Do you support water fluoridation?

[MOUTHLOVER]

---

Members do not see this ad.

You're right... my bad.


dont drink fluoridated milk! It will give you teh AIDS!

Yes.... you are confused. It only reflects his level of experience. Not mine 😉

Thanks, now I know who I'm talking to 😉

 

[yappy]

That group is the poster child of pop-pseudo-science lol. It's all about the $$$ - I imagine the book authors and health gurus will ride that wave along with the Price Foundation for as long as possible.

Been there done that. The first second of the lecture already contains a very unfortunate hypocrisy.... human milk low in protein so cow milk bad. So do the paleo diet! 😀. I added that part because of the common overlap in this group of people. Their proposed problems and solutions are often the same. It's dietary homeopathy 😉

 

[Kahr]

Hopefully you guys can stop with the bickering, starting to degrade into muck instead of thoughtful or interesting argument. Never a good trend. 🙂

I support it. I´ve always thought it benefitted the population on a whole, especially in areas with less access to dental care, affordable dental care, or lack of dental health education.

I´m not sure if this is correct, but I thought I heard that all US military bases had fluoridated water, if that is true, I would think that population would be a good pool for study.

 

[hellopeople]

So did you solely investigate it's effects on teeth or have researched it's effects on our general health. I am not doubting it's benefit to our teeth when it's comes in contact with them, but I am concerned about its effects on our body in general...

Verifying it's effectiveness was not difficult. The majority of the paper dealt with a rang e of safety concerns such as toxicity, cancer, birth defects, and dental/skeletal fluorosis.

Dental fluorosis was the only verifiable negative side affect.

Dental fluorosis is not dangerous when appearing in such mild cases as caused my the recommended water fluoridation levels.

As far as effectiveness goes, reduction in carries was not nearly as significant in recent studies as older ones. It appears the use of topical flouride treatments has had its intended effect, and there is only so much fluoride will help. The most pronounced benefit seem to be observed in the low-income urban areas.

I didn't read the rest of this (56 post long) thread, so sorry if what I said was kind of redundant.

 

[hellopeople]

Any way we can read that paper you wrote? Might be an interesting read 🙂

Don't have a copy with me, but I'll post it when I get home from vacation I guess.

 

[Bereno]

Hopefully you guys can stop with the bickering, starting to degrade into muck instead of thoughtful or interesting argument. Never a good trend. 🙂

I support it. I´ve always thought it benefitted the population on a whole, especially in areas with less access to dental care, affordable dental care, or lack of dental health education.

I´m not sure if this is correct, but I thought I heard that all US military bases had fluoridated water, if that is true, I would think that population would be a good pool for study.

I usually do not let things derail me, but for some reason this really got under my skin and I just could not help but reply. I should have just let it slide though, so thanks for the re-direct. 🙂

OP: I tend to favor water fluoridation because there are very clear and documented positives, while there does not seem to be any clear and documented negatives. Even then, since water fluoridation has been implemented for so long covering such large numbers of people, I would imagine the amount of data available for study might be immense. Also, it does not appear that there are statistically significant levels of disease stemming from it (correction anyone?), so I don't see why not in light of the benefits it appears to have. Granted, I have not studied it myself, so I cannot say with any certainty, but this is my understanding of it. Kahr's suggestion of a study would be interesting.

 

[MOUTHLOVER]

I usually do not let things derail me, but for some reason this really got under my skin and I just could not help but reply. I should have just let it slide though, so thanks for the re-direct. 🙂

OP: I tend to favor water fluoridation because there are very clear and documented positives, while there does not seem to be any clear and documented negatives. Even then, since water fluoridation has been implemented for so long covering such large numbers of people, I would imagine the amount of data available for study might be immense. Also, it does not appear that there are statistically significant levels of disease stemming from it (correction anyone?), so I don't see why not in light of the benefits it appears to have. Granted, I have not studied it myself, so I cannot say with any certainty, but this is my understanding of it. Kahr's suggestion of a study would be interesting.

Boreno, you seem to be of the most level-headed of the posters on this thread, and I respect your answers. I'd like to point out that I have provided a source of good research on the topic. From the historical account of implementing fluoride it seems that there was little understanding of its effects from the beginning. They implemented it blindly, would it not be quite embarrassing/enraging if the public were to see that this medication caused horrible effects? From the research it seems that countries with fluoridated water and those without have had the same decrease in the rate of the disease. Also, the research Against fluoride is quite STRONG! And should not so easily be dismissed. Another thing is that the majority of the world does not have fluoridated water. Fluoridated water is only typical of the us, some of Canada and Nazi Germany 😛 ... So its not something effecting everybody. If you do some investigation you will see that the evidence for it is not so clear.


For the rest of you all, here's a tip for succes: I urge you to be careful in investigating things for yourself. Read things IN CONTEXT and do your best not to try and confirm your biased opinion 😉

 

[SpecterGT260]

Boreno, you seem to be of the most level-headed of the posters on this thread, and I respect your answers. I'd like to point out that I have provided a source of good research on the topic. From the historical account of implementing fluoride it seems that there was little understanding of its effects from the beginning. They implemented it blindly, would it not be quite embarrassing/enraging if the public were to see that this medication caused horrible effects? From the research it seems that countries with fluoridated water and those without have had the same decrease in the rate of the disease. Also, the research Against fluoride is quite STRONG! And should not so easily be dismissed. Another thing is that the majority of the world does not have fluoridated water. Fluoridated water is only typical of the us, some of Canada and Nazi Germany 😛 ... So its not something effecting everybody. If you do some investigation you will see that the evidence for it is not so clear.


For the rest of you all, here's a tip for succes: I urge you to be careful in investigating things for yourself. Read things IN CONTEXT and do your best not to try and confirm your biased opinion 😉

I actually feel complimented that you dont consider me level headed

 

[MOUTHLOVER]

I actually feel complimented that you dont consider me level headed

Yes, I've heard this from other broscientists 😉

 

[Bereno]

Boreno, you seem to be of the most level-headed of the posters on this thread, and I respect your answers. I'd like to point out that I have provided a source of good research on the topic. From the historical account of implementing fluoride it seems that there was little understanding of its effects from the beginning. They implemented it blindly, would it not be quite embarrassing/enraging if the public were to see that this medication caused horrible effects? From the research it seems that countries with fluoridated water and those without have had the same decrease in the rate of the disease. Also, the research Against fluoride is quite STRONG! And should not so easily be dismissed. Another thing is that the majority of the world does not have fluoridated water. Fluoridated water is only typical of the us, some of Canada and Nazi Germany 😛 ... So its not something effecting everybody. If you do some investigation you will see that the evidence for it is not so clear.


For the rest of you all, here's a tip for succes: I urge you to be careful in investigating things for yourself. Read things IN CONTEXT and do your best not to try and confirm your biased opinion 😉

Interesting. I think for me to become more educated on the topic I would have to devote some time into the research and documentation that you have provided. I am basing my generalities on the conversations I have had with one of the dentists I have shadowed and am simply regurgitating my understanding of the topic from him. As I said, I am no expert lol. 🙂

 

[MOUTHLOVER]

Just as an update.... I've been involved in knocking off another American city from the fluoridated water list this past week 😀 😛

 

[iamjackbauer]

Just as an update.... I've been involved in knocking off another American city from the fluoridated water list this past week 😀 😛

 

[MOUTHLOVER]

thanks for the support 😛 there will be more to come and since you love them so much i'll make sure that I inbox them to you every time 😉

 

[diasIItema]

I was going to type out a long, articulate argument.

Then I decided not to feed the troll.

Simply put, water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, and any idiot who thinks that information from Fluoridealert.com is going to undermine that does not deserve to be called Doctor.

Learn how to spot specious and spurious arguments, cupcake.

 

[Japie]

I was going to type out a long, articulate argument.

Then I decided not to feed the troll.

Simply put, water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, and any idiot who thinks that information from Fluoridealert.com is going to undermine that does not deserve to be called Doctor.

Learn how to spot specious and spurious arguments, cupcake.

Seriously, do you honestly believe such nonsense! The good majority of evidence is against the use of fluoride in water. If you chose to believe otherwise because of your trust in authority, then you don't exhibit the philosophical credentials of an upperclassman. Any "idiot" who CHOSES ignorance ought to keep their gullable, uneducated mind pumping gas or flipping burgers. A Canadian author once said "To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation." stop doubting and starting THINKING!

Sorry, but your idea of a doctor is flawed. Doctors are thinkers...not followers. Maybe you should figure out where you really fit in cupcake 😉

 

[MOUTHLOVER]

Seriously, do you honestly believe such nonsense! The good majority of evidence is against the use of fluoride in water. If you chose to believe otherwise because of your trust in authority, then you don't exhibit the philosophical credentials of an upperclassman. Any "idiot" who CHOSES ignorance ought to keep their gullable, uneducated mind pumping gas or flipping burgers. A Canadian author once said "To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation." stop doubting and starting THINKING!

Sorry, but your idea of a doctor is flawed. Doctors are thinkers...not followers. Maybe you should figure out where you really fit in cupcake 😉

Thanks!

I was going to type out a long, articulate argument.

Then I decided not to feed the troll.

Simply put, water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, and any idiot who thinks that information from Fluoridealert.com is going to undermine that does not deserve to be called Doctor.

Learn how to spot specious and spurious arguments, cupcake.

One of the greatest. Public health achievements of the 20th century ... Please 👎laugh: that's a joke!

The people saying this are probably the same people who put the fluoride in, in the first place. Think for yourself a little bud learn to spot "specious" and "spurious" claims! Seriously think before you post

 

[SpecterGT260]

I liked him

 

[Bereno]

Come on guys... Enough of the bashing. If you have a point of view state it, and if you have evidence for or against, provide it. 👍

 

[SpecterGT260]

and if you have evidence against, provide it. 👍

👍

 

[Japie]

Come on guys... Enough of the bashing. If you have a point of view state it, and if you have evidence for or against, provide it. 👍

👍

Yeah no more broscience haha

 

[lemoncurry]

There are always going to be those among us who will see only what they want to see; those who ignore piles of peer-reviewed research which overwhelmingly state one thing in favor of a much smaller contingent of research that states something to the opposite.

For every article that seems to put the nail in the coffin of water fluoridation, there are dozens of papers which testify to its effectiveness in preventing caries or find no statistically significant negative effects.

One can assume that these pro-fluoride articles are funded by "the man" or by a massive conspiracy, or assume that their research or statistical methods are questionable. Naturally, one must also assume that the anti-fluoridation research is funded by those who simply want the truth to be known and to expose the falsehoods that exist in society, who have no interest in monetary gain or any axe to grind. And if you believe that last sentence, I have a bridge to sell you.

Personally, I'd rather not have a colleague who puts his trust in guys like Mercola, but I'm not the thought police and I respect their right to form their own opinion, even if I disagree with it. But until you have seen rampant caries in a 6 year old, or have seen a child get stainless steel crowns on all of their baby teeth, your opinion about fluoridation doesn't mean jack squat to me.

 

[MOUTHLOVER]

There are always going to be those among us who will see only what they want to see; those who ignore piles of peer-reviewed research which overwhelmingly state one thing in favor of a much smaller contingent of research that states something to the opposite.

For every article that seems to put the nail in the coffin of water fluoridation, there are dozens of papers which testify to its effectiveness in preventing caries or find no statistically significant negative effects.

One can assume that these pro-fluoride articles are funded by "the man" or by a massive conspiracy, or assume that their research or statistical methods are questionable. Naturally, one must also assume that the anti-fluoridation research is funded by those who simply want the truth to be known and to expose the falsehoods that exist in society, who have no interest in monetary gain or any axe to grind. And if you believe that last sentence, I have a bridge to sell you.

Personally, I'd rather not have a colleague who puts his trust in guys like Mercola, but I'm not the thought police and I respect their right to form their own opinion, even if I disagree with it. But until you have seen rampant caries in a 6 year old, or have seen a child get stainless steel crowns on all of their baby teeth, your opinion about fluoridation doesn't mean jack squat to me.

Very nice way of asserting our opinion. I too, would prefer to avoid a colleague who puts their trust in someone like Mercola.

 

[MOUTHLOVER]

I beleive that arguing/debating is a very wonderful thing. It helps us to sophisticate our ideas. It helps to realize that we are wrong and it helps us to teach others what may be right.

Now with this thread I have tried to create this kind dynamic and constructive discussion. I had an idea, so I presented it along with some supporting research. Through creating this thread I have looked for some kind of procession, but instead a sort of immobilization has occurred through mockery and rebuke. Tell me, is this really the same sort of professionalism and maturity required in dentistry?

I received many arrogant statements claiming that the research for definitely outweighs research against... Although, none of those people have provided ANY sources or examples of this research. Personally, I find this offensive and disrespectful as if you are saying that I do not deserve or have the right to know the truth.

Maybe this video will bring you back to basics


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI

 

[SpecterGT260]

There are always going to be those among us who will see only what they want to see; those who ignore piles of peer-reviewed research which overwhelmingly state one thing in favor of a much smaller contingent of research that states something to the opposite.

For every article that seems to put the nail in the coffin of water fluoridation, there are dozens of papers which testify to its effectiveness in preventing caries or find no statistically significant negative effects.

One can assume that these pro-fluoride articles are funded by "the man" or by a massive conspiracy, or assume that their research or statistical methods are questionable. Naturally, one must also assume that the anti-fluoridation research is funded by those who simply want the truth to be known and to expose the falsehoods that exist in society, who have no interest in monetary gain or any axe to grind. And if you believe that last sentence, I have a bridge to sell you.

Personally, I'd rather not have a colleague who puts his trust in guys like Mercola, but I'm not the thought police and I respect their right to form their own opinion, even if I disagree with it. But until you have seen rampant caries in a 6 year old, or have seen a child get stainless steel crowns on all of their baby teeth, your opinion about fluoridation doesn't mean jack squat to me.

😍😍😍

 

[deleted103644]

I for one do not support communist subversion of our precious bodily fluids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

 

[NTATD]

I beleive that arguing/debating is a very wonderful thing. It helps us to sophisticate our ideas. It helps to realize that we are wrong and it helps us to teach others what may be right.

Now with this thread I have tried to create this kind dynamic and constructive discussion. I had an idea, so I presented it along with some supporting research. Through creating this thread I have looked for some kind of procession, but instead a sort of immobilization has occurred through mockery and rebuke. Tell me, is this really the same sort of professionalism and maturity required in dentistry?

I received many arrogant statements claiming that the research for definitely outweighs research against... Although, none of those people have provided ANY sources or examples of this research. Personally, I find this offensive and disrespectful as if you are saying that I do not deserve or have the right to know the truth.

Maybe this video will bring you back to basics


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI

it's called sciencedirect.com----type in water fluorination
Bingo.........papers for, papers against

much better than youtube and wikipedia 😉

 

[SpecterGT260]

much better than youtube and wikipedia 😉

 

[deleted103644]

 

[MOUTHLOVER]

it's called sciencedirect.com----type in water fluorination
Bingo.........papers for, papers against

much better than youtube and wikipedia 😉

Haha yes much better than those... The YouTube video I posted has nothing to do with fluoride, it's just an ad using doctors to promote cigarettes ... Just an example of how things change 😉

 

[SpecterGT260]

It is an unbelievably inappropriate leap to assume that "because things change" that "fluoride in water is evil".

You are assuming 1) that the people contesting you statements do so only out of a blind adherence to the past, 2) that your point of view represents positive change instead of a return to old and outdated norms, 3) I didnt prepare a 3... but I dont like leaving lists off at 2

basically, showing the evolution of physicians' recommendations over the years in no way whatsoever demonstrates that current beliefs are wrong. The notion is silly enough that the trump card would be to simply let you have your way for an hour, then label it as "old thinking" and show a few videos or papers of doctors doing things we now know to be wrong, and then reinstate fluoride 😉

 

[yappy]

Logical fallacy.

Maybe this video will bring you back to basics


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI

 

[SpecterGT260]

Logical fallacy.

isnt that what I just said? 😕


😀😛

 

[deleted103644]

Why am I the only one referencing Dr. Strangelove in this thread?!?

Come on people.

 

[yappy]

Sorry. I felt compelled after clicking that link I just skipped to the reply button lol.

After reviewing many of Mouthlover's posts I'm beginning to think he's a shill for the Weston Price Foundation. Paleo diet, Fluoride, RTC and Mercola... once he starts a thread on the extreme danger of X-rays he'll be 5 for 5. What amazes me about these people is how rank and file they are with their views. It's like a highly disciplined religious group. What are the odds that someone independently cares about all these issues and are all on the same side of the fence? 5!

isnt that what I just said? 😕


😀😛

 

[diasIItema]

The good majority of evidence is against the use of fluoride in water.

No, it isn't.

Sorry, but your idea of a doctor is flawed. Doctors are thinkers...not followers. Maybe you should figure out where you really fit in cupcake 😉

I'm a follower b/c I subscribe to the thousands of objective, contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles provided by the CDC, and I'm a thinker if I find a couple of questionable papers through the database of Fluoridealert.com? 🙄

Oh, and I was admitted to the Harvard School of Dental Medicine C/O 2016. Fitting-in shouldn't be an issue.

One of the greatest. Public health achievements of the 20th century ... Please that's a joke!

The CDC would seem to agree with me, cupcake. http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/

Water fluoridation saves $38 in dental costs for every $1 spent.

Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to get back to working to improve the oral health of my community, rather than trying to undermine it.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Sorry. I felt compelled after clicking that link I just skipped to the reply button lol.

After reviewing many of Mouthlover's posts I'm beginning to think he's a shill for the Weston Price Foundation. Paleo diet, Fluoride, RTC and Mercola... once he starts a thread on the extreme danger of X-rays he'll be 5 for 5. What amazes me about these people is how rank and file they are with their views. It's like a highly disciplined religious group. What are the odds that someone independently cares about all these issues and are all on the same side of the fence? 5!

I was only giving you a little crap - because I am reminded of how unnecessarily wordy I can be at times when I type out a whole thing like I did and someone can come along and say everything that I just did in 3 words 😎

I agree with the cult analogy, though. They cite poor and sketchy sources, pseudoscience, and all around poor experimental designs and findings to support their claims (had a kid in my class get bent on fluoride as well and pointed to a video where some of their major evidence was corrosion on pipes carrying city water. As a chemist by UG training, this made my brain bleed...), and they shirk off any sound rationale or evidence as being "from the man" or as coming from "sheeple" as if they corner the market on thinking for ones self.

One thing I find funny in the war on fluoride is how we can look at the average american diet (which is not heavy in drinking fountains) and completely ignore things like full sugar sodas and juices and point the finger and a helpless little ion like fluoride I took a drink of my little brother's juice the other day and about puked it was so crammed full of sugar.

how much city water are people actually drinking? I am just curious how valid the clinical and population observations are to begin with - never mind what happens when you inject fluoride into something at several orders of magnitude higher than would ever be found in water 😛

 

[MOUTHLOVER]

It is an unbelievably inappropriate leap to assume that "because things change" that "fluoride in water is evil".

You are assuming 1) that the people contesting you statements do so only out of a blind adherence to the past, 2) that your point of view represents positive change instead of a return to old and outdated norms, 3) I didnt prepare a 3... but I dont like leaving lists off at 2

basically, showing the evolution of physicians' recommendations over the years in no way whatsoever demonstrates that current beliefs are wrong. The notion is silly enough that the trump card would be to simply let you have your way for an hour, then label it as "old thinking" and show a few videos or papers of doctors doing things we now know to be wrong, and then reinstate fluoride 😉

thanks, this is the first one of your paragraphs that makes sense. I too agree that "It is an unbelievably inappropriate leap to assume that "because things change" that ‘fluoride in water is evil'" ... good thing that wasn't the basis of my argument but rather a primer 😉

Logical fallacy.

please, either give substance to your claim or stop trolling...

isnt that what I just said? 😕

you're hopeless... good luck...

Sorry. I felt compelled after clicking that link I just skipped to the reply button lol.

After reviewing many of Mouthlover's posts I'm beginning to think he's a shill for the Weston Price Foundation. Paleo diet, Fluoride, RTC and Mercola... once he starts a thread on the extreme danger of X-rays he'll be 5 for 5. What amazes me about these people is how rank and file they are with their views. It's like a highly disciplined religious group. What are the odds that someone independently cares about all these issues and are all on the same side of the fence? 5!

You're quite the conspiracist... I have never shown any support for the paleo diet (in fact I hardly know what that is...), I have never shown any support whatsoever for mercola and his RCT views... on the same side of the fence? please... if you are incapable of constructing a valid argument... watch and learn 😉

No, it isn't.



I'm a follower b/c I subscribe to the thousands of objective, contemporary peer-reviewed journal articles provided by the CDC, and I'm a thinker if I find a couple of questionable papers through the database of Fluoridealert.com? 🙄

Oh, and I was admitted to the Harvard School of Dental Medicine C/O 2016. Fitting-in shouldn't be an issue.



The CDC would seem to agree with me, cupcake. http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/

Water fluoridation saves $38 in dental costs for every $1 spent.

Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to get back to working to improve the oral health of my community, rather than trying to undermine it.

thanks for no proof, and a horrible argument. it sounds like getting accepted to Harvard somehow gives validity to your claims... sorry the evidence is still against fluoride unless you can somehow prove otherwise. which you haven't, so thanks for your opinion. I will now forget it...

I was only giving you a little crap - because I am reminded of how unnecessarily wordy I can be at times when I type out a whole thing like I did and someone can come along and say everything that I just did in 3 words 😎

I agree with the cult analogy, though. They cite poor and sketchy sources, pseudoscience, and all around poor experimental designs and findings to support their claims (had a kid in my class get bent on fluoride as well and pointed to a video where some of their major evidence was corrosion on pipes carrying city water. As a chemist by UG training, this made my brain bleed...), and they shirk off any sound rationale or evidence as being "from the man" or as coming from "sheeple" as if they corner the market on thinking for ones self.

One thing I find funny in the war on fluoride is how we can look at the average american diet (which is not heavy in drinking fountains) and completely ignore things like full sugar sodas and juices and point the finger and a helpless little ion like fluoride I took a drink of my little brother's juice the other day and about puked it was so crammed full of sugar.

how much city water are people actually drinking? I am just curious how valid the clinical and population observations are to begin with - never mind what happens when you inject fluoride into something at several orders of magnitude higher than would ever be found in water 😛

what I have highlighted is a very wise statement. You have touched upon the route of the problem... fluoride should be removed and we should focus on the diet... please stop undermining the research against fluoride, all that you are doing is making it more and more clear that you haven't reviewed the research for yourself. I have provided the site www.fluoridealert.com because its much easier than listing tons and tons of different studies.

Now, as it stands research has been provided against fluoride but none has been provided for fluoride. The list of arrogant claims has also grown, please stop this as it is not congruent with the educated and professional environment of dentistry.

cheers

 

[diasIItema]

I referenced my admittance to Harvard as a retort to your equally misguided compadre. I don't need a CV to debate something which is so ludicrously obvious to anyone with an objective frame of mind.

sorry the evidence is still against fluoride unless you can somehow prove otherwise

The past 5 Surgeon Generals, the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, the United States Government, the American Dental Association and pretty much every dentist, professor, and dental school in America supports water fluoridation. Yet the evidence is against it?

I mean, sure Britain and continental Europe don't fluoridate their water for ethical reasons (they fluoridate salt; a lot cheaper and a consumer product). But if you want to use European oral hygiene as the world standard, be my guest.

I offer you no "proof" (lesson in science, cupcake: you can't prove anything. That's why we use inferential statistics to support empirical data. You will never go proof, just overwhelming evidence in favor of water fluoridation). I cited the CDC website (you could use ANY of the aforementioned organizations). Five-minutes and you'll be neck deep in legitimate, peer-reviewed articles that have been published in prestigious, internationally renowned and extremely selective journals.

Yet you're still willing to defend your ground based on an independent, inconsequential, no-name website with an obvious agenda, and some YouTube videos?

Please, for your own safety seek mental attention.

 

[SpecterGT260]

thanks, this is the first one of your paragraphs that makes sense. I too agree that "It is an unbelievably inappropriate leap to assume that "because things change" that ‘fluoride in water is evil'" ... good thing that wasn't the basis of my argument but rather a primer 😉


please, either give substance to your claim or stop trolling...




you're hopeless... good luck...



You're quite the conspiracist... I have never shown any support for the paleo diet (in fact I hardly know what that is...), I have never shown any support whatsoever for mercola and his RCT views... on the same side of the fence? please... if you are incapable of constructing a valid argument... watch and learn 😉



thanks for no proof, and a horrible argument. it sounds like getting accepted to Harvard somehow gives validity to your claims... sorry the evidence is still against fluoride unless you can somehow prove otherwise. which you haven't, so thanks for your opinion. I will now forget it...



what I have highlighted is a very wise statement. You have touched upon the route of the problem... fluoride should be removed and we should focus on the diet... please stop undermining the research against fluoride, all that you are doing is making it more and more clear that you haven't reviewed the research for yourself. I have provided the site www.fluoridealert.com because its much easier than listing tons and tons of different studies.

Now, as it stands research has been provided against fluoride but none has been provided for fluoride. The list of arrogant claims has also grown, please stop this as it is not congruent with the educated and professional environment of dentistry.

cheers

🙄

 

[diasIItema]

I have provided the site www.fluoridealert.com because its much easier than listing tons and tons of different studies.

I love fluoridealert.com. Great website. I think everyone here should take a gander.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I love fluoridealert.com. Great website. I think everyone here should take a gander.

Call in the next ten minutes and we will include 40% unbiased absolutely free!

I'm sorry.... Vince from ShamWow also made promises he couldn't make good on.....

 

[diasIItema]

Clearly I was poking fun at the OP for citing the wrong website. And I applaud the ADA for snagging that URL in opposition to those nut jobs at fluoridealert.org.

 

[MOUTHLOVER]

I referenced my admittance to Harvard as a retort to your equally misguided compadre. I don't need a CV to debate something which is so ludicrously obvious to anyone with an objective frame of mind.



The past 5 Surgeon Generals, the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, the United States Government, the American Dental Association and pretty much every dentist, professor, and dental school in America supports water fluoridation. Yet the evidence is against it?

I mean, sure Britain and continental Europe don't fluoridate their water for ethical reasons (they fluoridate salt; a lot cheaper and a consumer product). But if you want to use European oral hygiene as the world standard, be my guest.

I offer you no "proof" (lesson in science, cupcake: you can't prove anything. That's why we use inferential statistics to support empirical data. You will never go proof, just overwhelming evidence in favor of water fluoridation). I cited the CDC website (you could use ANY of the aforementioned organizations). Five-minutes and you'll be neck deep in legitimate, peer-reviewed articles that have been published in prestigious, internationally renowned and extremely selective journals.

Yet you're still willing to defend your ground based on an independent, inconsequential, no-name website with an obvious agenda, and some YouTube videos?

Please, for your own safety seek mental attention.

sorry, your argument is only replacing validity with arrogance, please accept your own advice and try looking at things with an objective frame of mind. It seems you are conforming to the "typical" American stereotype... sorry bud but the USA does not represent the world. I invite you to travel outside the US and try to find such adamant support for the use of fluoride. If you approach this topic in the same way that you make such MASSIVE generalizations, then I bid you good luck on the rest of your life my friendv

Also, do you honestly think being "no-name" = worthless? or worth less? Just because something isn't an economic engine, it's worthless? 😱 are you being serious!? ...Your thought processes are becoming more and more translucent, I think we can all see why you've chosen Harvard as you school 😉 ... do you have a harvard bumper sticker on your car? Are you one of those guys who wears "Harvard Dental Mecicine" hoodies everywhere you go? When you buy an expensive shirt, do you sometimes leave the tag on so others can see how much it cost?

 

[MOUTHLOVER]

Clearly I was poking fun at the OP for citing the wrong website. And I applaud the ADA for snagging that URL in opposition to those nut jobs at fluoridealert.org.

yes, it is pretty funny.............

 

[sacapuntas]

sorry, your argument is only replacing validity with arrogance, please accept your own advice and try looking at things with a objective frame of mind. It seems you are conforming to the "typical" American stereotype... sorry bud but the USA does not represent the world. I invite you to travel outside the US and try to find such adamant support for the use of fluoride. If you approach this topic in the same way that you make such MASSIVE generalizations, then I bid you good luck on the rest of your life my friendv

Also, do you honestly think being "no-name" = worthless? or worth less? Just because something isn't an economic engine, it's worthless? 😱 are you being serious!? ...Your thought processes are becoming more and more translucent, I think we can all see why you've chosen Harvard as you school 😉 ... do you have a harvard bumper sticker on your car? Are you one of those guys who wears "Harvard Dental Mecicine" hoodies everywhere you go? When you buy an expensive shirt, do you sometimes leave the tag on so others can see how much it cost?

You are sinking to personal attacks, definitely takes away validity from your arguments.

 

[SpecterGT260]

"But I already cited a web site which is authored by nobody in particular that already mirrors my already absurd opinion"


Seems legit 👍

 

[MOUTHLOVER]

You are sinking to personal attacks, definitely takes away validity from your arguments.

thanks for reminding me, sorry, I will do my best to refrain from jumping on this bandwagon 😉

 

[MOUTHLOVER]

"But I already cited a web site which is authored by nobody in particular that already mirrors my already absurd opinion"


Seems legit 👍

what was the point of this comment? this is trolling. You know what I meant, and if you don't then what are you doing on a pre-professional forum?

 

[SpecterGT260]

what was the point of this comment? this is trolling. You know what I meant, and if you don't then what are you doing on a pre-professional forum?

The point was that citing a source is good. Citing a credible source is better 👍. If I were on your side of the argument I would work to distance myself from fluoride alert.com asap ....

 

[MOUTHLOVER]

The point was that citing a source is good. Citing a credible source is better 👍. If I were on your side of the argument I would work to distance myself from fluoride alert.com asap ....

again that has little to nothing to do with what I was saying, please make sure you read before posting something about what i've written.

My point was that if something is "no-name" (as in not a huge economic engine) that doesn't mean that it isn't credible.

Ex: if a person graduates from Harvard, it doesn't automatically make them a way better dentist than some who graduated from NOVA, just because Harvard has the most prestigious name.

get it?