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

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
432
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

432 Views
Message 121 of 1,448

Ken,

 

Good questions.  

JAMA Pediatrics published the article and I have looked at three other items.

 

The JAMA Pediatrics Editor published a Note on the study.

The Editors also put a 12 minute podcast together regarding the study.

And Ballinger, well known toxicologist wrote a commentary.

 

I sent them to you in an email because I don't have time to link them here.

 

I can fix teeth, I can't fix brains.

 

The study of harm is much more difficult than benefit.  

No money in learning not to purchase or sell a product.

Causing harm can't be studdied.

 

Fluoride is an experiment with a highly toxic substance and little to no research.

 

I'm actually shocked at how clueless the MD's are on fluoride.  They endorse it but don't study it.

 

And then again, that was me a couple decades ago.  So much to learn, we must be humble because we certainly don't know everything.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
432
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
456
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

456 Views
Message 122 of 1,448

Science does not work that way. One cannot use some external software, such as a Webplot digitizer, and expect to complete a valid regression analysis. The researcher has to have the original raw data to complete a valid regression analysis. As for the Green et al. (2019) study, the authors explain the methods, results, and controls very clearly and the publisher had verified the results. That is all hard work that takes a lot of time and effort. Thus, there is no question as to the results.

 

Ken,

If you wish to do a replication study, then do one and do it properly. However, you cannot take someone else's study and use some external means to twist the data and the results in whatever way you would like. You can write a proper paper, using proper statistical methods to arrive at conclusions based on a valid analysis of the raw data, that was obtained by proper means. However, you cannot do what you just claimed you did. No-one has any idea what data you may have plucked in to get your conclusions. Thus, such claims are nothing but bogus. 

 

On the bright side, NPR has a good discussion regarding the Green et al. (2019) study. Here is the link:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/08/19/752376080/can-maternal-fluoride-consumption-dur...

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
456
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
464
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

464 Views
Message 123 of 1,448

Bill - you say "They went through more than one peer review and this was done under guidelines of two governments. "

Are you privy to information about the review process used?

I would be interested to know the details. Especially if, as you say, they had to use an extra review?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
464
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
445
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

445 Views
Message 124 of 1,448

sirpac271999 - just extract the data from the figures using something like WebPlot digitizer.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
445
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
440
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

440 Views
Message 125 of 1,448

Ken,

 

If they way you twist the data is correct, send it to JAMA Pediatrics and the authors and I'm sure they will withdraw the study.

 

Do you realize how hard it was for the Journal to publish something so contrary to Public Health Policy and Ken P's belief, et al?   

 

They went through more than one peer review and this was done under guidelines of two governments.  

 

Sure, the study has limitations, as all safety studies do.  But this study has been a long time under review by many experts in various fields, some pro fluoride researchers.  Yet they agreed on the data, the statistics and the conclusion.

 

If they came to your conclusion, contrary to most fluoride/IQ studies, then I would question their data.  For example, testing a 3 year old's IQ seems a real stretch for me.  But the child experts say IQ testing can be done and reasonably reliable.

 

Ken, you have made at least one fatal flaw in playing with the numbers.    You may think the world is flat, but take a trip. . . When I was in NZ everyone was hanging upside down, so I know the world is round!!!!!

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
440
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
423
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

423 Views
Message 126 of 1,448

I am curious how KenP could have done the regression analysis here without the raw data? Based on just the figures that the authors have published in the Green et al. (2019) article?

 

I have acess to SPSS 25 (IBM, 2019) statistical software and would be happy to do the same, if there actually were the raw data that would be available. Yet, you cannot deduce what such raw data may be based on the results.

 

Reference:
Green, R., Lanphear, B., Hornung, R., Flora, D., Martinez-Mier, E.A., Nuefeld, R., Ayotte, P., Muckle, G., & Till, C. (2019). Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada. JAMA Pediatrics, doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1729

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2748634#224604298

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
423
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
433
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

433 Views
Message 127 of 1,448

I have now done my own regression analysis of the data for males after log transformation (to overcome non-normal distribution of the data) and the relationship is not significant (p=0.20).

log.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
433
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
445
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

445 Views
Message 128 of 1,448

sirpac -  Baguley actually wrote:

 

"the claim that maternal fluoride exposure is associated with a decrease in IQ of children is false. This finding was non-significant (but not reported in the abstract)."

He is referring to the data for all children (perhaps you only read the abstract). In fact, the p-value for that analysis (using maternal urinary F) is 0.12 (my own analysis) which is considered non-significant.

The abstract only gives an analysis for male children where a statistically significant relationship was found (they report a p-value for adjusted values of 0.02, I found a p-value of 0.10 for the values in the figure). However, that relationship explains only 1.3% of IQ variance so is quite meaningless. The expert comments also raise other issues involving the non-normal distribution of the data and subgroup analysis which makes their conclusion of statistical significance questionable.

There are many problems with reliance on p-value alone and the full results of statistical analysis should always be reported. In this case, the data is shown in the figures which enables one to do one's only analysis. As I have said, this shows the result is rather meaningless.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
445
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
462
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

462 Views
Message 129 of 1,448

In the refutations to the empirical research study published in JAMA Pediatrics, which reports that maternal exposure to fluoride in pregnancy can lead to lower IQ scores in young children, Prof Thom Baguley, Professor of Experimental Psychology, at Nottingham Trent University, first said that: “The claim that maternal fluoride exposure is associated with a decrease in IQ of children is false, because the finding was non-significant”. Yet, the authors found significance. Then, the same professor says next that:..”the estimate of the decrease in IQ for male offspring is unfeasibility large – at 4-5 IQ points. This level of average deficit would be readily detectable in previous studies and is likely a reflection of bias or very noisy data (the interval estimate here is very wide). “ Thus, first the finding is “non-significant” and then “too significant” per this critique? So, which one is it? The study authors say the findings “are significant”, based on the significance, or p-value, which is a traditionally and commonly accepted method of determining significance in statistical analysis.

 

It appears that no matter what empirical research finds, if it is contrary to the non-science based public fluoridation policy, the fluoridation proponents will find fault with any such study. Yet, for almost 60 years, these proponents refused to do any valid studies themselves, and have no valid data to support their policy error. In addition, their furious defense of the erroneous fluoridation policy is evidence of express knowledge with egregious disregard for evidentiary harm that has now been proven by multiple empirical studies. Thus, the answer to the allegation that “other studies should have detected such IQ differences”, is that other studies have detected such differences (Bashash et al., 2018).

 

Reference:

Bashash, M., Marchand,  M., Hu, H.,  et al. (2018)  Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6-12 years of age in Mexico City.  Environ Int.,121(Pt 1):658-666. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.017

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
462
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
454
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

454 Views
Message 130 of 1,448

"When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, pound the table and holler like crazy." - Aphorism 

 

Dr. Osmunson @BillO538145 - 

 

 

 

It seems obvious that the NIH/NIEHS also drank the fluoridated Kool-Aid before they sponsored these epidiological studies, fully believing that they'd prove fluoridation safe. However, when faced with study after study that validate the findings of in vitro, animal, and other laboratory studies, i.e. that fluoride exposure even in low doses is harmful to biological systems including brain function, there are only two options left to fluoridationists. Either they admit the mistake and take action to remedy the situation or stick to the lie while doubling down on promotion per quote above. 

 

A friend recently sent me the following which illustrates his point of view. I suggest it is integrity more than intelligence that is lacking in fluoridationists and their organizations.

 

GoofyScience.jpgGoofy Science 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
454
Views