This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Fluoride


The person who made this is 20ish years old with no scientific background.

It is purely a propaganda piece by interest groups, and is a poor representation of conspiracy theories.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

it is so frustrating that you have a graph that shows that there is a clear benefit and you cannot believe it.

then you believe that moving DMFT graph to suit your purpose will mean that the dmft graph will also improve your argument, when in fact it makes it worse!!!

I have tried to explain this to you, but you obviously cannot understand.
 
It took 597 posts but Godwin's Law has been evoked. The conspiracy theorists automatically lose. End of thread.

I have never heard of "Godwin's Law" it until you mentioned it derty. But in no way, shape or form was l going to bring Hitler into this thread.
 

Nah... your purpose too... remember you introduced Vit D delayed eruption into the equation, albeit after a bit of goading.


Don't worry about the dmft chart for the moment, I'm still coming to that...

So, since Vit D is a factor that ARCPOH clearly didn't factor in for a comparable teeth age comparison, how long in your experience is a reasonable estimate for low(er) Vit D eruption delay in the south?
 

Can you please show me a study showing Vitamin D is a factor?

I guess you just believe any unsubstantiated claims you read on the internet?

I don't, as I said, it was a possibility, and something that since there is no evidence showing the magnitude of the effect, it is irrelevant.


Once again you change topic when your argument falls in a heap.

Your graph analysis is elementary and the errors are glaring, you have clearly lost the plot this time, and you are looking particularly desperate trying to dig your way out of the bottomless pit of your inexperience in analysing graphs.
 


This is what you said back on post # 572

As Vit D actually IMPROVES tooth mineralisation AND speeds eruptions,

Sound pretty matter-of-fact to me.

So, how much were you thinking it speeds up eruptions then... before you started trying to back away from it?
 

So why are we mass medicated?
 
This is what you said back on post # 572



Sound pretty matter-of-fact to me.

So, how much were you thinking it speeds up eruptions then... before you started trying to back away from it?

It is a known fact that when people start to lose an argument, they try to change topics at all costs.

however I shall answer your question, even if you don't have the fortitude to answer mine.

Yes Vitamin D does improve mineralisation (and as I have pointed out, this should actually favour queenslanders) and does influence eruptions (note I said influence, not necessarily speeds, because you can be deficient or have excess).

As to how much to quantify, well I for one, will not start making up figures, unlike the people you seem to believe.

THAT is why I said I cannot use it, as I have no published data to quantify it, do you?

Because it is actually you who wants to continue to go down the Vitamin D path, perhaps you can find this information in published studies.

Whiskers, how many times do I have to say that the Vitamin D argument, even though it is appropriate, cannot be used until someone has some published evidence, as I tire of your immaturity of expecting me to address this issue. Are you still in school or are you an adult?
 
I have never heard of "Godwin's Law" it until you mentioned it derty. But in no way, shape or form was l going to bring Hitler into this thread.

Stalin did it too.

Some of you seem to think this is a joke. Do you not drink or bathe in water? You're being poisoned. Not a concern?

As for the video, rather than address information presented, the shills attack the source of the video to discourage others from watching.

People this is a huge frigging wake up call.
 

How can this person make heads or tails of a subject they would have very little knowledge in.

In that light, the info in there could be poor, unpublished data which is wrong and sensational.

How can you actually believe it when there is far better quality, published, scientific data out there?

Perhaps a wake up call to the real world is warranted.
 
Yes Vitamin D does improve mineralisation (and as I have pointed out, this should actually favour queenslanders) and does influence eruptions (note I said influence, not necessarily speeds, because you can be deficient or have excess).

Geesus mate, you are back peddling so fast you can't remember... or most likely desperately launching into personal(ity) attacks to try to gloss over what you said earlier.
Originally Posted by medicowallet
from Post # 572
As Vit D actually IMPROVES tooth mineralisation AND speeds eruptions,
Again, you said "AND", ie internet for shouting, an emphasis... that Vit D speeds eruptions.

As to how much to quantify, well I for one, will not start making up figures, unlike the people you seem to believe.

THAT is why I said I cannot use it, as I have no published data to quantify it, do you?

Sooo... you can shout to emphasize Vit D speeds eruptions (albeit in response to being goaded into providing an alternative explanation to fluoride itself causing a delay)... BUT you now claim to have no data to support your very definite assertion that Vit D affects eruption of teeth.

Humm... sooo, you can make assertions without any published data to quantify it...

Hey, wait a minute... that's what you are claiming the anti fluoridation people do and why they cannot be believed.

Because it is actually you who wants to continue to go down the Vitamin D path, perhaps you can find this information in published studies.

Yeah, but if you are a Doctor and have your patient welfare at heart (rather than a biased interest in public health policy, ie compulsory fluoridation), then you should know where to find such data, or a ball park figure at least.


What does it matter if I am in school or not? It's a valid question to which you (in your bias) seem to not want to make more light of for fear of being counter-productive to your bias. Rather, the best you can do is induce more spin and personality attacks in an attempt to wriggle out of a corner you backed into.

You claim to be a Doctor (of medicine) but are quick to slam anyone who raises questions about the safety of fluoridation and the integrity of the research as conspiracy theorists, immature or whatever... but when you are goaded into pronouncing forcefully that Vit D speeds eruption (in Qld -unfluoridated)to try to counter the notion that fluoride causes causes eruption delay (in the south - fluoridated)... YOU CANNOT PRODUCE THE DATA or RESEARCH!

Talk about hypocrisy!

How about you make an effort to be a bit impartial and post up that data/research before someone else does?
 
The person who made this is 20ish years old with no scientific background.

It is purely a propaganda piece by interest groups, and is a poor representation of conspiracy theories.

Just like to point out that the doctors who were all for Thalidumide had scientific backgrounds. The scientists who set up the Fukushima disaster had scientific backgrounds. The dentists recommending fluoridation are doing so because they read it in text books written by richer dentists than them.
 

Nope,

I was not backpeddling, merely stating facts.

If you were learned, you would understand that someone deficient in Vit D will benefit from more, but someone with adequate Vitamin D will not benefit.

You claim that I use Vitamin D as evidence, and I did state it could make a difference (yes vitamin d does improve mineralisation and speed eruption), but I cannot quantify this, AS I HAVE SAID ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS YOU FOOL. What is wrong with this.

You and your high school straw man argument is pathetic and below me, son (yes I am frustrated in dealing with your blatant immaturity and incompetence, and I guess your high school teacher is too)
 

Ok, 2 points

1. Let's stop progress for the sake of thalidomide (which is still used mind you)

2. Note that thalidomide was stopped. If they find evidence that fluoride's costs outweigh benefits, this precedent ensures it will be stopped too.

I would also like to point out that science and medicine has extended lifespans and improved morbidity exceptionally, so stop playing with words in an inappropriate context.
 
http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2008Toronto/techprogram/abstract_105335.htm



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695947

 
Whiskers;626189but when you are goaded into [B said:
pronouncing forcefully that Vit D speeds eruption[/B] (in Qld -unfluoridated)to try to counter the notion that fluoride causes causes eruption delay (in the south - fluoridated)... YOU CANNOT PRODUCE THE DATA or RESEARCH!

You really are thick. At first I though you were just trying to keep thsi pointless debate going but it seems you really don't understand..

that's not meant to be a personal attack or anything, it's more an observation.

Medicowallet said this:


Keep reading it and reading it, until you absorb it and understand what it says. Keep trying, it'll come to you eventually. Then come back and post (actually, better if you dont )
 

Oooh, temper, temper... sticks and stones may break my bones, but name will never hurt me.

Sooo... you can make a statement (in an attempt) to rebut what I post without supporting peer reviewed evidence.

But, according to your own standard if I post anything without peer reviewed evidence, (acceptable to you that is), it's nothing but conspiracy theory, crap science etc etc.

YOU, have not posted a single piece of evidence that Vit D affects tooth eruption (others have, but you have not).

Similarly,[medicowallet Post # 575] "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 " I asked for "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"... and alas, no proof.

And again, just as you keep bleating that the evidence is clear that fluoridation is an efficient (as distinct from efficacy) public health measure, without posting any independent holistic economic reports.

This demonstrates your complete unwillingness to support your so called professionalism to Analise the so called evidence from an impartial objective.

You and your high school straw man argument is pathetic and below me, son (yes I am frustrated in dealing with your blatant immaturity and incompetence, and I guess your high school teacher is too)

Just for the record (again in this thread) I completed my Business degree majoring in Accounting and Law ages ago... and just to pip you off a bit more, graduating in the top 15% and invited to join the Golden Key International Honour Society.

Probably my biggest achievement, as I recall, was for one assignment that amounted for most of the term marks where I was initially marked fail (F)... but upon appealing on the grounds that the question didn't strictly ask for what the lecturer thought, but something different to which I addressed... and I was consequently awarded a High Distinction (HD). I often appeal things with a high degree of success.

The point of my reluctantly blowing my own horn is that you are not as smart as you think you are with words (spin)... and I loovve picking or p!**!ng Smart @!ses off. :

C'mon medicowallet, put up or shut up.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...