Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
396
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

396 Views
Message 51 of 1,444

Richard, the mean water fluoride levels were 0.13 mg/L for the unfluodiated areas and 0.59 for the fluoridated areas.

The corresponding mean MUFs were 0.30 and 0.93

But no difference in child IQ.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
396
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
373
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

373 Views
Message 52 of 1,444

No. From unfluoridated areas that already contained sufficient fluoride to minimize the difference in urine F to only 0.3 ppm.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
373
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
374
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

374 Views
Message 53 of 1,444

Carry Anne, have now listened to this and think you have assumed a little too much. A throwaway statement indicating there had been a contentious discussion of the paper in during its review and that it had subjected to (contentious) statistical review - several of them. That does not equate to including two statisticians on the review panel as you implied.

It does suggest to me that the contentious discussion, the disagreements, were about the stats - not effect on policy. I am not surprised.

My take away impressions is that both of these editors are quite ignorant of fluoridation and the controversies. To not have an understanding of how wide the health measure is used in Europe and Canda is, to me, telling. To confuse the "topical" and ingestion issue again implies they are ignorant. And to be unaware of similar studies also indicates their poor background on the issue. Those guys were clearly out of their depth

I do not see any value in the podcast (or their advice) except to reinforce the impression that the publication of this paper was very contentious, the statical analysis was a contentious issue, and that the editors may now be having misgivings as they see the more detailed critiques coming through.

I only hope the journal will publish critiques and not ban them as happened with my critique of the Malin & Till (2015) paper - see https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/09/18/we-need-more-post-publication-peer-review/We need mor...). I am pessimistic because so far no assurance has been given.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
374
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
396
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

396 Views
Message 54 of 1,444

CarryAnne, OK, I haven't listened to that podcast yet. Instead, I was actually reading the paper, applying a bit of critical thinking, and lookin at the data. This takes time and is one of the reasons critical reviews were not immediate (except for the UK Science Media Centre which probably had early access).

Notice, I don't comment on paper undtill I have had a chance to read them and critically eview data. This contrasts with the immediate reaction from anti-fluoride cmapaigners, coauthors and their supporters who have ignored the data and relied on statements of "authority." None of those promoting the paper actually use or refer to the data - that tells us something.

I repeat, this paper has been handled in a very strange way. An unprecedented Editor's comment, and now a podcast. Unprecedented, and probably an indication  of the internal fighting that has been going on over publication of the paper in its current form,

I have enough experience of scientific and publication politics to laugh at the claim that the reason for the fighting was the effect the paper's findings will have on policy because we know it will not have any more effect than the Bashash papers - the reported relationships are so extremely weak as to be meaningless. And it is a fact that Green et al reported no difference in child IQ for mothers from fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas.

No, the expressed concern is just politics-speak to cover up what the real fighting was about.

However, I will get around to listening to the podcast. from what Jonny says it appears it is quite revealing as to the bias of the Editor and perhaps others.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
396
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
424
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

424 Views
Message 55 of 1,444

For heaven's sake, KenP - I gave you the audio link where the JAMA Pediatrics editors said they performed "several" statistical reviews, but highlighted the twitter response (not my own) that said two reviews as a visual and you imply that I'm using my own tweet as a reference in order to generate fake news? 

 

Then you reverse my point that you and Adam omitted 20% of the data in your amateur statistical reviews that you threw together within a day or two of the publication of this prospective cohort study. Your review and Adams's were being used by fluoridationists to cast shade on the findings which had several professional reviews by the premier medical journal who took great care in confirming the quality and accuracy of the study. Really? 

 

  • If I may use your own words, misrepresentation such as you demonstrated "says something about your desire to avoid facing up to problems."

 

The exceptional & unusual handling of this paper by the editor that you reference was explained in the beginning of the JAMA Pediatrics podcast. Because fluroidationists have drilled it into the orthodoxy that fluoridation is safe and any science that claims otherwise must be false, these top notch scientists and doctors wanted to be sure that the science was solid. The editors also mentioned that in performing their due diligence they learned lots of facts that they didn't know (because they had been so close minded due to their indocrination) - such as fluoridation is not universal in the modern world (including Canada and Europe) and fluoridation is not necessary for healthy teeth. 

 

As for Johnny Johnson's comment where he implies that dentists are more expert in matters involving pregnancy and fetal neurodevelopment than scientists or the pediatricians and other doctors at JAMA simply because the study involves fluoride: 

 

"As a scientist, I hesitate to say any one observational study is definitive, but I'd definitely not allow my pregnant daughter or grandchildren drink fluoridated water after reading this one study. However, it isn't just this one study. There are studies of every type verifying that fluoride is poisonous to humans with an increased risk for the very young. As a scientist, I have no hesitation in saying that fluoridation is harmful to consumers beginning in the womb."  - A scientist commenting on “Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada” published in JAMA Pediatrics (August 2019)

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
424
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
414
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

414 Views
Message 56 of 1,444

CarryAnne, so you rely on your own twitter response as an authority for your claim that the paper was reviewed by two statisticians!!

Amazing. This is how fake news is generated.

I would love to know just what reviewers did say about the statistical problems in this paper. it might help explain the exceptionally unusual manner the editor dealt with this paper.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
414
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
420
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

420 Views
Message 57 of 1,444

CarryAnne, the incomplete recovery of data from the graph is not an "epic mistake," it is a simple fact of digital extraction. In this case, I do not believe all the data was included in the graphs. I managed to extract a few more points than Adam but find it hard to believe that so many points are hidden.

However, I guess only the authors will be able to tell us if they omitted 20% of the data points - and they are not responding to critiques.

With the points, I extracted I managed to produce almost the same value as the authors for mean IQ values and the comparison of fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. Here are my values of mean IQ with those of Green et al in brackets:

All children: 106.6 (107.2); nonfluoridated: 108.3 (108.1); fluoridated:108.8 (108.2)
Boys: 104.0 (104.6)
Girls: 109.6 (109.6).

The fact you use the emotional "epic mistake" for a recognised and acknowledged problem of digital extraction (especially where authors do not include all their data points) and ignore these vey close values says something about your desire to avoid facing up to problems with this paper.

Extremely close and confirming their result that there was no statistically significant difference in mena IQs of children for mothers from fluoridated and unfluoridated areas.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
420
Views
Conversationalist
3
Kudos
492
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

492 Views
Message 58 of 1,444

Mr. Johnson,

"Thou protesteth too much, me thinks."  A reasonable person without an agenda would be pleased for new research and request/encourage even more.

 

Should a 'pill' be offered to increase IQ of the children, I bet many would ask for it.  If there is some idea or suspicion that something may decrease IQ of the children, that is equally worth attention as well as alarm or avoidance.

 

See what this Medical Doctor has to say about the study. https://youtu.be/oSTTQKo6jxc

 

I wonder why you protest so much and so strongly.

 

A registered nurse.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
492
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
481
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

481 Views
Message 59 of 1,444

Yes, do listen closely.....  The Editor and editorial are severely lacking in dental expertise. 

 

Further, the Editor, a physician, has spoken openly in "print" media that he would not have his wife drink fluoridated water based on this study.  REALLY?  Like depending on one study on immunizations by Andrew Wakefield???  

 

Then, the Editor even mentioned Wakefield in the Podcast.  Yah, go listen.  Then he does exactly the same thing and makes a recommendation based on ONE study.  And he says that he'd recommend that pediatricians questioned on it recommend this too.  He'd have them drink bottled or filtered water.  He doesn't state which bottled water or filters.  That is poor.  Bottled water can contain up to twice or more fluoride than tap water and isn't labeled on the bottle's contents.  You know this I'm sure.  But for the readers here that really want to know, this information can be found by calling the phone number on the bottle, or on the International Bottled Water Association's website, IBWA.org.

 

Filters:  Which filters?  We know it is reverse osmosis and whole house carbon filters, don't we?  Of course we do.  We've spoken about this in other forums.  Don't try to decieve the folks here.  I'm an AARP member and won't let you scare them or their children/grandchildren who may be pregnant.

 

Nearly 75 year of credibly conducted scientific research that's been published in peer-reviewed, credibly recognized scientific journals has repeatedly shown water fluoridation to be effective and safe for everyone.  Over 6,500 articles are listed on Pubmed when the word fluoridation is entered.  One study does not reverse the overwhelming body of evidence on water fluoridation.  Neither do 3-4 which have not been repeated.  If and when something changes, the scientific community will be the first to announce it, not you and others who oppose fluoride in water at any level, even the natural levels that are in all water in the world.

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

Diplomate, American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
481
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
483
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

483 Views
Message 60 of 1,444

Omitting 20% of the data points isn't epic enough for you, KenP? 

 

I cited JAMA Pediatrics per NYSCOF's Twitter response to Adam, not myself.

 

Listen to JAMA Pediatrics podcast with the editors and notice the bit about the "shift in the curve" as being quite important. Also that Green did sensitivity analysis and used individual level data in  "a very good cohort study." Plus the editors who are medical doctors noted that gender differences of neurodevelopment in humans and animals are well known. The editors also noted that systemic fluoride could still be harmful to infants and young children after birth because brains are still developing after birth. Dr. Christakis said JAMA Pediatrics had "several" stats reviews before publishing.  https://edhub.ama-assn.org/jn-learning/audio-player/17802991 

 

epic.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
483
Views