Fluoride in tap water

BernardM

Not at all I was responding to points made in that post.

Back on track

http://www.whale.to/d/fluoride.html

Toothsmith

BernardM wrote: »

Not at all I was responding to points made in that post.

Back on track

http://www.whale.to/d/fluoride.html

Can you not see how blatently biased and innacurate sites like that are??

There really should be a test before people are allowed onto t'interweb!!

I have actually met Raman Bedi on several occasions - he's not chief dental officer for England anymore, but anyway, I tried following some of the links to see what was said about him, and they don't work! That site is rubbish in every sense of the word.

BernardM

You have to be open-minded with internet. We read your posts.

Toothsmith

Open minded is one thing.

Gullible is completely another.

Ben84

BernardM wrote: »

Why suspicion to alternative medicine and none to conventional medicine.
Have you not read about Iatrogenic deaths.
http://www.whale.to/drugs/iat.html

http://www.whale.to/d/toxic.html

That's a big assumption. We haven't been talking about conventional medicine and I haven't presented any opinion on it yet.

Presenting the situation as conventional science vs. alternative science is a misleading angle. It creates the idea of 'alternative science' as if it were a logical or solid concept. It is not.

Proper science excludes nothing reasonable. By reasonable I mean something that can be proven, for example the effectiveness of a medical treatment.

Most of the treatments and medical beliefs that are calling themselves alternative medicine fall well within the scope of regular science, they have just been disproved (or in some cases never believed at all), or their logic found to be ill fitting with modern beliefs, so they have taken up a new name as refuge. Unfortunately, the only refuge from objective and analytical reason, such as that found in good modern scientific studies, is to be less reasonable. It's an alternative, perhaps, but not a good one.

Anyone who suggests an alternative to reason should be considered with suspicion.

In many cases they continue to produce, advertise and sell alternative therapies despite overwhelming evidence against their effectiveness. Finding themselves on the fridge of science and largely disbelieved by the scientific community, they tend to pick fights with them in the hope of discrediting them somehow. Promoting distrust of science in general also helps keep their customers returning to buy their alternatives.

BernardM

Toothsmith This isn't really relevant to fluoride in the water at a dose of 1ppm though is it?

http://www.nofluoride.com/Hip_Fractures_Lee.htm

Toothsmith

BernardM wrote: »

Toothsmith This isn't really relevant to fluoride in the water at a dose of 1ppm though is it?

http://www.nofluoride.com/Hip_Fractures_Lee.htm

It would be if it were in any way genuine.

It's a shame John R lee M.D. can't get his articles published in any proper medical journals. They do have an annoying habit of asking for claims to be backed up with evidence though.

But who needs evidence when you have the World Wide Web of Wonder. And of course - the Earth Island Journal!

No PROPER scientific study has ever shown any connection between fluoride in the water at 1ppm and an increase in hip fractures.

There are no greater sales figures for Zimmer frames in Birmingham as anywhere else!

Toothsmith

Just as an exercise, I picked one of Lee's references in that aritcle.

I picked the Cooper et al one as it referred to UK data.

You can read an abstract of the article here :_

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1B-3YKSWXD-9&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8130aa8be0b90bcb72e996401055c529

The Abstract sums it up :-

Interpretation

There is a low risk of hip fracture for people ingesting fluoride in drinking water at concentrations of about 1 ppm. This low risk should not be a reason for withholding fluoridation of water supplies.

This is a reference HE quotes!!!!!!!!!!!!

The whole basis of the Anti -F case is based on people just accepting their interpretation, and taking their word for it.

As I said, there is 'open minded' and there is gullible!

A_fiend_for_life

Not convinced with subject feedback being the most objective though it may be the most affordable method of research.

Measuring the concentration of serum fluoride and bone density would seem a more objective, albeit costly method of research.

Alternatively measuring the concentration / accumulation of fluoride in patients who have received [STRIKE]hop[/STRIKE] hip replacements etc would maybe identify genotypes that might be predisposed to adverse effects of fluoridation.

BernardM

http://safewatercampaign.blogspot.com/