Comments for Making Sense of Fluoride

Comment on Guest post: Councillors abused and libelled by anti-fluoride activists by Roger Stratford

Roger Stratford — Thu, 17 Sep 2020 04:24:13 +0000

Daniel, stop repeating claims made against you and attempting to shoot them down. For all we know, Trump supports municipal water fluoridation – so there we go. Your correspondents’ science is hearsay, from those not prepared to wait out for the research, which hasn’t come back yet.

Comment on Anti-fluoride campaigner that tried to silence the science by Roger Stratford

Roger Stratford — Tue, 15 Sep 2020 08:35:47 +0000

Just as it will get cooler, so oral health will improve; science doesn’t know — we need four more years.

Comment on Why doesn’t Japan use community water fluoridation? by Daniel Ryan

Daniel Ryan — Wed, 26 Aug 2020 00:03:45 +0000

Fluoride is a trace element. It is very cost effective. It’s safe and effective at the recommended amounts.

Comment on Why doesn’t Japan use community water fluoridation? by Jhonnie

Jhonnie — Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:18:18 +0000

Fluoride is not a nutrient, not cost effective and an endocrine disruptor

Comment on Fluoridation Safety Remains Intact by Ken

Ken — Tue, 03 Sep 2019 08:58:41 +0000

Kane, yet you cannot state a single flaw. Perhaps the fundamental flaw lies with you.

Comment on Fluoridation Safety Remains Intact by Kane

Kane — Tue, 03 Sep 2019 07:38:26 +0000

The Dunedin study is fundamentally flawed Ken.

Comment on Fluoridation Safety Remains Intact by Ken

Ken — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 05:19:55 +0000

Gus, you say “valid scientific data never goes out of date.” But that is not the issue. There was absolutley no data in the Feltman & Kosel paper on side effects. It’s a matter of no data, nit goiung out of date.

I made it quite clear that I did not think the paper was very good. Yes, it included data on tooth decay and some blood and tissue concentrations but very few conclusions can be drawn form them – and the authors were careful not to do so but did not do further testing to enable conclusions.When I have attempted to published unfinished research like that reviewers have told me to go back and do the experiments – which I have.

You say “I don’t think you can get more definitive than verifying side effects with placebo testing. There is certainly no “speculation” as you put it.” But there was absolutely no data reported for side effects – the statement was purely speculative (and I can only think based on their reading of the literature – they certainly did not present data).

You say:

“Do you think reported side effects should be investigated and how do you propose to do that?” – Yes of course. I myself don’t propose to do anything – its not my job. But researcher have been doing it. You might not like the results because they do not confirm you bias, but the research still exists.

“The method Feltman and Kosel used is one possible option. What do you think?” No they did not use an option to look at side effects. They did not include any methodology to do so or any results. Absolutely no data.

“How would you design side effect testing Ken?” I would design experiments to produce objective data. its not hard to do for a genuine researcher. I, for example, discuss one piece of published research on fluoridation side effects in my article “Fluoride sensitivity – all in the mind?” (https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/fluoride-sensitivity-all-in-the-mind/)

Comment on Fluoridation Safety Remains Intact by Ken

Ken — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 04:51:48 +0000

Kane that is a complete cop out on the questions I posed you. Complete.

I take this as an indication that not only have you backed away from claiming flaws” in the Dunedin research, its an admission you actually don’t understand that and similar research. You are not capable of considering the actual data and you simply search for statements from “authority” figures. Even someone like Peter who has clearly not even looked at the data.

Comment on Fluoridation Safety Remains Intact by Kane

Kane — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 03:18:05 +0000

Ken, as stated previously, I agree with ardent Pro-Fluoridationist, Peter Griffin, that pregnant woman should avoid fluoridated water as a precaution.

At least that pro-fluoride fanatic has got some sense of honesty, even if it was only on that point.

Comment on Fluoridation Safety Remains Intact by Gus

Gus — Mon, 02 Sep 2019 03:12:40 +0000

Ken valid scientific data never goes out of date. I can’t find a more modern study because as far as I’m aware one hasn’t been done. That’s because of what I call “science avoidance” by promoters. It doesn’t make sense to say there is no data.This is not an observational study. I think you are confused. It’s interesting that you are happy to selectively quote from the study but not happy with the part that discusses side effects. That’s a double standard. I don’t think you can get more definitive than verifying side effects with placebo testing. There is certainly no “speculation” as you put it. Ironically you are speculating.

Do you think reported side effects should be investigated and how do you propose to do that?
The method Feltman and Kosel used is one possible option. What do you think?
How would you design side effect testing Ken?