M S Foley Stoneworks of Gloucester, MA, offers reward
In his announcement, Mr. Foley says the following:
“Almost Free Stone Sculpture
**********************************
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/9286_699276036812819_5686534579478158078_n.jpg
This photo is of “Infundibulum”, a local granite abstract sculpture I carved in 2012. Its value is in the $2,000 to $3,000 range, but I like it very much, so I keep it overpriced when it is shown. This sculpture is yours if you can meet this challenge….
I would like to see a single scientific study, without glaring bias or irregularities, which concludes both the safety (for human consumption) and effectiveness (in dental cavity reduction) of fluoridated drinking water. The study must be double-blind, placebo controlled and peer reviewed, and covering a study with a duration of over 5 years.
I have searched several months now for a study like this, and have failed to find a single one. It is important to me, so if you find one which meets the criteria, Infundibulum is yours with no strings attached.”
Contact Michael Foley at: Mike.Foley@Hotmail.com
Michael Foley
Gloucester, MA 01930
508-284-5885
Good Morning Gloucester 
If you are talking about added (not naturally occurring or industrial contaminants) fluoride, there is this one.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2204&page=1
it’s on the CDC page http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nas.htm
where do you want me to pick it up?
LikeLiked by 1 person
also this from Australia:
Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) conducted a systematic review published in 2007, that considered recent evidence relating to the efficacy and safety of fluoride interventions, with an emphasis on widespread public health initiatives. The report, A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of FluoridationExternal Web Site Icon, primarily addressed the caries-reducing benefits and associated health risks of providing fluoride systemically. The council found that—
Community water fluoridation is beneficial for reducing dental caries (tooth decay).
Water fluoridation at optimal levels does not affect the risk of bone fractures.
There is no clear association between water fluoridation and overall cancer incidence or mortality.
The reviewed studies do not suggest an increased risk of adverse health effects at optimal fluoridation levels.
NHMRC is Australia’s main agency for supporting health and medical research; developing health advice for the Australian community, health professionals, and governments; and providing advice on ethical behavior in health care and conduct for health and medical research.
LikeLike
That is hilarious. Can I have the sculpture if I can prove that what you are asking for is how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Double-blind, placebo controlled. You do not know what those are if you are considering to run an experiment for five years that is double-blind and placebo controlled to test fluoridated drinking water. I guess you could do that but it would be complete bullshit and so might not be peer reviewed.
Double blind means that the people running the experiment do not know who is drinking fluoridated water and who is not. The people administering the water do not know which water is fluoridated and which is not. That is true double blind.How could you possibly run a five year experiment where these conditions occurred? To actually have any meaning whatsoever one would have to control for fluoride toothpaste, fluoride supplements, naturally occurring civil water supply fluoride, people moving from town to town, the list goes on. Not even the Framingham study qualifies with your restrictions.
One would also need at least 500 in each group and that is lowball. The only possible way to pull this off would be one thousand people in prison for five years. A prison where you control the water supply but the people turning the taps do not know! (This is the only way to cover placebo effect.) Since you are withholding a proven health benefit the prison could not be in a democracy. Good luck with that.
There is one other reason why no scientist of any merit would create such an experiment. Not the cost (in the high millions), not the impossibility of an actual double blind randomized study (explained above), but that no one does really expensive science when the answer is so obvious. There are thousands of reviews pointing out fluoride efficacy.
There is no double blind randomized study proving that Chemtrails is not a government conspiracy. There is no double blind randomized study proving that we landed on the moon. But if you are a sentient human being you know the government is not spraying us with chemicals and NASA did in fact land on the moon. Or maybe Buzz Aldrin is the control placebo.
(I’ve cut some corners describing a randomized double blind study controlling for placebo. It is much more complex than I have described but enough info is there to rule it out in a study of civil drinking water. A description is here for the double blind part only:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-blind#Double-blind_trials )
LikeLike
Why would double blind and placebo controlled matter in this case? The efficacy we’re talking about relates to dental outcomes. Do people have better teeth if they believe they’re receiving flouride? The placebo effect seems to work in the opposite- people attributing negative health outcomes with no causative link to flouride.
LikeLike
When I wrote “I cut some corners” what I really meant was I left out so many other reasons why the study he seeks is absurd. You zeroed in on one of the most absurd. A double blind study negates any need to track placebo or to use someone like Buzz Aldrin as a placebo. Each participant is ingesting something, (in this case water), and both control and experimental group thinks they are taking the same thing, water. (And no one including all experimenters do not know which water is fluoridated.)
Maybe, (and this comes from websites that are anti-fluoridation) the study needs to take into account homeopathy and vortex water. (If you don’t know what these two things are, a definition: water is magical and can confer positive effects from a substance that has been diluted a trillion fold, homeopathy, or has been stirred in an expensive mixer, vortex water. Since I think Dr Mercola, Dr Oz, The Food Babe, and the Health Ranger from natural news all believe in homeopathy and vortex water as well as the dangers of fluoridation then this speculation could be more than speculation. So if you believe in magic water you must believe dihydrogen monoxide confers good things and bad things depending on how it is stirred or diluted, with more water! If you believe that then there could be a placebo effect from ingesting water. And that causes my brain to hurt which is cured by weeding the tomatoes.
LikeLike
Are you saying that the anti fluoride folks are buying into pseudo science?
LikeLike
Not actually, Joey (at least not yet 🙂 ) What Dr. Paul is attempting to say is that he doesn’t think such a study exists. Which means he and I are on the same page as usual. Thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Always Joey with the question that cuts to the chase. (Like James Dowd who zeroed in on the basic problem with the study that wins the trophy.)
The short answer, yes, I believe people who are against fluoride are buying into pseudo-science. The long answer (Joey hates my long answers, if I had a nickel for every time he said, “get to the fucking point Morrison!” I could buy a double latte at Bean and Leaf Cafe.)
Long answer short: I may be accused by my previous comments of painting with a broad brush. So what that there are anti-vaccine, vortex water, anti-GMO, anti-biotechnology, anti-science, that are also anti-fluoridation!
And my response would be guilty as charged. I am painting with a broad brush. But at least one, I hope, which is tuned to anti-science bullshit.
If I had to make a list of anti-science claims, anti-fluoride would hardly make my top five. Anti-vaccine is killing people daily. Anti-GMO is killing millions, anti-fluoride is giving bad teeth to poor kids in towns that stop fluoridation. No big deal. Everyone who brushes three times a day and sees a dentist twice a year does not need fluoride in their water. Screw the poor kids.
So it’s not on the top of my list. But the ant-fluoride uses anti-science in such a bullshit way that the annoyance factor is high. And since they have had so much practice, anti-fluoride used to be “the Red Scare”, the commies were poisoning us in the 50’s that the anti-fluoride shtick has been perfected. But mostly it is standard cockamamie stuff. Fluoride is a poison kind of glomming different elements and chemicals and molecules into one pile of crap.
When it comes down to it, everything is a poison. That is why your mom said, “everything in moderation.” If you read into any citation from anti-fluoride they are describing way too much fluoride. Way too much broccoli is a huge problem (cancer in rats), is that going to be next?
The amount of fluoride put into public waters is so far below the broccoli as poison bar that it cannot be traced. Tour cup of caffeinated coffee in the morning is much more poisonous.
My last short answer: go with consensus of real academic scientists who really are not in cahoots to kill you. As James linked, The National Academy of Science, the CDC, The Royal Academy. If you think it is all a goverment conspiracy and these people want to poison you I bet you quit reading a long time ago.
LikeLike
What about my civil right to choose whether or not I want to take fluoride? The government is forcing “medication” on me, is that reflective of freedom? I think not. If you want to take fluoride then take a pill, but keep it out of our drinking water. They administer fluoride tablets at our public schools so the “poor kids” can get treatment. But that brings another question up: If water fluoridation is so effective, why do they need to administer fluoride tablets a well? They may say, because no one is drinking the fluoridated water, if no one is drinking it, why add it? Also, technically, it is a direct violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Under statutes of the SDWA, federal agencies are forbidden from endorsing, supporting, requiring or funding the practice of adding any chemicals to the water supply other than for purposes of water purification. I believe it is toxic just as you believe it is safe.
LikeLike
Thanks for your input, Jim….I will check it out. But getting back to the discussion, if the double-blind criteria is a sticking point, Paul, I am willing to waive that one. What is lacking, as far as I can determine, is any long term scientific study which concludes that the addition of Sodium Fluoride, or one of the other fluoride agents, to drinking water is safe (does not cause or worsen any disease) and effective (reduces dental cavities). There were some studies done in the 40s and 50s which would never pass muster these days.
LikeLike
As much as I would love to own “Infundibulum” (translation?)…the reality is that adding a highly toxic industrial waste by product, a neurotoxin, to our water is incredulous. Not to mention that this substance is imported from China, marked “poison” and stamped with skull and cross bones. Does this make sense – seriously?? It is an important concern, irresponsible and outrageous. It is a health risk to all living beings…we need to get with current technology – with the major scientists, doctors, dentists and noble prize winners and the growing population who oppose this archaic and dangerous process. Do your homework, and then you’ll look at tap water differently, take less showers and look into an alternative ($$) filtration system to get rid of the poison that is needlessly added to your water system.
Normal filters don’t work. The easy solution is just stop adding the fluoride.
LikeLike
Less showers? What are we France?
LikeLike
And this one from Scotland. I live on Mt. Pleasant Ave. Is it transportable by a regular car or will I need to borrow a truck? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/6590173/
LikeLike
James Dowd, I believe you have won the stone. That paper does meet all the requirements that Michael set forth, even the ones that he was willing to scratch off the list. The peer reviewed paper describes a five year, double-blind, placebo controlled (because it’s double-blind) which shows a more than 40% improvement in DMFT and DMFS with no downside.
I read the paper so now I know way more than I needed to know about dental hygiene. Those acronyms are for “Decayed Missing Filled Teeth and Decayed Missing Filled Surface. By the fourth year of the study the confidence levels and the data were bullet proof. There was over a 40% improvement in decayed, missing or filled teeth in the fluoride treated children as compared to the untreated. I tried to look at the numbers in as unbiased as possible way and the authors did a great job in closing all loopholes. I was a bit surprised that they did actually follow double-blind standards and even crossed into triple-blind because the data crunchers did not know the color coding either.
Their conclusions are obvious. And the interesting thing is that the paper also lists five other studies with the same criteria of double-blind five years studies, two of which are in the United States. Those five additional papers come up with just about the same numbers, between 28 to 32% improvement in missing decayed teeth. So Michael must not have been looking hard since that is then six peer reviewed studies that match his requirements.
But you found it so you win. There is nothing for scale in the photo but I believe Michael can drop it off using a normal car.
LikeLike
James Dowd’s paper unfortunately is behind a paywall but it is worth the price. I have a subscription so I got it free but below is the money shot, Table 6. It lists the other studies which followed all of the same strict criteria that Michael laid out. Only pointing out the five year studies. The study in the paper are listed at the end. If there is a qualm about using milk as the carrier (there should not be as the authors used an equivalent amount that would be delivered by a municipal water system) the other papers used water. So magic water can be ruled out.
Table 6: Permanent tooth decay, missing, or filled tooth reductions in a wide assortment of peer reviewed double blind studies.
LikeLike
Thank you Chris.
LikeLike
You are right. I can’t stay on one topic to save my life. When dealing with something like anti-fluoride the very definition of both sides is hyperbole. So I stick with Dowd won the bet. Leave it at that. I can’t wait to see the stone mounted on The Gloucester Clam website.
LikeLike
For consideration only I did some looks this is hotter than a match tip…Good debate here (All)
Click to access fluoride-debate.pdf
LikeLike
I see no stone mounted on the Clam website? What’s up with that?
LikeLike
Thank you, Jim Despite it’s having the appearance of being a study on milk rather than drinking water, it still sounds significant, and I would very much like to review it. Could you please either post a link from which I can access the full report, or send the file to mike.foley@hotmail.com?
Thanks Again!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael. Just sent you a full pdf of the paper. Peer reviewed excellent credentials, five year double-blind. Milk is the same as water. (Please don’t go all pseudo-science on me and say water and milk would change the results.) I was surprised they were actually able to pull off such a long study in double-blind. It would only be able to be done using municipal water if all the people in the study were in prison preferably a gulag with no rights or so I thought. It was a clever way of pulling it off.
The milk levels were more than appropriate to simulate a municipal delivery. Far more really than what is being delivered in Rockport or Gloucester but you are looking for adverse effects which would have been highlighted in a study that uses more.
No adverse effects just a lot of kids with 35% fewer DMFTs (decayed, missing, filled teeth.) It is truly amazing the benefits produced in only five years. As you can see by the tables the benefits showed up in as little as three years.
They also list three other studies which used water that were five year and double blind if this one does not seem enough. I believe they have six total five year double blind studies all independent and all coming up with the same approximate (35%-40%) benefits.
The copy I sent you is from my Harvard account. If you use it for your own research and do not reproduce it they will not send me to jail. If you want copies please go directly to the publisher.
I think you owe the Clam a rock, no strings attached. 😉
LikeLike
On behalf of Jim and I, thank you for sharing your prescription and sending the report along. You seem very concerned that fluoridated water and fluoridated milk might not be the same thing, but please don’t lose any sleep over it. And thank you for your spirited interest in this subject!
LikeLike
You misconstrue my concern. As far as the study goes the milk and water ARE the same thing. Everything is actually tilted in favor of deleterious effects since the milk only gets one shot through a straw to do topical benefit and the fluoride is ingested at a higher rate than our municipal water so it is a good test of deleterious effects.
Win win, better teeth that you get to keep and no downside all spelled out in a carefully controlled double-blind five year study as you requested. My main concern (spirited interest), really is to fight the idea that there are not sufficient studies out there on fluoride (or really any controversial science topic). There are thousands. Unfortunately, as you found out they are hard to find since a lot of the best research papers are behind paywalls. But that is changing. I am completely for open access and support PLOS (open access papers in Public Library of Science.)
I thank you for the opportunity you have given, besides the sculpture, to underline the fact that there are so many papers that show the positive effects of fluoride. I wish the whole process of publication of scientific data was easier to access than it is now. Then when someone says they have “researched” it on the internet it might actually be true. This would get rid of so much pseudo-science that is clogging up the lay public scientific message today.
LikeLike
Your concerns are appreciated, Paul. Mr. Dowd and I have had a brief exchange on his submission, and will continue to be in touch during the review of the study he recommends. You, of course, are also most welcome to submit a study for consideration. Thanks again for your interest.
LikeLike