1. aul Melters | December 10, 2013 at 10:04 am |

    Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
     

    In COMMENT 48618 Ken wrote:

    KEN PERROTT: “Paul Melters- I have held back a few of your comments as they have been antagonistic and added nothing to the discussion. If you wish to argue the number of angels on the head of a pin or Louise’s comments then do so on your own web site (Of course you will need to allow commenting to accomadate (sic) that).

    PM Response: Interesting, Ken Perrott.

    But lets be real - the reason you’re holding back comments has nothing to do with them being “antagonistic” or “not adding to the discussion”. You are censoring, plain and simple. The last comments (48078, 48083) actually added much to the discussion “ but of course you can not have someone embarrassing you or your small legion of minions once again, could you now? What if nobody can produce a quote guilty of “quote mining” as requested “ oh no “ you™d have to show fool Cedric the door, actually. Can™t have that now, can we? You were supposed to be the “arbiter”, weren™t you?

    CEDRIC: I™ll let Ken be the arbiter as to whether David (or someone else) has made sufficient demonstration and I promise to abide by any decision Ken might make.
    His word is final.
    That way nobody can accuse me of shifting the goal posts or welching on the deal.
    I can™t be fairer than that.

    PM Response:The mighty Ken Perrott!

    Is this how you do “arbitration”?

    Instead of addressing the issue “ you censor comments because they “add nothing to the discussion”?…Right… That way you don™t have to deal with any more embarrassing issues. You know very well that no “quote mining” took place. Otherwise you™d be able to provide an example. Just ONE. But you can™t. Quite the fair arbiter you are!

    Just like Mantella™s request for a reference for your ridiculous “deficiency claim” was embarrassing to you. You couldn™t find a reference because not one exists. It™s total nonsense. But of course you couldn™t allow a 23-year old Tox student to embarrass you “ nooo! You had to “disallow” that comment and then even go on pretending it didn™t exist and that you never read it.

    Low. Very low.

    I am forever grateful to Louise for sending me that PDF.

    You™ve shown your true colors.

    BTW “ if you do want to make a comment on the website, you are certainly welcome to do so by sending an email, as is stated on the home page.

    And “ oh yes “ here comes the nonsense about “number of angels on a pinhead” again. I presume references to John Birch, anti-vaxxers, and climate deniers are not far behind? You guys really are all the same.
    Have fun with your “science” blog “ complete with censorship, red herrings and the merry strawmen!

    KEN: Louise is more than welcome to rejoin the discussion and make her pwnpoints (sic) but surely doesn™t need you to act as her advocate.”

    PM Response: I am sure Louise is more than capable of defending herself. I simply responded to fool Cedric™s challenge in comment 47890. You should read your own blog more carefully.

    And “ just so that you know “ in the end it doesn™t matter that much to me if you allow these comments or not, because they will exist on my web page anyways. I am much more interested in having a public record of what is really happening on your blog.

    Due to ongoing moderation fraud and censorship by the moderator of the “Open Parachute” blog, Ken Perrott, a hyper-linked version of this comment will also be posted at:http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/cedric_-_melters.html#response48618

    Paul Melters

  2. Paul Melters | December 10, 2013 at 10:12 am |

    Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
     

    In COMMENT 47956, Johnny Johnson wrote:

    JOHNSON: “Dr. Jayanth Kumar, a member of the 2006 NRC Panel which reviewed the U.S. EPA™ MCL for natural fluoride levels in drinking water, ‘Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA™s Standards”€, and an internationally renowned dental & fluoride researcher…”

    PM Response: I am very familiar with the 2006 NRC report, and also with Kumar™s work. Please note that Hardy Limeback “ also a member of the NRC panel and equally distinguished “internationally renowned dental & fluoride researcher” “ does not agree with Kumar on this matter at all. You know this already from your communication with Limeback on various blogs.

    Now, to your points:

    JOHNSON/KUMAR: “Kumar….wrote the following when I asked him about the statements that were being made from the referenced studies conducted in Mexico: 
    “The NRC report reviewed most of the cited studies in the email and found several limitations.”

    PM Response: You must be referring to some other email and not the post by Mantella? The NRC (2006) could not have possibly reviewed the two Mexican studies cited by Mantella, as they were published in 2007 and 2008. So obviously “ this is nonsense? What email are you referring to?

    JOHNSON/KUMAR: “These studies didn™t take into account other factors when assessing the relationship between dental fluorosis and caries. In addition, these studies are based on small number of children drawn from areas where the fluoride content is much higher than that compared to the US.

    PM Response: Again “ what studies are you referring to?

    JOHNSON/KUMAR: “Furthermore, the analysis is either conducted at the population level or child level but not at the tooth level. To address these deficiencies, we analyzed a national survey data that included a large number of children (n=16,873) with known fluoride history. We derived population estimates (weighted) at the child level and tooth level using methods appropriate for complex survey data. We confirmed the findings using multivariate methods.”

    PM Response: I will gladly discuss Kumar and his own paper at some other time on this website, as there are many questionable “data manipulations” observable. For now, we™ll stick to his criticisms of the “Mexican papers”.

    JOHNSON/KUMAR: “I am citing the paper by Pontigo-Loyola AP et al., (J Public Health Dent 67(1):8-13, 2007) to illustrate why the findings from these types of studies are not applicable to the population exposed to fluoridation in the US. This was a study of children living at high altitude (>6,560 ft) exposed to fluoride in drinking water that exceeded 1.38 mg/L (most children) in Hidalgo state, one of the many states included in the nationwide fluoridated domestic salt program.

    PM Response:
    Re: water “ the fluoride in water was 1.38 ppm in San Marcos [128 children (8.3%)/first 6 years of life] and 1.42 ppm in Tula Centra [821 children (53.4%)/first 6 years of life)]. Those concentrations are only slightly higher than the upper limit of F- in US waters deemed “optimal” at the time (1.2 ppm).

    Re: Salt Fluoridation “ at the time this study took place (1999), the 12 year-old children here were already 4 years old when the salt fluoridation program was implemented. The 15-year-olds were 7 years old. The salt program plays no real role here.

    Re: Altitude “ this is only of concern when considering WHAT is causing the DF. It is well established that at higher altitudes much lesser amounts of F are able to produce dental fluorosis of all grades.

    JOHNSON/KUMAR: “The authors point out that “in general, a high prevalence of fluorosis was observed in all three communities (>80 percent), with almost a third of the overall study population having moderate to severe fluorosis”€. If the population has this high level of moderate to severe fluorosis and every child was exposed to fluoride, it becomes difficult to assess the relationship between fluorosis and caries.”

    PM Response: Just an attempt at diverting from the real issue. Most of the observed fluorosis was mild/very mild (52.1%) and it was also in THIS grade of dental fluorosis that an increase in caries severity was found.
    Pontigo-Loyola: “When we compared high-severity caries group (DMFT ≥ 4 as cutoff point), we observed higher caries severity in children with fluorosis (9.6 percent in very mild/mild, and 10.6 percent in moderate/severe) than children without fluorosis (7.8 percent).”

    and:

    “…prevalence of DMFT ≥4 in fluorosis-free children was 13.5, while 15.5 and 17.1 was observed in children with very mild/mild and moderate/severe fluorosis.”

    re: the following statement “ “If the population has this high level of moderate to severe fluorosis and every child was exposed to fluoride, it becomes difficult to assess the relationship between fluorosis and caries.” “ what exactly does that mean? When isn™t a child exposed to fluoride? And why would it be difficult? Perhaps Kumar is referring to the fact that many “experts” think they see caries when it is actually fluorosis and vice versa? I look forward to this explanation!

    JOHNSON/KUMAR: “Also, it is difficult to ascertain if the “Filled”€ component of DMFT is the result of caries or to improve esthetics.”

    PM Response: Another diversion tactic. Even without the “filled” component, there is clear evidence of increase in caries AND caries severity. As the authors state “ “In the distribution of components of the caries index, 72.2 percent of the index was ascribable to the “decayed” component.” (See Table 2 in Pontigo 2007.)

    JOHNSON/KUMAR: With respect to SES and caries relationship, the authors reported that “ “we observed the opposite trend: the better the socioeconomic position, the higher the prevalence of caries”. The authors state that they found factors such as age, gender, dental visit, SES and locale had an effect on DMFT in the bivariate analysis. If this is the case, then one has to control for these factors in a multivariate analysis if one wants to examine the association between fluorosis and caries. In summary, the population is not comparable to the US, ascertainment of the filling component is not clear, the analytical method lacks sophistication, and therefore the interpretation is questionable.”
    PM Response: In summary, you have not provided ANY real reason why interpretation is questionable. As the findings are comparable with many other studies on the subject “ including several, more recent ones from Mexico (Azpeita-Valadez et al, 2008; Garcia-Perez et al, 2013; Molina-Frechero et al, 2012) “ it is the study by Kumar and Iida which is most suspect. The various shortcomings in the Kumar/Iida paper will be addressed in a separate post on this website (fluoridedentalexperts.com).

    JOHNSON: “This is why I stated what I did in my earlier post that reviews of literature, by expert groups like the NRC Panel, are so very important in determining the scientific value and contribution that any published literature will make to the body of evidence on a topic.”

    PM Response: Several points.
    1) Once again “ the 2006 NRC has very little to do with studies published AFTER its publication 2006. I am sure you understand that now, right? 3 of the 5 studies listed by Mantella were published AFTER the NRC report.

    2) It would be great if one could have this much confidence in an “expert group”. However, the 2006 NRC Report was far from perfect and has many flaws. Regardless of this “ you™ve been abusing this 2006 NRC report on countless occasions, bending the information contained in it to fit whatever your agenda was at the time.

    May I remind you of the ridiculous “ and entirely false “ statement:
    JOHNSON: “The NRC Panel concluded that under 4ppm, NO ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS OCCUR” (Emphasis Johnson)
    http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/statement__3.html

    You once again failed to provide ONE study as requested:
    Please provide ONE study capable of demonstrating this “effective and safe” effect of CWF that has accounted for established confounding factors such as race, gender, age, total intake, tooth eruption, brushing and other oral hygiene factors, SES.

    Reference:___________________________________________________

    Due to ongoing moderation fraud and censorship by the moderator of the “Open Parachute” blog, Ken Perrott, a hyper-linked version of this comment will also be posted at:
    http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/johnson_-_melters_2.html
    Paul Melters

    Azpeitia-Valadez Mde L, Rodríguez-Frausto M, Sánchez-Hernández MA. Prevalence of dental fluorosis in children between 6 to 15 years old. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 46(1):67-72 (2008)

    Garcia-Perrez A, Irigoyen-Camacho ME, Borges-Yanez A. Fluorosis and Dental Caries in Mexican Schoolchildren Residing in Areas with Different Water Fluoride Concentrations and Receiving Fluoridated Salt. Caries Res 47(4):299-308 (2013)

    Molina-Frechero N, Pierdant-Rodríguez AI, Oropeza-Oropeza A, Bologna-Molina R. Fluorosis and dental caries: an assessment of risk factors in Mexican children. Rev Invest Clin. 2012 64(1):67-73 (2012)

  3. Paul Melters | December 10, 2013 at 10:18 am |

    Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
     

    In COMMENT 48178, Billy Budd writes:

    BUDD: “In response to the use of the use of Pontigo et al (2007) by “L” (#47741) and Paul Melters (#47925, 47953) one of the authors (Maupome) passes his views on to the Open Parachuge (sic) “debate.”
    Rather than paraphrase and shorten what he said, with his permission his response is here unedited. As readers will note, he believes that the ”commonest finding in the literature“ is that fluorosis is associated with fewer cavities.

    PM Response: You have been identified by Dr. Johnny Johnson as a “troll”, and accused of stealing segments from a post of his on another blog, without giving proper credit (Comment 47956).

    Numerous parties have tried to contact Maupome to verify that he was indeed the author of the comments you posted. No response has been received.

    So “ for now, we will presume that Maupome did make these comments, and I will address your posts, and have them posted on my website. You have been distributing your nonsense on countless US blogs for the last year, and we shall make sure the public has a record of this discussion.

    BUDD/Maupome: he believes that the ”commonest finding in the literature“ is that fluorosis is associated with fewer cavities.

    PM Response: I don™t really care what Maupome believes in. I am interested in science.

    Maupome is certainly entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to his own facts. There are hundreds of studies from the last 70 years showing that “moderate” and “severe” dental fluorosis is associated with INCREASED caries “ including numerous recent ones from Mexico (Garcia-Perez et al, 2013; Molina-Frechero et al, 2012; Azpeita-Valadez et al, 2008). Maupome is listed as co-author on two studies documenting the same (Pontigo-Loyola et al, 2007; Vallejos-Sánchez et al, 2007).

    BUDD/Maupome: “I have contacted my co-authors and discussed the issues you posed. This issue of fluorosis conditions giving rise to carious lesions is really a matter of how severe the tissue changes need to be for “ all other things being equal in a cariogenic environment “ clinically detectable decay to be there. The time and ages for decay and fluorosis development are so different that trying to tie the 2 things together is a daunting task.”

    PM Response: Really? A “daunting task”? Wow. Others don™t seem to be having such troubles?

    BUDD/Maupome: “Like many of these issues in the F debate, the anti-F crowd is prone to selective quoting. My thinking is because they are looking for smaller concepts  and statements to support an idea they already have in their minds.

    PM Response: Further below we shall see who is doing the selective quoting.

    BUDD/Maupome: “It would be worthwhile noting that in the Pontigo et al., 2007 paper, in Table 3 it is reported that mild and very mild fluorosis were associated with lower caries experience.”

    PM Response: To be frank “ I am not too surprised that Maupome would try to pull something like this. Table 3 is only able to show this because the data has not been adjusted here for the two age groups (12 and 15 year olds), nor gender.

    BUDD/Maupome: “With all of these analyses being bivariate in nature, it was not feasible to adjust the model to ascertain significance of that specific difference they mentioned. This is one way of saying that they are trying to read too much into the information reported. 

    PM Response: Nobody is trying to read too much into the information reported. The authors “ which include Maupome “ state clearly what the findings were:

    Pontigo-Loyola: “When we compared high-severity caries group (DMFT ≥ 4 as cutoff point), we observed higher caries severity in children with fluorosis (9.6 percent in very mild/mild, and 10.6 percent in moderate/severe) than children without fluorosis (7.8 percent).”

    and:

    “…prevalence of DMFT ≥4 in fluorosis-free children was 13.5, while 15.5 and 17.1 was observed in children with very mild/mild and moderate/severe fluorosis.”

    How can one “read too much into the information” here?

    BUDD/Maupome: More important to the overall issue is the fact that these communities have unusually high levels of F in the water (for the amounts found in the Americas), and are located at high altitudes above sea level  (which is a factor still incompletely understood in fluorosis development).”

    PM Response: “Unusually high levels”? “More important to the overall issue”?
    The fluoride in water was 1.38 ppm in San Marcos [128 children (8.3%)/first 6 years of life] and 1.42 ppm in Tula Centra [821 children (53.4%)/first 6 years of life)]. Those concentrations are only slightly higher than the upper limit of F- in US waters deemed “optimal” at the time (1.2 ppm).

    Re: Altitude “ again “ this does not really matter here. It is well established that at high altitudes less fluoride is required to produce dental fluorosis of all grades.

    Re: the comment: “high altitudes above sea level (which is a factor still incompletely understood in fluorosis development”:

    Interestingly “ the authors state in another paper, dealing with the same data (Medina-Solis et al, 2008):
    “The hypothesized relationship between iodine deficiency and increased prevalence of fluorosis appears to be relevant to Hidalgo.” (Hidalgo has long been known to be an IDD area).

    This makes complete sense “ of course, as iodine deficiency increases sensitivity to TSH, and fluoride is a TSH analogue. TSH produces “dental fluorosis” “ exactly like fluoride does, as has been known since the 1940s.

    BUDD/Maupome: “It is worthwhile pointing out that another paper from the same group in another location with fluoridated salt and negligible fluoride naturally available in water, Vallejos et al., we found few cases with severe  fluorosis (4 cases; 0.03%). In that study the presence of fluorosis was associated with lower caries experience -which is the commonest finding in the literature. See the tables below from Vallejos et al.”

    (Note: Tables are omitted here, due to formatting problems, but can be seen in original comment 48178.)

    PM Response: First of all “ there is no citation or reference given. What study is being referred to?

    Please note that these tables are entirely meaningless without knowing more details, such as the age of children. The Pontigo-Loyola et al. study was done on 12 and 15 year-olds. Please ask Maupome to provide exact citation and the data on age of children in the so-called “Vallejos et al.”

    Moreover, regarding “Vallejos et al”, in the Pontigo-Loyola paper the following is found:

    “The results show that children with dental fluorosis have higher severity of caries (DMFT =/>4. These finding are consistent with Vallejos et al.(19) in children with mixed dentition in Mexico, and with various international reports from less developed countries and moderate income countries.”

    Must be another “Vallejos et al” paper, uh? Who is doing the “selective quoting” here?

    BUDD/Maupome: “I believe the largest problem we have is that the anti-F crowd assumes that all exposure to F leads to clinically detectable fluorosis, and that all fluorosis undermines the tissue structure enough to make the tooth surface more susceptible to caries. Those two are big leaps in thinking.”

    PM Response: Not at all, really. A fluorosed tooth has been permanently damaged. (See also: Waidyasekera et al, 2007)

    Once again “ the evidence speaks for itself. Over 30 studies were presented to you already.

    BUDD/Maupome: “The other aspect that you may want to consider is that a good chunk of the evidence for higher experience of caries being associated with dental caries seems to come from less developed countries, places in which multiple aspects of life may be associated with developmental enamel defects. One of them is malnutrition. None of these aspects have been studied appropriately, and thus we cannot grab a handful of papers with the association we are looking for, and attempt to generalize the results.”

    PM Response: What? “higher experience of caries being associated with dental caries”? I presume you meant to write higher experience of caries being associated with _dental fluorosis_”?

    At this point it must be noted again that the investigators here have published 3 papers on the study conducted in 1999.

    The authors used the same data to address the validity of Dean™s index (Medina-Solis et al, 2008).

    They used the same data to publish on the occurrence of dental fluorosis at high altitudes (Pontigo-Loyola et al, 2008).

    (Interestingly, the authors neglected to inform the readers in both of those papers of their findings on the increase in caries severity in children with dental fluorosis!)

    From what appears in the other two papers, the investigators were very well trained before the study started:

    “Dental examinations were performed by two examiners previously trained and standardized (kappa interexaminer=0.85; intraexaminer=0.97). A pilot study was conducted beforehand to standardize fluorosis criteria…Fluorosis was differentiated from other opacities [24]. (Medina-Solis et al, 2008).

    Feel free to forward these comments to Maupome. His attempts here to whitewash his own findings have not been successful. (And do ask him whatever happened to the 514 missing children in the 2008 paper by himself and Pontigo-Loyola et al. According to “Materials and Methods” there should have been 1538 children, as in the other two papers; however “ for some magic reason we only have the data on 1024, with no reason given at all for the exclusion of the 514.)

    Further, I notice that you were unable to provide a reference as was requested.

    I will ask once again “ please provide ONE study capable of demonstrating the preventative effect of CWF that has accounted for established confounding factors such as race, gender, age, total intake, tooth eruption, brushing and other oral hygiene factors, SES.

    Due to ongoing moderation fraud and censorship by the moderator of the “Open Parachute” blog, Ken Perrott, a hyper-linked version of this comment will also be posted at:
    http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/budd_-_melters__2.html

    Paul Melters

    Azpeitia-Valadez Mde L, Rodríguez-Frausto M, Sánchez-Hernández MA. Prevalence of dental fluorosis in children between 6 to 15 years old. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 46(1):67-72 (2008)
    DeEds F, Wilson RH, Cutting WC. Thyrotropic hormone and fluorine activity. Endocrinology
    26(6):1053-1056 (1940)

    Garcia-Perrez A, Irigoyen-Camacho ME, Borges-Yanez A. Fluorosis and Dental Caries in Mexican Schoolchildren Residing in Areas with Different Water Fluoride Concentrations and Receiving Fluoridated Salt. Caries Res 47(4):299-308 (2013)

    Molina-Frechero N, Pierdant-Rodríguez AI, Oropeza-Oropeza A, Bologna-Molina R. Fluorosis and dental caries: an assessment of risk factors in Mexican children. Rev Invest Clin. 2012 64(1):67-73 (2012)
    Medina-Solis CE, Pontigo-Loyola AP, Maupome G, Lamadrid-Figueroa H, Loyola-Rodríguez JP, Hernández-Romano J, Villalobos-Rodelo JJ, de Lourdes Marquez-Corona M. Dental fluorosis prevalence and severity using Dean™s index based on six teeth and on 28 teeth. Clin Oral Investig. 2008 Sep;12(3):197-202. doi: 10.1007/s00784-007-0171-7. Epub 2008 Jan 8. PubMed PMID: 18183431.
    http://www.uaeh.edu.mx/investigacion/icsa/LI_EnferAlter/Carlo_Med/46.pdf
    Pontigo-Loyola AP, Islas-Márquez A, Loyola-Rodríguez JP, Maupome G, Marquez-Corona ML, Medina-Solis CE. Dental fluorosis in 12- and 15-year-olds at high altitudes in above-optimal fluoridated communities in Mexico. J Public Health Dent. 2008 Summer;68(3):163-6.
    http://www.uaeh.edu.mx/investigacion/icsa/LI_EnferAlter/Carlo_Med/47.pdf
    Vallejos-Sánchez AA, Medina-Solís CE, Casanova-Rosado JF, Maupom© G, Casanova-Rosado AJ, Minaya-Sánchez M. [Enamel defects, caries in primary dentition and fluoride sources: relationship with caries in permanent teeth]. Gac Sanit. 2007 May-Jun;21(3):227-34.
    Waidyasekera PG, Nikaido T, Weerasinghe DD, Wettasinghe KA, Tagami J. Caries susceptibility of human fluorosed enamel and dentine. J Dent 35 (4):343-9 (2007)

  4. Paul Melters | December 10, 2013 at 10:27 am |

    Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
     

    In COMMENT 48180, Billy Budd wrote:

    BILLY BUDD: “One more point about Iida/Kumar (2009) vs Pontigo (2007). Not everything which appears as fluorosis on examination is fluorosis. This an important reason why the Mexican paper about fluorosis (Pontigo et al, 2007) at high elevation should not trump the very large well designed US study.”

    PM RESPONSE: Absolute nonsense. As was already explained in a previous post, the Pontigo-Loyola data was also used in other publications, including one to assess the Dean fluorosis index. Methods are clearly stated:

    “Dental examinations were performed by two examiners previously trained and standardized (kappa interexaminer=0.85; intraexaminer=0.97). A pilot study was conducted beforehand to standardize fluorosis criteria…Fluorosis was differentiated from other opacities [24].”

    BILLY BUDD: “This point was well made in the 2010 EPA document Fluoride: Dose-Response Analysis For Non-cancer Effects p 10. The NRC (2006) also cautions that not all enamel defects are caused by fluoride. Citing Curzon and Spector (1977) and Cutress and Suckling (1990), NRC states that “Mottling unrelated to fluoride has been suggested to be due to malnutrition, metabolic disorders, exposure to certain dietary trace elements, . . . or physical trauma to the tooth.”€ Furthermore, there is some evidence that “hypobaric hypoxia that occurs at high altitudes is associated with bilaterally symmetrical and diffuse disturbances in enamel mineralization that may be mistaken for fluorosis.”

    PM Response: You took this from page 10 from the EPA document.
    http://water.epa.gov/action/advisories/drinking/upload/Fluoride_dose_response.pdf

    Talk about using material out of context. However “ this is a good example how nonsense written in one report gets amplified in another…

    The NRC section where this quote can be found was addressed in detail by the Canadian group PFPC in 2006:
    http://www.poisonfluoride.com/Science/NRC_Review/NRC__Comments/NRC__Altitude/nrc__altitude.html

    If you find anything wrong with what is reasoned there, let me know. Quite the “experts” on those reviews, uh?

    BILLY BUDD: “Changes visually identical to fluorosis would probably injure the enamel tooth structure but would not bring fluoride™s caries protection.”

    PM RESPONSE: Again “ absolute nonsense. That fluoride injures the enamel tooth structure is more than firmly established. Learn about dental fluorosis. I suggest reading Rozier™s 1994 paper on this matter. It™s is very difficult to take your BS here seriously.

    BILLY BUDD: “High elevation, potential malnutrition, and other potential causes of symmetrical white enamel abnormalities argue that the large well-designed study correctly found that in the economically advantaged world, fluorosis prevents cavities.”

    PM Response: Again “ learn about dental fluorosis. Read Rozier, 1996. Or, even better “ Russell, 1961. Address the many papers that show dental fluorosis increases caries.

    Stop pretending that you actually know something about this. You are a troll.

    The large “well-designed study” by Iida and Kumar will be addressed separately.

    Due to ongoing moderation fraud and censorship by the moderator of the “Open Parachute” blog, Ken Perrott, a hyper-linked version of this comment will also be posted at:
    http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/budd_-_melters_3.html

    Paul Melters

    Rozier RG. Epidemiologic indices for measuring the clinical manifestations of dental fluorosis: overview and critique. Adv Dent Res. 1994 Jun;8(1):39-55.Review. PubMed PMID: 7993559.
    Russell AL. The differential diagnosis of fluoride and non-fluoride enamel opacities. J Public Health Dent 21:143“146 (1961)

  5. Paul Melters | December 10, 2013 at 10:31 am |

    Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
     

    In COMMENT 48189, Billy Budd wrote:

    Billy Budd: “More mistaken views from PM (#47951)
    Said PM: “Stop deflecting. That the older studies were not included in some review by the NRC does in no way diminish the quality or the findings by the researchers. We™re not here to discuss inclusion criteria by the NRC.”
    This truly cuts to the heart of much of the fluoride opposition propaganda. If there are no standards by which various items are deemed to be of sufficient scientific quality to count in the analytical review of community water fluoridation, politics, not science, will rule.
    Over the years, mere conjecture, an individual story, junk pseudo-science, political opinion, newspaper editorials and poor science from peer reviewed journals have been used, very successfully, in local political campaigns to defeat community water fluoridation.
    Merely an old publishing date is not an important matter, but the professional weight of science considerations which led to inclusion in the NRC references were most serious decisions and you are entirely mistaken to argue otherwise.”

    PM Response: Are you really this ignorant or just pretending to be?
    RE “ 2006 NRC:
    “The committee was asked to review toxicologic, epidemiologic, and clinical data, particularly data published since 1993.”
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=18

    Do you understand that? Since 1-9-9-3. 1993. Nineteen-ninety-three.

    Bajaj et al, was from 1989.

    Three of the other studies from the 5 were published AFTER the 2006 NRC report “ can you comprehend this? (Pontoga-Loyola et al. 2007; Hoffman et al, 2008; Azpeitia-Valadez et a, 2008).

    BUDD: “Indeed, legitimate arguments over whether the standards used for a given systematic review are reasonable or not exist. One such professional discussion has been whether or not epidemiological studies can be of sufficient substance to reasonably base public health policy upon.”

    PM Response: If you want to discuss systematic reviews and their shortcomings, start a new thread. We can certainly discuss it. Be ready.

    BUDD: “Fluoridation opponents on the one hand demand only “gold standard randomized blinded controlled studies”€ yet have thousands of times over cited egregious baloney to support their arguments.
    What is politically effective is even much worse than what might be brought up in debates like this.
    It would be nice of Professor Connett would publicly agree to a list of transparently false politically effective lines we see used in local campaigns.
    As examples
    Fluoride is in Agent Orange and Sarin Gas
    People only drink .4% (or whatever it is) therefore fluoridation is wasteful
    The Nazis used it to pacify prisoners
    Fluoridation is part of a global scheme to depopulate the world
    They are dumping industrial grade chemicals in the water
    Aluminum plants are dumping their industrial waste in city water
    The Phosphate Fertilizer companies are paying off their Dental Society shills to promote this”

    PM Response: It would be nice for you to stop making generalized statements about ‘fluoridation opponents” and address the issues at hand. Stop writing this nonsense. I am not sure what I have to do with Connett, but oh well “ I guess you™re grasping at straws. Oh “ you left out the big “Communist Plot” on your list, BTW.

    Due to ongoing moderation fraud and censorship by the moderator of the “Open Parachute” blog, Ken Perrott, a hyper-linked version of this comment will also be posted at:
    http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/budd_-_melters_4.html

    Paul Melters

  6. Paul Melters | December 10, 2013 at 10:38 am |

    Your comment is awaiting moderation. 
     

    IN COMMENT 48201, Fool Cedric writes

    CEDRIC: “I attempted to contact Dr Zimmer but his email seems to be down.”

    PM Response: You couldn™t have tried very hard. He is at the University of Witten in Germany
    You can find his current email right here:
    http://www.uni-wh.de/university/staff/details/show/Employee/zimmer/

    Before you contact him I suggest that you actually read his review that was discussed here. Otherwise you might just make yourself look even more foolish than is already the case.

    It™s available here:
    http://www.quintpub.com/userhome/ohpd/ohpd_1_1_zimmer_6.pdf

    CEDRIC: “Glad to see you had better success.
    Thanks to you and Dr Maupome for taking the time to set the record straight.
    It™s the best way to torpedo quote-mining.”

    PM Response: As far as Maupome and good ole™ Billy Budd setting the record straight “ it didn™t quite work. Better luck next time.

    You STILL haven™t been able to provide even ONE quote representative of “quote-mining”. Just repeating your accusations does not make them any more truthful. Still waiting for the “great” Cedric Katesby to come through…(yawn…)

    If you were only half the big man you pretend to be “ you would have honored your word and signed off this blog for good “ as you promised.

    CEDRIC: “Louise and Paul owe us all an apology for their efforts to decieve (sic).
    Shame on them.
    And a special apology is owed to the authors of those papers.”

    PM Response: We don™t owe you or anybody anything, as we weren™t the ones doing the deceiving. You were. Ken was. Slott was. Richard was.

    Start educating yourself a bit better on what is being discussed if you want to be taken seriously.

    So far you™ve shown yourself to be a total knob.

    Due to ongoing moderation fraud and censorship by the moderator of the “Open Parachute” blog, Ken Perrott, a hyper-linked version of this comment will also be posted at:
    http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/cedric_-_melters_2.html

    Paul Melters