Coke Addiction

[DRTY]

What's your point? It said there is insuffiecient evidence about the harm fluoridation of water causes. Meaning all this harm you speak of, has no proof. (on a meta analytical scale).

Obviously I haven't read the whole thing I've skipped through it and still have it open now. I've only really read a few paragraphs from the last few pages (before the referencing and gloss)

[DRTY]

[url]http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/systematic.htm[/url]

so i should ask the government if it lies and believe what it says?

You provided about 8 .gov links yourself earlier

[alien pimp]

[url]http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/systematic.htm[/url]

so i should ask the government if it lies and believe what it says?

You provided about 8 .gov links yourself earlier

nah shit, did i?
how would you know, don't tell me you read my posts?!
and what did my links say?
and if i provided 8 links and you 1, who wins??

now a hard one: why is yours better than mine?

[DRTY]

now a hard one: why is yours better than mine?

Because mine is a meta analysis. And yours are single studies.

[alien pimp]

What's your point?

bwahahaha

[alien pimp]

now a hard one: why is yours better than mine?

Because mine is a meta analysis. And yours are single studies.

so?

make a meta analysis out of my 8 single studies!

[DRTY]

make a meta analysis out of my 8 single studies!

You can't make a meta analysis out of 8 studies. Especially not cherry picked ones.

[magma]

make a meta analysis out of my 8 single studies!

Brilliant.

[alien pimp]

make a meta analysis out of my 8 single studies!

You can't make a meta analysis out of 8 studies. Especially not cherry picked ones.

really?
so how many did they use?
and why would mine be cherry picked an theirs not?

i just don't know... really...

[DRTY]

make a meta analysis out of my 8 single studies!

You can't make a meta analysis out of 8 studies. Especially not cherry picked ones.[/quote]

really?

Yes.

so how many did they use?

It depends which objective you mean, in objective 1 they used 26 studies. In 2 they used 9, in 3 they used 15, in 4 they used 88, and in objective 5 there wasn't any (naturally vs artificial addition of fluoride). In the review they did they found no major difference between the two. They stated that for objective 5, but said they won't conclude until there are more studies.

So in total that's 138 studies. Split into categories of 'evidence level' dependant on variants such as whether or not control groups were used etc.

and why would mine be cherry picked an theirs not?

i just don't know... really...

Because you looked for ones that agree with you. They looked at all of them, which is what a meta analysis is.

Meta Analysis' are used because single studies, even ones done unbiased can produce dodgy results. The best way to conclude something is by using a meta analysis grouping all of the studies' results together into a larger study.

[alien pimp]

seen
it might take me about 1h to provide 29392 more studies, wait a bit...
we have 9 already, because that earlier link you posted and says exactly what i say, so we're closer

so a meta analysis can't be faked, not even if you're the gov and have something to hide. it's not like they would really do like me and cherry pick the studies, they'd have no interest in that, we all know how the gov is dedicated to serving the peeps

then i should trust them when they say:

Fluoridation is considered beneficial by the overwhelming majority of the health and scientific communities, as well as the general public.

and i should consider a fraction of the health and scientific communities in 5 countries the overwhelming majority.

but what do you know, trying to learn a bit i found this:

A weakness of the method is that sources of bias are not controlled by the method. A good meta-analysis of badly designed studies will still result in bad statistics.

but being cherry picked quote from from wiki, obviously we can dismiss it and consider the method infallible

now that's what i call science!

[alien pimp]

They looked at all of them, which is what a meta analysis is.

even the us gov looks at the studies i provide, only you don't, you're just mean to me!

[DRTY]

seen
it might take me about 1h to provide 29392 more studies, wait a bit...
we have 9 already, because that earlier link you posted and says exactly what i say, so we're closer

so a meta analysis can't be faked, not even if you're the gov and have something to hide. it's not like they would really do like me and cherry pick the studi.........

(cut quote to save some space.....)

Unless you I or do the study ourselves, there will always be an element of trust. I choose to believe that the university of York have no reason to lie about this study.

The search techiniques they used are discussed on page 18.

And I'm not mean, I'm a lover.

[alien pimp]

seen
it might take me about 1h to provide 29392 more studies, wait a bit...
we have 9 already, because that earlier link you posted and says exactly what i say, so we're closer

so a meta analysis can't be faked, not even if you're the gov and have something to hide. it's not like they would really do like me and cherry pick the studi.........

(cut quote to save some space.....)

Unless you I or do the study ourselves, there will always be an element of trust. I choose to believe that the university of York have no reason to lie about this study.

The search techiniques they used are discussed on page 18.

And I'm not mean, I'm a lover.

so all their credibility comes down in the end to the fact that you chose to believe them, you, the guy who provides studies that support the opposite side, you who chose to believe what ADA says about WHO, not what WHO says, you who are accurate in perception to the point where you're not bothered by those claims over the "overwhelming majority...", you who asks a suspect if he did the crime and take his word for granted, and so on?

safe then, i'll follow you because i should learn to be a lover too and propagate the truth !

fuck dem conspirationists!

[magma]

Unless you I or do the study ourselves, there will always be an element of trust. I choose to believe that the university of York have no reason to lie about this study.

The search techiniques they used are discussed on page 18.

This is the key point. Alien Pimp was told something very exciting a while ago and he's desperate for it to be true so that his life is made just a liiiiittle bit more interesting by being able to "inform" people about it and be seen as intelligent by someone.

Of course he's not interested in anything that might go against that belief, because it would also mean that the world wasn't as exciting and scary and he'd also have to lose a bit of face and admit he believed in a crock of shit (that flouride is used to keep populations sedate and under control).

Occam's Razor is such a boring concept, it's far more fun to believe everyone's organised and out to get you. THEY'RE COMING FOR US... WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Let the boy live in his fantasy world... I think we've at the very least proven that he's incapable of dealing with proper scientific logic.

[DRTY]

"The vast majority".

When you Google "Fluoride Water" all you get is your bullshit conspiracy shite. You don't get people posting eachother links to actual science because it's geeky. That's just the way it is. Hence lack of good data via google.

You can't say the majority of studies show that fluoride will give you cancer or whatever just because google is flooded with it.

Go to a respected journal database then show me some good, professional studies.

The internet is 90% shite. and 10% good stuff.

One day you'll grow up and realize not everything's a conspiracy.

Anyway, serious question, what do you brush your teeth with?

[the artful dodger]

Some people , i go to Wikipedia for the truth.....

[alien pimp]

You can't say the majority of studies show that fluoride will give you cancer or whatever just because google is flooded with it.

so the rest of the world is just conspiracy links i found on internet, which makes that fraction of the scientists in 5 countries a clear majority

see why i gave up on my beliefs and decided to follow you? you are very special and deserve the trust!
and since science is a matter of trust, you are backed up by it too

thanks for being a lover and reading the posts you reply to!

[alien pimp]

Go to a respected journal database then show me some good, professional studies.

yeah sorry i provided studies that you don't trust and weren't even worthy of a click!
but your 3 links saved the day because you chose to trust them, which prevails over the fact that one says all the literature published so far on the subject is shit (which would include the York shit) the other one says WHO supports them while WHO doesn't, and the third says a fraction of the scientific community from 5 countries is the overwhelming majority.

so yeah, be my captain once again!

[alien pimp]

i was repenting for my sins and i couldn't believe i linked a study published by University of Chicago Press with such pitiful references (and this is just one of them):

1. Colquhoun J. The influence of social rank and fluoridation on dental treatment requirements. New Zealand Dental Journal 73 146-148 1977.
2. Brooking TWH. A History of Dentistry in New Zealand. Dunedin. New Zealand Dental Association 1980 pp 214-215.
3. Hollis MJ, Hunter PB. Official Instructions: Dental health statistics, Form II children. School Dental Service Gazette 41 (3) 19 1980.
4. Colquhoun J. New evidence on fluoridation. Social Science and Medicine 19 1239-1246 1984.
5. Colquhoun J. Influence of social class and fluoridation on child dental health. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 13 37-41 1985.
6. Colquhoun J. Child dental health differences in New Zealand. Community Health Studies 11 85-90 1987.
7. Yiamouyiannis JA. Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from the 1986-1987 national survey of U.S. schoolchildren. Fluoride 23 55-67 1990.
8. Brunelle JA, Carlos JP Recent trends in dental caries in U. S. children and the effect of water fluoridation. Journal of Dental Research 69 (Special Issue) 723-728 1990.
9. Hildebolt CF, Elvin-Lewis M, Molnar S et al. Caries prevalences among geochemical regions of Missouri. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 78 79-92 1989.
10. Jones T, Steelink C, Sierka J. Analysis of the causes of tooth decay in children in Tucson, Arizona. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, USA, February 1994. Abstract in Fluoride 27 (4) 238 1994.
11. Steelink C. Letter. Chemical and Engineering News 27 July 1992 pp 2-3.
12. Diesendorf M A re-examination of Australian fluoridation trials. Search 17 256-261 1986.
13. Diesendorf M. Have the benefits of water fluoridation been overestimated? International Clinical Nutrition Review 10 292-303 1990.
14. Diesendorf M. The mystery of declining tooth decay. Nature 322 125-129 1986.
15. Gray A S. Fluoridation: Time for a new base line? Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 53 763-765 1987.
16. Ziegelbecker RC, Ziegelbecker R. WHO data on dental caries and natural water fluoride levels. Fluoride 26 263-266 1993.
17. Teotia SPS, Teotia M. Dental caries: a disorder of high fluoride and low dietary calcium interactions (30 years of personal research). Fluoride 27 59-66 1994.
18. Colquhoun J. Fluorides and the decline in tooth decay in New Zealand. Fluoride 26 125-134 1993.
19. Hamilton V, Birkbeck JA. The Home Style Survey of New Zealand's Changing Diet. Quality Bakers, Palmerston North 1985.
20. Herod EL. The effect of cheese on dental caries: A review of the literature. Australian Dental Journal 36 (2)120-125 1991.
21. Price WA. Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. Heuber, New York 1939.
22. Smith G. Tooth decay in the developing world: could a vaccine help prevent cavities? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 31 440-453 1988.
23. Treasure ET, Dever JG. The prevalence of caries in 5-year-old children living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in New Zealand. New Zealand Dental Journal 88 9-13 1992.
24. Ludwig TG. The Hastings fluoridation project. New Zealand Dental Journal 54 165-172 1958. 55 176-179 1959. 58 22-24 1962 (co-author EIF Pearce). 59 298-301 1963. 61 175-179 1965. 67 155-160 1971.
25. Department of Health files on fluoridation in National Archives, Wellington, New Zealand. Copies in possession of author and described in: Colquhoun J. Education and Fluoridation in New Zealand: An historical study (PhD dissertation, University of Auckland). University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor MI 1987.
26. Ludwig TG. Recent marine soils and resistance to dental caries. Australian Dental Journal 8 109-113 1963.
27. Colquhoun J, Mann R. The Hastings fluoridation experiment: Science or swindle? Ecologist 16 (6) 243-248 1986 17 (2) 125-126 1987.
28. Colquhoun J. Flawed foundation: A re-examination of the scientific basis for a dental benefit from fluoridation. Community Health Studies 14 288-296 1990.
29. Klerer M. The fluoridation experiment. Contemporary Issues 7 119-143 1956.
30. Sutton PRN. Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne 1960.
31. Diesendorf M, Colquhoun J, Spittle B J et al. New evidence on fluoridation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 21 187-190 1997.
32. Journal of Dental Research 69 (Special Issue) 606-613 742-750 556-557 1990.
33. Colquhoun J. Disfiguring dental fluorosis in Auckland, New Zealand. Fluoride 17 234-242 1984.
34. Cutress TW, Suckling GW, Pearce EIF, Ball ME. Defects in tooth enamel in children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated water areas of the Auckland Region. New Zealand Dental Journal 81 12-19 1985.
35. Colquhoun J. Disfiguring or "white and strong"? Fluoride 23 104-111 1990.
36. Aasenden R, Peebles TC. Effects of fluoride supplementation from birth on human deciduous and permanent teeth. Archives of Oral Biology 19 321-326 1974.
37. Jacobsen SJ, Goldberg J, Miles TP et al. Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture among white women aged 65 years and older. Journal of the American Medical Association 264 500-502 1990.
38. Cooper C, Wickham CAC, Barker DJR, Jacobsen SJ. Letter. Journal of the American Medical Association 266 513-514 1991.
39. Jacobsen SJ, Goldberg J, Cooper C, Lockwood SA. The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older. A national ecologic study. Annals of Epidemiology 2 617-626 1992.
40. Sowers MFR, Clark MK, Jannausch ML, Wallace RB. A prospective study of bone mineral content and fracture in communities with differential fluoride exposure. American Journal of Epidemiology 133 649-660 1991.
41. Jacqmin-Gadda H, Commenges D, Dartigues J-F. Fluorine concentration in drinking water and fractures in the elderly. Journal of the American Medical Association 273 775-776 1995.
42. Danielson C, Lyon JL, Egger M, Goodenough GK. Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah's elderly population. Journal of the American Medical Association 268 746-748 1992.
43. Keller C. Fluorides in drinking water. Paper presented at Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fractures and Bone Health. Bethesda MD, April 10 1991.
44. May DS., Wilson MG. Hip fractures in relation to water fluoridation: an ecologic analysis. Paper presented at Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fractures and Bone Health. Bethesda MD, April 10, 1991.
45. Cauley JA, Murphy PA, Riley T, Black D. Public health bonus of water fluoridation: Does fluoridation prevent osteoporosis and its related fractures? American Journal of Epidemiology 134 768 1991. Abstract.
46. Jacobsen SJ, O'Fallon WM, Melton III IJ. Hip fracture incidence before and after fluoridation of the public water supply, Rochester, Minnesota. American Journal of Public Health 83 743-745 1993.
47. Suarez-Almazor ME, Flowerdew G, Saunders LD et al. The fluoridation of drinking water and hip fracture hospitalization rates in 2 Canadian communities. American Journal of Public Health 83 689-693 1993.
48. Riggs BL, Hodgson SF, O'Fallon WM et al. Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. New England Journal of Medicine 322 802-809 1990.
49. Kleerekoper M, Peterson E, Philips E et al. Continuous sodium fluoride therapy does not reduce vertebral fracture rate in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 4 (Suppl 1) S376 1989. Abstract.
50. Hedlund LR, Gallagher JC. Increased incidence of hip fracture in osteoporotic women treated with sodium fluoride. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 4 223-225 1989.
51. Lindsay R. Fluoride and bone - quantity versus quality. New England Journal of Medicine 322 844-845 1990.
52. Melton LJ. Fluoride in the prevention of osteoporosis and fractures. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 5 (Suppl 1) S163-S167 1990.
53. 53 Fluorides and Human Health. World Health Organization, Geneva 1970 pp 37-41.
54. 54 Fluorine and Fluorides. World Health Organization, Geneva 1984 pp 152-153.
55. Alhava EM, Olkkomen H, Kauranen P, Kari T. The effect of drinking water fluoridation on the fluoride content, strength and mineral density of human bone. Acta Orthopædica Scandinavica 51 413-420 1980.
56. Arnala I, Alhava EM, Kauranen EM. Effects of fluoride on bone in Finland. histomorphometry of cadaver bone from low and high fluoride areas. Acta Orthopædica Scandinavica 56 161-166 1985.
57. Maurer JK, Cheng MC, Boysen BG, Anderson RL. Two-year carcinogenicity study of sodium fluoride in rats. Journal, National Cancer Institute 82 1118-1126 1990.
58. Kanwar KC, Parminderjit SV, Kalla NR. In vitro inhibition of testosterone synthesis in the presence of fluoride ions. IRCS Medical Science 11 813-814 1983.
59. Hoover RN, Devesa S, Cantor K, Fraumeni Jr JF. Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, National Cancer Institute. In: Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks, Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. US Public Health Service, 1991. F1-F7.
60. Cohn PD. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males. New Jersey Department of Health, November 8 1992.
61. Gelberg KH, Fitzgerald EF, Hwang S, Dubrow R. Fluoride exposure and childhood osteosarcoma: a case-control study. American Journal of Public Health 85 1678-1683 1995.
62. Lee JR. Review of report by K H Gelberg et al. Fluoride 29 237-240 1996.
63. Yiamouyiannis JA. Fluoridation and cancer. Fluoride 26 83-96 1993.
64. Chlebna-Sokol D, Czerwinski E. Bone structure assessment on radiographs of distal radial metaphysis in children with dental fluorosis. Fluoride 26 37-44 1993.
65. Li XS, Zhi JL, Gao RO. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence of children. Fluoride 28 189-192 1995.
66. Zhao LB, Liang GH, Zhang DN, Wu XR. Effect of a high fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Fluoride 29 190-192 1996.
67. Mullenix PJ, Denbesten PK, Schunior A, Kernan WJ. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 17 169-177 1995 (Cf. Editorial: Neurotoxicity of Fluoride. Fluoride 29 57-58 1996).
68. Martin B. Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate. State University of New York Press, Albany NY 1991.
69. Waldbott GL, Burgstahler AW, McKinney HL. Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. Coronado Press, Lawrence KS 1978. Chapter 18.
70. Nyt fra miljøstyrelsen (Newsletter of National Agency of Environmental Protection, Denmark). Special issue (in English), February, 1977.
71. Fluor i karies- förebyggande syfte (Report of Swedish Fluoride Commission). Statens Offentliga Utredningar, Stockholm 1981. English-language summary pp 21-30.
72. Grimbergen GW. A double blind test for determination of intolerance to fluoridated water (preliminary report). Fluoride 7 146-152 1974.
73. Hirzy W. Press releases. Fluoride 26 279-281 1993; Fluoride 30 258-259 1997.