1. Why can't you produce peer reviewed info on fluorosis in Australia? Or show it where fluoridation is similar to ours?
In short you and Billy continue to state matter-of-factly that fluorosis is minor and not of serious concern.
The onus is on you to produce pictorial evidence of what you use as a gauge. If in your experience there is only mild fluorosis in Aus, then show a picture of what you mean by mild.
What's so difficult with that?
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.
Fluoridation has been drawing cranks out of the woodwork for decades. In Cold War days, right-wingers raged against the growing practice of putting fluoride in the drinking water to prevent tooth decay.
Their fervour was lampooned in the 1964 Stanley Kubrick film Dr. Strangelove, in which rogue general Jack Ripper sends his bombers to nuke the Soviet Union.
“Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face,” he rants to his subordinate, Group Captain Lionel Mandrake. “It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works.”
Today’s anti-fluoridationists no longer claim a Communist plot, but their zeal burns just as bright.
No,
I have already provided evidence that the cost-benefit favors fluoridation.
I have posted links to studies, NHMRC review etc. whic show this, and that even though some people get fluorosis, on a population level, it is a small price to pay for the hhealth benefit.
See, for someone who does not deal with the health ramifications due to poor dental health (as you admit and show by not knowing what poor dental health actually causes), you focus on relatively trivial side effects of a treatment with little understanding of what happens in the real world.
I know that fluorosis is what the conspiracy theory sites focus on, and I do not deny it is a side effect, but, as proven in Australian studies, fluoridation has a favorable cost-benefit analysis, and in reality the onus is on you to prove this wrong.
That would end the debate.
And in time it will, just not now.
To focus on one relatively trivial side effect is denying the importance of the benefit of fluoridation, something you cannot deny with the evidence available, but you still try.
Julia, you should have realized when you started this thread that it would draw all the anti-fluoride zealots out of the woodwork. It actually spawned Whiskers' obsession with the issue.
"They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind",
Fluoride, or how I learned to stop worrying and drink the water
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/n...rink-the-water/article1970745/?service=mobile
Well, Calliope it's easy to see the correlation between your vitriole and the repugnant attitude, language and complete lack of respect for others concerns by this tabloid writer.
you don't have the right to demand everyone elso (sic) follow your folly
There's that defiant "No" again, before a change of subject.
You really do have a problem with showing pictorial evidence of the the index you use to categorize the degree of fluorosis... what you call minor fluorosis.
What you provided is narrative of what fluoridation lobbyists carefully call efficacy (The ability to produce a desired or intended result) to easily confuse with efficiency or what you construe as cost-benefit, nothing even close to a holistic economic cost-benefit analysis.
The decision by the US Public Health Authorities earlier this year to remove the American Dental Association who have had a long conflict of interest from their early association with Colgate and ALCOA's waste removal scheme (ie to fluoridate the whole country to disperse their highly toxic by product, fluoride) from a significant heath departmental influence to a subcommittee of a subordinate department, is just the thin edge of the wedge.
Watch this space for further developments to unwind the conflicts of interest that pander half truths and block research and or publication of evidence and proof of the adverse effects of fluoridation which obviously flow through to blowing away the myth that fluoridation is completely safe and cost efficient on a holistic health and economic basis.
And not to forget the holier-than-thou mentality of imposing your will and beliefs and mass medicating everyone for the failings of a few that have poor dental health.
Remember the Significant Caries Indicies, (SiC) the top 30% and SIC10, the top 10% of dmft, that ARCPOH has, but won't publish on a state, postcode or local government level, which would clearly show where the problem areas are.
The disproportionate burden of disease experienced by a few is dramatically demonstrated for children with the highest 10% of dmft values, where the average dmft was between 3.7-times greater (for 8-year-olds) and more than 5-times greater (for 5-year-olds) than corresponding averages for the entire age group.So why don't they publish the location of these people by smaller location than a national average grouping?
Well, it's not hard to imagine if you were a lazy, or cheap and nasty health administrator, or even have a conflict of interest with Colgate, or other vested interests in promoting a commercial fluoride product or fluoride by-product of industry, you would turn a blind eye.
As usual you get it wrong.
"They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind",
What vitriole (sic)?
Respect has to be earned.
Yet you want me to provide the pictures that the WHO and dental groups use, come on, your insistence with this is immature and irrational.
. What do you have to fear from openly displaying the pictures and data if the case for mass fluoridation is so compelling?
Your responses to other posters is mainly vitriol. ( bitterly abusive language; invective or vituperation)Vitriol (vitriole in french for nit pickersmeaning: Cruel and bitter criticism.
Exactly what your dis-respectful interjections and reference doesn't do.
The onus is on you to produce pictorial evidence of what you use as a gauge. If in your experience there is only mild fluorosis in Aus, then show a picture of what you mean by mild.
In the nicest way possible, Whiskers, I have already posted a photo of 'mild' fluorosis that you even replied too.
(From Post # 555)
I'm talking about mild fluorosis. Only severe fluorosis has mottling. Mild fluorosis is a just a few specks of white on the teeth. Probably 99% of fluorosis in Australia is of the mild type (from what I've seen). Here's a photo of mild fluorosis
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/159/10/943/POA50053F1
The point I'm making Julia, is that I don't mind even 10 people suffering that mild degree of fluorosis if it means one person doesn't die from a dental abscess caused by decay.
So since you are loath to openly display these things up front in your posts, I'll post some here... and watch for the rheotric to follow.(From Post # 556)
Well, we finally have a fluorosis picture from Billyb... from his above link. http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...943/POA50053F1
Like so much of the adverse effects of fluoridation, he is a bit shy in sticking it out in the open, so I snipped it here, with my next question.
Billyb, explain the physiological process that is hypomineralisation with the associated minerals etc that is/causes dental fluorosis?
Actually you didn't post the picture, you posted a link to a picture.
This is the problem with you and medicowallet... you are masters of spin and confusion
Good on you for finally posting those pictures up! Too bad you didn't have a single point to make about them though.
Oh, by the way, what is your opinion on using Colgate toothpaste?
I have nothing to fear, hence, bring it on, and post what you supposedly have.
come on then, post your fluoridation cost-benefit study.
I have the WHO saying that fluoridation has positive cost benefit analysis and that fluorosis is a minor side effect (which, by the way I posted a link to)
The picture is the point... that fluorosis is not an insignificant issue.
You might be happy as you say, to see ten suffer from fluorosis in a vain attempt to save one from dying from tooth abscess, BUT the point is those of us who practice good hygene should not have to suffer induced fluorosis in the futile attempt to mass medicate to try to save someone who cares little about their own dental hygene.
Yes, I am quite happy for us to have an extremely low risk of a very minor problem
to prevent excessive cost, morbidity and mortality, especially in our most vulnerable. I also think cardiac concerns, especially with an ageing population are beyond your expertise, so I can understand your exceptionally simplistic view on the subject.
I guess some of us are a bit less self centred and more caring for others.
Well, with the birth place of fluoridation, the USA, concerned about 30% fluorosis and rising, you must be an ostrich (with your head in the sand) and, or a fanatical public health dictator to be happy with that (understatement of yours).
Well, you might be surprised what I know about "ageing" and "cardiac concerns".
So please elaborate on these "cardiac concerns" and how they are so inextricably linked to compulsary fluoridation.
This I can't wait for... please explain how opposing mass medication, ie compulsary fluoridation, equates to being self centered and not caring for others.
Whiskers, you know about the cardiac concerns.
You just focus on fluorosis for some reason even though the WHO says it is minor, and that there is a cost-benefit analysis supportive of fluoridation.
Yes fluorosis is around 25%, but how much is due to fluoridation and also this includes very mild and mild fluorosis.
You put this minor, cosmetic concern against truly serious and horrible conditions and expect people who deal with these conditions to be conned by you as to the importance of fluorosis.
Well I asked you to please elaborate on these "cardiac concerns" and how they are so inextricably linked to compulsary fluoridation... so please tell.
And don't forget to please explain how opposing mass medication, ie compulsary fluoridation, equates to being self centered and not caring for others.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?