- Joined
- 8 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,202
- Reactions
- 0
I agree, I was just using it to highlight some evidence of Vit D deficiency.
Very likely true but I suppose it's another example of benefits v risks in consideration of skin cancers. It could be argued that a melanoma is probably a greater risk than osteoporosis.
At least some of the risk of reduced Vit D seems to have been addressed with the addition of Vit D to most of the bone building medications prescribed for osteoporosis.
Julia, I'm on a fishing trip with these fella's, but the highlighted bit is the point I'm after.I'm reluctant to enter the fray on this. However, that's a reasonable point to make.
But I'm not sure such a comment is always completely valid on the basis that many publications have their own agenda, and will refuse to publish what doesn't accord with that agenda. Ditto in some cases the peer review process.
That was my point... it was not published, nor mentioned anywhere to qualify the research presented by ARCPOH in the Child Dental Health Survey.1, So it isn't published, nor peer reviewed...
But the main point of my question which you evade again, was2. Was not referring to fluorosis (good try to get back onto that insignificant point you hold so dear), I was referring to age of tooth eruption.
Yes, I totally agree with you motorway.Vitamin D Status is very much related to Latitude.. because it is UVB not UVA that makes Vitamin D... And Rickets is associated with age of Teeth Eruption ..
If there is a resurgence of Rickets in Australia that is just a Visible Tip of a wider
Vitamin Deficiency and Insufficiency Epidemic.
Teeth Health is Strongly associated with Vitamin D Status.
( Whiskers it is a Universal Cause and as such an Invisible one to most of these Studies on Fluoride refer last postings in the Vitamin D Thread )
Qld has clear advantages over Southern States
You would make some Vitmin D even with casual Sun Exposure
Maybe all through the Year at least in the middle of the Day
( Again the recent MS study )
Julia, I'm on a fishing trip with these fella's, but the highlighted bit is the point I'm after.
____________________________________
Isn't this another strong case NOT to need fluoridation in Qld?
"Teeth Health is Strongly associated with Vitamin D Status."
Just to recap my point from a few posts back now, for all my followers
That was my point... it was not published, nor mentioned anywhere to qualify the research presented by ARCPOH in the Child Dental Health Survey.
The ARCPOH child dental health surveys for example:
"
Thats deciduous (d)ecay, (m)issing, (f)illed (t)eeth (dmft)... NOT permanent teeth (DMFT).
ON balance Absolutely.... But you have significant Ignorance on what is necessary for optimum health. eg Julia states that Bones supplements have alleviated the need for Vitamin D .... Tell that to the Children born to Vitamins D deficient Mothers
I'm reluctant to enter the fray on this. However, that's a reasonable point to make.
But I'm not sure such a comment is always completely valid on the basis that many publications have their own agenda, and will refuse to publish what doesn't accord with that agenda. Ditto in some cases the peer review process.
Very likely true but I suppose it's another example of benefits v risks in consideration of skin cancers. It could be argued that a melanoma is probably a greater risk than osteoporosis.
At least some of the risk of reduced Vit D seems to have been addressed with the addition of Vit D to most of the bone building medications prescribed for osteoporosis.
Of 147 women who were studied late in pregnancy (at a mean of 35 weeks’ gestation), about 40% had vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency (serum 25[OH]D concentrations ≤ 50 nmol/L). Most of the women in this study were not white, and ethnicity, occupational status and season, not surprisingly, all influenced 25(OH)D concentrations, while body mass index did not. Perhaps more surprisingly, however, 25(OH)D concentrations were inversely associated with fasting and 2-hour glucose levels measured during an oral glucose tolerance test and with the marker of glycaemic control, glycated haemoglobin. Most importantly, serum 25(OH)D was an independent predictor of glycaemic control.
The public health implications of vitamin D deficiency in pregnancy are far broader than glycaemic control. In Australia, there has been a resurgence of rickets ”” partly owing to an increased refugee population comprising dark-skinned and veiled women with vitamin D deficiency, and also because of decreased exposure of babies to sunlight, lack of supplementation of infant feeds with vitamin D and weaning of infants onto non-milk liquids.
Milder forms of bone disease may also occur with vitamin D deficiency. Recently, a study that used three-dimensional ultrasonography in pregnant women showed that vitamin D deficiency was associated with increased femur metaphyseal cross-sectional area and increased femur splaying (the ratio of femoral metaphyseal cross-sectional area to femoral length) at as early as 19 weeks’ gestation.11 In addition, it was previously shown that children born to mothers with vitamin D deficiency (< 50 nmol/L) during pregnancy exhibit deficits in total body bone mineral content as great as 11% at 9 years of age.12 This could lead to an increased risk of osteoporotic fracture later in adult life, but this is unlikely to be evaluated in long-term studies.
In addition, maternal or early life vitamin D deficiency has been linked to an increased risk of several other disorders, including neonatal craniotabes, prematurity, type 1 diabetes mellitus, schizophrenia, and childhood respiratory infections and wheeze.13,14
Current evidence strongly supports routine screening for vitamin D deficiency early in pregnancy. Furthermore, vitamin D supplementation to correct deficiency should be initiated early in pregnancy as it might reduce the incidence or severity of GDM and because changes in skeletal morphology of the fetus associated with deficiency are seen as early as 19 weeks’ gestation. The most common recommended daily doses of cholecalciferol are 1000 IU–2000 IU, however, daily doses of up to 4000 IU have recently been shown to be safe in pregnancy (Bruce W Hollis, Professor, Department of Paediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina, USA, personal communication).
at least some of the risk of reduced Vit D seems to have been addressed with the addition of Vit D to most of the bone building medications prescribed for osteoporosis.
1. I DID NOT bring up fluoridation YOU DID. Stop trying to put words into my mouth.
What journal was this published in, so that I can analyse the methodology, sampling and bias myself.
eg did they control for Vitamin D etc. (You do realise that Vitamin D deficiency can result in delayed expression of teeth and that Queensland has a thing called sunshine?)
I doubt it.
No doubt it is another unpublished biased, unscientific study you are trying to peddle to the masses.
2. I think your players
do not understand dmft and DMFT and I also suspect they may be misrepresenting NHMRC wrt to these terms.
if someone is using dmft, then the person in the fluoridated area (whom you believe has delayed eruption of teeth),
should have worse deciduous teeth, especially at older age groups as on average they have these teeth longer. I have looked at fig 14, and moving the <0.3 to the appropriate >0.7 column does, in no way support your argument.
I suggest you read the relevant fluoridation areas in the following two links, to help educate you on the science of fluoridation.
I particularly appreciated the easy to decipher graphs (fig 14 and on) in the ARCPOH
http://www.arcpoh.adelaide.edu.au/publications/report/statistics/html_files/cdhs2002.pdf
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/Eh41_Flouridation_PART_A.pdf
Lol, you are deluded.
I don't post to argue with these sort of people, I post so that other people don't read his posts and get the wrong information.
Not published. No evidence. So the data may not even exist, it might have been made up by some crackjob anti-fluoridist!! We (logical people) don't care for those sorts of unsubstantiated craps.
Yes, the Arcpoh statistics are unreliable. You spurt it all over the place when the statistics suit you, but when you want to paint them as 'misleading the public', you say their data is unreliable. How convenient for you!
You fail to understand. If QLD children are losing their decidous teeth early (due to no WF) they would also have earlier eruption of permanent teeth. Don't refer to ARCPOH statistics if you think it's wrong.
The vitamin D point is a very good point. Before we get excited and start blaming it on the alleged delayed eruption times in other states, it would be wise to actually see some (proper) data which actually shows (in an unbiased fashion) the eruption times of QLD versus other states.
if someone is using dmft, then the person in the fluoridated area (whom you believe has delayed eruption of teeth), should have worse deciduous teeth, especially at older age groups as on average they have these teeth longer. I have looked at fig 14, and moving the <0.3 to the appropriate >0.7 column does, in no way support your argument.
Lol whiskers, keep on digging, I mentioned that it was potentially vitamin D that changed eruption times, and even though it is a known fact that Vitamin D can alter eruption, it is purely my own theory that the Queensland data may be explained by this, hence I did not refer to it in the context that you believe.
If you carefully read the post, it is in fact YOUR post which makes the point that FLUORIDE changes eruption, and THIS is what I am referring to, you know the part whereby YOU state that Queensland children have earlier tooth eruption. You are obviously not a clear enough reader to get this point.
Please, CAREFULLY read it again, at the level that any semi-competent scientist would, then you would not continuously make such elementary mistakes.
I also note how you have absolutely no comment, apart from denial about the extremely well presented, clear evidence in the graphs which the link refers to, and you are apparently so familiar with.
The obvious question is why, and the apparent answer is that it has a significant impact on the findings of their research and major sponser, Colgate, who has been a close associate with ALCOA from the initiation of fluoridation. Adgenda? Terms of reference of research?
I'll once again refrain from posting anymore with you Whiskers.
So, I ask AGAIN.
where is the published rebuttal against the evidence I put forward or where is a published study disproving the information contained in it. Scuttle my argument if you can.
As Vit D actually IMPROVES tooth mineralisation AND speeds eruptions, then logically, it should make the effects of fluoridation look WORSE,
when in fact the people with fluoridated water CLEARLY have improved dental health.
What delayed eruptions in the south shows in an artifically incorrect high number of missing deciduous teeth (m) in the ARCPOH data in Qld comparable to same age groups in southern states, simply because their permenant teeth erupted earlier.
Conversely, because Qld kids have more permenant teeth for the same age group of southern kids, the way the data is presented implies that the Qld kids lost their decidious teeth earlier to decay. (Refer to item 3 above)
Then how come across the DMFT there is also an improvement in fluoridated age groups in the same age groups lol... don't you understand this?
Also, care to read the report, they make an allowance for loss of deciduous teeth by natural causes. Also it is in the definition of dmft you useless under educated denial
What delayed eruptions in the south shows in an artifically incorrect high number of missing deciduous teeth (m) in the ARCPOH data in Qld comparable to same age groups in southern states, simply because their permenant teeth erupted earlier.
Then how come across the DMFT there is also an improvement in fluoridated age groups in the same age groups lol... don't you understand this?
I think you are trying to use a double negative to try to make a positive, logic.
What a joke!! I WORK in the school dental service and therefore I am a contributor to that data.
We do not mark a deciduous tooth as missing if the permanent tooth is there.
OH. MY. GOD. Are you serious? IT SHOWS <0.3PPM (basically UNFLUORIDATED) vs >0.7PPM (basically FLUORIDATED). In the SAME age group 0.7ppm has less decay than 0.3PPM!!! Don’t you get it???? Feels like talking to a brick wall.
Motorway, my comment was made in reference to osteoporosis, this having been raised in a previous post.
Therefore the 'bone building' medications referred to were those designed to reduce the progression of osteoporosis, eg biphosphonates. (Fosamax Plus et al)
They have some Vit D added.
I did not comment on how much.
Pregnant women and their offspring are a completely different subject.
I have nothing further to say about this and certainly have no interest in engaging in any discussion about Vit D in pregnant women.
Fluoride
Fluorine occurs naturally as the negatively charged ion, fluoride (F-). Fluoride is considered a trace element because only small amounts are present in the body (about 2.6 grams in adults), and because the daily requirement for maintaining dental health is only a few milligrams a day.
About 95% of the total body fluoride is found in bones and teeth (1). Although its role in the prevention of dental caries (tooth decay) is well established, fluoride is not generally considered an essential mineral element because humans do not require it for growth or to sustain life (2). However, if one considers the prevention of chronic disease (dental caries) an important criterion in determining essentiality, then fluoride might well be considered an essential trace element (3).
Function
Fluoride is absorbed in the stomach and small intestine. Once in the blood stream it rapidly enters mineralized tissue (bones and developing teeth). At usual intake levels, fluoride does not accumulate in soft tissue. The predominant mineral elements in bone are crystals of calcium and phosphate, known as hydroxyapatite crystals.
Fluoride's high chemical reactivity and small radius allow it to either displace the larger hydroxyl (-OH) ion in the hydroxyapatite crystal, forming fluoroapatite, or to increase crystal density by entering spaces within the hydroxyapatite crystal. Fluoroapatite hardens tooth enamel and stabilizes bone mineral (4).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?