The Harvard study and the Lancet paper

Posted on January 13, 2016 | 6 Comments

There is so much rubbish written about “The Harvard Study” and “The Lancet Paper” by anti-fluoride campaigners. I have written several detailed articles about that here.

But the video above provides a short description of why these claims are wrong. Only requires a few minutes of your time.

Thanks to the Campaign for Dental health: Debunking Unreliable Claims: The “Harvard study”

Similar articles

This entry was posted in Health and Medicine, SciBlogs, science, Science and Society and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 responses to “The Harvard study and the Lancet paper”

  1. soundhill1 | January 14, 2016 at 1:10 am |

    If Dr Seymour were serious about the matter she would not block comments.

    “More up-to-date high quality research” put in that way usually refers to a several pieces, whereas then Dr Seymour only then cites the Broadbent Dunedin study. That study had 99 control subjects drinking water of presumably varying but unspecified trace elements.

    Over the duration of the study Dunedin had been having problems with copper plumbing corrosion. They gradually worked to solve the corrosion problem. That would be increasing the hardness of the water, and would have been done earlier in the fluoridated areas, with regard to fluoride chemistry.

    Before it was known about copper, wealthy families used to wean infants on to milk stored in copper, which would lose its vitamin C. I believe malformation of skeletal development occurred.

    The Broadbent reviewers should have asked about such matters as possibility of copper-related subclinical scurvy and any effect on pregnancy. The skeleton is not the only bodily organ needing calcium.

    Besides copper the iodine levels should have been stated. Otago had been higher in iodine than Canterbury for example, so Broadbent’s study would not apply. Low iodine or high iodine have been implicated by studies as additive problems for fluoride morbidity, even if part way through the Broadbent study.

    Like

  2. Stuartg | January 14, 2016 at 10:56 pm |

    Brian,

    Since you are telling us that you have greater knowledge than Broadbent et al, and that their study did not ask the questions that you know they should have asked…

    I await the publication of your perfect version of their study.

    Like

  3. soundhill1 | January 15, 2016 at 11:55 am |

    There’s a fair bit to get through. Dunedin uses alum to make the water clearer in some supplies. Alum turns into aluminium hydroxide in water. Letters to the editor blamed that flocculation process for the copper erosion. Something about the chemistry, though I need to go further to find the effect on copper of dilute mature aluminium hydroxide solution.

    Click to access report.pdf

    If I can’t get actual location so water supply data for the subjects my study will lose power.

    Like

  4. Stuartg | January 15, 2016 at 5:15 pm |

    I await the publication of your perfect reproduction of their study, (but I won’t hold my breath)😴

    Like

  5. soundhill1 | January 16, 2016 at 2:09 am |

    StuartgL ” await the publication of your perfect reproduction of their study, (but I won’t hold my breath)”

    You’ve complained about lack of data in the Lin FF Paper, that it could not be repeated. Same with this since the locations in Dunedin are not specified.

    Besides the water cannot be put back to what it had been and get a new lot of births, &c.

    And they don’t want to give out their water data.

    So you won’t hold your breath because you know my attempts will be obstructed? Or would you help? I suppose you would be caught in the honour system.

    Like

  6. Stuartg | January 16, 2016 at 6:16 am |

    Brian, you are the one telling us what should and shouldn’t have been done in Dunedin – so go ahead and do it. No-one is stopping you.

    I await the publication of your perfect version of their study.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.