7 ms·

How did you compile this list? Asking some LLM service? From the first link: > It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the

How did you compile this list? Asking some LLM service? From the first link: > It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ It doesn't seem in favor of this?

dataflow 2y ago
Regardless of where they got the list (edit: which I do think is a fair question)... > the first link [...] doesn't seem in favor of this? To me that falls under "the best evidence [available] in favor of this." It's not great, but it's not nothing; it's certainly something in favor. After all.. I guess I don't know about you, but I feel like if someone told me dose X of something is toxic, I would not feel comfortable feeding myself and the entire country 50% of that dose, on that basis alone.
- ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
  [flagged]
- saalweachter 2y ago
  I mean, technically our atmosphere gives us oxygen at 35% of a toxic dose/concentration. Granted, 35% < 50%, but not really that much less.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - dataflow 2y ago
    Yes, this completely demolished my argument.
Jimmc414 2y ago
Why does it matter how the list was compiled? Is the information accurate or not? The first link you referenced with the cherry picked sentence about uncertainty for levels below .7mg/l was a meta analysis of 74 different studies, 64 of which showed a negative correlation between child IQ and fluoridation. This isn’t even taking into account evidence of a positive correlation for early onset puberty, sleep disruption and bone cancer with fluoridation.
- ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
  It matters when you say it has the "most convincing" evidence as if you have read them all and are keeping up with the field and didn't just summarize them with some service like https://consensus.app/ https://consensus.app/ I don't know if what you are repeating is slop, etc. I can't trust the source. A single recent systematic review is more trustworthy than that.
  - Jimmc414 2y ago
    You don't know, but it is not. Feel free not to read it.
    - ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
      Okay, well, let me know how you came up with the list? Also, nothing in that list of papers supports your initial claim? I know you'll say you didn't claim anything, so I will say also, that nothing in those links provides for what the prior commenter asked for evidence for. Other than, fluoride consumption at high concentrations is bad (which is something that was already agreed upon, and is not being questioned in this thread)?
- matsemann 2y ago
  It matters because your statement of "Here’s a list of the most convincing studies or meta analyses." assumes some kind of curating. If all you're doing is providing something akin to a google search, it's not really valuable.
  - kelipso 2y ago
    So what? Asking “What is the best evidence in favor of this” is equivalent to saying I don’t want to google this, so google this for me. Literally all researchers at all levels in all fields use google for this stuff. I was in academia for years.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago

dataflow 2y ago

Regardless of where they got the list (edit: which I do think is a fair question)... > the first link [...] doesn't seem in favor of this? To me that falls under "the best evidence [available] in favor of this." It's not great, but it's not nothing; it's certainly something in favor. After all.. I guess I don't know about you, but I feel like if someone told me dose X of something is toxic, I would not feel comfortable feeding myself and the entire country 50% of that dose, on that basis alone.

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
[flagged]
saalweachter 2y ago
I mean, technically our atmosphere gives us oxygen at 35% of a toxic dose/concentration. Granted, 35% < 50%, but not really that much less.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dataflow 2y ago
  Yes, this completely demolished my argument.

Jimmc414 2y ago

Why does it matter how the list was compiled? Is the information accurate or not? The first link you referenced with the cherry picked sentence about uncertainty for levels below .7mg/l was a meta analysis of 74 different studies, 64 of which showed a negative correlation between child IQ and fluoridation. This isn’t even taking into account evidence of a positive correlation for early onset puberty, sleep disruption and bone cancer with fluoridation.

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
It matters when you say it has the "most convincing" evidence as if you have read them all and are keeping up with the field and didn't just summarize them with some service like https://consensus.app/ https://consensus.app/ I don't know if what you are repeating is slop, etc. I can't trust the source. A single recent systematic review is more trustworthy than that.
- Jimmc414 2y ago
  You don't know, but it is not. Feel free not to read it.
  - ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
    Okay, well, let me know how you came up with the list? Also, nothing in that list of papers supports your initial claim? I know you'll say you didn't claim anything, so I will say also, that nothing in those links provides for what the prior commenter asked for evidence for. Other than, fluoride consumption at high concentrations is bad (which is something that was already agreed upon, and is not being questioned in this thread)?
matsemann 2y ago
It matters because your statement of "Here’s a list of the most convincing studies or meta analyses." assumes some kind of curating. If all you're doing is providing something akin to a google search, it's not really valuable.
- kelipso 2y ago
  So what? Asking “What is the best evidence in favor of this” is equivalent to saying I don’t want to google this, so google this for me. Literally all researchers at all levels in all fields use google for this stuff. I was in academia for years.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago