Fluoride

[Billyb]

Now, you pro fluoride 'professionals' seem very lacking in the ability to post charts and diagrams with analysis to support your arguement.

Yes, we tend to rely on research, not just pretty diagrams. Because we are capable enough to understand research, so we may as well use it in forming our opinions instead of just using propaganda, hearsay, news articles, pretty pictures, and biased stuff.

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

The lines you drew represent gradients, i.e rates of change of missing teeth (if you straighten them). Refer to Maths 101 for more info. The gradient in the blue line is greater than the lower line. This means the rate of losing teeth is greater in non-fluoridated towns (blue line) than in fluoridated towns …surprise surprise!!

It’s all very simple whiskers. That’s the beauty of these graphs. Problem with you is you read into it too much and try to come up with fancy anti-fluoridist reasons to post up here which never make any sense anyway.

To start with tell me what you make of the blue circle.

Could be due to any number of reasons (including statistical variation) if you are referring to it in isolation. Refer to statistics 101. But tell us your reasons for it.

 

[Whiskers]

Why have you not posted deciduous teeth?

I'll post deciduous teeth soon, but can you just try to deal with one issue at a time instead of avoiding reasonable explanations and changing the subject all the time.

We are on the subject of explaining the probable misrepresentation in that 12 yo Permanent teeth graph that Bligh used in the Qld pro fluoridation campaign... remember.

Yes, we tend to rely on research, not just pretty diagrams.

Oh, but you (pro fluoride lobby) did rely on a pretty diagram, that 12 yo graph comparing Qld against the rest of Aus, without NSW btw.

Because we are capable enough to understand research,

Gees given your record here so far on misrepresenting clearly heavily qualified data as definitive and your inability to read legal documents, I doubt it.

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

What... so Anna Bligh can draw a trend line chart from the data but when I simply join the dots of the columns to make a line chart like Bligh did, you call me biased!

Originally Posted by Billyb
The lines you drew represent gradients, i.e rates of change of missing teeth

No Billy, look closely and pay attention... it's the trend line of "decayed" teeth.

(if you straighten them).

What the hell do you want to straighten them for!?

We are talking about the probable difference in the age of permanent tooth eruption at different age groups. Straightening the line would corrupt the data.

The gradient in the blue line is greater than the lower line. This means the rate of losing teeth is greater in non-fluoridated towns (blue line) than in fluoridated towns …surprise surprise!!

No billy, it represents the trend line of decay... the permanent teeth have to decay before they are filled and or later removed. Geesus mate, for a so called professional you get plenty of elementary stuff wrong.

But the first thing to notice in the context of that 12 yo trend line chart that Anna Bligh flashed around to try to justify fluoridation, is that 12 yo is the start of the widest spread between the aqua and heavy black line. It also correlates with the blue and thin black line.

It wouldn't have been near as dramatic in misrepresenting the true data if she chose 10 or 11 yo, would it!

But even by medicowallets suggestion that Qld teeth erupt earlier due to Vit D, it also supports the data that Fluoridated areas in the south caused delayed eruption.

If that difference in eruption is two years, assuming all the non/low fluoridated areas were Qld (which they are not) by moving the non fluoridated (odd no's) to the right two columns it makes the total DMFT better than fluoridated areas for the same teeth age... even if you only move across one column (year) the difference is substantially reduced.

Additionally, since this is a national tally chart of age groups and there are substantial rural non fluoridated areas in the NT and Northern WA, especially neglected aboriginal communities you would be probably closer to the truth if you attributed about 3/4 of the non/low fluoridated areas to Qld and the other 1/4 to neglected dental (and public health generally) in rural NT and WA.

So even if you only allow one year for the delay in eruption and slice 1/4 off the non/low fluoridated columns and assume the balance is Qld, it makes the fluoridation argument look pretty sick for Qld.

Originally Posted by medicowallet
What is your reason for the 10 year old difference?

It (blue circle) correlates with your theory of early eruption of Qld, NT and rural north WA teeth as well as Queenslanders For Safe Water on behalf of Fluoride Action Network Australia Inc finding.

Originally Posted by Billyb
Could be due to any number of reasons (including statistical variation) if you are referring to it in isolation. Refer to statistics 101. But tell us your reasons for it.

Oh yeah, including statistical variation. We should remember the Child Dental Survey is also qualified by a weighting factor, their guesstimate for a number of social and environmental factors... it's a bit like their version of preferential voting ie they give more weight to people in some areas over others... but their detail is not spelt out.

But, regardless it signifies a significant period of missing permanent teeth that can best be explained by their deciduous (baby) teeth falling out and waiting for the permanent teeth to come through.

 

[medicowallet]

Whiskers, your intent is admirable, but you do realise your trend lines (apart from the top one) are meaningless.

People move from one category to another, eg a decayed tooth in a particular time, will likely move to a filled tooth.

So your mid column trend lines are absolutely meaningless. The top line (indicating a total burden) showing a clear benefit to fluoridation is the one that can easily be interpreted.

 

[Whiskers]

People move from one category to another, eg a decayed tooth in a particular time, will likely move to a filled tooth.

Yes, I pointed that progression out in the post for billy.

But the data is collected at one point in time and the point of hightlighting the lower, thin black line and blue line is to highlight the rate of progression.

So your mid column trend lines are absolutely meaningless.

Oh no the're not. Think about statistical analysis a bit more. There are legitimate questions and even conclusions that can be drawn from them.

The top line (indicating a total burden) showing a clear benefit to fluoridation is the one that can easily be interpreted.

Sooo... are you walking away from your notion of Vit D delayed eruption now?

 

[Whiskers]

If you start from scratch with no knowledge of what the chart is about, the first thing you notice is the black lines are a smooth trend line.

Then you see the blue and aqua trend lines are bumpy.

The obvious question is what is going on here to cause one set of trend lines to be smooth and the other to be bumpy.

Now start to consider that the age groups (tooth age as opposed to child age) in the < 0.3 (low/non fluoridated) is miss matched with the > 0.7 (fluoridated) columns and considering the qualifications and limitations of the research that created that data chart, not the least of which is that no checks were made to ensure that all dentist contributers were using the same criteria, plus the Vit D delayed eruption effect in southern fluoridated states and further delay by fluoride itself, then you can start to draw some logical conclusions about the accuracy of the original representation of the data.

Mull over that for awhile and carefully consider your rhetoric... before I produce the decidious (baby) teeth chart...

 

[Billyb]

No billy, it represents the trend line of decay...

I know this is a stock forum and stock technicians love their trend lines, but in statistics a trend line represents a STRAIGHT LINE through data often referring to rates of change of data. Refer to your High school maths textbooks.
Also, the lines connect the 'missing' areas on the bars - it can easily be misinterpreted what you were trying to do.

It wouldn't have been near as dramatic in misrepresenting the true data if she chose 10 or 11 yo, would it!

Yes Whiskers, we all know politicians like to do these sorts of things and are generally untrustworthy and I wouldn't rate them much better than anti-fluoridists (well, slightly) in the way they are capable of misrepresenting facts and data. But I don't give a damn. I only care about hard, unbiased facts. I know you like to find bait to keep this thread going, but let's forget about Anna Bligh for the moment and stick to the facts.

But even by medicowallets suggestion that Qld teeth erupt earlier due to Vit D, it also supports the data that Fluoridated areas in the south caused delayed eruption.

Hey, guess what, too much corn flakes causes delayed eruption too! How do I know this? Because the Corn Flakes Action Network website told me they found corrupt data in ARCPOH to show this! Why do I need to see the published data when the Corn Flakes Action Network website told me?

Does this sound like anyone you know? (hint: you)
Getting back to reality: There’s no point talking about delayed eruption till you provide some research that studied this topic and made that conclusion. Same with Vit D.

But, regardless it signifies a significant period of missing permanent teeth that can best be explained by their deciduous (baby) teeth falling out and waiting for the permanent teeth to come through.

yes "Dr Wiskers', I appreciate your opinion based on your clinical and pediatric knowledge/experience and your education in dentistry. Oh wait, you don't have any of those things, no wonder what you're saying sounds like horse**** to me.
It's a nice try whiskers but all you're doing is winging it and making crap up without any evidence OR clinical experience for what you’re saying.

Sooo... are you walking away from your notion of Vit D delayed eruption now?

You just like to twist anything anyone says and you like to sick to it like honey don’t you. I tend to remember him conceding that it is only his theory that QLD data may be caused by this. NOT FORGETTING the most important thing.

NO RESEARCH YET THAT SHOWS DELAYED ERUPTION DUE TO FLURIDE IN THE WATER, JUST SOME SILLY EMAIL FROM THE “FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK” to 'DR WHISKERS". Perhaps we should stop assuming it’s true.

Sorry for the long post, too much BS to sift through and reply to. You have way too much time to be able to come up with so many BS explanations in data. If you look at graphs hard enough you might see some unicorns and lepricorns too!

 

[Billyb]

Now start to consider that the age groups (tooth age as opposed to child age) in the < 0.3 (low/non fluoridated) is miss matched with the > 0.7 (fluoridated) columns and considering the qualifications and limitations of the research that created that data chart, not the least of which is that no checks were made to ensure that all dentist contributers were using the same criteria, plus the Vit D delayed eruption effect in southern fluoridated states and further delay by fluoride itself, then you can start to draw some logical conclusions about the accuracy of the original representation of the data.

I find it hilarious that you spend so much time drawing trend lines and discussing the data in these charts to back up your deluded view whilst all the while telling us the data is unreliable. If you think it's unreliable then why are you using it so much. Duh, if you think its crap data, don't use it.

 

[Whiskers]

I'm sorry to see you so rattled and resorting to nonsensical garbage, Billy.

'Mull over it all a bit more before I put up the deciduous (baby tooth) chart and point out some even more glaring inconsistencies.

 

[medicowallet]

Whiskers, how many times do we have to point out to you that you are not able to look at the data in the way you do.

1. I proposed a theory as to why Vit D deficiency would delay tooth eruption. But you also must then think that people with increased VitD would have improved mineralisation and that would have a favourable outcome. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Until one of us shows some data on this, then it is irrelevant and void, like I pointed out in a previous post.

2. You have some trouble understanding statistics. It does not matter that the data was collected at a particular age, the progression is still able to be decided from this.

ie if non-fluoridated progress to filled teeth, this potentially makes less decayed teeth, so you are indeed putting a positive spin on a negative trend.

you cannot make it look good, without thinking as to why it is trending down. Decay rarely goes away by itself (however good fluoride treatment on areas of minimal decay can do this)

3. Your reliance on tooth eruption to try to derive a positive from a graph which clearly shows that fluoridation is beneficial has a significant and serious flaw.

If you believe that delayed tooth eruption has a positive benefit in one category, it MUST therefore have a negative connection in the other category. Please refer to previous posts if you cannot understand this.

If you look at dmft and DMFT in BOTH graphs, fluoridation shows benefit at all age groups.


Whiskers, your so-called arguments are looking weaker and more desperate on many levels. I think that you need to find another cause to go against the consensus with.

Next you will be saying the earth is flat, carbon dioxide drives dangerous warming, the Cowboys will win the final this year, and that Cameron White deserves to be in the Australian cricket team.

 

[Whiskers]

Whiskers, how many times do we have to point out to you that you are not able to look at the data in the way you do.

Data is data and when it has an impact on peoples rights and responsibilities it deserves to be interpreted with integrity.

1. I proposed a theory as to why Vit D deficiency would delay tooth eruption. But you also must then think that people with increased VitD would have improved mineralisation and that would have a favourable outcome. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Oh, I'm not making any such assumptions in the chart about any improved mineralisation from Vit D or not, and for the purpose of analysing the current data for the correct teeth age, I don't need to. You only have to recognise that the teeth age (whether from Vit D or Fluoride itself) is a miss match with the child age to see that the data is misleading.

2. It does not matter that the data was collected at a particular age, the progression is still able to be decided from this.

It matters to the whole integrity of the data and chart if you have a significant miss match between the teeth age and child age in different areas. The bar chart and trend line would stach up completely differently. I'll see if I can modify the chart to demonstrate.

3. Your reliance on tooth eruption to try to derive a positive from a graph which clearly shows that fluoridation is beneficial has a significant and serious flaw.

If you believe that delayed tooth eruption has a positive benefit in one category, it MUST therefore have a negative connection in the other category.

It has... in the way it is charted matching child age, it wrongly suggests that DMFT is substantially worse in unfluoridated areas, ie you guys impling Qld.

But if you move the unfluoridated columns across to the right even one year or the fluoridated one to the right (and without allowing for their weighting factor for Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas or gene/race), the data is not near as compelling in favor of fluoridation... but if the eruption delay is closer to two years, then you have to move across two years to match teeth age, and the fluoridation case is sunk.

 

[motorway]

1. I proposed a theory as to why Vit D deficiency would delay tooth eruption. But you also must then think that people with increased VitD would have improved mineralisation and that would have a favourable outcome. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Certainly Vitamin D is a factor in Dental Health
So must be a Factor to consider
In looking at the data and studies,,


Mother's Vitamin D Status During Pregnancy Will Affect Her Baby's Dental Health

Low maternal vitamin D levels during pregnancy may affect primary tooth calcification, leading to enamel defects, which are a risk factor for early-childhood tooth decay.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080704104315.htm

The Charleston team is running another trial in breastfeeding women who are taking 6,400 IUs per day, a dose 16 times the amount of vitamin D recommended in the UK. This high dose enables women to make breast milk which has sufficient vitamin D for the baby’s needs, 400 IUs per day.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6868729.ece

http://scienceblog.com/33358/researchers-recommend-pregnant-women-take-4000-iu-vitamin-d-a-day/





http://scienceblog.com/37260/chew-on-this-6-dental-myths-debunked/

Myth 1: The consequences of poor oral health are restricted to the mouth

Expectant mothers may not know that what they eat affects the tooth development of the fetus. Poor nutrition during pregnancy may make the unborn child more likely to have tooth decay later in life. “Between the ages of 14 weeks to four months, deficiencies in calcium, vitamin D, vitamin A, protein and calories could result in oral defects,” says Carole Palmer, EdD, RD, professor at TUSDM and head of the division of nutrition and oral health promotion in the department of public health and community service. Some data also suggest that lack of adequate vitamin B6 or B12 could be a risk factor for cleft lip and cleft palate formation.

http://scienceblog.com/37260/chew-on-this-6-dental-myths-debunked/



Maternal vitamin D status during pregnancy and childhood bone mass at age 9 years: a longitudinal study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16399151

NTERPRETATION: Maternal vitamin D insufficiency is common during pregnancy and is associated with reduced bone-mineral accrual in the offspring during childhood; this association is mediated partly through the concentration of umbilical venous calcium. Vitamin D supplementation of pregnant women, especially during winter months, could lead to longlasting reductions in the risk of osteoporotic fracture in their offspring.

Motorway

 

[medicowallet]

See, the problem is Whiskers, that you do not understand.

Moving the bars to the side is not really helping is it.

because, you are introducing your own bias, because to move the bar in DMFT affects the ballpark for dmft.

Do you not get this simple point?

So if you are using bar movement to improve a position in DMFT, you are killing your position in dmft / vice versa.


I am sorry that you cannot understand this simple concept.

You also must understand that there is an effect of certain places having eruption changes yes, but it is averaged over the graph, so that the potential queensland effect is not fully represented, it is represented by the proportion of queenslanders in the study.

Do you have the evidence of what magnitude affected the study to make such caims, or are YOU being biased.

 

[Billyb]

Whiskers, your so-called arguments are looking weaker and more desperate on many levels. I think that you need to find another cause to go against the consensus with.

Next you will be saying the earth is flat, carbon dioxide drives dangerous warming, the Cowboys will win the final this year, and that Cameron White deserves to be in the Australian cricket team.

Took the words right out of my mouth. lol. ‘clutching at straws’ I think is the saying!

I suppose he needs to make SOME stories up to keep this delusion going. This thread reminds me of that movie, Memento, where at the end we find out the main character was making stories up purely so that he can keep his mission and purpose alive.
Well Whiskers, don’t worry, you’re doing a great job at that.

 

[DB008]

PubMed U.S. National Library of Medicine
National Institutes of Health

Associations between fluorosis of permanent incisors and fluoride intake from infant formula, other dietary sources and dentifrice during early childhood.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The authors describe associations between dental fluorosis and fluoride intakes, with an emphasis on intake from fluoride in infant formula.

METHODS: The authors administered periodic questionnaires to parents to assess children's early fluoride intake sources from beverages, selected foods, dentifrice and supplements. They later assessed relationships between fluorosis of the permanent maxillary incisors and fluoride intake from beverages and other sources, both for individual time points and cumulatively using area-under-the-curve (AUC) estimates. The authors determined effects associated with fluoride in reconstituted powdered infant formulas, along with risks associated with intake of fluoride from dentifrice and other sources.

RESULTS: Considering only fluoride intake from ages 3 to 9 months, the authors found that participants with fluorosis (97 percent of which was mild) had significantly greater cumulative fluoride intake (AUC) from reconstituted powdered infant formula and other beverages with added water than did those without fluorosis. Considering only intake from ages 16 to 36 months, participants with fluorosis had significantly higher fluoride intake from water by itself and dentifrice than did those without fluorosis. In a model combining both the 3- to 9-months and 16- to 36-months age groups, the significant variables were fluoride intake from reconstituted powder concentrate formula (by participants at ages 3-9 months), other beverages with added water (also by participants at ages 3-9 months) and dentifrice (by participants at ages 16-36 months).

CONCLUSIONS: Greater fluoride intakes from reconstituted powdered formulas (when participants were aged 3-9 months) and other water-added beverages (when participants were aged 3-9 months) increased fluorosis risk, as did higher dentifrice intake by participants when aged 16 to 36 months.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Results suggest that prevalence of mild dental fluorosis could be reduced by avoiding ingestion of large quantities of fluoride from reconstituted powdered concentrate infant formula and fluoridated dentifrice.

PMID: 20884921 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20884921?dopt=Abstract

Of course medicowallet and BillyB will discredit this source....

 

[DB008]

Too much fluoride is bad for your teeth, says U.S. study

ATLANTA ”” U.S. government officials lowered recommended limits for fluoride in water Friday, saying some children may be getting tooth damage from too much.

Fluoride is added to the water supply in most U.S. communities because it can prevent and repair tooth decay. But health and environment officials said Americans get fluoride in so many sources now, such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, that it makes sense to lower levels.

The Environmental Protection Agency and Health and Human Services Department lowered their recommended levels to 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water – the lower limit of the current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams.

More on the link below...

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/917810--u-s-says-fluoride-in-water-causing-spots-on-kids-teeth

 

[Whiskers]

See, the problem is Whiskers, that you do not understand.

Moving the bars to the side is not really helping is it.

because, you are introducing your own bias, because to move the bar in DMFT affects the ballpark for dmft.

Do you not get this simple point?

Aaah... but it is your bias that delayed eruption occurs in the southern states because of lack iof Vit D. I just happen to agree and further that fluoride increases that delay.

Firstly, this data set relates entirely to DMFT (permanent teeth). Don't worry about the analysis effect on dmft (baby teeth) data. When the same rationale and shift is applied there it will marry in.

You also must understand that there is an effect of certain places having eruption changes yes, but it is averaged over the graph, so that the potential queensland effect is not fully represented, it is represented by the proportion of queenslanders in the study.

Do you have the evidence of what magnitude affected the study to make such caims, or are YOU being biased.

ARCPOH has the Significant Caries Index (SiC) data for the worst 30% dmft as well as the SiC10 (worst 10%) in national age groups... BUT have failed to produce it in State, postcode or Local Council sub sets. We can only wonder why, but I'm sure when someone can get that raw data and plot it up by postcode or Local Council, we will see an entirely different picture as with the tooth eruption rate. It will give a good parallel indication for DMFT.

Meanwhile this is the DMFT chart adjusted for one year and two year delay of eruption.

What stands out is whatever the precise number is for the rate of eruption delay,(that ARCPOH don't allow for) it makes a significant difference on the complexion of the ARCPOH child age data.

 

[Atlas79]

Isn't it nice to see the mainstream & "conspiracy" nuts coming together over one issue, at least. Well, it's a start.

Just in case you thought the fluoride they're putting in our water/food was pharmaceutical grade - which would still be bad enough - it is in fact an industrial waste product from making fertilizer. Or it's imported from China, in which case they don't exactly know where it comes from nor what is in it. As shown in this very good (Australian) documentary:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SMKemanUQ8&feature=player_embedded

I think it's time for the law suits to begin. And maybe even the arrests.

Side note: Hitler was the first to use fluoride in water, which he did in concentration camps to keep the prisoners docile.

Our lawmakers should be taken down on this one issue alone. It is past the time for polite letters to MPs and past time for sponsored Member's Bills. Some of you are smart, well connected people. Your kids are bathing in and drinking this ****, and bottled water is no escape. It's time to put some wheels in motion.

 

[DB008]

Atlas, please see Page 18, Post #350

I have placed all 9 parts up for viewing.

It has also been bought to the attention of posters in this thread that Incitec Pivot's (asx:IPL) waste product from a Geelong Fertilizer plant is used for Fluoridation of our drinking water and has not been treated for human consumption, let alone actually stated what type of Fluoride it is and what other chemicals is contains...

Not to worry, keep drinking a industrial waste product everybody, it's good for your teeth...

 

[OzWaveGuy]

....It has also been bought to the attention of posters in this thread that Incitec Pivot's (asx:IPL) waste product from a Geelong Fertilizer plant is used for Fluoridation of our drinking water and has not been treated for human consumption, let alone actually stated what type of Fluoride it is and what other chemicals is contains...

Not to worry, keep drinking a industrial waste product everybody, it's good for your teeth...

Indeed. I actually thought our fluoride was from China, but you're right...

Fluosilicic Acid (FSA or Hydrofluorosilicic Acid)
Fluosilicic Acid is an aqueous solution of 20% H2SiF6 used for the Fluoridation of drinking water. Incitec Pivot manufactures the product in Geelong and Portland, Victoria, and distributes it nationally. Fluosilicic Acid is the most widely used fluoridation agent in Australia, and has several advantages over powdered fluoridation products, including the elimination of manual handling, dust control, and slurrification. The product is particularly suitable in mid sized to larger water treatment plants.​

Also..

http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert...-provide-flurosilicic-acid-for-region-s-water

The spokesman said fluoride was “a naturally occurring mineral” sourced from natural deposits in Victoria.​

Gotta love that spin...“a naturally occurring mineral”, hmmm a delicious nutrient, when if fact fluoride in water is called "contaminated" as is the case with arsenic and lead.

So when do I get my choice of being able to select whether I want fluoride in my water?

 

[Atlas79]

Sorry for reposting the video, but for other newcomers to the thread, there's no harm. People need to see what is being done to us.

So when do I get my choice of being able to select whether I want fluoride in my water?

You don't. Even if you got an effective filter, you need to bathe in fluoridated water which is absorbed through the skin. And the food you eat is grown on it.

To me this alone is clear enough evidence we have slipped into a state of tyranny in this country. It's time to push back - a MASSIVE law suit is called for. Every person who has consumed this poison is entitled to financial compensation. Merely voting people out isn't enough either, those in power who supported this action need to be jailed.