Make the best choices for your Medicare needs with AARP’s Medicare Made Easy. Try it today!

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
413
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

413 Views
Message 91 of 1,448

sirpac - you seem to have a blinkered view of this research when you say it shows a "very evident significance between boys and girls exposed to fluorides."

You miss the whole point - it showed a difference in the IQ of boys and gurls for both fluoridated and unfluoridated groups. There was no statistically significant difference due to fluoridation. This is the data from Table 1 in the paper:

table IQ.png

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
413
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
419
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

419 Views
Message 92 of 1,448

These fluoridation proponents claim that the authors of the Green et al. (2019) study manipulated statistics and then outrightly dismiss the very evident significance between boys and girls exposed to fluorides as "highly irregular". However, it is well known that there is a 4/1 sex difference in neurodevelopmental disorders, where boys are most affected. Thus, these fluoridation proponent arguments are approaching laughable, since there are now over 50 human studies and hundreds of animal and other studies finding harm from fluoridation. Yet, these proponents claim that there is nothing to see and then manipulate statistics to show something else.

 

In contrast, these fluoridation proponents have not a single valid empirical study showing any benefit of ingesting fluorides (i.e. opinion articles are not empirical studies). Still 70% of US public water is fluoridated with hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodiumhexafluorosilicate. Not so in Europe, where 98% does not fluoridate (only the Irish Republic, 11% of England, and 3% of Spain does). As for dental health and most cancer prevalence, the Irish republic has the worst dental health and cancer prevalence in Europe. We don't truly even need studies, since we can look at population statistics as evidence of the truth that fluoridation is harmful and not beneficial. For example, in the US, Kentucky is the most fluoridated state and they have the worst dental health. Thus, manipulating valid studies without the original data is a low point.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
419
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
462
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

462 Views
Message 93 of 1,448

Richard, Bill and whoever. I have posted an article on the Green et al study - you can find it at "If at first you don’t succeed . . . statistical manipulation might help."

This is attracting some good comments so hopefully we can develop a good exchange there.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
462
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
469
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

469 Views
Message 94 of 1,448

Here in the 21st Century we have someone claiming that fluoride or fluoridation does not affect IQ based on this single study with only slight differences in urinary F levels that occurred with only slight corresponding differences in IQ.

That is as absurd as claimng: since the stuctural damage to the city this year from 65 mph winds was not markedly different than last year at 61 mph, that it must be that wind does not cause structural damage !!.

I am newly astounded daily at the misinformation that is spread by proponents of fluoridation, most of whom think everyone else is a crackpot and "anti-science" and should bow down to them and accept the fluoridation of your bony skeleton because they know more than you, that the treatment is for your own good..

Incredible.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
469
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
491
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

491 Views
Message 95 of 1,448

Ken,

 

Actually, the authors were clear in the study and we have failed to understand and carefully read their study.  My mistake and I hope I did not cause too much confusion.


The authors state:
“A 1-mg/L increase in MUFSG was associated with a 4.49-point lower IQ score (95% CI, −8.38 to −0.60) in boys, but there was no statistically significant association with IQ scores in girls (B = 2.40; 95% CI, −2.53 to 7.33). A 1-mg higher daily intake of fluoride among pregnant women was associated with a 3.66 lower IQ score (95% CI, −7.16 to −0.14) in boys and girls.”

 

A careful understanding of the study is important.  

 

As you know, one concern with a study of harm is we can NOT do prospective RCT’s to cause and thus prove harm. That would be unethical.  Studies of harm are complex.  

 

Another problem is a threshold below which a toxin/substance may not cause harm, or at least show the harm in the study due to limitations of the study at hand. 

 

Another problem is comparing a very small change in fluoride concentration may not be measurable in a study or perhaps even have an effect on some people, and others a significant effect due to host sensitivity, synergistic chemicals, etc. etc.

 

Although Table 1 does NOT show the 4.49 IQ loss, in contrast, when a 1-mg/L increase in urine fluoride was compared, a 4.49 IQ loss was found.

 

The authors are correct and their finding from a risk standpoint is significant.

 

The authors were very clear, We simply did not read the article carefully in the first run through.

 

I expect you to argue "data mining."  However, in the case of risk, you will need to be more persuasive.  

 

A study requires enough contrast to determine and understand any effect.  And although it does not appear to have a lower threshold, we don't know if there is a lower threshold where fluoride does not cause an IQ loss.  Thus, evaluating the difference in IQ with a 1 mg/L fluoride difference is valid and not data mining.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
491
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
488
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

488 Views
Message 96 of 1,448

Ken,

 

You still have not responded to total fluoride exposure and dental fluorosis.  I'm waiting.  Too many are ingesting too much fluoride, but you refuse to respond because you like to data mine.

 

Now to your point on the Green et al study, 2019.

 

I agree the numbers in Table 1 show 1.53 IQ difference which is not significant.

 

However, the authors report 4.49 IQ difference which is significant.  

 

What are we missing?

 

We need to give the authors a chance to respond.    

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
488
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
487
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

487 Views
Message 97 of 1,448

Below is a list of the claims you made in this discussion (copied for you to re-read).The only reason I added a comment is because of these insane comments that left alone are bald faced lies. You have no right to twist the Green study into the claim that fluoride has no effect on IQ. The study ws not on caged humans where some were not exposed to any lfuoride. The difference in fluoride content of the mothers in the control and experimental groups was very small. If water already contains substantial fluoride, then adding a little more will only produce effects that are difficult to detect, obviously. So your claim is nonsense.

 

Your posts:

there is no effect due to fluoride on IQ ("The answer is a resounding no in the digitized data.")

 

But I stress - there is no effect of fluoride on IQ

 

In fact, fluoridation has no effect on the mean IQ for boys (104.78 vs 106.31) or for girls (111.47 vs 109.68)

There is a very significant effect of sex on IQ - once that is removed there is no effect of fluoride on IQ.

 

What I am saying is that the data in the table shows no difference - no effect of fluoride on IQ.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
487
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
479
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

479 Views
Message 98 of 1,448

Seriously Richard. Can you not read a table like I had given you? Are you not aware of statistical significance in such differences?

You ask "So what gives you  the right to claim dronking  fluoridated water does not affect IQ?"

Where have I claimed that? What I am saying is that the data in the table shows no difference - no effect of fluoride on IQ.

I certainly have the right to interpret evidence presented in a paper. But I do wonder at your ability to do so if you start citing statistically insignificant data to me.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
479
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
476
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

476 Views
Message 99 of 1,448

I'm not the author of the study and I can't know.

But the reported urine levels also do not appear substantially different (only differed by 0.33 ppO. So what gives you the right to claim drinking fluoridated water does not affect IQ? Urine levels in fluoridated people are 1 ppm compared to nonfluoridated at typically 0.1 ppm a 10 fold difference.

Do you understand?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
476
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
479
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

479 Views
Message 100 of 1,448

Richard, according to your reasoning, then, the increase of 1.6 IQ points in girls with fluoridation must be important.

Come off it. These differences are not statistically significant. Do you not understand that?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
479
Views