Originally Posted by larryace
Dude, that is the website for Center for Disease Control, a government agency under the control of the United States Department of Poor Health and Human Disservices. Of course they support flouridation, that's the evil right there. Right the F there. All those people. Watch the documentary Flouridegate. Just watch it.
The same guys that advocate vaccination?
Yep, I'm going to support them. They do real research and publish real results using real scientists rather than some new-age bullcrap with no evidence and nothing but speculation.
Sorry Larry. We agree on a great many things but not this one.
Just to add. Here's a study from a very highly-respected medical journal:
The study admits that the overall quality of research is only moderate (it's a meta-study) but with that
many positive results then I'll take the weight of evidence over any other theories.
AND ANOTHER THING:
Originally Posted by BMJ
Fifteen of 16 analyses found a significantly greater mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth in the fluoridated areas than the non-fluoridated areas (fig 2). The range (median) of mean change in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth was 0.5-4.4 (2.25) teeth (interquartile range 1.28-3.63 teeth).
Meta-regression showed that the proportion of children without caries at baseline, the setting, and the validity score show a significant association with the difference in risk in the proportion of children without caries. A table of the results of the meta-regression can be found on the BMJ's website. Baseline decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth, age, setting, and duration of study show a significant association with the mean difference in decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth.