NFIC answer my letter
National Fluoride Information Centre (NFIC)
Please find attached a response to your query dated 29 April 2005.
Introduction:
The comments you make relate to the York Review of water fluoridation and you feel that the report on the National Fluoride Information Centre web-page gives a more positive view than that given in the Review.
We have examined our web-page in the light of your comments and would like to make the following points.
1. Your comments regarding the chemicals used to fluoridate water are discussed in paragraphs 5.3.10 to 5.3.12 of the Medical Research Council (MRC) report.
2. You suggest that our web-page ‘seems to be propaganda for the BFS’. The National Fluoride Information Centre is independent of the BFS and all other organisations.
Background:
We considered that it would help the reader if we reviewed the York Review and the MRC Review together as they are complementary. We have indicated our reasons for doing this in the second and third sections of ‘Reviews and Research’.
The National Fluoride Information Centre (NFIC) believes that the summary of the York Review on the NFIC website is fair. We explain why and how the review was undertaken and by whom, commenting on the CRD’s international reputation in this area. We have considered the five objectives in turn, along with any further information which is available for the interested reader.
The following now look at each of the five objectives on the York review page in turn and we will outline from where the information was gathered.
Objective 1:
The two line summary comes from Chapter 12 (page 67), paragraph 12.1 as well as page xii of the York review. The more detailed information section comes from Chapter 4 and paragraph 12.1. You will see that a critique of the quality of the studies is given in our fourth paragraph of Objective 1, ‘What are the effects of fluoridation of drinking water supplies on the incidence of tooth decay?’ in the detailed information section.
Objective 2:
The four line summary came from paragraph 5.1 of the review, although the wording has now been changed to conform with that in the third paragraph of 5.1.
The wording in paragraph 12.2 would have been less suitable as a summary as it would have needed explanation. However, the more detailed information contains the wording used in paragraph 12.2.
Objective 3:
The seven line summary is taken from page xii and paragraph 6.4 of the review.
You will notice that the last four lines of this summary comments on the small number of UK studies. There was an error in line three – ’10 year olds’ should have read ’12 year olds’, and this has now been corrected.The more detailed information gives the reader an explanation of why this question is important.
Objective 4:
The five line summary is taken from paragraph 12.4 of the review.
The three major possible negative effects (dental fluorosis, bone fracture and cancers) are discussed in turn. The summary for Dental fluorosis comes from paragraph 12.4 and page xiii, and the more detailed information from chapter 7.
The summary for bone fractures and other bone development problems comes from paragraph 12.4, page xiii and paragraph 8.5; more detailed information comes from chapter 8.
The summary for Cancer studies comes from the last sentence of paragraph 9.6.
The issue of control of confounding factors is important, as discussed in chapter 9, and this was included in the more detailed information.
We now, after looking again at our responses here, have included on this web-page, after ‘Cancer studies’, a new section entitled ‘miscellaneous negative effects’, as this aspect (pages 59-63 in the Review) was previously covered in the more detailed information under Cancer studies where we felt it should have had a section to itlsef.
Objective 5:
The three line summary is taken from chapter 11 of the review and page xiv, and the more detailed information from chapter 11.
Your comments have been considered carefully and we have altered our web-page on the York review in the light of them.
Many thanks again for your interest.
END
Please find attached a response to your query dated 29 April 2005.
Introduction:
The comments you make relate to the York Review of water fluoridation and you feel that the report on the National Fluoride Information Centre web-page gives a more positive view than that given in the Review.
We have examined our web-page in the light of your comments and would like to make the following points.
1. Your comments regarding the chemicals used to fluoridate water are discussed in paragraphs 5.3.10 to 5.3.12 of the Medical Research Council (MRC) report.
2. You suggest that our web-page ‘seems to be propaganda for the BFS’. The National Fluoride Information Centre is independent of the BFS and all other organisations.
Background:
We considered that it would help the reader if we reviewed the York Review and the MRC Review together as they are complementary. We have indicated our reasons for doing this in the second and third sections of ‘Reviews and Research’.
The National Fluoride Information Centre (NFIC) believes that the summary of the York Review on the NFIC website is fair. We explain why and how the review was undertaken and by whom, commenting on the CRD’s international reputation in this area. We have considered the five objectives in turn, along with any further information which is available for the interested reader.
The following now look at each of the five objectives on the York review page in turn and we will outline from where the information was gathered.
Objective 1:
The two line summary comes from Chapter 12 (page 67), paragraph 12.1 as well as page xii of the York review. The more detailed information section comes from Chapter 4 and paragraph 12.1. You will see that a critique of the quality of the studies is given in our fourth paragraph of Objective 1, ‘What are the effects of fluoridation of drinking water supplies on the incidence of tooth decay?’ in the detailed information section.
Objective 2:
The four line summary came from paragraph 5.1 of the review, although the wording has now been changed to conform with that in the third paragraph of 5.1.
The wording in paragraph 12.2 would have been less suitable as a summary as it would have needed explanation. However, the more detailed information contains the wording used in paragraph 12.2.
Objective 3:
The seven line summary is taken from page xii and paragraph 6.4 of the review.
You will notice that the last four lines of this summary comments on the small number of UK studies. There was an error in line three – ’10 year olds’ should have read ’12 year olds’, and this has now been corrected.The more detailed information gives the reader an explanation of why this question is important.
Objective 4:
The five line summary is taken from paragraph 12.4 of the review.
The three major possible negative effects (dental fluorosis, bone fracture and cancers) are discussed in turn. The summary for Dental fluorosis comes from paragraph 12.4 and page xiii, and the more detailed information from chapter 7.
The summary for bone fractures and other bone development problems comes from paragraph 12.4, page xiii and paragraph 8.5; more detailed information comes from chapter 8.
The summary for Cancer studies comes from the last sentence of paragraph 9.6.
The issue of control of confounding factors is important, as discussed in chapter 9, and this was included in the more detailed information.
We now, after looking again at our responses here, have included on this web-page, after ‘Cancer studies’, a new section entitled ‘miscellaneous negative effects’, as this aspect (pages 59-63 in the Review) was previously covered in the more detailed information under Cancer studies where we felt it should have had a section to itlsef.
Objective 5:
The three line summary is taken from chapter 11 of the review and page xiv, and the more detailed information from chapter 11.
Your comments have been considered carefully and we have altered our web-page on the York review in the light of them.
Many thanks again for your interest.
END
posted by Bill at
9:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home