Fluoride Controversy A Toothy Problem

[Qaskura]

I believe this issue was handled wrong. I chose option number 2, which was keep Fluoride and other drugs away from our food and water basically, and as a result my nation's health dropped. This one was a trick question, because in reality Fluoride is bad for your health and anyone who chose to Fluoridate their water is drugging their citizens with industrial waste material. Can this be fixed, so that choosing to not Fluoridate the water actually makes health rise. Fluoride is not healthy, and in reality causes damage to your teeth, bones, and pituitary gland.
Fluoride Articles http://fluoride.mercola.com/
50 REASONS TO OPPOSE FLUORIDATION http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/

[Neo-Arcadia]

When I chose option 1, which was to apply fluoride to the water system, I lost civil rights. So I'm getting punished for trying to help my people

[Tekeristan]

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nas.htm

This is why it'll be considered a health boost to your nation.

[Leppikania]

When I chose option 1, which was to apply fluoride to the water system, I lost civil rights. So I'm getting punished for trying to help my people

Well, think about the people that don't want the fluoridation. Forcing people to be healthy isn't free.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Science is a process of questioning, rather than a statement of absolute truths, so there's always room for dissent as to whether effects are accurate or not.

However, I think its probably reasonable for issues to go with the current scientific consensus when adjudicating effects. The majority of scientific authorities consider fluoridation to be a health benefit.

A degree of critical appraisal skill is needed to make your own mind up regarding the current state of consensus. If people don't fancy doing their own research, then trusting to the authority of health authorities is a good second best.

A good and impartial metanalysis:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/fluoride/d ... port18.pdf

A good meta-analysis needs to look broadly, have no conflict of interests in why it was written, and comment on the strength of evidence. This looks to meet that standard to my eye (as a doctor). Appraising the above meta-analysis, I'd observe that these NHS reports are written by doctors who are generally concerned with making people healthier, establishing good science, but who tend to have a slight status quo bias, who are interested in getting published, and who fear the criticism of their peers. The NHS as a whole is also biased by budgetary constraints and political factors, but paper authors tend not to be affected by these concerns. British academic medicine is also, on the whole, credible and scientific, though is perhaps over-enamoured with its own credibility.

Regarding the OP's link, I'd observe the following:

The Mercola site is not impartial. Its a site designed to push its viewpoint across, and has a vested interest in highlighting evidence that supports its own claims. Also, there's a conflict of interests here in that it is trying to sell you its own brand of healthcare.

Good critical appraisal skills require us to look at the person making the claims. So, if we google Mercola, what can we find?
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Me ... ng_Letters
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/9- ... ural-news/

Being a good scientist requires us to keep an open mind, of course, but don't open mind so much that your brain falls out. Instead, don't accept anyone who claims something is proven to be true - that's not how science works. Keep an open and enquiring attitude and weigh up the evidence base.

Always look for underlying interests. Dr. Mercola is trying to make money. While its romantic and tempting to paint him as the sole voice of reason campaigning against a conspiracy of health fascism, I think a reasonable overall assessment gives him a low level of scientific credibility. He's got too many vested interests to present unbiased evidence, and his credibility is hurt by the peer review process rejecting him.

Also look at quality of evidence, and look at the numbers, not the pretty graphics. Case in point, the second link: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/

The first two graphs I see here are very poor, from a statistical point of view. Graph one is a bunch of down-pointing lines, all unfeasibly straight lines which means that each of them is plotted off two data points maximum. You can draw any line you want off two carefully selected data points. This is not a graph, this is a graphic designed to emphasise an argument, and provides no useful data. The second graph uses two different scales on its Y-axis. This is a warning sign of distorted presentation. Again, you can make graphs look like whatever you like if you don't use a consistent scale, and if you cherry-pick your comparisons.

The 50 points presented are done so in a clickbait big list fashion, with no comment about the relevance of individual points. A smart and appraising reader is never going to see any article with "X reasons why X!" titles as anything less than an agenda-piece, and wouldn't consider it a sensible academic reference. I mean, I like cracked.com as much as anybody, but I don't base my medical practice on its assertions.

As a doctor, I'm interested in a few things:
- Does fluoride addition reduce dental disease? What is the statistical strength of evidence for this?
- Does fluoride addition cause harm? What is the statistical strength of evidence for this?
- What is the overall change in all-cause morbidity and all-cause mortality? What is the statistical strength of evidence for this?

From what I can see, there is very strong evidence of increase in dental health from fluoridation. There is weak to poor evidence of harm, though a good scientific rationale behind the ideas of harm. There is moderate to strong evidence of reduction of overall morbidity / mortality. Conclusion: Worth doing, from a medical perspective.

Then beyond that, politicians and policy makers should be concerned with:
- What is the scientific evidence? What's the strength of this.
- What is the financial cost of implementing this?
- What is the social cost of implementing this?
- What about externalities?

This one is trickier, especially in assessing social costs. The largest one here is loss of liberties from those that don't consent to fluoridated water: that's a big thing, and to me is a strong argument against fluoridation that is on much sounder ground than risk to health. Externalities are even harder to assess: is there a benefit to industry from encouraging fluoridation? Is there harm to the environment? How much of both? Whats this estimate based on?

Sadly, actually politicians tend to not think through these questions but instead go:
- What do the science-people say? Do I trust them?
- How popular will this policy be with the voters?
- How popular will this policy be with the special interest groups?
- How does this fit my ideology, belief system and public image?

Anyway, long post, but to reel it all back in:
- The stat changes in NS look reasonable to me, based on current evidence and on sensible extrapolation of financial effects, social effects and externalities.
- IRL, fluroidation is probably good for health overall, but I remain unsold as to whether we should fluoridate water.

Its possible the response of many to this post will be "tldr". Honestly though, anybody who finds this post is too long isn't cut out to make assertions about evidence. You gotta read to appraise. You gotta have full information to make rational decisions.

[Qaskura]

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nas.htm

This is why it'll be considered a health boost to your nation.

CDC?? if they're willing to lie about fluoride?

Read this, from Fluoride alert network. http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/

[Qaskura]

Science is a process of questioning, rather than a statement of absolute truths, so there's always room for dissent as to whether effects are accurate or not.

However, I think its probably reasonable for issues to go with the current scientific consensus when adjudicating effects. The majority of scientific authorities consider fluoridation to be a health benefit.

A degree of critical appraisal skill is needed to make your own mind up regarding the current state of consensus. If people don't fancy doing their own research, then trusting to the authority of health authorities is a good second best.

A good and impartial metanalysis:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/fluoride/d ... port18.pdf

A good meta-analysis needs to look broadly, have no conflict of interests in why it was written, and comment on the strength of evidence. This looks to meet that standard to my eye (as a doctor). Appraising the above meta-analysis, I'd observe that these NHS reports are written by doctors who are generally concerned with making people healthier, establishing good science, but who tend to have a slight status quo bias, who are interested in getting published, and who fear the criticism of their peers. The NHS as a whole is also biased by budgetary constraints and political factors, but paper authors tend not to be affected by these concerns. British academic medicine is also, on the whole, credible and scientific, though is perhaps over-enamoured with its own credibility.

Regarding the OP's link, I'd observe the following:

The Mercola site is not impartial. Its a site designed to push its viewpoint across, and has a vested interest in highlighting evidence that supports its own claims. Also, there's a conflict of interests here in that it is trying to sell you its own brand of healthcare.

Good critical appraisal skills require us to look at the person making the claims. So, if we google Mercola, what can we find?
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Me ... ng_Letters
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/9- ... ural-news/

Being a good scientist requires us to keep an open mind, of course, but don't open mind so much that your brain falls out. Instead, don't accept anyone who claims something is proven to be true - that's not how science works. Keep an open and enquiring attitude and weigh up the evidence base.

Always look for underlying interests. Dr. Mercola is trying to make money. While its romantic and tempting to paint him as the sole voice of reason campaigning against a conspiracy of health fascism, I think a reasonable overall assessment gives him a low level of scientific credibility. He's got too many vested interests to present unbiased evidence, and his credibility is hurt by the peer review process rejecting him.

Also look at quality of evidence, and look at the numbers, not the pretty graphics. Case in point, the second link: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/

The first two graphs I see here are very poor, from a statistical point of view. Graph one is a bunch of down-pointing lines, all unfeasibly straight lines which means that each of them is plotted off two data points maximum. You can draw any line you want off two carefully selected data points. This is not a graph, this is a graphic designed to emphasise an argument, and provides no useful data. The second graph uses two different scales on its Y-axis. This is a warning sign of distorted presentation. Again, you can make graphs look like whatever you like if you don't use a consistent scale, and if you cherry-pick your comparisons.

The 50 points presented are done so in a clickbait big list fashion, with no comment about the relevance of individual points. A smart and appraising reader is never going to see any article with "X reasons why X!" titles as anything less than an agenda-piece, and wouldn't consider it a sensible academic reference. I mean, I like cracked.com as much as anybody, but I don't base my medical practice on its assertions.

As a doctor, I'm interested in a few things:
- Does fluoride addition reduce dental disease? What is the statistical strength of evidence for this?
- Does fluoride addition cause harm? What is the statistical strength of evidence for this?
- What is the overall change in all-cause morbidity and all-cause mortality? What is the statistical strength of evidence for this?

From what I can see, there is very strong evidence of increase in dental health from fluoridation. There is weak to poor evidence of harm, though a good scientific rationale behind the ideas of harm. There is moderate to strong evidence of reduction of overall morbidity / mortality. Conclusion: Worth doing, from a medical perspective.

Then beyond that, politicians and policy makers should be concerned with:
- What is the scientific evidence? What's the strength of this.
- What is the financial cost of implementing this?
- What is the social cost of implementing this?
- What about externalities?

This one is trickier, especially in assessing social costs. The largest one here is loss of liberties from those that don't consent to fluoridated water: that's a big thing, and to me is a strong argument against fluoridation that is on much sounder ground than risk to health. Externalities are even harder to assess: is there a benefit to industry from encouraging fluoridation? Is there harm to the environment? How much of both? Whats this estimate based on?

Sadly, actually politicians tend to not think through these questions but instead go:
- What do the science-people say? Do I trust them?
- How popular will this policy be with the voters?
- How popular will this policy be with the special interest groups?
- How does this fit my ideology, belief system and public image?

Anyway, long post, but to reel it all back in:
- The stat changes in NS look reasonable to me, based on current evidence and on sensible extrapolation of financial effects, social effects and externalities.
- IRL, fluroidation is probably good for health overall, but I remain unsold as to whether we should fluoridate water.

Its possible the response of many to this post will be "tldr". Honestly though, anybody who finds this post is too long isn't cut out to make assertions about evidence. You gotta read to appraise. You gotta have full information to make rational decisions.

I think it's long, but that's got nothing to do with how dumb it is.

[Kractero]

you've bumped 2 posts (one from 4 years ago) and created a whole new post about this. Why not keep it one? Visibility or attention's sake?

[Qaskura]

Science is a process of questioning, rather than a statement of absolute truths, so there's always room for dissent as to whether effects are accurate or not.

However, I think its probably reasonable for issues to go with the current scientific consensus when adjudicating effects. The majority of scientific authorities consider fluoridation to be a health benefit.

A degree of critical appraisal skill is needed to make your own mind up regarding the current state of consensus. If people don't fancy doing their own research, then trusting to the authority of health authorities is a good second best.

A good and impartial metanalysis:
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/fluoride/d ... port18.pdf

A good meta-analysis needs to look broadly, have no conflict of interests in why it was written, and comment on the strength of evidence. This looks to meet that standard to my eye (as a doctor). Appraising the above meta-analysis, I'd observe that these NHS reports are written by doctors who are generally concerned with making people healthier, establishing good science, but who tend to have a slight status quo bias, who are interested in getting published, and who fear the criticism of their peers. The NHS as a whole is also biased by budgetary constraints and political factors, but paper authors tend not to be affected by these concerns. British academic medicine is also, on the whole, credible and scientific, though is perhaps over-enamoured with its own credibility.

Regarding the OP's link, I'd observe the following:

The Mercola site is not impartial. Its a site designed to push its viewpoint across, and has a vested interest in highlighting evidence that supports its own claims. Also, there's a conflict of interests here in that it is trying to sell you its own brand of healthcare.

Good critical appraisal skills require us to look at the person making the claims. So, if we google Mercola, what can we find?
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Me ... ng_Letters
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/9- ... ural-news/

Being a good scientist requires us to keep an open mind, of course, but don't open mind so much that your brain falls out. Instead, don't accept anyone who claims something is proven to be true - that's not how science works. Keep an open and enquiring attitude and weigh up the evidence base.

Always look for underlying interests. Dr. Mercola is trying to make money. While its romantic and tempting to paint him as the sole voice of reason campaigning against a conspiracy of health fascism, I think a reasonable overall assessment gives him a low level of scientific credibility. He's got too many vested interests to present unbiased evidence, and his credibility is hurt by the peer review process rejecting him.

Also look at quality of evidence, and look at the numbers, not the pretty graphics. Case in point, the second link: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/

The first two graphs I see here are very poor, from a statistical point of view. Graph one is a bunch of down-pointing lines, all unfeasibly straight lines which means that each of them is plotted off two data points maximum. You can draw any line you want off two carefully selected data points. This is not a graph, this is a graphic designed to emphasise an argument, and provides no useful data. The second graph uses two different scales on its Y-axis. This is a warning sign of distorted presentation. Again, you can make graphs look like whatever you like if you don't use a consistent scale, and if you cherry-pick your comparisons.

The 50 points presented are done so in a clickbait big list fashion, with no comment about the relevance of individual points. A smart and appraising reader is never going to see any article with "X reasons why X!" titles as anything less than an agenda-piece, and wouldn't consider it a sensible academic reference. I mean, I like cracked.com as much as anybody, but I don't base my medical practice on its assertions.

As a doctor, I'm interested in a few things:
- Does fluoride addition reduce dental disease? What is the statistical strength of evidence for this?
- Does fluoride addition cause harm? What is the statistical strength of evidence for this?
- What is the overall change in all-cause morbidity and all-cause mortality? What is the statistical strength of evidence for this?

From what I can see, there is very strong evidence of increase in dental health from fluoridation. There is weak to poor evidence of harm, though a good scientific rationale behind the ideas of harm. There is moderate to strong evidence of reduction of overall morbidity / mortality. Conclusion: Worth doing, from a medical perspective.

Then beyond that, politicians and policy makers should be concerned with:
- What is the scientific evidence? What's the strength of this.
- What is the financial cost of implementing this?
- What is the social cost of implementing this?
- What about externalities?

This one is trickier, especially in assessing social costs. The largest one here is loss of liberties from those that don't consent to fluoridated water: that's a big thing, and to me is a strong argument against fluoridation that is on much sounder ground than risk to health. Externalities are even harder to assess: is there a benefit to industry from encouraging fluoridation? Is there harm to the environment? How much of both? Whats this estimate based on?

Sadly, actually politicians tend to not think through these questions but instead go:
- What do the science-people say? Do I trust them?
- How popular will this policy be with the voters?
- How popular will this policy be with the special interest groups?
- How does this fit my ideology, belief system and public image?

Anyway, long post, but to reel it all back in:
- The stat changes in NS look reasonable to me, based on current evidence and on sensible extrapolation of financial effects, social effects and externalities.
- IRL, fluroidation is probably good for health overall, but I remain unsold as to whether we should fluoridate water.

Its possible the response of many to this post will be "tldr". Honestly though, anybody who finds this post is too long isn't cut out to make assertions about evidence. You gotta read to appraise. You gotta have full information to make rational decisions.

I seriously think that I should be able to block you, because I think you are not proving any of my OP wrong and you and I will never agree obviously. So leave me alone.

[Qaskura]

you've bumped 2 posts (one from 4 years ago) and created a whole new post about this. Why not keep it one? Visibility or attention's sake?

I'm still figuring out how this works. When I raised the issue, I didn't know how to check on if anyone responded and tbh; you're reply isn't necessary.

[Qaskura]

you've bumped 2 posts (one from 4 years ago) and created a whole new post about this. Why not keep it one? Visibility or attention's sake?

and it keeps coming up.

[Qaskura]

Maybe you guys like sitting around and arguing, but I don't.

[The Sherpa Empire]

Maybe you guys like sitting around and arguing, but I don't.

Then why do you keep posting about this?

[Qaskura]

Maybe you guys like sitting around and arguing, but I don't.

Then why do you keep posting about this?

Why did my nation's health drop?? Why isn't Common sense more in practice?? Is Nation States a place where propaganda is passed off by writers as facts to silence any kind of resistance to fluoride? or part of a larger psyop to convince ppl that fluoride is good? What about Vaccines? Do you all believe in Vaccines too?

[Albrenia]

Then why do you keep posting about this?

Why did my nation's health drop?? Why isn't Common sense more in practice?? Is Nation States a place where propaganda is passed off by writers as facts to silence any kind of resistance to fluoride? or part of a larger psyop to convince ppl that fluoride is good? What about Vaccines? Do you all believe in Vaccines too?

Yes. This game is a psyop to convince people that fluoride and vaccines are good for you. That's why your nations health dropped.

Please take up any complaints about this with your local reptillian overlord.

[Qaskura]

Why did my nation's health drop?? Why isn't Common sense more in practice?? Is Nation States a place where propaganda is passed off by writers as facts to silence any kind of resistance to fluoride? or part of a larger psyop to convince ppl that fluoride is good? What about Vaccines? Do you all believe in Vaccines too?

Yes. This game is a psyop to convince people that fluoride and vaccines are good for you. That's why your nations health dropped.

Please take up any complaints about this with your local reptillian overlord.

Use your Tinfoil hat next time, and show me the symbol for idiot; so I know I'm talking to a friendly.
JK, shut up.

[Qaskura]

this is not a conversation, THIS IS A PROTEST POST. (OP)

[Kractero]

Maybe you guys like sitting around and arguing, but I don't.