Nope. It says on the packaging "Will not filter out beneficial flouride." You have to look elsewhere for a filter that will actually work.
Nope. It says on the packaging "Will not filter out beneficial flouride." You have to look elsewhere for a filter that will actually work.
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
It's kind of humorous now to see your position. You are presented with all these arguments against fluroide and you fail to address any of it and just say "do the research and draw your own conclusions". You admitted previously that what you know about fluroide is from the research/studying you have done (as a dental professional) with material that was presented to you, right? Well is there not a conflict of interest there in the information you receive (assumingly mandated by the ADA) because anything bad to be said about fluoridation or amalgam fillings would negatively impact the ADA? Sometimes you have to go beyond what is merely given to you and think outside the box, so to speak.
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,504
- 12
- 56
as i have said before, and obviously you've skipped over some posts in this thread, there is also fear mongering about silver fillings that pops up every now and then. i don't turn a blind eye to these articles, but i have yet to find one that has convinced me that i should have my amalgam fillings removed.
i do not just read articles that are spoon fed to me, but i also don't distrust educators and peer articles on the subject. what is in it for them to approve of fluoride? think about it.
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,504
- 12
- 56
sorry Charlie, but there is fluoride in most beverages you buy from the store too. soda, juices, anything prepared in an area that has fluoridated water. that bottled water you buy will most likely have fluoride in it.
worry not though, it's safe.
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
Well yeah there's alot of fear mongering and some really ridiculous material such as "mind control" theories with fluoride for example but it is unfair to clump those extreme articles with more legitimate ones, for example the Harvard study linked by the previous poster.
And what's in it for educaters to approve fluroide? Many possible reasons- some may have been funded directly or indirectly by the ADA or corporations who have a stake in water fluoridation. Could also simply be tradition in the way their studies were limited by their institution with textbooks and libraries containing material approved by parties with an interest in fluroide. It doesn't really matter though.
Originally posted by: BW86
you and me both
I wish I had. I plan on getting one very soon after I graduate.
I don't understand your reply. Are you implying that the harvard study didn't happen, etc? Because saying that you could find a site that says kool aide causes cancer isn't exactly on the same lines as a Harvard study.
Lol a grand fluoride conspiracy. Better watch out for "BIG FLUORIDE" you never know when their going to send their black helocopters after you.
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
What kind fo response is that? It's akin to flailing your arms in the air while screaming "Woo wee woo wee woo wee" after someone asks you a question.
Here, start with this
It deals with pharmaceutical companies but it's naive to think the same situation does not exist in the dental institutions
edit: You'd probably also flail your arms blurting noises crying conspiracy theories if someone told you special interests and coporations influence politicians :laugh:
edit2: loads of "crazy conspiracy theorists"
moshquerade
No Lifer
- Nov 1, 2001
- 61,504
- 12
- 56
you are on to something. . .
i forgot to mention that fluoride is actually a mind controlling substance. the government is attempting to control our thought processes.
because they aren't doing it for anything *good* or *beneficial*, it has to be a conspiracy.
yeh... that's the ticket.
This harvard study is a perfect example of how advocacy groups use and abuse science.
There is no question that this is interesting information. It does not, though, in the complete body of work available damn fluoride as a cancer causing agent.
I have not read the study, so I can't comment on specifics. Using the info on the links available, though, I can make some general comments.
1. The study was done on a subset of patients from a larger study. Any time you start looking into data looking for reasons other than what you originally intended, your results carry less weight. Reason being that when you start to examine data for differences, the more you look, the more likely you are to find a difference that, while statistically significant, will show up merely by chance. Data found in this way should be used to support further study, not to determine cause and effect.
A real world example (1 of thousands of examples) - In a clinical trial called ValHeFT, heart failure patients received an ace-inhibitor+placebo or an ace-inhibitor + valsartan and both groups could have other standard heart failure medications. The trial wanted to see if valsartan reduced heart failure problems. In the end, it didn't show this. However, the data was examined further and it was seen that patients that received ace-inhibitor+valsartan+B-blocker (other common med in heart failure) actually did worse. This was statistically significant. If you used this information by itself you would say the the 3 drug combination was bad. Instead, as scientists do, the 3 drug combination was tested prospectively in a seperate trial and found not to be a problem.
2. The data being cited in the press release, while it sounds juicy, needs to be interpreted carefully. In statistics, generally speaking, the wider a 95% confidence interval is, the less certain we are of the results. In the example you are providing, the 95% confidence interval is 1.64-16.20 with a mean of 5.6. This is very wide. That means that if you repeated this exact same trial 100 times, 95 times your odds of developing cancer w/ fluoride "at or above the target level"(whatever that is) would be anwhere from 1.64x to 16.2x as likely.
Without reading the study, I can easily tell you that it does not unequivocally implicate fluoride in causing osteosarcoma in teenage boys for the reasons I mention above. It could, though, if done well provide reasonable information to complete another trial designed specifically to look at this population.
BTW, I love the title of the press release "strong link". LMAO! Not even close to a "stron link".
There is no question that this is interesting information. It does not, though, in the complete body of work available damn fluoride as a cancer causing agent.
I have not read the study, so I can't comment on specifics. Using the info on the links available, though, I can make some general comments.
1. The study was done on a subset of patients from a larger study. Any time you start looking into data looking for reasons other than what you originally intended, your results carry less weight. Reason being that when you start to examine data for differences, the more you look, the more likely you are to find a difference that, while statistically significant, will show up merely by chance. Data found in this way should be used to support further study, not to determine cause and effect.
A real world example (1 of thousands of examples) - In a clinical trial called ValHeFT, heart failure patients received an ace-inhibitor+placebo or an ace-inhibitor + valsartan and both groups could have other standard heart failure medications. The trial wanted to see if valsartan reduced heart failure problems. In the end, it didn't show this. However, the data was examined further and it was seen that patients that received ace-inhibitor+valsartan+B-blocker (other common med in heart failure) actually did worse. This was statistically significant. If you used this information by itself you would say the the 3 drug combination was bad. Instead, as scientists do, the 3 drug combination was tested prospectively in a seperate trial and found not to be a problem.
2. The data being cited in the press release, while it sounds juicy, needs to be interpreted carefully. In statistics, generally speaking, the wider a 95% confidence interval is, the less certain we are of the results. In the example you are providing, the 95% confidence interval is 1.64-16.20 with a mean of 5.6. This is very wide. That means that if you repeated this exact same trial 100 times, 95 times your odds of developing cancer w/ fluoride "at or above the target level"(whatever that is) would be anwhere from 1.64x to 16.2x as likely.
Without reading the study, I can easily tell you that it does not unequivocally implicate fluoride in causing osteosarcoma in teenage boys for the reasons I mention above. It could, though, if done well provide reasonable information to complete another trial designed specifically to look at this population.
BTW, I love the title of the press release "strong link". LMAO! Not even close to a "stron link".
Old news. Say, fifty years old.
The problem is liberals believe "it is not important that what we do helps it is only important that we do something." Hence, MTBE, Ethanol, Flouride. Just repeat the chant "It is for the kids" and you will feel better in the mourning. (malaprop intended)
The problem is liberals believe "it is not important that what we do helps it is only important that we do something." Hence, MTBE, Ethanol, Flouride. Just repeat the chant "It is for the kids" and you will feel better in the mourning. (malaprop intended)
Beast, I agree with most of what you've said, but your interpretation of the 95% in 95% confidence intervals is simply wrong. It means that 95% of the intervals constructed using that technique would bracket the true parameter value.
Here is an example. You measure the length of a stub of chalk. Then you take that length, draw random mean zero noise from a table of random numbers and add the random numbers to the length of the chalk to construct a sample of noisy measurements of the length of the chalk. You then turn the *data* over to someone to use these noisy measurements to construct a confidence interval for the length of the chalk.
It is possible, albeit unlikely, that a very disproportionate number of the random draws were negative. Therefore, a 95% confidence interval such as -1.8 inches to -0.2 inches is a possible outcome. It would be entirely ludicrious to say that there is a 95% chance of the chalk having a length between -1.8 and -0.2, or that there is a 95% chance that if you repeated the experiment the length would be between -1.8 and -0.2, or anything of the sort. What is correct is that 95% of your confidence intervals will bracket the truth, and in this instance, because you know chalk can't have a negative length, you know you have one of the 5% that fail to do so.
I've taught statistics for 27 years. Trust me on this.
Now let me sit back and watch everyone's eyes glaze over, and the thread come to an abrupt halt. Yep. Just like the classroom.
this isn't a liberal vs conservative issue
the fact of the matter is that the decision to add fluoride to our drinking water was done without any real scientific data to back it up
MANY other parts of the modern world don't have fluoride in their drinking water and they have experienced the same, if not better, decreases in cavity rates as those of us in the US that have fluoride in our water.
This fact alone negates the need to have fluoride in our drinking water - and yes, there are a number of emerging discussions about the possible side-effects of having it there in the first place.
This isn't a "We didn't land on the moon" POS discussion.
the fact of the matter is that the decision to add fluoride to our drinking water was done without any real scientific data to back it up
MANY other parts of the modern world don't have fluoride in their drinking water and they have experienced the same, if not better, decreases in cavity rates as those of us in the US that have fluoride in our water.
This fact alone negates the need to have fluoride in our drinking water - and yes, there are a number of emerging discussions about the possible side-effects of having it there in the first place.
This isn't a "We didn't land on the moon" POS discussion.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter