5 comments on “Anti-Fluoridation is Science Illiteracy

  1. Brian, You are misrepresenting my post. I bring up the point about the studies being in China, which does not have a fluoridation program, not to poison the well, as you suggest, but to raise the issue of relevance – which is the exact issue you also raise. Perhaps you should have quoted the next paragraph, in which I write:

    “So the question is – how do these levels of exposure relate to the amount of fluoride being added to water in the US (because toxicity is always all about dose)? There was a lot of variability across the studies, but generally the high fluoride groups were in the 2-10 mg/L range, while the reference low fluoride groups were in the 0.5-1.0 mg/L range (not including the coal burning studies, which had much higher fluoride levels).”

    So – they looked at studies in countries with very high industrial fluoride exposure, rather than countries with fluoridation programs.

  2. Neurologica wasn’t poisoning the well. Their point was that China isn’t a good place to study the effects of water fluoridation… since it “had a limited fluoridation program for a time, and has had no fluoridation of drinking water since 2002″. That’s a perfectly reasonable argument, and not a logical fallacy.

    That the goal of the authors of the meta-analysis was noble/lofty (i.e. “to bring Chinese-language studies to the attention of those in the English-speaking world”) doesn’t excuse using studies from a population that is inadequate for answering the question at hand.

  3. I apologize. I misunderstood thee context of your comment. I’ll strike out that particular line of the post when I get home.

    Looking at this at a bigger screen now: it’s still not clear to me what the relevancy of China is. Either the doses are comparable, or they’re not. While the paragraph you quoted does question relevancy, the paragraph I quoted doesn’t have any obvious link with the second. It appeared (and appears) to me to be merely a rhetorical dig at the source of the study.

    The point of the study is to compare the effects of fluoridation on IQ: what does it matter if the country has a fluoridation program, or not?

  4. Brian – your last sentence makes no sense. How can you study the effects of fluoridation in a country without fluoridation? These are studies of industrial-level toxic exposure of fluoride (and likely other contaminants), but they were presented as evidence of the dangers of fluoridation. The relevance of pointing this out should be obvious.

  5. Fine: the point of the study is to compare the effects of different doses of fluoride on IQ: what does it matter if the country has a fluoridation program, or not?

    This kind of hair-splitting seems puerile.

Leave a Reply