Fluoridation in the UK

[fls]

I understood from the report that good-quality (at least as far as the authors of the report were concerned) could be achieved by a non-randomised design, so long as the study was of sufficient duration and those assessing outcomes were blinded to the status of the participants.

(my bold)

The requirements for good-quality would fairly easily be met by randomized-controlled trials, but depended on some arbitrary, less-likely-to-be-met criteria for any other kind of study. Even a well-designed cohort study wouldn't necessarily meet their criteria. The quality ratings for some of the cohort studies were good, but they were still down-graded, based on the arbitrary choice of whether they identified three confounders, rather than based on pre-established measures of 'good-quality'.

Linda

 

[Tomblvd]

The bottom line is there is no good quality evidence to support putting fluoride in tap water.

I know this will mean nothing to you Ivor, but others that aren't sure might be interested in this ADA pamphlet concerning fluoride. It has over 350 studies listed.

And I'll add my anecdotal evidence. I've been a dentist in a medium sized community for 20 years. The local municipal water supply was finally fluoridated about 10 years ago. There was a remarkable difference in caries, esp. among the lower income kids after it was started.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I know this will mean nothing to you Ivor, but others that aren't sure might be interested in this ADA pamphlet concerning fluoride. It has over 350 studies listed.

Why would it mean nothing to me?

And I'll add my anecdotal evidence. I've been a dentist in a medium sized community for 20 years. The local municipal water supply was finally fluoridated about 10 years ago. There was a remarkable difference in caries, esp. among the lower income kids after it was started.

There was probably a remarkable difference in fluorosis, especially among the higher income kids after it was started.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

What is the prevalence of significant fluorosis (though I am not sure where to place the divinging line here - checking on wikipedia, I would have a case of questionable fluorosis, and one of my siblings very mild fluorosis, and I don't think either of those is significant enough to be worth worrying about) in fluoridated areas, compared with the prevalence of dental caries in non fluoridated areas? I ask because I have lived in both fluoridated and non fluoridated areas, and know plenty of people who have multiple caries/fillings, but I don't know a single person with a bad case of fluorosis.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What is the prevalence of significant fluorosis (though I am not sure where to place the divinging line here - checking on wikipedia, I would have a case of questionable fluorosis, and one of my siblings very mild fluorosis, and I don't think either of those is significant enough to be worth worrying about) in fluoridated areas, compared with the prevalence of dental caries in non fluoridated areas? I ask because I have lived in both fluoridated and non fluoridated areas, and know plenty of people who have multiple caries/fillings, but I don't know a single person with a bad case of fluorosis.

IIRC, fluorosis is caused by exposure to fluoride before teeth have emerged. This probably explains why I have some mild fluorosis and my sister does not, since she was at least 4 years old before fluoride was added to the drinking water in our area.

 

[robinson]

Chronic fluoride intoxication from the fluoride that ends up in the water and environment is a huge problem in industrial societies, that dump fluoride into the water supplies.

Industry spin doctors have pointed out that while wildlife may be sickened and die, their teeth look really good.

 

[Tomblvd]

Why would it mean nothing to me?

Er, because you said this:

The bottom line is there is no good quality evidence to support putting fluoride in tap water.

Looks like good enough evidence to me.

There was probably a remarkable difference in fluorosis, especially among the higher income kids after it was started.

Not even remotely.

If anything it dropped. As a rule (at least from where I sit), kids were more likely to take too many fluoride tablets or vitamins than they were to drink too much water.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Er, because you said this:

The bottom line is there is no good quality evidence to support putting fluoride in tap water.

Looks like good enough evidence to me.

Oh. I'm certainly not the first to notice the claims for the benefits of fluoridation of tap water are not backed up with good quality evidence. Perhaps there is some in the references section of the document you linked to.

Not even remotely.

If anything it dropped. As a rule (at least from where I sit), kids were more likely to take too many fluoride tablets or vitamins than they were to drink too much water.

That's unusual. Most studies show fluoridation of tap water increases the number of cases of fluorosis.

 

[Tomblvd]

Oh. I'm certainly not the first to notice the claims for the benefits of fluoridation of tap water are not backed up with good quality evidence. Perhaps there is some in the references section of the document you linked to.



That's unusual. Most studies show fluoridation of tap water increases the number of cases of fluorosis.

I can't help but notice you can ignore the reams of evidence of the efficacy of fluoride by merely questioning the "quality" of the evidence, yet you are more than happy to tout your own studies on fluorosis.

Interesting....and convenient.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I can't help but notice you can ignore the reams of evidence of the efficacy of fluoride by merely questioning the "quality" of the evidence, yet you are more than happy to tout your own studies on fluorosis.

Interesting....and convenient.

If you've read the thread you'll have noticed my opinion is informed by those experts who looked at the evidence for the benefits and risks of fluoridation of tap water in the UK. What was wrong with the work they did?

This is getting like a flu vaccination thread.

 

[Tomblvd]

If you've read the thread you'll have noticed my opinion is informed by those experts who looked at the evidence for the benefits and risks of fluoridation of tap water in the UK. What was wrong with the work they did?

Ah yes, my experts can beat up your experts.

Are you referring to the York study? If you are (well, even if you aren't), what do they say that tells you the risks outweigh the benefits?

Why are your "experts" superior to others?

 

[PBTree]

Ah yes, my experts can beat up your experts.

Are you referring to the York study? If you are (well, even if you aren't), what do they say that tells you the risks outweigh the benefits?

Why are your "experts" superior to others?

Touchê Tomblvd


Tasmania has had fluoride for ~50 years and except for our second head, I haven't heard of anyone having 'fluoride based problems'.

I would say that lazy parents are the main cause of children's tooth decay, so any help we can give the children to escape the dentist's chair, should be taken.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Are you referring to the York study?

If you had read the thread you would know which study I am referring to.

If you are (well, even if you aren't), what do they say that tells you the risks outweigh the benefits?

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Why are your "experts" superior to others?

Because they didn't have their conclusion written before they did their research?

 

[robinson]

I know from experience that using fluoride directly on adult teeth increases both the strength as well as reducing sensitivity.

Consuming fluoride is the worst way to try and gain the benefits of fluoride. According to sound scientific research. It is understandable that in the past, ignorance of how fluoride works led to the error of dumping it into the water supply.

Trying to defend that ignorant conclusion, after all we know about it now, is inexcusable.

 

[Tomblvd]

If you had read the thread you would know which study I am referring to.

I asked a simple, clarifying question. Why the snark?

Anyway, I light of the odd "clarification" you seem to be hanging your hat on, here are the words of the actual study:

Results: 214 studies were included. The quality of studies was low to moderate. Water fluoridation was associated with an increased proportion of children without caries and a reduction in the number of teeth affected by caries. The range (median) of mean differences in the proportion of children without caries was 5.0% to 64% (14.6%). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5 to 4.4 (2.25) teeth. A dose-dependent increase in dental fluorosis was found. At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning.
[QUOTE/]

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Tomblvd,

please read this post, then get back to me. You seem to be attributing to me a point of view which I do not hold.

 

[robinson]

I hate it when that happens.

 

[Tomblvd]

Tomblvd,

please read this post, then get back to me. You seem to be attributing to me a point of view which I do not hold.

Yes, I read that "clarification", and as I showed in the previous post, it doesn't seem to jibe with what the study actually said.

And you said this:

The bottom line is there is no good quality evidence to support putting fluoride in tap water.

This is your point of view, is it not?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes, I read that "clarification", and as I showed in the previous post, it doesn't seem to jibe with what the study actually said.

And you said this:

The bottom line is there is no good quality evidence to support putting fluoride in tap water.

And here's what the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) said:

We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.

 

[Tomblvd]

And here's what the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) said:

Why wasn't that said in the actual study?

Also, what makes this almost decade old study so authoritative in your eyes?