Fluoride

[medicowallet]

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.



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.

1. You don't have to post evidence if it is a known fact, I just cannot QUANTIFY it. Do you understand the concept or is it beyond your scope?

2. The evidence is around the first third. IF I get time I will point it out to you, I just assumed you knew this, since you are apparently proficient with respect to the document.

3. Again, another person who is not involved anywhere near the coalface, with extreme unwaivering views.

4. I was invited to join Golden key as well, in medicine. Medicine has an extremely high cut off and is crazily competitive too. I would also like to let you know how well I performed within my cohort (but like to remain anonymous), quite impressive really, but let's let big swinging dicks rest a bit.

 

[Whiskers]

You really are thick. At first I though you were just trying to keep this 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 )

Ooh... do I hear an echo, or is it a chorus... or maybe it's a Blind Man's Bluff!

I guess that's what you do when you close your eyes and mind to anything that challenges your bias.

Now Billy, be a good fella and pick up where you detoured off track, and go through the physiological process of fluoride and fluoridation on the teeth and other organs... and post up those fluorosis reference pictures that you use to categorize fluorosis.

 

[Whiskers]

1. You don't have to post evidence if it is a known fact, I just cannot QUANTIFY it. Do you understand the concept or is it beyond your scope?

Oh yes you do... according to your own rules.

2. The evidence is around the first third. IF I get time I will point it out to you, I just assumed you knew this, since you are apparently proficient with respect to the document.

Oh, I know what I know... but I'm sceptical about what you think you know... or at least what your bias wants us to believe.

4. I was invited to join Golden key as well, in medicine. Medicine has an extremely high cut off and is crazily competitive too. I would also like to let you know how well I performed within my cohort (but like to remain anonymous), quite impressive really, but let's let big swinging dicks rest a bit.

Ooh... you ARE a skite.

 

[medicowallet]

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.

Nice to know that your biggest achievement is at an undergraduate level.

When you get older, I hope this changes.

Oh yes you do... according to your own rules.

Seriously whiskers,

it is not groundbreaking research, it is common knowledge.

It would be like me having to provide research saying that blue and yellow paint, when mixed makes green.

eg we know that fluoride causes fluorosis, but you cannot Quantify it WITHOUT EVIDENCE.



If these posts didn't amuse me such, then I would feel nothing but pity for you.

Also, you have just proven to me what a joke your education was, as clearly you have no clue about many things including statistics, research and critical analysis.

I would dearly love to meet you in person one day, just to put a face to one who is so opinionated, yet so clueless. This is why I assume that you are still in high school.

 

[Billyb]

Just for the record (again in this thread) I completed my Business degree majoring in Accounting and Law ages ago...]

That explains a lot.

No wonder he has no clue about anything related to science.

Go and get some education in science buddy, then come back here and debate about it. You sound like a fool at the moment.

 

[Calliope]

That explains a lot.

No wonder he has no clue about anything related to science.

Go and get some education in science buddy, then come back here and debate about it. You sound like a fool at the moment.

Both you and medicowallet should know that you cannot debate with someone with Obsessive Compulsion Disorder.

Obsessions include;

Fear of contamination from germs, dirt, poisons, and other physical and environmental substances
Fear of harm from illness, accidents or death that may occur to oneself or to others. This may include an excessive sense of responsibility for preventing this harm.

(My bolds)
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/.../obsessive_compulsive_disorder_explained?open

 

[Julia]

This thread has become quite unnecessarily personal and nasty. For anyone to put down someone else's level of education, without any recognition of perhaps how hard that level of education may have been to come by due to the personal circumstances of that person, is rude, patronising and totally unnecessary.

And I would add that I have no idea about Whiskers' personal circumstances as regards his education or anything else. I am simply making a general statement about the supercilious and unduly personal nature of the insulting remarks in this thread.

By all means criticise someone's argument, but surely you can do so in an objective and factual way without resorting to personal denigration.

 

[medicowallet]

This thread has become quite unnecessarily personal and nasty. For anyone to put down someone else's level of education, without any recognition of perhaps how hard that level of education may have been to come by due to the personal circumstances of that person, is rude, patronising and totally unnecessary.

And I would add that I have no idea about Whiskers' personal circumstances as regards his education or anything else. I am simply making a general statement about the supercilious and unduly personal nature of the insulting remarks in this thread.

By all means criticise someone's argument, but surely you can do so in an objective and factual way without resorting to personal denigration.

Yeah, but he started it

Seriously Julia, sometimes one needs to read all of the posts to understand the head banging that one needs to endure when dealing with a character such as Whiskers.

It is extremely frustrating when someone who has no motive except to inflame, keeps posting ridiculous, uninformed statements where people can read them. I am sorry for the thread, which has degraded, by Whisker's want, into a thread which continues to bring up old, disregarded topics, which I must defend.

If it means me pointing out their immaturity I will, if it then means that they try to gain authority in the argument by stating their qualifications in an extremely arrogant way, then I will point out the flaws in their understanding with due respect.

So, I understand your frustration, I feel it too, but I take offense that you clearly post this at myself and Billy, without reading Whisker's posts.

PS There is a function that allows private messages.

 

[trainspotter]

But not when I argue with you OK !!!!!!

 

[medicowallet]

But not when I argue with you OK !!!!!!

View attachment 42411View attachment 42412

Have had lots of arguments with you, which have remained quite civil and reasonable.

Will have many more no doubt

 

[Whiskers]

http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2008Toronto/techprogram/abstract_105335.htm


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

Fluoride and children's intelligence: a meta-analysis.

Tang QQ, Du J, Ma HH, Jiang SJ, Zhou XJ.

Department of Pathology, Nanjing University School of Medicine, Nanjing Jinling Hospital, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210002, People's Republic of China.
Abstract

This paper presents a systematic review of the literature concerning fluoride that was carried out to investigate whether fluoride exposure increases the risk of low intelligence quotient (IQ) in China over the past 20 years. MEDLINE, SCI, and CNKI search were organized for all documents published, in English and Chinese, between 1988 and 2008 using the following keywords: fluorosis, fluoride, intelligence, and IQ. Further search was undertaken in the website www.fluorideresearch.org because this is a professional website concerning research on fluoride. Sixteen case-control studies that assessed the development of low IQ in children who had been exposed to fluoride earlier in their life were included in this review. A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ. The meta-analyses of the case-control studies estimated that the odds ratio of IQ in endemic fluoride areas compared with nonfluoride areas or slight fluoride areas. The summarized weighted mean difference is -4.97 (95%confidence interval [CI] = -5.58 to -4.36; p < 0.01) using a fixed-effect model and -5.03 (95%CI = -6.51 to 3.55; p < 0.01) using a random-effect model, which means that children who live in a fluorosis area have five times higher odds of developing low IQ than those who live in a nonfluorosis area or a slight fluorosis area.
PMID: 18695947 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

That is of real concern Dannyboy.

I had read it before and am still doing some research as to why the US Public Health Authorities and even our own Health Authorities pay little or no attention to this.

For all the short comings of China's political regime, they seem to have a very impartial view and do produce a lot of research on the adverse effects of fluoride in all it's forms in their own country. I have to give them credit for that.

 

[trainspotter]

Have had lots of arguments with you, which have remained quite civil and reasonable.

Will have many more no doubt

Engarde' ....... why thank you very much ....... touche' :

 

[medicowallet]

That is of real concern Dannyboy.

I had read it before and am still doing some research as to why the US Public Health Authorities and even our own Health Authorities pay little or no attention to this.

For all the short comings of China's political regime, they seem to have a very impartial view and do produce a lot of research on the adverse effects of fluoride in all it's forms in their own country. I have to give them credit for that.

Well there are a few reasons as to why

1. It is not proven
2. I have consumed fluoridated water for many years and it hasn't affected my iq
3. You are accusing our administration of a conspiracy that China has exposed.

 

[Julia]

Yeah, but he started it

Seriously Julia, sometimes one needs to read all of the posts to understand the head banging that one needs to endure when dealing with a character such as Whiskers.

It is extremely frustrating when someone who has no motive except to inflame, keeps posting ridiculous, uninformed statements where people can read them. I am sorry for the thread, which has degraded, by Whisker's want, into a thread which continues to bring up old, disregarded topics, which I must defend.

If it means me pointing out their immaturity I will, if it then means that they try to gain authority in the argument by stating their qualifications in an extremely arrogant way, then I will point out the flaws in their understanding with due respect.

So, I understand your frustration, I feel it too, but I take offense that you clearly post this at myself and Billy, without reading Whisker's posts.

PS There is a function that allows private messages.

I am not commenting on the content of the discussion because I long ago lost interest in it, when it clearly became some sort of contest of oneupmanship.

I simply really dislike personal attacks by anyone on anyone else and believe you should be able to present your point of view without denigrating what you see as someone's inferior level of education compared with your own, about which we are left in no doubt.

If that is not possible, why can't you just agree to disagree, and move on.

 

[medicowallet]

I am not commenting on the content of the discussion because I long ago lost interest in it, when it clearly became some sort of contest of oneupmanship.

I simply really dislike personal attacks by anyone on anyone else and believe you should be able to present your point of view without denigrating what you see as someone's inferior level of education compared with your own, about which we are left in no doubt.

If that is not possible, why can't you just agree to disagree, and move on.

And no, Medicowallet, I will not confine my remarks to PM's as you have requested, instead of making them on the public forum, and I further totally reject your PM'd suggestion that I am 'stalking your posts'.

That suggestion is made even more of a nonsense by the PM I did send you several days ago, accompanied by a , saying that we had agreed about something, and ended with "Best wishes, Julia", to which you replied along the lines that I should not hold my breath.

1. I guess you do not understand tongue in cheek remarks such as "don't hold your breath"... actually Julia, I hope you didn't take it TOO literally.


"don't hold your breath lol." I note you conveniently left off the lol.

2. You do seem to stalk my posts a lot. I could also note that it was you who then wrote the post above, not me, and with the history of your posts against mine, that is significant.

Julia, why can't you agree to disagree with my posts and move on?

you seem to be good at giving out advice that you do not adhere to.

3. As for intelligence, it is over-rated and also very very circumstantial. I have a knowledge of health, and very little in many other areas, but in the instance of this forum, there are some very extremely obvious points that are misconstrued, and even though Billy is clearly the most experienced person, I think there are people here who are misleading others with their "qualifications".

It is not arrogant to state your qualifications if they are relevant.

4. Have you read the prior posts or are you commenting on one post in isolation?

 

[Whiskers]

eg we know that fluoride causes fluorosis, but you cannot Quantify it WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

But that is the whole point as Billy knows, there is "evidence " of how the research quantifies fluorosis.

I mentioned earlier the Dean index that all the old original research and most of your approved peer reviewed sources use. I also mentioned there are better indicies being used today in some research.

To get back to the issue I was after before you and billy started back peddling and personality assisanation, as a dentist he has available to him pictorial evidence of those indicies or at least one of them that the Australian Dental Association subscribes to.

One would think it a pretty simple request and easy chore for a dentist to produce those reference pictures so we can all see what he means by insignificant, minor, moderate and major fluorosis.

Once again, Either you or Billy produce the evidence (pictures) to demonstarte what you mean by the various degrees of fluorosis.

Then we can gradually move on in an orderly progression to the more serious effects of fluoride/fluoridation.

 

[trainspotter]

As for intelligence, it is over-rated and also very very circumstantial. I have a knowledge of health, and very little in many other areas,

"immutabilis haud censeo cum utpote"

 

[medicowallet]

But that is the whole point as Billy knows, there is "evidence " of how the research quantifies fluorosis.

Once again, Either you or Billy produce the evidence (pictures) to demonstarte what you mean by the various degrees of fluorosis.

Then we can gradually move on in an orderly progression to the more serious effects of fluoride/fluoridation.

1. Why can't you produce peer reviewed info on fluorosis in Australia? Or show it where fluoridation is similar to ours?

2. I guess by your renewed, mature stance, you will refrain from putting words into my mouth, and also from misrepresenting my position intentionally, (eg Vitamin D)

If you can somehow manage that, then, yes, civility will return to this thread, if not, then I cannot see how it can.

 

[Whiskers]

Well there are a few reasons as to why

1. It is not proven

I'm inclined to believe it is, as research in other countries corroborates it. But you are invited to explain why you think it's not proven.

2. I have consumed fluoridated water for many years and it hasn't affected my iq

Yeah, brain dead alcoholics and cancer ridden smokers say that too, often with a wink and a smile in their ignorance. It's a bit like going deaf... you will often be the last to know.

I believe you when you say you have or at least had "knowledge'' but seriously you are not demonstrating much intelligence with your commentary here. You might consider that (and 2.) food for thought in a somber moment.

3. You are accusing our administration of a conspiracy that China has exposed.

Possibly, but you eloberate further on what you mean and I'll comment further.

 

[medicowallet]

I'm inclined to believe it is, as research in other countries corroborates it. But you are invited to explain why you think it's not proven.



Yeah, brain dead alcoholics and cancer ridden smokers say that too, often with a wink and a smile in their ignorance. It's a bit like going deaf... you will often be the last to know.

I believe you when you say you have or at least had "knowledge'' but seriously you are not demonstrating much intelligence with your commentary here. You might consider that (and 2.) food for thought in a somber moment.



Possibly, but you eloberate further on what you mean and I'll comment further.

1. Show me the evidence and I'll change my mind. Where is the evidence? where is it quantified? Where is it significant? Where is the cost-benefit detrimental?

Remember cost-benefit?

2. I can say it, as the effect is not known.

3. I am saying that to believe the cost-benefit is so out of whack, and that the study is credible, then the government is knowingly committing a massive conspiracy. Unlike something like AGW where the debate is credible on both sides.