tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4050948047726051608.post3118820308702011540..comments2013-05-15T22:10:27.946-07:00Comments on Carlssonia: A bizarre study on the safety of water fluoridationAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01396377310702872818noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4050948047726051608.post-80321845735866763552013-05-15T20:58:09.292-07:002013-05-15T20:58:09.292-07:00Magnus, Your careful research and analysis have u...Magnus, Your careful research and analysis have uncovered one serious weakness with the New Zealand paper. There are several other rather obvious weaknesses with this paper in regard to answering the question of whether fluoride has "... any detectable effect on a large range of measures of childhood morbidity or problem behaviour".<br /><br />Key qualifier words the New Zealand authors use are "detectable effect". If you use an insensitive test, you won't be able to detect effects. Most of the many likely or possible adverse effects of fluoride are relatively subtle, may be hard to distinguish from other common illnesses, or may only occur rarely in particularly sensitive or highly exposed individuals.<br /><br />How many suspected adverse effects of fluoride did the New Zealand study even try to detect? <br /><br />How sensitive was it?<br /><br />The study made no attempt to measure IQ, so it is hardly relevant to the mounting scientific evidence that fluoride lowers IQ. "Problem behavior" is sometimes related to IQ, but often not. The measures of problem behavior used in this study don't seem very sensitive. They are simply parent or teacher reports that the child did or did not exhibit "problem behavior" at certain ages. That seems pretty vague to me.<br /><br />What are some of the other amongst the "large range" of effects studied? Respiratory infections and asthma, neither of which have ever been identified as linked to ingested fluoride. Hmmm, are they padding their list of health effects with those unlikely to be associated with fluoride intentionally, or out of ignorance?<br /><br />The next category of effects can be combined as allergic or hypersensitivity effects: GI illness, eczema and other allergy. These have been associated with fluoride. But of course, now we have to remember what Magnus has uncovered. This study did not look at total fluoride exposure, but only water fluoridation exposure, so it's own authors would consider it incapable of detecting an effect.<br /><br />There are two other health effect categories they studied: number of consultations with a doctor, and number of hospital admissions. These are about as unspecific a health effect as can be imagined. They lump every possible health reason for visiting a doctor or hospital into a single measure, thereby overwhelming any detectable effect from specific health problems possibly caused by fluoride.<br /><br />So, other than the examination of allergic and hypersensitivity symptoms, this study seems to have been designed to be so insensitive that it is virtually guaranteed that no effect of fluoride will be found.<br /><br /><br />Mel Rader, I don't know who fed you this low quality science on fluoride, but when you spout it back when defending fluoridation it reveals you are being duped by your advisors ... or your advisors don't know how to interpret scientific evidence.<br /><br /><br />Magnus, keep up the good work.<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13763115065147409507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4050948047726051608.post-13083681036348575632013-05-02T08:47:14.434-07:002013-05-02T08:47:14.434-07:00Thanks for your comment and link, Michael. It was...Thanks for your comment and link, Michael. It was interesting to hear about the Iowa Fluoride Study - hopefully we will gain more insight into fluoride's different effects from this longitudinal study as it progresses.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01396377310702872818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4050948047726051608.post-23765785914234016582013-04-28T10:18:15.350-07:002013-04-28T10:18:15.350-07:00This is an excellent analysis, Magnus -- the kind ...This is an excellent analysis, Magnus -- the kind of critical analysis that is so woefully lacking in the pro-F camp. Any study on F/IQ in western populations that fails to carefully control for individual exposures, will be hard-pressed to find an effect as a function of water fluoride level. The ideal study, in my view, would not only focus on individual metrics of fluoride exposure (e.g., urinary F level), but would account for various nutrient statuses that can exacerbate fluoride's neurological effects (e.g., suboptimal iodine intake). And, unlike most studies on fluoridation's safety to date, the study should focus on socially disadvantaged populations that will generally have the health conditions that render one most vulnerable to fluoride toxicity. One study, by the way, that you may want to check out (if you haven't already done so), is the ongoing, NIH-funded, multimillion dollar Iowa Fluoride Study. I've summarized the study's key findings here: http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/ifs/. While the findings are damning in and of themselves, it's important to keep in mind that the study population is 97% white, and of relatively high socioeconomic status -- and thus a population that fails to reflect the full range of individual susceptibility. Michael Connetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12653688393185585094noreply@blogger.com