You cannot adjust for correlates of the exposure, direct or indirect, to exonerate the exposure. Smoking, lead, thimerosal, aluminum, glyphosate... and now fluoride. We are not fooled that easily.
Thank you for shedding light in another area of this war against objective reality. There ought to be predefined, objective mechanisms in place that negatively rate a journal that would publish such a "study", and funding mechanisms that would eventually dissolve them into non-existence when they do. You lay out clearly how this ought to have been conducted, but then again, I don't think there would ever have been such a study were it not for someone funding it to present the desired conclusion. Also, absence of data availability should be an automatic disqualification. I'm sure they hide behind the canard of "data privacy", but standardized and even 3rd party validated anonymization could readily assure this - combined with replication from competing researchers, which should be a requirement on the public health policy side of the equation. What would it take to affect such reasonable changes to the landscape in how retrospective epidemiological studies are conducted?
The big corp interests plow the money into it. They are buying an outcome. It literally takes a change in legislation and a culture not steeped with lobbyists and legalized bribery.
I was born in the Bronx. At night. Just not last night. I have a strong background in mathematics and logic in my formal education. Nevertheless, I always fall back on my "street smarts". They come in very handy. Especially in combat settings or being in harm's way.
Dr. Weiler is a brilliant man. Fortunately, he is of the highest ethical standards as well. He can be counted on the pull back the curtain on the charlatans ( they see themselves as masterminds) who have been running the table protecting the profits of the unscrupulous.
Here is the Bronx version of the analysis of the studies:
"You can never find what you are not looking for."
"Figures won’t lie; but men that draw up the tables may."
Human disease is pluri-causal The neurotoxicity of fluoride AND aluminium is irrefutable. Their neurotoxicity is likely to be synergistic. If we are serious about trying to make America healthy again, both fluoride and aluminum exposure must be eliminated.
Just the fact that fluoride is considered hazardous waste from the refinement of oil should be enough to make people wary of fluoridated water!
I am not sure who is funding the many studies that exonerated fluoride but I am reasonably sure that there is an oil company connection to some of them. It saved them a fortune from having to dispose of hazardous chemical waste according to government regulations!
The thing that made my jaw drop was that the study didn't include breastfeeding history. This makes a huge difference to the risk of fluorosis on permanent front incisors that erupt after age 5, as well as IQ reduction. Those are the teeth that show fluoride poisoning from early infancy from formula reconstituted with fluoridated water. Children who were full term and exclusively breastfed for at least six months are far less likely to have fluorosis in their permanent front incisors but may have fluorosis on other teeth that erupt later, AND suffer brain effects, if they were poisoned later on by swallowed toothpaste plus fluoridated water. Children who were breastfed long term can also have fluorosis on other permanent teeth AND the brain damage from fluoride poisoning even if they avoid fluoridated water, because of a bolus swallowed dose when they were given a dental fluoride treatment at age 3 before they are able to effectively swish and spit. This happened to my daughter without my consent. She has moderate dental fluorosis because of it. Now in her thirties, she has brittle discoloured enamel that simply cannot resist decay.
Thank you for your analysis! I wonder if Do et al. lack competence or if there is manipulative intent contributing to their methodology and conclusions.
Dr Lyons-Weiler, could you comment on the following 2 drugs (and others if there are any): Miebo and Vevye. They are eye drops. Vevye contains as an Inactive ingredient: perfluorobutylpentane, and Miebo is perfluorohexyloctane ophthalmic solution. I am not a chemist. Can you identify the -fluoro- in both of these? Is that fluoride? The perfluorinated hexane in Miebo (seems obviously fluoride component but I am not certain), especially with it being 100% solution concerns me more than Vevye. Thank you. (note to any other readers, I work in the eye field but am trained OTJ and not formally trained. Anyone can answer this and happy to receive any knowledgeable answers if you are a chemist or physician especially. I am more concerned with Miebo than I am with Vevye. Others, if you have guesses, please wait for someone knowledgeable to answer before you try.)
Thank you for shedding light in another area of this war against objective reality. There ought to be predefined, objective mechanisms in place that negatively rate a journal that would publish such a "study", and funding mechanisms that would eventually dissolve them into non-existence when they do. You lay out clearly how this ought to have been conducted, but then again, I don't think there would ever have been such a study were it not for someone funding it to present the desired conclusion. Also, absence of data availability should be an automatic disqualification. I'm sure they hide behind the canard of "data privacy", but standardized and even 3rd party validated anonymization could readily assure this - combined with replication from competing researchers, which should be a requirement on the public health policy side of the equation. What would it take to affect such reasonable changes to the landscape in how retrospective epidemiological studies are conducted?
The big corp interests plow the money into it. They are buying an outcome. It literally takes a change in legislation and a culture not steeped with lobbyists and legalized bribery.
I was born in the Bronx. At night. Just not last night. I have a strong background in mathematics and logic in my formal education. Nevertheless, I always fall back on my "street smarts". They come in very handy. Especially in combat settings or being in harm's way.
Dr. Weiler is a brilliant man. Fortunately, he is of the highest ethical standards as well. He can be counted on the pull back the curtain on the charlatans ( they see themselves as masterminds) who have been running the table protecting the profits of the unscrupulous.
Here is the Bronx version of the analysis of the studies:
"You can never find what you are not looking for."
"Figures won’t lie; but men that draw up the tables may."
Too funny
Human disease is pluri-causal The neurotoxicity of fluoride AND aluminium is irrefutable. Their neurotoxicity is likely to be synergistic. If we are serious about trying to make America healthy again, both fluoride and aluminum exposure must be eliminated.
A lack of "wholeness" cannot manifest "integrity" and Man does not live by food alone...The Spirit and Empathy must also be nurtured !!!!! Just saying
Just the fact that fluoride is considered hazardous waste from the refinement of oil should be enough to make people wary of fluoridated water!
I am not sure who is funding the many studies that exonerated fluoride but I am reasonably sure that there is an oil company connection to some of them. It saved them a fortune from having to dispose of hazardous chemical waste according to government regulations!
The thing that made my jaw drop was that the study didn't include breastfeeding history. This makes a huge difference to the risk of fluorosis on permanent front incisors that erupt after age 5, as well as IQ reduction. Those are the teeth that show fluoride poisoning from early infancy from formula reconstituted with fluoridated water. Children who were full term and exclusively breastfed for at least six months are far less likely to have fluorosis in their permanent front incisors but may have fluorosis on other teeth that erupt later, AND suffer brain effects, if they were poisoned later on by swallowed toothpaste plus fluoridated water. Children who were breastfed long term can also have fluorosis on other permanent teeth AND the brain damage from fluoride poisoning even if they avoid fluoridated water, because of a bolus swallowed dose when they were given a dental fluoride treatment at age 3 before they are able to effectively swish and spit. This happened to my daughter without my consent. She has moderate dental fluorosis because of it. Now in her thirties, she has brittle discoloured enamel that simply cannot resist decay.
Thank you for your analysis! I wonder if Do et al. lack competence or if there is manipulative intent contributing to their methodology and conclusions.
Dr Lyons-Weiler, could you comment on the following 2 drugs (and others if there are any): Miebo and Vevye. They are eye drops. Vevye contains as an Inactive ingredient: perfluorobutylpentane, and Miebo is perfluorohexyloctane ophthalmic solution. I am not a chemist. Can you identify the -fluoro- in both of these? Is that fluoride? The perfluorinated hexane in Miebo (seems obviously fluoride component but I am not certain), especially with it being 100% solution concerns me more than Vevye. Thank you. (note to any other readers, I work in the eye field but am trained OTJ and not formally trained. Anyone can answer this and happy to receive any knowledgeable answers if you are a chemist or physician especially. I am more concerned with Miebo than I am with Vevye. Others, if you have guesses, please wait for someone knowledgeable to answer before you try.)