It really doesn't matter, some people call it a disease (including WHO).
Well, since you are dodging around the point and avoiding answering questions with semantics, it does matter to the question of the integrity of the case for fluoridation.
WHO tends to take it's lead from the researchers... who predominately came from the USA and that corrupted AlCOA and ADA fluoridation research base.
Condition is more accurately attributed to an unhealthy state, such as 'a progressive condition'... getting better or worse, loosing weight, gaining weight etc. People tend to relate to something like a burn, broken leg or overdosing medication or swallowing poison as a condition.
Disease is more characterised by illness with typical symptoms, associated with damage or infection to our body... like diabetes, osteoporosis, cholera etc.
Isn't fluorosis (from fluoridation) a condition like overdosing medication or swallowing poison?
Please provide a better definition if you disagree with mine.
Originally Posted by
Whiskers
So why do you think the Dean index is better and more reliable than the TSIF index which is accepted as a better index?
Not relevant Whiskers. That’s a question for the fluorosis researchers. I don’t claim to be an expert at fluorosis indices, because its irrelevant to clinical practice.
But you are loudly applauding some research over others! Don't you want to know that the foundation for their analysis is accurate and reliable?
So, is it fair to say that you have no understanding of the research terms of reference and protocols, you just accept that advice from 'your' peers without really understanding it.
Oh, you "don’t claim to be an expert at fluorosis indices"... but you keep regurgitating that there is no serious fluorosis in 'legal' fluoridation.
No one here understands it (or cares about it) either so it would be a waste of my time to talk about it.
That's mighty ignorant of you, when the majority of posters are questioning the integrity of the science and your assertion that certain science is true and others that you disagree with are nothing but conspiracy theories.
This is not a dentistry exam my friend, me answering that question wont help this debate. I will change your question to a more direct question which people here will find more useful:
Was that condition in the photo caused by water fluoridation like in QLD?
Oh yes, it is an examination of your assessment of varies degrees of fluorosis.
The photo is a simple picture to gauge your index of the severity of fluorosis.
You, or your profession does have pictorial illustrations of the various degree of fluorosis don't you... or is it still standard practice to dismiss all fluorosis as 'minor cosmetic and not a health condition' as was the official line by pro fluoridation dentistry until more recently?
Ok, you provide your own pictures of minor, mild and severe fluorosis so we can see if we are all on the same page.
As you know, Qld is still rolling out fluoridation, started a couple of years ago and another year to go to complete. But what people are looking to is
the historical research from overseas that shows what can and will happen here in time, at the .8 mg/l to 1.5 mg/l legislated fluoridation rate here in Qld.
Bty, I will come back to those other issues once we clarify your semantics about fluorosis.