tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post6392410159253340169..comments2024-01-31T14:40:18.730-08:00Comments on The Physics Police: Fluoride and IQUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-15104246022235834862013-11-19T13:13:04.640-08:002013-11-19T13:13:04.640-08:00Nod Dranoel, thanks for helping make my point abou...Nod Dranoel, thanks for helping make my point about just who's IQ we should really be worried about.@PhysicsPolicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04664172982768472896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-67386516909063191102013-11-18T22:27:10.397-08:002013-11-18T22:27:10.397-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07488944510229699294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-33290071415637974232013-10-06T00:33:56.016-07:002013-10-06T00:33:56.016-07:00Finally,
1. Did study safety. "There was no ...Finally,<br /><br />1. Did study safety. "There was no clear evidence of other potential adverse effects."<br />2. Did study safety. "... evaluate the ... health effects of fluoride and fluoridation."<br />3. Important because it debunks anti-fluoridation myths like increases lead in water.<br />4. Duplicate, thanks for pointing that out!<br />5. Consensus among dentists based on review of scientific evidence.<br />6. Consensus in Australia based on review of scientific evidence.<br />7. Consensus in the UK based on review of scientific evidence.<br />8. Consensus of an independent task force based on review of scientific evidence.<br />9. Did study safety. "... reviews of the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation."@PhysicsPolicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04664172982768472896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-53754809687783798012013-10-05T15:48:06.466-07:002013-10-05T15:48:06.466-07:00By the way,
Your "the science is not in yet&...By the way,<br /><br />Your "the science is not in yet" style argument is called denialism. Plain and simple.<br /><br />Your bit about no "shred of western research" is called the appeal to ignorance fallacy.<br /><br />The use of trigger words like "mass medicating" and "industrial byproduct" betrays your cruel heart, and unshakable bias.<br /><br />Have a good day.@PhysicsPolicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04664172982768472896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-37884439601877278272013-10-05T15:30:19.576-07:002013-10-05T15:30:19.576-07:00Unknown,
The "mountain of evidence" lin...Unknown,<br /><br />The "mountain of evidence" links are meant only to demonstrate the weight of scientific consensus. Still, your knit picking is appreciated. Source 4 is, indeed, a repeat!<br /><br />You're right, though, that none of those studies searched for a link between Fluoride and IQ. <br /><br />Nor did they search for a link between Fluoride and erectile dysfunction, obesity, sweaty palms, hearing loss, glossolalia, hair color, etc. That's because there's no reason to suspect any of those things are caused by tooth-protecting levels of fluoride. Nor is there reason to suspect that the IQ correlation in the Choi meta analysis has relevance to the safety of US water fluoridation.<br /><br />That's not to say that the Choi paper is uninteresting. I would like to test my theory that other heavy metals, also found in highly fluoridated water, are the culprit! More research would be a good thing.<br /><br />Voting against water fluoridation is a bad thing. That is the thesis of my post.<br /><br />I most certainly have NOT failed to demonstrate safety! I said, quite clearly, that US water supplies fall within the "low fluoride" and "high IQ" categories of the Choi paper.<br /><br />You should take a break from blowing hot air to read my post more carefully.@PhysicsPolicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04664172982768472896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-49422733569535442442013-10-03T05:06:52.077-07:002013-10-03T05:06:52.077-07:00In this article, the writer links nine pieces of e...In this article, the writer links nine pieces of evidence to illustrate the "mountain of evidence showing water fluoridation to be safe..."<br /><br />Let's examine these more closely. Here they are: <br /><br />"mountain(1) of(2) evidence(3) showing(4) water(5) fluoridation(6) to(7) be(8) safe(9)..."<br /><br />1. A study on the effect of fluoride only on dental carries.<br />2. A study on the effect of fluoride only on dental carries.<br />3. Not a study at all, more of a position paper. No evidence presented.<br />4. A duplicate of (3)<br />5. Not a study at all, a public position statement. No evidence presented.<br />6. A meta-analysis. The report is full of the following statement: "There is currently no evidence available to determine the impact of (X) upon (Y)" meaning that the research simply hasn't been done. "The authors of previous systematic reviews concluded that the studies examining other possible negative effects of water fluoridation provide insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.' This is not comforting, and doesn't really bolster your case.<br /><br />The entire section on cancer was based heavily on McDonagh 2000a, a summary again of other research: "The included studies were generally of poor quality (5 moderate quality, 21 low quality evidence). None of the included studies involved prospective follow-up or reported any form of blinding."<br /><br />As to the other studies, all but one showed some positive correlation between fluoride and cancer, but the author just dismisses all of this out of hand. <br />7. Meta-analysis. Executive Summary: "Overall, the studies examining other possible negative effects provide insufficient evidence on any particular outcome to permit confident conclusions. Further research in these areas needs to be of a much higher quality and should address and use appropriate methods to control for confounding factors."<br />8. Meta-analysis, focused on carries and a pubmed search query not showing any bad effects. <br />9. Meta-analysis, only carries and fluorosis.<br /><br />What your own links, claiming to show "the mountain of evidence showing water fluoridation to be safe" instead prove convincingly that this issue is understudied, even after 50+ years, and the precautionary principle demands that we stop all fluoridation immediately until detailed research is carried out.<br /><br />For instance, we have these Chinese studies showing a link between fluoride an low IQ. Fine, the dosages are different, variables are not isolated, OK.<br /><br />But what we DON'T have is a shred of western research demonstrating that 'optimal fluoride' levels do NOT negatively impact IQs. <br /><br />We've just never looked at the issue in the slightest.<br /><br />What we find, on the subject of mass medicating hundreds of millions with industrial byproduct without their consent, is that comprehensive research on the safety of this program has simply NEVER BEEN DONE.<br /><br />It's settled that fluoride lowers carries, but whether it also lowers IQ is a question that has simply never been seriously considered. <br /><br />Because this presumption of safety is the basis of your other arguments, your failure here to demonstrate safety collapses everything else you have written on the page. Every word on this page is intellectually empty filler. Have a good day.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03041759008478634771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-49320087618530424232013-09-25T07:00:36.869-07:002013-09-25T07:00:36.869-07:00It's too bad that fluoridation has become an i...It's too bad that fluoridation has become an issue in so many places. Windsor, Canada, decided to remove fluoride from water some time ago, annoying a lot of people that still believe it's a useful thing.<br /><br />http://www.checkmatescientist.net/2013/02/water-fluoridation-may-have-no-effect.html<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964508095215121429.post-11658918129645629262013-09-23T21:45:14.818-07:002013-09-23T21:45:14.818-07:00"Portland already teats water with chloramine..."Portland already teats water with chloramine (LD50 = 935 mg/kg) for disinfection. Where is the huge billboard demanding this deadly toxin to be taken out of Portland's water supply?"<br /><br />Dear god don't give them ideas.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11401554886594779994noreply@blogger.com