question is why, and the apparent answer is that it has a significant impact on the findings of their research and major sponser, Colgate, who has been a close associate with ALCOA from the initiation of fluoridation. Adgenda? Terms of reference of research?

2. Was not referring to fluorosis (good try to get back onto that insignificant point you hold so dear), I was referring to age of tooth eruption.

But the main point of my question which you evade again, was

Show me any of your peer reviewed research that allows for Vitamin D, or more particularly proximity to equator...
​

You bought into the debate on fluorosis (and other influences and side effects) which are a consequence.

Vitamin D Status is very much related to Latitude.. because it is UVB not UVA that makes Vitamin D... And Rickets is associated with age of Teeth Eruption ..

If there is a resurgence of Rickets in Australia that is just a Visible Tip of a wider
Vitamin Deficiency and Insufficiency Epidemic.

Teeth Health is Strongly associated with Vitamin D Status.

( Whiskers it is a Universal Cause and as such an Invisible one to most of these Studies on Fluoride refer last postings in the Vitamin D Thread )

Qld has clear advantages over Southern States
You would make some Vitmin D even with casual Sun Exposure
Maybe all through the Year at least in the middle of the Day
( Again the recent MS study )

Yes, I totally agree with you motorway.

But the point I'm driving at is in none of the peer reviewed pro fluoridation research that I've seen makes any allowance for Vitamin D.

Also since Qld has significant immigration from the southern states, there is also no consideration for that in the ARCPOH child dental health surveys.

Someone may be able to provide the socioeconomic data of those immigrants from the southern states, but from my experience many have moved to Qld because it was too expensive for them to live down south and settled in vast new rural residential areas where dental services are totally absent.

Isn't this another strong case NOT to need fluoridation in Qld?

"Teeth Health is Strongly associated with Vitamin D Status."

 

[motorway]

Julia, I'm on a fishing trip with these fella's, but the highlighted bit is the point I'm after.
____________________________________



Isn't this another strong case NOT to need fluoridation in Qld?

"Teeth Health is Strongly associated with Vitamin D Status."

ON balance Absolutely.... But you have significant Ignorance on what is necessary for optimum health. eg Julia states that Bones supplements have alleviated the need for Vitamin D .... Tell that to the Children born to Vitamins D deficient Mothers ! ==> And they were not some selected sample .. They were just AVERAGE mothers.

Many many minerals and vitamins are necessary for optimal Health. Fluoride does NOT appear to be TOP of that list.

Do a Search for Triage Theory and Bruce Ames

Melanoma ? One significant form is certainly NOT correlated positively with UVB exposure QUITE the contrary ...

I am all for people being responsible for their own Health and free to make their OWN choices.

Motorway

 

[Billyb]

Just to recap my point from a few posts back now, for all my followers

Lol, you are deluded.

That was my point... it was not published, nor mentioned anywhere to qualify the research presented by ARCPOH in the Child Dental Health Survey.

Not published. No evidence. So the data may not even exist, it might have been made up by some crackjob anti-fluoridist!! We (logical people) don't care for those sorts of unsubstantiated craps.

The ARCPOH child dental health surveys for example:

1. 
   "

1. 
   Yes, the Arcpoh statistics are unreliable. You spurt it all over the place when the statistics suit you, but when you want to paint them as 'misleading the public', you say their data is unreliable. How convenient for you!
   
   

   Thats deciduous (d)ecay, (m)issing, (f)illed (t)eeth (dmft)... NOT permanent teeth (DMFT).

   
   You fail to understand. If QLD children are losing their decidous teeth early (due to no WF) they would also have earlier eruption of permanent teeth. Don't refer to ARCPOH statistics if you think it's wrong.
   
   The vitamin D point is a very good point. Before we get excited and start blaming it on the alleged delayed eruption times in other states, it would be wise to actually see some (proper) data which actually shows (in an unbiased fashion) the eruption times of QLD versus other states.

 

[medicowallet]

1. I DID NOT bring up fluoridation YOU DID. Stop trying to put words into my mouth.

2. I think your players do not understand dmft and DMFT and I also suspect they may be misrepresenting NHMRC wrt to these terms.

if someone is using dmft, then the person in the fluoridated area (whom you believe has delayed eruption of teeth), should have worse deciduous teeth, especially at older age groups as on average they have these teeth longer. I have looked at fig 14, and moving the <0.3 to the appropriate >0.7 column does, in no way support your argument.

I suggest you read the relevant fluoridation areas in the following two links, to help educate you on the science of fluoridation.

I particularly appreciated the easy to decipher graphs (fig 14 and on) in the ARCPOH

http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/html_files/cdhs2002.pdf
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/Eh41_Flouridation_PART_A.pdf

 

[Julia]

ON balance Absolutely.... But you have significant Ignorance on what is necessary for optimum health. eg Julia states that Bones supplements have alleviated the need for Vitamin D .... Tell that to the Children born to Vitamins D deficient Mothers

Motorway, kindly do not distort my remarks.
I simply made the factual observation that Vit D has been added to the bone building medications designed to assist with osteoporosis.

I have made no comment about what is needed for 'optimum health', neither do I feel any need to tell anything to the children born to Vit D deficient mothers.

The problem with zealots is that they lose any sense of rational objectivity and confuse simple comments with pronouncements about something else entirely.

 

[motorway]

I'm reluctant to enter the fray on this. However, that's a reasonable point to make.
But I'm not sure such a comment is always completely valid on the basis that many publications have their own agenda, and will refuse to publish what doesn't accord with that agenda. Ditto in some cases the peer review process.


Very likely true but I suppose it's another example of benefits v risks in consideration of skin cancers. It could be argued that a melanoma is probably a greater risk than osteoporosis.
At least some of the risk of reduced Vit D seems to have been addressed with the addition of Vit D to most of the bone building medications prescribed for osteoporosis.

As the thread is about Fluoride and dental health
I took your comments as you stated them
and they followed my posting on the issue were I pointed to Vit D as a concern.

" the risk of reduced Vit D seems to have been addressed with the addition of Vit D to most of the bone building medications"

I disagree I doubt that makes me a Zealot
I tend to think your statement is wrong !

I think that==>

Very little risk of vitamin D deficiency is addressed by the small amounts in Bone supplements

esp regarding health of children or their Dental Health

Whatever " bone meds " those mothers in the Study were taking ( If any ) IT IS CLEARLY NOT ADDRESSING
VITAMIN D RISK as you posted .

Quotes from the actual study

Of 147 women who were studied late in pregnancy (at a mean of 35 weeks’ gestation), about 40% had vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency (serum 25[OH]D concentrations ≤ 50 nmol/L). Most of the women in this study were not white, and ethnicity, occupational status and season, not surprisingly, all influenced 25(OH)D concentrations, while body mass index did not. Perhaps more surprisingly, however, 25(OH)D concentrations were inversely associated with fasting and 2-hour glucose levels measured during an oral glucose tolerance test and with the marker of glycaemic control, glycated haemoglobin. Most importantly, serum 25(OH)D was an independent predictor of glycaemic control.

The public health implications of vitamin D deficiency in pregnancy are far broader than glycaemic control. In Australia, there has been a resurgence of rickets ”” partly owing to an increased refugee population comprising dark-skinned and veiled women with vitamin D deficiency, and also because of decreased exposure of babies to sunlight, lack of supplementation of infant feeds with vitamin D and weaning of infants onto non-milk liquids.

Milder forms of bone disease may also occur with vitamin D deficiency. Recently, a study that used three-dimensional ultrasonography in pregnant women showed that vitamin D deficiency was associated with increased femur metaphyseal cross-sectional area and increased femur splaying (the ratio of femoral metaphyseal cross-sectional area to femoral length) at as early as 19 weeks’ gestation.11 In addition, it was previously shown that children born to mothers with vitamin D deficiency (< 50 nmol/L) during pregnancy exhibit deficits in total body bone mineral content as great as 11% at 9 years of age.12 This could lead to an increased risk of osteoporotic fracture later in adult life, but this is unlikely to be evaluated in long-term studies.

In addition, maternal or early life vitamin D deficiency has been linked to an increased risk of several other disorders, including neonatal craniotabes, prematurity, type 1 diabetes mellitus, schizophrenia, and childhood respiratory infections and wheeze.13,14

Current evidence strongly supports routine screening for vitamin D deficiency early in pregnancy. Furthermore, vitamin D supplementation to correct deficiency should be initiated early in pregnancy as it might reduce the incidence or severity of GDM and because changes in skeletal morphology of the fetus associated with deficiency are seen as early as 19 weeks’ gestation. The most common recommended daily doses of cholecalciferol are 1000 IU–2000 IU, however, daily doses of up to 4000 IU have recently been shown to be safe in pregnancy (Bruce W Hollis, Professor, Department of Paediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina, USA, personal communication).

The Woman Interviewed on ABC News last night looked to Me a fair skinned Caucasian.
She could not believe that she could be so Vitamin D deficient ! She was part of the Study.

Again I doubt the small amounts in BONE MEDS have resolved any risk to these children of Vitamin D Deficient Mothers ..... as I took your statement to imply

at least some of the risk of reduced Vit D seems to have been addressed with the addition of Vit D to most of the bone building medications prescribed for osteoporosis.

Strongly Disagree ... And Also to your Zealot tag.

What do you think teeth are made of ?
Do you think Vitamin D would play a role ?
How would the small amounts in most Bone Supplements help against carries and periodontal diseases ?

Julia I was taking your comments In context of the Thread



Vitamin D status and periodontal disease among pregnant women
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20809861


Low vitamin D status likely contributes to the link between periodontal disease and breast cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21437609

Motorway

 

[Whiskers]

1. I DID NOT bring up fluoridation YOU DID. Stop trying to put words into my mouth.

BUT, you were replying to my post about the integrity of the fluoridation research. Your comment below.

What journal was this published in, so that I can analyse the methodology, sampling and bias myself.

eg did they control for Vitamin D etc. (You do realise that Vitamin D deficiency can result in delayed expression of teeth and that Queensland has a thing called sunshine?)

I doubt it.

No doubt it is another unpublished biased, unscientific study you are trying to peddle to the masses.

I'm not disputing that Vit D has a significant influence. The whole gist of my crititism of the pro fluoridation research is there are many things that isn't taken into account... or as we are tending to see, not published... presumabely because it clashes with the adgenda of the particular research or their sponsers, in this case Colgate and their long association with ALCOA, and the American Dental Association who have been substantially muffled in their influence in the US Public Health System.

So, where is Vit D considered and adjusted for in any of the ARCPOH research?

2. I think your players

My players! I'm my own person, just asking some simple questions that the pro fluoridation lobby find uncomfortable.

do not understand dmft and DMFT and I also suspect they may be misrepresenting NHMRC wrt to these terms.

I do... I highlighted the difference between dmft and DMFT in my earlier post. Read again.

if someone is using dmft, then the person in the fluoridated area (whom you believe has delayed eruption of teeth),

Hang on mate... you introduced the arguement about Vit D and delayed eruption. I don't dissagree with it, but the point is, since you think it's a significant issue, where is it considered and allowed for in the research?

should have worse deciduous teeth, especially at older age groups as on average they have these teeth longer. I have looked at fig 14, and moving the <0.3 to the appropriate >0.7 column does, in no way support your argument.

Well, by your criteria, your opinion here is no more valid than that which you criticize.

I suggest you read the relevant fluoridation areas in the following two links, to help educate you on the science of fluoridation.

I particularly appreciated the easy to decipher graphs (fig 14 and on) in the ARCPOH

http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/html_files/cdhs2002.pdf
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/Eh41_Flouridation_PART_A.pdf

Oh yes, the science... the quality and bias of!

I'm familiar with those links and the most pertenant issue is the frequency of that term efficacy (the ability to produce a desired or intended result) the pro fluoridation lobby like to throw around, that is too often confused with the holostic (economic) efficiency of fluoridation.

The other significant point is that both reports are reports are essentially done by the same people from the same data... and doesn't change anything about the questions I'm trying to get you to answer about the holistic economics of fluoridation, the degree and prevelance of fluorosis and your latest offering to side step the previous issues... the impact of Vit D in this research.

You introduced Vit D into the debate, where is it considered and allowed for in the fluioridation research?

 

[Whiskers]

Lol, you are deluded.

Nah, just responding to your earlier fear of 'my following'.

This is what you said a couple of pages back.

I don't post to argue with these sort of people, I post so that other people don't read his posts and get the wrong information.

Not published. No evidence. So the data may not even exist, it might have been made up by some crackjob anti-fluoridist!! We (logical people) don't care for those sorts of unsubstantiated craps.

If you doubt it you get a FOI copy and show us.

Yes, the Arcpoh statistics are unreliable. You spurt it all over the place when the statistics suit you, but when you want to paint them as 'misleading the public', you say their data is unreliable. How convenient for you!

I'm simply highlighting the qualifications that they have to include with their research to avoid litigation and continue to get government funding... that many including you seem to miss the significance of.

You fail to understand. If QLD children are losing their decidous teeth early (due to no WF) they would also have earlier eruption of permanent teeth. Don't refer to ARCPOH statistics if you think it's wrong.

The only reason I refer to ARCPOH is that is what the Qld Gov based their arguement on... and to highlight the shortcomings of that research and the Qld Gov decision.

The vitamin D point is a very good point. Before we get excited and start blaming it on the alleged delayed eruption times in other states, it would be wise to actually see some (proper) data which actually shows (in an unbiased fashion) the eruption times of QLD versus other states.

Now we're on the same page.

But Billy, before we wander too far off track again... could you spell out the physiological function/effect of fluoridation, please?

I still want to work through this process with you.

 

[medicowallet]

Lol whiskers, keep on digging, I mentioned that it was potentially vitamin D that changed eruption times, and even though it is a known fact that Vitamin D can alter eruption, it is purely my own theory that the Queensland data may be explained by this, hence I did not refer to it in the context that you believe.

If you carefully read the post, it is in fact YOUR post which makes the point that FLUORIDE changes eruption, and THIS is what I am referring to, you know the part whereby YOU state that Queensland children have earlier tooth eruption. You are obviously not a clear enough reader to get this point.

Perhaps this will remind you

if someone is using dmft, then the person in the fluoridated area (whom you believe has delayed eruption of teeth), should have worse deciduous teeth, especially at older age groups as on average they have these teeth longer. I have looked at fig 14, and moving the <0.3 to the appropriate >0.7 column does, in no way support your argument.

Please, CAREFULLY read it again, at the level that any semi-competent scientist would, then you would not continuously make such elementary mistakes.


I also note how you have absolutely no comment, apart from denial about the extremely well presented, clear evidence in the graphs which the link refers to, and you are apparently so familiar with.

So I will spell it out VERY clearly.

1. Where is the rebuttal to the data listed in this study which disproves the conclusions it draws? (clearly this data has been available for a while, enough time to be debated by the conspiracy theorists, and PUBLISHED)

2. How come adjustment (which I have tried to explain, would actually be detrimental to fluoridation) of the data allowing for supposed changes in tooth eruption STILL supports fluoridation.


But NO, once again, in your denial and brainwashed idealogies you will NEVER look at, nor attempt to address these simple statistics, which, if you could disprove would ensure abolition of fluoridation worldwide. Something people smarter than you and I have been trying to do for years, in their conspiracy theorist guise.

I enjoy reading your posts, it makes me realise that you are clearly deranged in your belief that fluoridation is undesirable to the population, and I pity anyone who does not share your view on something you are clearly not educated about, for they will never be able to enlighten you about your derangement as you are clearly not ever going to accept clear, proven, undisputable data.

 

[Whiskers]

Lol whiskers, keep on digging, I mentioned that it was potentially vitamin D that changed eruption times, and even though it is a known fact that Vitamin D can alter eruption, it is purely my own theory that the Queensland data may be explained by this, hence I did not refer to it in the context that you believe.

Ok, well I won't waste any more time getting off track chasing your 'theoritical' red herrings.

If you carefully read the post, it is in fact YOUR post which makes the point that FLUORIDE changes eruption, and THIS is what I am referring to, you know the part whereby YOU state that Queensland children have earlier tooth eruption. You are obviously not a clear enough reader to get this point.

Wrong. I did not.

Gees mate, it would be good if you could check for the "quote". You will find that I posted an email from Queenslanders For Safe Water on behalf of Fluoride Action Network Australia Inc who made the statement.

What I said is "Confirms my suspicions on the verasity of the representation of fluoridation research, in particular that part that is unpublished".

Please, CAREFULLY read it again, at the level that any semi-competent scientist would, then you would not continuously make such elementary mistakes.

I also pointed out that; "Also since Qld has significant immigration from the southern states, there is also no consideration for that in the ARCPOH child dental health surveys."

There are too many variables that are not considered in that research to even contemplate a simple juggling of data like you did as a plausible mitigation. Your assumption is flawed because it doesn't take into account the different states in fig 14 that the research ultimately defines the summary in.

My original comment stands... "by your criteria, your opinion here is no more valid than that which you criticize."

I also note how you have absolutely no comment, apart from denial about the extremely well presented, clear evidence in the graphs which the link refers to, and you are apparently so familiar with.

Oh yes it's extremely well presented...BUT, I'm not interested in nice presentation. I'm after quality and relevant substance... so I'll highlight this time what's important so you get it.

...the most pertenant issue is the frequency of that term efficacy (the ability to produce a desired or intended result) the pro fluoridation lobby like to throw around, that is too often confused with the holostic (economic) efficiency of fluoridation.

The other significant point is that both reports are reports are essentially done by the same people from the same data... and doesn't change anything about the questions I'm trying to get you to answer about the holistic economics of fluoridation, the degree and prevelance of fluorosis and your latest offering to side step the previous issues... the impact of Vit D in this research.

​

Also, did you forget;

You introduced Vit D into the debate, where is it considered and allowed for in the fluioridation research?
​

Page, paragraph or a snip would be good.

 

[medicowallet]

I'll once again refrain from posting anymore with you Whiskers.

you have ZERO credibility, so one last attempt to make you actually think for yourself rather than regurgitate tainted information from propaganda rich sites, awash with unpublished, poorly researched and executed data of extremely questionable nature.

firstly you deny that you highlighted the fact that queensland teeth erupt 2 years earlier and that the explanation is due to lack of fluoridation. You are clearly in denial, deluded and immature in this argument.

Then you support it with

The obvious question is why, and the apparent answer is that it has a significant impact on the findings of their research and major sponser, Colgate, who has been a close associate with ALCOA from the initiation of fluoridation. Adgenda? Terms of reference of research?

On one hand you want me to explain my personal theory and on the other hand dismiss it. I find that laughable.

but to give you a starting point to understand human anatomy and physiology, I shall refer you to some medical references in relation to it.

1. Guyton and Hall
2. Ganong medical physiology
3. Berne and Levy.
4. Harrison's principles of internal medicine.

I will also provide an interesting link which I found with a 20 second google, and by using the knowledge I have afforded you regarding increasing levels of vitamin D deficiency in Australia, it might help you actually think about Vitamin D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2850297


I also note how you once again do not pay any attention to the FACTS as published.

So, I ask AGAIN.

where is the published rebuttal against the evidence I put forward or where is a published study disproving the information contained in it. Scuttle my argument if you can.

You also cannot think logically.

As Vit D actually IMPROVES tooth mineralisation AND speeds eruptions, then logically, it should make the effects of fluoridation look WORSE, when in fact the people with fluoridated water CLEARLY have improved dental health. I look forward to your ignorance of this point.


Fluoridation is an extremely simple concept, supported by published, peer reviewed data, supported by a quality systematic review, which you will not acknowledge at all.

There is a massive difference between you and the likes of myself and Bill.

We use published, peer reviewed data of high quality.

You use unpublished, non-peer reviewed data featured on anti-fluoridation websites.

You are rightly laughed off by professionals, and hence I shall not waste any more of my time as I have garnered enough information in my research to allow me to confidently support fluoridation in my dealings with colleagues and patients. Until such time as a study can be produced which says there is a negative benefit-cost analysis, your stance is pointless and irresponsible, and as a professional it would be unethical of me to consider such a flawed view as credible.

I do however thank you for providing me with some of the concerns that conspiracy theorists hold dear, as I now feel more comfortable in my ability to discuss such terms using logic to help address their beliefs.

 

[Julia]

Motorway, my comment was made in reference to osteoporosis, this having been raised in a previous post.

Therefore the 'bone building' medications referred to were those designed to reduce the progression of osteoporosis, eg biphosphonates. (Fosamax Plus et al)
They have some Vit D added.
I did not comment on how much.

Pregnant women and their offspring are a completely different subject.

I have nothing further to say about this and certainly have no interest in engaging in any discussion about Vit D in pregnant women.

 

[Whiskers]

I'll once again refrain from posting anymore with you Whiskers.

Yeah, rightio... you'll be back. :

So, I ask AGAIN.

where is the published rebuttal against the evidence I put forward or where is a published study disproving the information contained in it. Scuttle my argument if you can.

I already have a few posts back. As I explained because those links are essentially the same data by the same researchers as ARCPOH, so it suffers from the same problem.

Often what is not said or present(ed) can say or pose more questions than answers.


The ARCPOH child dental health surveys for example:

1. Data items are not collected uniformly across all states and territories.
2. New South Wales are excluded due to a lack of representativeness of the sample.
3. There are no formal sessions of calibration or instruction in diagnosis undertaken for the purpose of the survey, and there are no repeat examinations for the purpose of assessing inter- or intra-examiner reliability.
4. The data for the Child Dental Health Survey are derived from routine examinations of children enrolled in the school dental services. Children not enrolled with the school dental service are not represented in the sample.
5. the estimates cannot be applied to children who are not enrolled in the school dental services. Consequently, the results do not represent the complete Australian child population.​
6. There are some variations among state and territory programs with respect to priority age groups and the nature of services. As a consequence, there are variations in the extent of enrolment in school dental services, with some jurisdictions serving more than 80% of primary school children and others serving lower percentages.​

As Vit D actually IMPROVES tooth mineralisation AND speeds eruptions, then logically, it should make the effects of fluoridation look WORSE,

True

when in fact the people with fluoridated water CLEARLY have improved dental health.

No, they don't!

The logic is in the fact that we were comparing caries between Qld and the other states.

Show me where your fig 14 compares Qld to the other states . It doesn't! You are just juggling some data in the Aus collective age groups. That says nothing about Qld.

What delayed eruptions in the south shows in an artifically incorrect high number of missing deciduous teeth (m) in the ARCPOH data in Qld comparable to same age groups in southern states, simply because their permenant teeth erupted earlier.

Conversely, because Qld kids have more permenant teeth for the same age group of southern kids, the way the data is presented implies that the Qld kids lost their decidious teeth earlier to decay. (Refer to item 3 above)

This is one of the main lines that Anna Bligh continually bleated for the fluoridation case accompanied by the chart below, claiming that Qld had higher DMFT in 12 yo's.

But if in fact the southern states had delayed eruption of permenant teeth, that chart shows a distorted picture, implying that 12 yo southern kids had healthier permenant teeth simply because they had less permanent teeth to be affected as DMFT as their Qld counterparts.

 

[medicowallet]

What delayed eruptions in the south shows in an artifically incorrect high number of missing deciduous teeth (m) in the ARCPOH data in Qld comparable to same age groups in southern states, simply because their permenant teeth erupted earlier.

Conversely, because Qld kids have more permenant teeth for the same age group of southern kids, the way the data is presented implies that the Qld kids lost their decidious teeth earlier to decay. (Refer to item 3 above)

Then how come across the DMFT there is also an improvement in fluoridated age groups in the same age groups lol... don't you understand this?


Also, care to read the report, they make an allowance for loss of deciduous teeth by natural causes. Also it is in the definition of dmft you useless under educated denial

 

[Whiskers]

Then how come across the DMFT there is also an improvement in fluoridated age groups in the same age groups lol... don't you understand this?

I think you are trying to use a double negative to try to make a positive, logic.

The southern states are being used as the 'standard' in this fluoridation research. So what ever they are ther are. The whole point of this Qld earlier eruption data is to show how Qld statistics are distorted.

The issue of why, ie the effect of fluoride and or other nutritional issues is the point of the need for better research and data, not for you to try to fudge that fig 14 data to guesstimate some allowance.

Instead of just trying to brow beat us into believing you, post up the charts with your workings and rationale for all to scrutinize.

Also, care to read the report, they make an allowance for loss of deciduous teeth by natural causes. Also it is in the definition of dmft you useless under educated denial

Again, I want page, paragraph or better still a snip of the section, because you guys have a poor history of quoting comments accurately, acknowledging the qualifications buried in the research, let alone interpreting those limitations and qualifications.

 

[Billyb]

What delayed eruptions in the south shows in an artifically incorrect high number of missing deciduous teeth (m) in the ARCPOH data in Qld comparable to same age groups in southern states, simply because their permenant teeth erupted earlier.

What a joke!! I WORK in the school dental service and therefore I am a contributor to that data. We do not mark a deciduous tooth as missing if the permanent tooth is there. I love how you just make any crap up to try and convince the masses. It doesn't work on logical people though.

Then how come across the DMFT there is also an improvement in fluoridated age groups in the same age groups lol... don't you understand this?

I think he has very selective understanding...he understands propaganda and crap very well but understands facts and science very poorly...

I think you are trying to use a double negative to try to make a positive, logic.

OH. MY. GOD. Are you serious? IT SHOWS <0.3PPM (basically UNFLUORIDATED) vs >0.7PPM (basically FLUORIDATED). In the SAME age group 0.7ppm has less decay than 0.3PPM!!! Don’t you get it???? Feels like talking to a brick wall.

As medicowallet said, you have zero credibility and you are starting to look like you are going into negative credibility.

This guy is a joke.
It’s still fun to read this thread though.

 

[Whiskers]

What a joke!! I WORK in the school dental service and therefore I am a contributor to that data.

Yeeeah... that's what worries me!

We do not mark a deciduous tooth as missing if the permanent tooth is there.

I didn't say you do. what I said was:

What delayed eruptions in the south shows in an artifically incorrect high number of missing deciduous teeth (m) in the ARCPOH data in Qld comparable to same age groups in southern states, simply because their permenant teeth erupted earlier.

​

...meaning in the context of the graph for 12 yo Qld children that the Qld pro fluoridation lobby favored, and Vit D or any other tooth rate eruption factors, is that you are comparing apples with oranges... you are not comparing children of the same teeth age.

OH. MY. GOD. Are you serious? IT SHOWS <0.3PPM (basically UNFLUORIDATED) vs >0.7PPM (basically FLUORIDATED). In the SAME age group 0.7ppm has less decay than 0.3PPM!!! Don’t you get it???? Feels like talking to a brick wall.

Firstly you are at all those (basically) assumptions again that do not take into account the actual teeth age, dental (lack of) services in the outback, nor any gene/race factors.

Now, you pro fluoride 'professionals' seem very lacking in the ability to post charts and diagrams with analysis to support your arguement. You tend to blah, I'm a professional BELIEVE ME!

So I've posted the chart 15 which relates to Permenant teeth. All you have to tell me is which column you want to move or compare to what and the rationale for it.

To start with tell me what you make of the blue circle and the spread between the two lines on the other chart.

 

[medicowallet]

Why have you not posted deciduous teeth?

What is your reason for the 10 year old difference?


I also like your blue line fit. Can you think of anything any more biased than what you percieve to be a trend. Note the magnitude of filled teeth whiskers.

 

[motorway]

Motorway, my comment was made in reference to osteoporosis, this having been raised in a previous post.

Therefore the 'bone building' medications referred to were those designed to reduce the progression of osteoporosis, eg biphosphonates. (Fosamax Plus et al)
They have some Vit D added.
I did not comment on how much.

Pregnant women and their offspring are a completely different subject.

I have nothing further to say about this and certainly have no interest in engaging in any discussion about Vit D in pregnant women.

OK so you point is ?

Women do not have to worry about vitamin D because they can take Fosamax AFTER They are diagnosed with Osteoporosis ?

OK I know You do not mean that

But I still do not see your point.

My point is that Vitamin D is maybe as important for Dental Health as Fluoride.
I would put forward eg the reported Dental Health of Aborigines at first contact.

Fluoride does not seem to be otherwise considered an essential trace mineral .

eg like Zinc , Selenium , Boron , Vanadium etc

Fluoride

Fluorine occurs naturally as the negatively charged ion, fluoride (F-). Fluoride is considered a trace element because only small amounts are present in the body (about 2.6 grams in adults), and because the daily requirement for maintaining dental health is only a few milligrams a day.

About 95% of the total body fluoride is found in bones and teeth (1). Although its role in the prevention of dental caries (tooth decay) is well established, fluoride is not generally considered an essential mineral element because humans do not require it for growth or to sustain life (2). However, if one considers the prevention of chronic disease (dental caries) an important criterion in determining essentiality, then fluoride might well be considered an essential trace element (3).

Function

Fluoride is absorbed in the stomach and small intestine. Once in the blood stream it rapidly enters mineralized tissue (bones and developing teeth). At usual intake levels, fluoride does not accumulate in soft tissue. The predominant mineral elements in bone are crystals of calcium and phosphate, known as hydroxyapatite crystals.

Fluoride's high chemical reactivity and small radius allow it to either displace the larger hydroxyl (-OH) ion in the hydroxyapatite crystal, forming fluoroapatite, or to increase crystal density by entering spaces within the hydroxyapatite crystal. Fluoroapatite hardens tooth enamel and stabilizes bone mineral (4).

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/fluoride/

Motorway