AARP and the photographers of Magnum Photos look at older people living in new ways around the world in A New Age.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
204
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

204 Views
Message 51 of 1,372

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
204
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
189
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

189 Views
Message 52 of 1,372

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
189
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
200
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

200 Views
Message 53 of 1,372

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
200
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
204
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

204 Views
Message 54 of 1,372

"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
204
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
196
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

196 Views
Message 55 of 1,372

Bill, despite your attempted diversion I take from your reply that you are rejecting my offer of a proper scientific excxhange on this paper.

I also take from your reply ("Of course one study does not prove most anything.") that you are no longer willing to support your claim "this study does show harm from fluoridated water."

Not surprised. The study clearly shows no difference between individuals from fluoridated and unfluoridated areas.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
196
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
176
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

176 Views
Message 56 of 1,372

Hi Ken

 

So thoughtful of you to include me in the statistical evaluation of the Green et al 2019 study with measured urine fluoride concentrations and lower IQ.

 

I would invite you to discuss total fluoride exposure and recommended dosage.

 

How much fluoride do you want to prevent dental caries?

 

How much is each person ingesting?

 

How much is safe?

 

Of course one study does not prove most anything.  However, we now have over 50 human studies reporting harm. 

 

You and I want the highest quality of research.  But that does not exist for benefit of ingested fluoride.

 

And you will not find the highest quality of research evaluating harm.  That would be unethical and simply acceptable to University Research Ethics Committees. 

 

We cannot give enough fluoride to people and see when they start to be harmed.  Not ethical. 

 

So Ken, you want to pick the studies apart.  Good.  Design a study which you would accept that determines risk/safety of ingested fluoride.

 

The study of benefit is much easier than the study of harm.  We can intentionally cause benefit and measure it.  We cannot intentionally cause harm.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
176
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
179
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

179 Views
Message 57 of 1,372

Bill, you say "I'm sure Randy and Ken are not intentionally trying to promote harm to the public, they simply get confused with so much information and fail to look at the big picture of all the evidence. . . such as desired dosage."

Kind of you - but are you willing to show confidence in your claim of our "confusion?"

I will be writing a critique of this paper and post it in the next few days. I offer you equal space as a right of reply to critique my critique and justify your claim " this study does show harm from fluoridated water."

You could start by explaining how a nonsignificant difference in mean IQ of +0.5 (in favour of fluoridated water) between subjects from fluoridated and fluoridated areas shows harm!

I invite you to join a proper scientific exchange on the merits of this paper.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
179
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
187
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

187 Views
Message 58 of 1,372

Bill, you do realise the publication of an editors note on the paper is extremely unusual. This indicates to me a huge dispute on publication - perhaps most or all referee's arguing against publication. The comment in the note from  Julian Poulkton-King from Monash health who says "this should not have been published without further exploration" supports this suggestion.

Unusually at this stage, the paper has been roundly condemned by independent experts contacted by the UK Science Media Centre - (see expert reaction to study looking at maternal exposure to fluoride and IQ in children). For example. Prof Thom Bradley comments:

 

"In summary, it is not correct to imply that the data here show evidence of a link between maternal fluoride exposure and IQ. The average change in IQ is not statistically significant.”

 

I will be writing my own analysis and critique of the paper. Fortunately, the authors include their data in the figures which enables an independent statistical analysis to overcome their deficiency in not presenting the full results of their own analysis. (Simple reporting of p-values can be very misleading).

 

My initial look shows absolutely no difference in IQ of offspring from fluoridated (mean IQ 108.8) and unfluoridated (mean IQ = 108.3) areas.

 

Prof Baguley also commented on the unorthodox statistical approach ("This is an example of subgroup analysis – which is frowned upon in these kinds of studies because it is nearly always possible to identify some subgroup which shows an effect if the data are noisy. Here the data are very noisy "). Others have criticised the statistical analysis because the data was not normally distributed and should have been transformed.

However, even with the analysis used the "apparently" significant relationship (low p-values which are often misleading) can explain only 1.3% (between IQ of male offspring and maternal urinary F) or 0.3% (child IQ with maternal fluoride uptake) of the variance in IQ. Considering this, and the faulty statistical methods use, I have no hesitation at this stage of concluding the results are meaningless. Which, of course, won't stop anti-fluoride campaigners from touting the study as "brilliant science" - simple confirmation bias.

I hope the journal editors will allow this study to be debated in the journal - it is disappointing that they refer only to debate "in the public arena." Proper scientific peer review should take place after publication - but I know from experience journal editors often prevent this and authors attempt to ignore scientific critiques.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
187
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
190
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

190 Views
Message 59 of 1,372

CarryAnne,

 

Yes, you are correct. 

 

Randy is probably very smart in some things, but fails to have a global view of problems and gets confused. 

 

Fluoridation has many streams of evidence to consider.   These streams of evidence appear to have become confusing to him. 

 

The latest fluoride lowering IQ study by Green et al 2019, is rather powerful, with dosages of fluoride similar from all sources except fluoridated water. 

 

In effect, this study does show harm from fluoridated water. 

 

I'm sure Randy and Ken are not intentionally trying to promote harm to the public, they simply get confused with so much information and fail to look at the big picture of all the evidence. . . such as desired dosage.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
190
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
197
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

197 Views
Message 60 of 1,372

CarryAnne,

 

The Editor's note in the JAMA Pediatrics is well said:

 

"This decision to publish this article was not easy.1 Given the nature of the findings and their potential implications, we subjected it to additional scrutiny for its methods and the presentation of its findings. The mission of the journal is to ensure that child health is optimized by bringing the best available evidence to the fore .Publishing it serves as testament to the fact that JAMAPediatrics is committed to
disseminating the best science based entirely on the rigor of the methods and the soundness of the hypotheses tested, regardless of how contentious the results maybe. That said, scientific inquiry is an iterative process. It is rare that a single study provides definitive evidence. This study is neither the first, nor will it be the last, to test the association between prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive development. We hope that purveyors and consumers of these findings are mindful of that as the implications of this study are debated in the public arena."

 

With over 50 human studies reporting harm to the developing brain, the Green et al 2019 study is certainly not the first, nor it will be the last. 

 

The question proponents must ponder is, "What are the chances more research will reverse the 50 studies reporting harm?"

 

We can fix teeth, but we can't fix brains.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
197
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