Comment by Jimmc414 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jimmc414 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Here’s a list of the most convincing studies or meta analyses.

2023 – NTP Monograph on Fluoride Neurotoxicity – National Toxicology Program (USA)

2020 – Till et al. – Infant Formula Fluoride Exposure & IQ – Till C, Green R, Lanphear B, Hornung R, Martinez-Mier EA (Canada)

2019 – Green et al. – Maternal Fluoride Exposure & IQ – Green R, Lanphear B, Hornung R, Flora D, Martinez-Mier EA, et al. (Canada)

2017 – Bashash et al. – Prenatal Fluoride Exposure & Offspring IQ – Bashash M, Thomas D, Hu H, et al. (Mexico/USA)

2012 – Choi et al. – Meta-analysis on Fluoride & Neurodevelopment – Choi AL, Sun G, Zhang Y, Grandjean P (Harvard/China)

2006 – NRC Report – Fluoride in Drinking Water – National Research Council (USA)

[1] https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/...

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31743803/

[3] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

[4] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP655

[5] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104912

[6] https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water...

How did you compile this list? Asking some LLM service?

From the first link:

> It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ

It doesn't seem in favor of this?

Regardless of where they got the list (edit: which I do think is a fair question)...

> the first link [...] doesn't seem in favor of this?

To me that falls under "the best evidence [available] in favor of this." It's not great, but it's not nothing; it's certainly something in favor. After all.. I guess I don't know about you, but I feel like if someone told me dose X of something is toxic, I would not feel comfortable feeding myself and the entire country 50% of that dose, on that basis alone.

I mean, technically our atmosphere gives us oxygen at 35% of a toxic dose/concentration.

Granted, 35% < 50%, but not really that much less.

Yes, this completely demolished my argument.

Why does it matter how the list was compiled? Is the information accurate or not? The first link you referenced with the cherry picked sentence about uncertainty for levels below .7mg/l was a meta analysis of 74 different studies, 64 of which showed a negative correlation between child IQ and fluoridation. This isn’t even taking into account evidence of a positive correlation for early onset puberty, sleep disruption and bone cancer with fluoridation.

It matters when you say it has the "most convincing" evidence as if you have read them all and are keeping up with the field and didn't just summarize them with some service like https://consensus.app/

I don't know if what you are repeating is slop, etc. I can't trust the source.

A single recent systematic review is more trustworthy than that.

You don't know, but it is not. Feel free not to read it.

Okay, well, let me know how you came up with the list?

Also, nothing in that list of papers supports your initial claim? I know you'll say you didn't claim anything, so I will say also, that nothing in those links provides for what the prior commenter asked for evidence for.

Other than, fluoride consumption at high concentrations is bad (which is something that was already agreed upon, and is not being questioned in this thread)?

It matters because your statement of "Here’s a list of the most convincing studies or meta analyses." assumes some kind of curating. If all you're doing is providing something akin to a google search, it's not really valuable.

So what? Asking “What is the best evidence in favor of this” is equivalent to saying I don’t want to google this, so google this for me. Literally all researchers at all levels in all fields use google for this stuff. I was in academia for years.

> So what?

Put simply, it's a wall of links. No quotes. No claims. Its valid to ask if the person posting the links has actually read those articles, or if there is a primary source recommending them. (Or no source if it's LLM copypasta.)

It was a direct response to a question with the answer they were looking for. It was provided in good faith, previously researched and sourced by me within the last 12 months.

I am the OP and someone asked for evidence and the only answer after an hour, falsely stated there was no evidence. I didn't want to challenge anyone directly so I posted what I thought were the top few more convincing links I have compiled out of 30+.

I am disappointed that I am getting downvoted and this is somehow being made into something political when people deserve to see the evidence for and against supplementing fluoride the drinking water of every living thing because the government wants to improve the health of our teeth. It is a fair question to ask.

The main problem with your wall of links from a professional medical PoV is it utterly lacks any context.

The very famous meta studies with all the negative correlations get all the bad associations with flouride from regions where water naturally has extremely high (relative to most other parts of the world) levels of fluoride in addition to high levels of many other uncommon concentrations.

Some of these regions also have additional problems with industry waste.

Put simply, negative correlations about unattended children in swimming pools cannot be extrapolated to infer negative correlations about young children and sippy cups of water.

Again, it was in response to an (mis)unanswered question for that specific information. I don't get what the issue is.

It’s basically coping responses from people who are starting to realize they have been loudly wrong for years. It’s a fairly human response I suppose. They’ll get over it eventually after they go through the stages of grief or whatever.

> coping responses

No? What is a coping response? I asked the commenter to provide context to their links that supposedly show evidence for what the initial question was (does fluoride at the concentrations in drinking water cause harm), which they definitely do not show evidence for.

The thing is you are not being curious. You are basically putting your head in the sand and goading at people to drag it out for you.

> You are basically putting your head in the sand and goading at people to drag it out for you

Nah. I pretty much agree with what Utah is doing here (though I’d prefer just not mandating it and making the decision as local as it needs to be). OP’s link list looks AI generated. That’s just not a good-faith comment.

OP has already said that it was not AI generated and that he spent months doing due diligence to compile that list.

I suppose you want a summary, well read the abstracts of the papers. It's not that challenging, is it?

> OP has already said that it was not AI generated

They first went defensive when asked about it up thread [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43519312

You need to stop attacking people on HN. It's not permitted here. You are free to disagree with their statements and positions, but making character judgments like this is not OK.

> I am disappointed that I am getting downvoted and this is somehow being made into something political when people deserve to see the evidence

I didn’t downvote. (I don’t think.) But as a non-expert, I also didn’t see value in a wall of links. (Particularly when you wouldn’t confirm it wasn’t AI generated.)

A better presentation would pull quotes or make an argument, in your voice, with the citations as scaffolding for your arguments.

To illustrate the issue, I believe I could construct a context-free wall of links justifying just about anything.

Honestly, I think people downvoted it because it sounded a lot like LLM output.

If you could explain the process that led to the production of the list & what led you to the belief that those are the best studies/evidence so far, that would probably help people view it more favorably.

> Asking “What is the best evidence in favor of this” is equivalent to saying I don’t want to google this, so google this for me.

Perhaps I should note that I had indeed (believe it or not) already Googled this before asking the question. I asked not because I was too lazy to search but because I didn't know if my search was turning up the best studies from anyone's perspective.

So, no, this wasn't equivalent to saying "I don’t want to google this, so google this for me."

Yeah finding some random links through google that one does not go through to -to some degree- verify/vouch for is identically bad practice. Researchers do not cite studies that just happen to come up in their google searches, they actually try to assess the quality of the research, understand the methods/results etc. Nothing like this happened here. Giving such a wall of links as an argument to a discussion without checking their quality or relevance is more akin to trolling behaviour than academic research.

I agree with you and think you should reread. My response was not an argument, it was a response of requested information that I had compiled.

> It matters because your statement of "Here’s a list of the most convincing studies or meta analyses." assumes some kind of curating.

Agreed

Reply on news.ycombinator.com