Open Parachute's comment
A Chinese study the anti-fluoridation crowd won’t be citing
Tooth brushing programme carried out in kindergartens in a Chinese rural area. Image credit: Supervised tooth brushing programme
Anti-fluoridation campaigners love to cite Dr Q. Y. Xiang to “prove” that community water fluoridation (CWF) can lower IQ. Trouble is – Xiang’s research on fluoride and IQ took place in an area of endemic fluorosis in China where drinking water fluoride levels were much higher than those used for CWF. That hasn’t stopped Paul Connett from making mileage out of Xiang’s data – even though the link between IQ and drinking water fluoride shown by Xiang’s data is very tenuous (see Connett fiddles the data on fluoride).
However, I suspect Connett and his activist organisation, The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), will be very quiet about the latest paper from this group. This is because the research they report supports the scientific consensus – in particular:
- Fluoride at the concentration used in CWF does reduce tooth decay;
- Fluoride at the concentration used in CWF does not cause the cosmetically undesirable forms of dental fluorosis.
The paper is:
Xiang, J., Yan, L., Wang, YJ., Qin, Y., Wang, C. & Xiang, QY. (2016). The effects of ten years of defluoridation on urinary fluoride, dental fluorosis, defect dental fluorosis, and dental caries, in Jiangsu province, PR China.Fluoride, 49(March), 23–35.
Does any of this above dismiss the arguments against those put forward by Dr Kennedy in previous video?
posted by Bill at
10:05 AM
10 Comments:
They really had to scrape this report to make those two sneaky conclusions!! I wonder which part of "no statistical or significant difference" don't they understand??
Report quote (p11): "It was found that the teeth with moderate and severe fluorosis had more dental caries than teeth with no or mild fluorosis."
Also(p 12): "The preventive effect of fluoride in drinking water for dental caries needs to be further studied, especially with consideration of other adverse effects, apart from dental fluorosis, such as neurotoxicity, other sources of systemic fluoride ....."
Seems pro-fluoridationists are trying to finesse and fiddle this report as one supporting them when in fact it does no such thing!
By
Cllr. Chris, at 08 March, 2016
What part of "zero" do you not understand - these villages had zero occurrence of cosmetically undesirable DF with their new water supply - containing F at the same level used in CWF. Compare that with about 40% in the high fluoride village before improvement if the water supply.
Yes, the old data showed children suffering moderate and severe DF had higher rates of dental decay - but the paper also states that at lower levels of F in drinking water (1.5 - 2.5 ppm) the dental decay was at a minimum showing a clear benefit form drinking water F at the concentrations used for CWF.
Sensible readers should go straight to my article to find what I actually wrote.
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/a-chinese-study-the-anti-fluoridation-crowd-wont-be-citing/
By
Ken, at 09 March, 2016
Ken I did pass on your web page in the title.
Sensible people would like your opinion on Dr Kennedy's video. I find his arguments against fluoridation far more convincing than any you put forward.
By
Bill, at 09 March, 2016
Ken - contrary to your headline I will of course be citing this report. That will be considerably more accurate and preferable to accepting your understanding of this report in your article.
In playing with the words "cosmetically undesirable" you do not quite cover the meaning of "defect" dental fluorosis, which relates to damaged teeth. Your "zero" remark I guess must refer to the "Defect Dental Fluorosis" figure in the table (2) on page 28 of the report. There is no other "zero" figure in the report.
There were DDF teeth in the 2002 study - then fluoride levels were greatly reduced and, unsurprisingly IMHO, by 2013 DDF teeth were also greatly reduced. To zero in fact. Although there was still DF in a reduced % of children (which, as they get older, may still become "defect").
The table 4 on p31 provides a wider picture. Please note the words at the bottom "no significant differences" .... neither in dental caries nor DMFT.
The report conclusion does not support your very pro-fluoride optimistic assessment. Instead it says - .... "This study suggests that defluoridation of drinking water is effective for controlling endemic fluorosis in China and that the role of fluoridation of public water supplies for the control of dental caries needs to be further studied."....
It's all there for you to read. Seems plain enough to me.
By
Cllr. Chris, at 09 March, 2016
"This is because the research they report supports the scientific consensus"
This says it all. Somehow we are to take it that "consensus" overrides facts based on real science. Such as the fact, fluoride being more toxic then lead!
The only consensus is that pro water fluoridation science is nothing put marketing.
A convenient toxic waste disposal scheme dressed up as science.
By
Unknown, at 09 March, 2016
Bill, if your wanted my opinion on a specific video the simple thing to do is comment on my article with a link to the video. I am happy to do a critique of it when I have time.
At the moment, and for the sake of this discussion, is there as specific relevant claim in his video you wish to discuss?
By
Ken, at 09 March, 2016
Great to see you will cite the report Chris – be careful that you represent it properly6 because you seem to be rather vague about its findings. In particular you should make clear that the research does support the scientific understanding that where the F content of drinking water is very low increasing it to around 0.7 or 0.8 ppm (the concentration used in CWF) will reduce tooth decay.
It also supports the findings that drinking water fluoride at that concentration does no cause cosmetically undesirable dental fluorosis – usually defined as the “moderate” and “severe” forms on the Dean index.
“Defect dental fluorosis” is a Chines classification and is defined exactly in the paper:
“Defect dental fluorosis included some “moderate” dental fluorosis (grade 3) and all “severe” dental fluorosis (grade 4) as diagnosed by Dean’s criteria.”
In my article id described it as:
“some “moderate” dental fluorosis and all “severe dental fluorosis as diagnosed by Dean’s criteria”
The milder forms of dental fluorosis are not of concern (although anti-fluoride campaigners continually attempt to conflate the data). The “moderate” and “sever” forms of dental fluorosis are not caused by community water fluoridation, are extremely low in fluoridated countries (2.5% in New Zealand) and are caused by other factors. So I find nothing unusual at all about these authors reporting zero DDF. This is what we would expect for drinking water fluoride concentrations used for CWF.
The “no significant difference” reported in Table 4 is also not surprising – they are comparing 2 villages with drinking fluoride concentration of exactly the same and similar to that used in CWF. We should not expect to see any differences.
I fully agree with their statement "This study suggests that defluoridation of drinking water is effective for controlling endemic fluorosis in China” – it is exactly what we should expect from our experience with CWF.
I also agree with their statement ”the role of fluoridation of public water supplies for the control of dental caries needs to be further studied" in the sense that a social health policy should always be monitored and research for its efficacy and safety. That is exactly what is happening with CWF. (The authors have to at least give lip service to the possibility of harmful effects consideri9ng their previous investment in the research when the villages did not have the water supplies they have now. I have commented elsewhere about the problems of that research).
By
Ken, at 09 March, 2016
Chris – you misunderstand the meaning of scientific consensus – it must be based on the scientifically established facts – not on “beliefs,” dogma or commercial interests – as is the case with anti-fluoride campaigners.
By
Ken, at 09 March, 2016
Of course mass medicating with a known neurotoxin and thyroid enzyme poison at uncontrolled dose and dosage will never harm anyone. And even if it does harm a few hundred of thousands or millions, it will all be worth it as we might be saving a tooth surface or two over a lifetime. The Cochrane Review could only find 5 studies, all prior to 1975 and before much fluoridated toothpaste, that support AWF, so let's keep telling the public about the thousands of studies supporting this antiquated and harmful practice.
By
Dr Bob, at 10 March, 2016
Robert - your comment is completely unrelated either to the post or to any other comment here.
Never mind - I guess you got it off your chest. :-)
By
Ken, at 10 March, 2016
Post a Comment
<< Home