7
94

[–] Caboose_Calloway 7 points 94 points (+101|-7) ago 

IQ score between exposed and reference populations was –0.45 (95% confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35)

0.45 IQ points is way down in the noise. C'mon /v/science you disappoint me.

6
35

[–] DancesWithHogs 6 points 35 points (+41|-6) ago 

I'd like to see if the folks who published this article "Anna L. Choi, Guifan Sun, [...], and Philippe Grandjean" happen to be tinfoil-hat polishers. Also wondering what the peer review for it looks like. I'm on mobile at the moment so I can't do the research right now. I'd bet it would be enlightening.

1
26

[–] hq3473 1 points 26 points (+27|-1) ago 

There is nothing wrong with publishing results like this.

They did meta analysis and found -0.45 relationship.

They published it.

You can draw your own conclusions.

I see nothing wrong here.

1
17

[–] l-emmerdeur 1 points 17 points (+18|-1) ago 

lol you got downvoated for implying that some manner of review or accountability for what is being stated should occur.

/v/science and /v/conspiracy - bfffs

0
4

[–] beren 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Not taking sides, nor do I agree or disagree with the study, but we shouldn't resort to or suffer ad hominem arguments. Nor should we criticize what we don't understand, such as Caboose_Calloway did ( Sorry Caboose, not trying to pick on you ). Everyone upvoating that comment needs to realize that the conclusion of the study (again, not agreeing or disagreeing with it, but just want to be PRECISE in this conversation) is NOT that ingesting water with fluoride will reduce a child's IQ by .45 of a point. -0.45 mean difference is significant.

1
-1

[–] smurfmaxima 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

It astounds me that in this day and age there are still people idiotic enough to believe the whole "fluride is an evil" businesses. It's like the previous generation's equivalent of the anti-vacination movement still lingering on in a vestigial state.

0
7

[–] beren 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Dude, you cut off the beginning of the sentence and completely changed the meaning.

The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was –0.45 (95% confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35) using a random-effects model.

A mean difference of -0.45 is NOT 45% of one IQ point.

0
0

[–] tccl [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

A mean difference of -0.45 is NOT 45% of one IQ point.

what is it?

2
4

[–] forest_robot 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

0
2

[–] tccl [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was –0.45 (95% confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35) using a random-effects model.

A mean difference of -0.45 is NOT 45% of one IQ point.

credit

9
42

[–] Memory 9 points 42 points (+51|-9) ago 

These posts make Voat look ridiculous.

0
9

[–] MedicalMountainGoat 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

How does posting a legitimate research article make Voat look ridiculous? We are here to discuss controversial topics and not dismiss ideas simply because they don't align with our preconceived notions. If you don't agree with the article and the topic at hand then go and find some contradictory research which proves that fluoride is great for our teeth and should be dumped into our drinking water. Then we can discuss the pros and the cons of water fluoridation in a rational manner and come to a decision.

8
8

[–] tobasoft 8 points 8 points (+16|-8) ago 

this. exactly this. I've been saying it for months. voat is a mini haven for conspiratards.

2
7

[–] dread_op 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

Dismissing anything that goes against the grain as a "conspiritard," especially when it is a research article, makes you look very ridiculous.

10
-3

[–] Rellik88 10 points -3 points (+7|-10) ago 

So go back to Reddit

3
36

[–] raging_paranoia 3 points 36 points (+39|-3) ago 

Opportunities for epidemiological studies depend on the existence of comparable population groups exposed to different levels of fluoride from drinking water. Such circumstances are difficult to find in many industrialized countries, because fluoride concentrations in community water are usually no higher than 1 mg/L, even when fluoride is added to water supplies as a public health measure to reduce tooth decay.

The amount of fluoride in our drinking water is irrelevant, the article is looking at an area with significantly higher amounts of fluoride than we're putting in our water.

8
25

[–] trolleyfan 8 points 25 points (+33|-8) ago  (edited ago)

Shhhh! Don't tell people that fluoride naturally is in water - and often naturally above recommended levels:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#/media/File:Groundwater-fluoride-world.svg

You'll ruin all the scare hype!

17
2

[–] ThizzBoss 17 points 2 points (+19|-17) ago 

There's also natural arsenic in some groundwater. That doesn't make it safe just because it's natural, retard

2
-1

[–] Traveler 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

I hope you find out you have been drinking unusually high amounts of fluoride

0
13

[–] ZeroHour 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

An interesting thing to point out in this paper is that it was an analysis of existing research that is normally not accessible or widely disseminated in the US. All the studies supporting the finding we're conducted in rural China.

1
3

[–] MedicalMountainGoat 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Also this was around the 1960s and those studies have since come under heavy criticism.

0
9

[–] tube 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I'm really cautious about reading results of meta-analysis. Publication bias exists in all studies subject to be included in the statistical analysis, and depending on how many variables are involved in the original studies, spurious correlations can be accidentally found, even with p values of less than the threshold of 0.05. I'm not saying it's garbage, but the results of the meta analysis can only be used as a starting point for developing well designed case control studies.

Here is an entertaining list of correlations for your perusal: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

0
1

[–] Sa1tyDog 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

While biases exist meta-analysis and systematic review are on the highest level of evidence because they use multiple studies to clear up biases. http://guides.library.yale.edu/content.php?pid=9786&sid=73113

0
6

[–] beren 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Ya'll need to look up the definition of "mean difference" BEFORE replying to this FFS

4
6

[–] bkedelen 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Between this and the GMO labeling garbage post, this appears to be antiscience Saturday.

2
2

[–] Penguinkeith 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago  (edited ago)

As a scientist it is really disappointing seeing posts like like and the gmo ones.

2
2

[–] kingkongsdingdong 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Aparently... Come on voat!

2
-1

[–] you-dumbass 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

Maybe we should start a Silly Saturday thread to contain the posts like this

8
5

[–] p0ssum 8 points 5 points (+13|-8) ago 

Nice editorial on the title. 0.45 IQ points is FAR from significant.

Happy trolling...

0
4

[–] tccl [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was –0.45 (95% confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35) using a random-effects model.

A mean difference of -0.45 is NOT 45% of one IQ point.

credit

0
1

[–] Tleilaxu_Ghola 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Actually it is the top scoring post in this discussion that is editorialized, and all these "Science" purists upvoted it blindly.

https://voat.co/v/science/comments/341591/1346335

Credit to @beren for catching it and calling it out.

9
-8
load more comments ▼ (13 remaining)