Re: Fluoride treatments
- From: "NOYB" <noyb@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:09:57 GMT
"Peter Meiers" <Tren_Dean@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4268011D.4D69@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> NOYB wrote:
>
>> "Peter Meiers" <Tren_Dean@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:4267E726.61B@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > NOYB wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Peter Meiers" <Tren_Dean@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:4267DE73.69FD@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> > The Real Paul wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Fluoride given to children while their teeth are developing is
>> >> >> incorporated
>> >> >> into the tooth structure and creates a more decay resistant enamel
>> >> >> structure.
>> >> >
>> >> > Nonsense.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > -History of fluorine, fluoride and fluoridation-:
>> >> > --- http://www.fluoride-history.de/index.htm ---
>> >> > ----------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> I followed your link and could not find one peer-reviewed study that
>> >> said
>> >> that fluoride does not make enamel more resistant to decay.
>> >
>> > Perhaps you could cite one that does?
>> >
>>
>> There were 10-year studies in the 40's and 50's that showed caries
>> reduction
>> resulting from fluoridated water.
>
> Did you ever see/read the original series of papers on these trials?
> Additional material on these early experiments is contained in the
> papers of Henry Trendley Dean and Ruth Roy Harris, at the National
> Library of Medicine. Guess what they reveal? Anything but proof of a
> fluoride effect!
>
>> I'm wondering if you're challenging the statement that "fluoride in
>> developing teeth make them more resistant to decay", or if you're
>> challenging the idea that fluoride makes already-erupted teeth more
>> resistant to decay.
>
> It does neither.
Sure it does...and the evidence is overwhelming that it helps
already-erupted teeth.
>
>> The pre-eruptive benefits are there, but not significant. The
>> post-eruptive
>> benefits of water fluoridation and topical application of fluoride are
>> very
>> significant and indisputable.
>
> This is your view. What is indeed "significant" is the influence of the
> so-called "confounding variables"! Nothing else. And "indisputable"
> means that you are not interested in any discussion. So why should I
> elaborate? Just to be ignored for saying what nobody here wants to
> hear/read? I´m not interested in wasting time. I´ll elaborate on that
> elsewhere.
Elsewhere? Elsewhere you have no hope in influencing a single person who
matters. At least on sci.med.dentistry, you could conceivably convince a
handful of dentists here, who could then pass your message along to several
thousand patients each year. If you're afraid to try to make your case
among educated professionals, I can certainly understand. It's much easier
to herd the uniformed masses via a website.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Fluoride treatments
- From: Peter Meiers
- Re: Fluoride treatments
- References:
- Fluoride treatments
- From: elbyc
- Re: Fluoride treatments
- From: nyscof
- Re: Fluoride treatments
- From: The Real Paul
- Re: Fluoride treatments
- From: Peter Meiers
- Re: Fluoride treatments
- From: NOYB
- Re: Fluoride treatments
- From: Peter Meiers
- Re: Fluoride treatments
- From: NOYB
- Re: Fluoride treatments
- From: Peter Meiers
- Fluoride treatments
- Prev by Date: Re: Fluoride treatments
- Next by Date: Re: Fluoride treatments
- Previous by thread: Re: Fluoride treatments
- Next by thread: Re: Fluoride treatments
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|