4 ms·

Can Anyone shed some light to debunk this: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/ http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/ The argument is compelli

by vxxzy 12y ago

Can Anyone shed some light to debunk this: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/ http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/ The argument is compelling, but I am not one who knows either way. What studies show Fluoridated water's benefit?

keslag 12y ago
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27492/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27492/ Just like with creationism, vaccinations, the environment, and fluoride; if you polish the bullshit enough, people will follow.
- gwern 12y ago
  I think my main take-away from the forest plots in that paper (and the discussion of the specific studies) is that the evidence for even the dental benefits is really wretched. Not a single randomized trial, and the heterogeneity is insanely high. (Can you imagine proposing fluoridation of everyone's drinking water these days based on evidence like that? If fluoride were being proposed to the FDA as a drug, it wouldn't even make it to Phase III trials...)
  - gwern 12y ago
    > the heterogeneity is insanely high. To expand on this: the heterogeneity is so high that they don't (as meta-analysis guidelines say you should) report the figures. This is why in the figures, you see tight confidence intervals around zero, but also equally-tight confidence intervals many effect-size units away. That's an alarm bell for trying to draw any sort of meaningful conclusion: it means there are so many variables at play that you have no idea whether the net should be zero or big. (Also a concern given the observation that many countries have seen dental problems fall considerably as they developed, which is a big confound.)
Symmetry 12y ago
If you're curious about a topic Wikipedia is usually a good starting point and will link to some good references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation
- innguest 12y ago
  Wikipedia is not a good source for controversial topics as it tends to pick one side (the mainstream side) for its readers.
vixen99 12y ago
Is anyone unaware of a single advantage aside from the fact that fluoride does indeed swap with calcium in the tooth enamel apatite and thereby increase the latter's resistance to acid attack? Given the prevalence of fluoride in toothpaste, why mass 'medicate'? The experts consulted are one with those folk who think that stuffing mercury amalgam into a permanent location a few centimeters from the brain is a good idea. Given the biochemistry of Hg, it's not and an increasing number of dental professionals are understanding that.
- alayne 12y ago
  That's crackpot talk. Both fluoride and mercury amalgam are considered safe by current scientific understanding. You need to build up actual science to disprove that rather than make ridiculous claims based on proximity of fillings to the brain.

by vxxzy 12y ago

keslag 12y ago

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27492/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27492/ Just like with creationism, vaccinations, the environment, and fluoride; if you polish the bullshit enough, people will follow.

gwern 12y ago
I think my main take-away from the forest plots in that paper (and the discussion of the specific studies) is that the evidence for even the dental benefits is really wretched. Not a single randomized trial, and the heterogeneity is insanely high. (Can you imagine proposing fluoridation of everyone's drinking water these days based on evidence like that? If fluoride were being proposed to the FDA as a drug, it wouldn't even make it to Phase III trials...)
- gwern 12y ago
  > the heterogeneity is insanely high. To expand on this: the heterogeneity is so high that they don't (as meta-analysis guidelines say you should) report the figures. This is why in the figures, you see tight confidence intervals around zero, but also equally-tight confidence intervals many effect-size units away. That's an alarm bell for trying to draw any sort of meaningful conclusion: it means there are so many variables at play that you have no idea whether the net should be zero or big. (Also a concern given the observation that many countries have seen dental problems fall considerably as they developed, which is a big confound.)

Symmetry 12y ago

If you're curious about a topic Wikipedia is usually a good starting point and will link to some good references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

innguest 12y ago
Wikipedia is not a good source for controversial topics as it tends to pick one side (the mainstream side) for its readers.

vixen99 12y ago

Is anyone unaware of a single advantage aside from the fact that fluoride does indeed swap with calcium in the tooth enamel apatite and thereby increase the latter's resistance to acid attack? Given the prevalence of fluoride in toothpaste, why mass 'medicate'? The experts consulted are one with those folk who think that stuffing mercury amalgam into a permanent location a few centimeters from the brain is a good idea. Given the biochemistry of Hg, it's not and an increasing number of dental professionals are understanding that.

alayne 12y ago
That's crackpot talk. Both fluoride and mercury amalgam are considered safe by current scientific understanding. You need to build up actual science to disprove that rather than make ridiculous claims based on proximity of fillings to the brain.