False Statement # 9 by Steve Slott, DDS

SLOTT: "It is futile to attempt to make any kind of assessment on effectiveness water fluoridation or any of the numerous other variables involved in formation of dental decay without controlling for these factors. There are countless peer-reviewed scientific studies which demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation. i will gladly provide you with a list of some of them if you so desire."

Question asked by Paul Melters:

Okay, why don't you post one of those "countless studies" which demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation and which has accounted for confounding factors such as race, gender, age, total intake, tooth eruption, brushing and other oral hygiene factors, socio-economic status, etc.? Let's have a look at them. 

Response by Paul Melters to Steve Slott, DDS - September 7, 2013

To Steve Slott:

You wrote:

Slott: “Paul Melters, Seems you have a real problem with reading and comprehension. Have you considered going back to elementary school for a refresher? Once again:

6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998306 

CONCLUSIONS: 
Fewer studies have been published recently. More of these have investigated effect at the multi-community, state or even national level. The dmf/DMF index remains the most widely used measure of effect. % CR were lower in recent studies, and the 'halo' effect was discussed frequently. Nevertheless, reductions were still substantial. Statistical control for confounding factors is now routine, although the effect on per cent reductions tended to be small. Further thought is needed about the purpose of evaluation and whether measures of effect and study design are appropriate for that purpose. 

-----Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2012 Oct;40 Suppl 2:55-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2012.00721.x.
Effectiveness of water fluoridation in caries prevention.
Rugg-Gunn AJ, Do L.
Source
Newcastle University, UK. andrew@rugg-gunn.net

As you have just stated, "these are established confounders". As is stated in the above conclusions:

Note: 'STATISTICAL CONTROL FOR CONFOUNDING FACTORS IS NOW ROUTINE.."

Also Note: "NEVERTHELESS, REDUCTIONS WERE STILL SUBSTANTIAL"

I'm not sure how to make it any simpler for you to understand, but I'll certainly try to dumb it down further if you still have problems with this.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

PM Response:

You provided this nonsense above on another forum, and it was already addressed.

You are just trying to "sound" smart, but it's not working.

Once again, you are NOT providing what is being asked for, but simply cite something from a "review" that has the word "confounders" in it. (BTW - Do you understand the difference between a study and a review?)

Just what are the confounders?  

Why don't you show us all how really smart you are and list them and then we'll see if they are accounted for?

And please - you claim to have "countless studies" which have adjusted for these established confounders, and were certainly willing to provide me with a list.  

You wrote:

SLOTT: "It is futile to attempt to make any kind of assessment on effectiveness water fluoridation or any of the numerous other variables involved in formation of dental decay without controlling for these factors. There are countless peer-reviewed scientific studies which demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation. i will gladly provide you with a list of some of them if you so desire."

So - go ahead. Show me the list.

Paul Melters

P.S.

"Slott: I'm not sure how to make it any simpler for you to understand, but I'll certainly try to dumb it down further if you still have problems with this."

PM Response: Oh - please do "dumb it down" further for me. I'll make sure that someone adds your "expert response" to the other words of wisdom you have provided me with this year.


http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/

Response by Steve Slott

Paul, you are seriously delusional, and in honest need of help. I'll try to pay more attention to your posts, so maybe that pacify will calm you down some, but your delusions and pathological obsession with Dr. Johnson and me really should be addressed by a professional.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Response by Paul Melters

Slott: "Paul, you are seriously delusional, and in honest need of help."

Sure, here we go back to your old insults again. Isn't it odd how that always happens when you've been caught lying?

Stop distorting facts, and start telling the truth. 

"You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts."

Paul

Response by Steve Slott

"You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts."

Yes, Paul. You seem to have a real problem in understanding the above statement. Read it a few times and maybe it'll sink into your delusional mind.

Steven D, Slott, DDS

Response by Paul Melters

Who is unable to back up the facts - you or I? 

Any other insults you want to throw at me, or will you come up with ONE of those "countless studies" anytime soon - to back up YOUR facts??

Now you can't even list the "established confounding factors" you pretend to know so much about?

Slott: "It is futile to attempt to make any kind of assessment on effectiveness water fluoridation or any of the numerous other variables involved in formation of dental decay without controlling for these factors. There are countless peer-reviewed scientific studies which demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation. i will gladly provide you with a list of some of them if you so desire."

Provide ONE scientific study which show this effectiveness of water fluoridation, and which has accounted for established confounding factors such as race, gender, age, total intake, tooth eruption, brushing and other oral hygiene factors, socio-economic status, etc..

Reference:______________________________