Information for James
This URL is for a web page on Andover's MP who is for fluoridation
A BRIEFING PAPER BY THE
CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, PROFESSOR SIR LIAM DONALDSON, AND THE CHIEF DENTAL OFFICER, PROFESSOR RAMAN BEDI
Young
This is from Stella about the bioavailabilty of fluoride proving to her it was safe and effective.
"Most significantly, in my view, at the end of June this year the University of Newcastle announced the results of its study comparing the bioavailability of fluoride in naturally and artificially fluoridated water. The conclusions of the study, that there appears to be no significant difference in the bioavailability of fluoride from drinking waters in which the fluoride is present at concentrations close to one part per million, either naturally or added artificially, or whether the waters are hard or soft, match the outcome predicted by theoretical chemistry. The results of this study therefore support confidence in the benefits and safety of water fluoridation.
_Stella Saunders
Consultant in Dental Public Health"
I sent this letter (below)I got from Prof S but it made no difference to her faith in fluoride.
I've just looked for the bioavailability web page but can't find it they may have taken it down.
My observations on the attached letter from the director of Public health is as follows:
1) The MRC review was not systematic and the only reason it included additional studies not included in the York review was because they lowered the threshold and considered studies which the York team deemed to poor methodologically. This means that any conclusions from this are likely to be weaker and have less of a basis than the York review - indeed it was not even part of the MRC's terms of reference to do a review and it seems that it was just taken as an opportunity by the dental establishment to try and change the results.
2) The Newcastle bio-availability study is being referred to. Two things about that:
a) it was about comparing uptake of artificial and naturally occurring fluoride. It was not a study about effects or safety. Therefore to say that "The results of
this study therefore support confidence in the benefits and safety of water fluoridation." is a complete misrepresentation of the research.
b) more importantly however, this study has come under considerable criticism. I have read it and am very concerned about the evidence of poor design and manipulation of data: the study was very small and only powered to find over a 30% difference in bioavailability (which is huge). In fact it did find (using one of the outcome measures a statistically significant increase in uptake from artificial fluoride but they then removed one of the 20 datapoints (saying it was an outlier!) and the result was no longer statistically significant. This is very dubious practice. Essentially the study shows nothing as it is too small but suggests there is a difference in uptake and possible an interaction with soft water. The conclusions of the report stress the caution that must be used in interpreting their results but this is not in the summary of the report. All very dodgy stuff which does not lend support to arguments for fluoridation of water in my view.
I wonder if the Director of Public health is getting the script written for her by others, or perhaps she has not read the study!
I've just looked for the bioavailability web page but can't find it they may have taken it down.
Sir John's Question and Minister's Answer
Water Fluoridation
Sir John Butterfill: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the report of the World Health Organisation in 2002 concerning the findings of the US National Toxicology Programme relating to rates of osteosarcoma among young males living in fluoridated areas. [7280]
Caroline Flint: We are aware that, on 6 June, a research organisation in the United States, the Environmental Working Group, published a press release asking the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health to list fluoride in tap water in its report on carcinogens, "based on its ability to cause a rare form of childhood bone cancer, osteosarcoma". The request refers to a doctoral thesis completed in 2001 by a student at Harvard School of Dental Medicine.
The systematic review of water fluoridation undertaken by the University of York identified over 3,000 reports of research projects on fluoridation of which 735 met their criteria for inclusion in their study. The researchers did not find any evidence of an association between water fluoridation and bone cancer, but we are not complacent and are committed to strengthening the evidence base. In this context, we have been informed by the oral health division of the Centers for Disease Control that the author of the thesis has invited them to review her findings as part of the peer review process conducted before a research study is published. We have asked to be kept informed.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fluoride in Food
They seem to be revising this as it is now in a draft
A BRIEFING PAPER BY THE
CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, PROFESSOR SIR LIAM DONALDSON, AND THE CHIEF DENTAL OFFICER, PROFESSOR RAMAN BEDI
This is from Stella about the bioavailabilty of fluoride proving to her it was safe and effective.
"Most significantly, in my view, at the end of June this year the University of Newcastle announced the results of its study comparing the bioavailability of fluoride in naturally and artificially fluoridated water. The conclusions of the study, that there appears to be no significant difference in the bioavailability of fluoride from drinking waters in which the fluoride is present at concentrations close to one part per million, either naturally or added artificially, or whether the waters are hard or soft, match the outcome predicted by theoretical chemistry. The results of this study therefore support confidence in the benefits and safety of water fluoridation.
_Stella Saunders
Consultant in Dental Public Health"
I sent this letter (below)I got from Prof S but it made no difference to her faith in fluoride.
I've just looked for the bioavailability web page but can't find it they may have taken it down.
My observations on the attached letter from the director of Public health is as follows:
1) The MRC review was not systematic and the only reason it included additional studies not included in the York review was because they lowered the threshold and considered studies which the York team deemed to poor methodologically. This means that any conclusions from this are likely to be weaker and have less of a basis than the York review - indeed it was not even part of the MRC's terms of reference to do a review and it seems that it was just taken as an opportunity by the dental establishment to try and change the results.
2) The Newcastle bio-availability study is being referred to. Two things about that:
a) it was about comparing uptake of artificial and naturally occurring fluoride. It was not a study about effects or safety. Therefore to say that "The results of
this study therefore support confidence in the benefits and safety of water fluoridation." is a complete misrepresentation of the research.
b) more importantly however, this study has come under considerable criticism. I have read it and am very concerned about the evidence of poor design and manipulation of data: the study was very small and only powered to find over a 30% difference in bioavailability (which is huge). In fact it did find (using one of the outcome measures a statistically significant increase in uptake from artificial fluoride but they then removed one of the 20 datapoints (saying it was an outlier!) and the result was no longer statistically significant. This is very dubious practice. Essentially the study shows nothing as it is too small but suggests there is a difference in uptake and possible an interaction with soft water. The conclusions of the report stress the caution that must be used in interpreting their results but this is not in the summary of the report. All very dodgy stuff which does not lend support to arguments for fluoridation of water in my view.
I wonder if the Director of Public health is getting the script written for her by others, or perhaps she has not read the study!
I've just looked for the bioavailability web page but can't find it they may have taken it down.
Sir John's Question and Minister's Answer
Water Fluoridation
Sir John Butterfill: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the report of the World Health Organisation in 2002 concerning the findings of the US National Toxicology Programme relating to rates of osteosarcoma among young males living in fluoridated areas. [7280]
Caroline Flint: We are aware that, on 6 June, a research organisation in the United States, the Environmental Working Group, published a press release asking the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health to list fluoride in tap water in its report on carcinogens, "based on its ability to cause a rare form of childhood bone cancer, osteosarcoma". The request refers to a doctoral thesis completed in 2001 by a student at Harvard School of Dental Medicine.
The systematic review of water fluoridation undertaken by the University of York identified over 3,000 reports of research projects on fluoridation of which 735 met their criteria for inclusion in their study. The researchers did not find any evidence of an association between water fluoridation and bone cancer, but we are not complacent and are committed to strengthening the evidence base. In this context, we have been informed by the oral health division of the Centers for Disease Control that the author of the thesis has invited them to review her findings as part of the peer review process conducted before a research study is published. We have asked to be kept informed.
--------------------------------------------------------------
They seem to be revising this as it is now in a draft
posted by Bill at
3:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home