Re: Fluoride treatments
- From: "NOYB" <noyb@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:13:06 GMT
"Peter Meiers" <Tren_Dean@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4268116F.565E@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> NOYB wrote:
>
>> Sure it does...and the evidence is overwhelming that it helps
>> already-erupted teeth.
>
> Overwhelming to you, but not to me.
>
>> >> 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.
>
> C´mon. I already convinced many dentists, not at smd, but in real life.
> I have been talking at dental and medical congresses here. But to what
> avail? I received letters saying that the dentists (and even physicians)
> have been threatened by their local associations, or by their colleagues
> (rethinking their referral practice). I have been told by others that it
> is much more convenient to give topical fluoride applications instead of
> denying it, for they had to explain their position to a patient which
> costs time "which I am not paid for". Fluoride application is "standard
> of care" nowadays, and if it is denied a patient might sue for neglect.
> These are the arguments I usually hear from professionals. I gave up
> trying to convince any of them anymore. I rather think they know
> already, but prefer to act under the protection of their associations
> (hidden in a group). It is very hard to change such a system.
>
> Anyway, even the professionals here could easily go to my website and
> read what I have to say, if they are really interested. I would also be
> ready to have a reasonable discussion here or by email (my real email
> address is available under "imprint" at my website).
>
>> It's much easier
>> to herd the uniformed masses via a website.
>
> It is harder to "herd uninformed masses" than to talk to professionals.
> BTW: my website does not just attract "uninformed masses". Read, just as
> an example, the history chapter (online availabe) of "Fluorides in the
> environment" (by Davison and Weinstein, 2004) which makes rather
> extensive use of it (although somewhat selective).
>
I've read numerous studies (both epidemiological and controlled), that have
shown that fluoride is effective. I asked you to post even one study that
shows fluoride is not effective in reducing caries, and you tried to flip
the burden of proof back to me.
Just doing a medline search with the words fluoride and caries returns
thousands of hits. Countries like Brazil and Costa Rica that started
fluoridating their water in the last 2 or 3 decades, have seen a drastic
reduction in the number of DMFT (decayed/missing/filled teeth). The
studies that tracked the decline all attribute the drop to the fluoridation
programs. I found controlled studies that were able to remineralize
caries-like lesions.
I just can't seem to find any that say fluoride is not beneficial in
*high-caries* individuals. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Can you?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Fluoride treatments
- From: elbyc
- 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
- Re: Fluoride treatments
- From: NOYB
- Re: Fluoride treatments
- From: Peter Meiers
- Fluoride treatments
- Prev by Date: Re: Fluoride treatments
- Next by Date: An argument for denturity?
- Previous by thread: Re: Fluoride treatments
- Next by thread: Re: Fluoride treatments
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|