Comment on The majority of Queensland councils are washing their hands of fluoridation under the watch of both sides of politics

• HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Please don’t spread this rubbish misinformation.

  Water fluoridation is so thoroughly established as safe and the physiological effects are so well understood that it is hard to find recent reputable papers even commenting on it.

  I will donate $1000 to a charity of your choice if you can provide a peer reviewed article in a reputable journal that suggests it is suspected to be unsafe at recommended levels.

  Criteria: must be a full research or systematic review paper (not an editorial or opinion), published in a recognized scientific journal, and include a DOI. I’ll verify the paper and post the donation receipt publicly.

  source

  • shads@lemy.lol ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Oh god, my brother started spouting this nonsense at the same time he went vegan (which I don’t have a problem with) and anti-vax (which I REALLY do). He was also really eager to tell me all about how iodised salt was a conspiracy by the government to lower the IQ of the population. Oh and don’t get me started on his take on 9/11.

    I wound up telling him I wouldn’t discuss anything further with him unless he could bring receipts.

    source
  • MHLoppy2@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Imo you were too vague in your conditions.

    doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.5542

    This systemic review and meta-analysis includes this (weak!!) negative health result even for the 1.5mg/L fluoride/water recommendation that WHO provides.

    Sixty-four studies reported inverse associations between fluoride exposure measures and children’s IQ. Analysis of 59 studies with group-level measures of fluoride in drinking water, dental fluorosis, or other measures of fluoride exposure (47 high risk of bias, 12 low risk of bias; n = 20 932 children) showed an inverse association between fluoride exposure and IQ (pooled SMD, −0.45; 95% CI, −0.57 to −0.33; P < .001). In 31 studies reporting fluoride measured in drinking water, a dose-response association was found between exposed and reference groups (SMD, −0.15; 95% CI, −0.20 to −0.11; P < .001), and associations remained inverse when exposed groups were restricted to less than 4 mg/L and less than 2 mg/L; however, the association was null at less than 1.5 mg/L. In analyses restricted to low risk-of-bias studies, the association remained inverse when exposure was restricted to less than 4 mg/L, less than 2 mg/L, and less than 1.5 mg/L fluoride in drinking water. (emphasis added)

    I would personally consider this to qualify, though I will understand if you want to be more strict.

    source

    • HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Dammit, I did a quick literature search first too.

      If I wanted I could say I meant Australian recommended levels which have never been more than 1mg/L but I didn’t specify. WHO recommendations are <=1.5mg/L.

      Also I will stand by my point as

      There were limited data and uncertainty in the dose-response association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ when fluoride exposure was estimated by drinking water alone at concentrations less than 1.5 mg/L.

      The study is inconclusive and suggestive at those lower dose ranges and not relevant to Australia as our standards recommend even lower levels, but it does “suggest” which was my criteria. Possibly the WHO ought to adopt something closer to the western world standard of around 0.7mg/L

      Probably this is what @Tenderizer is referencing and we all owe them an apology.

      Name your charity @MHLoppy2

      source

      • MHLoppy2@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I nominate the unregistered charity of @Joshi@slrpnk.net who makes efforts to promote health education and foster civil discussion in online spaces.

        Tenderizer may have a different view, but for me personally don’t worry about losing the money due to a random internet discussion. If you would like to use your money to do some good in the world, I don’t want that to be conditional on who spent more time researching a random topic.

        I would, however, like to re-iterate this quote:

        The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance—it is the illusion of knowledge.

        And remind everyone that at any given time we know approximately nothing about anything so be cautious about being overconfident in what you think you know!

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Wrufieotnak@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I applaud your conviction and thorough definition of method, only thing that could lead to debate: what is a reputable journey? Not on Bells List of predatory publishers?

    source

    • HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Give me a reference to the ‘International Online Journal of Who Gives A Fuck’ and I’ll take look.

      I just can’t stand this “My uncle heard some guy on talk back radio say…” bullshit.

      source

      • Wrufieotnak@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        No worries, as I said, you defined nearly everything to put your money where your mouth is and make the non informed side show how spurious their claims are. I’m fully behind you.

        source
  • Tenderizer@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    jamanetwork.com/journals/…/2828425

    It says fluoride levels of 2-4mg/L is correlated in a reduction of IQ. But technically the WHO has long since recommended a maximum of 1.5mg/L due to a risk of fluorosis which is a comparatively minor concern, though it’s hard to find information about what levels are considered safe beyond “recommendations”.

    source