Refresh your driving skills and you could save on your auto insurance! Sign up for the AARP Smart Driver course.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
18
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

18 Views
Message 1 of 1,356

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
18
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
37
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

37 Views
Message 2 of 1,356

Here in the 21st Century we have someone claiming that fluoride or fluoridation does not affect IQ based on this single study with onhy 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
0
Kudos
37
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
56
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

56 Views
Message 3 of 1,356

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
0
Kudos
56
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
71
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

71 Views
Message 4 of 1,356

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
1
Kudos
71
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
81
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

81 Views
Message 5 of 1,356

Below is a list of the claims you made in this discussion (copied for you tore-read).The only reason I added a comment is becuase 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
1
Kudos
81
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
113
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

113 Views
Message 6 of 1,356

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
113
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
116
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

116 Views
Message 7 of 1,356

Im not the author of the study and i cant know.

But the reported urine levels  also do not appear substantially different. So what gives you  the right to claim dronking  fluoridated water does not affect IQ? Urine levels in fluoridated people are 1 ppm compared to nonflluoridated  at typically 0.1 ppm.

Do you understand?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
116
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
126
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

126 Views
Message 8 of 1,356

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
126
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
128
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

128 Views
Message 9 of 1,356

And what pray tell happens to brain tissue after 22 years of ingesting F'd water? Humans do not have a fully grown and developed brain until they are in their 20's. Yiamoyiannis measured the F content in brain tissue for those in F'd areas and found that brain levels compare tio levels in blood.  This is nuts for a forced  industrial contaminant in man.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
128
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
132
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

132 Views
Message 10 of 1,356

Ok. So the drop in boys IQ of 1.53 points in fluoridated,areas could be important. This is obvious because most people in areas with F'd water dont drink the water regularly. And many drink bottled water or other water based beverages. Here this is reflected in the low urine F levels.  When consumers actually drink Fd water,  urine F levels match the water F level typically very closely. So unless there are people here with 1 ppm in urine, and in control urine wehre levels are low such as 0.1 ppm, no one has any rigjht to claim the data here prove water fluooridation has no effect whatsoever on IQ. Such a claim is preposterous. Again, these people,were not placed in cages to control their drinking habits. They are humans, not controlled caged mammnals that already have produced definitive data proving fluoridation is useless and harmful, and that F is not a dietary ingredient, and is not a normal component in blood. This is why there is no listing in the Merck Manual or in Nursing sources that list all normal blood components from A to Z. F is a contaminant of human systemic fluids. Im sorry but sometimes the tuth is simply too much for some..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
132
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark