Folders

Dental Data Index

B'ham v Manch'r

Other Side of the Coin

No Epidemic

Professor Jeffers

Birmingham v Manchester

Birmingham and Manchester - some simple comparisons

Notes:

1. Approximate equivalents (AE) are given by adjusting population size to that of ...

1. Manchester to Birmingham (Graphs 1,3,6,7)
2. Wolverhampton to Manchester (Graph 8)

2. All graphs are copyright of this website - they may be used by other persons providing ...

1. Full accreditation is given to fluoride.website
2. Data tables and graphs are not altered and presented as given on this website

Please note! All populations made for comparison to Birmingham have been adjusted to Birmingham's population size (the blue line, or bar, on the respective graphs). This helps to make an easier comparison between the respective cities.

Foreword

It is obvious from the following graphs that Birmingham and Manchester make a poor example of comparison when SOLELY looking at DMFT figures for both cities.

But! The graphs do demonstrate the bias shown towards Birmingham when it comes to privileged care, treatment and spending.

Considering that Birmingham is often used in amateurish and poorly designed ad-hoc studies to try and show differences in DMFT, it can be clearly demonstrated that it is not simply a matter of whether water is fluoridated or not. There are many factors that can influence dental health in general, and not just puerile and unscientific DMFT comparisons.

You are now referred to the graphs and the real data underlying dental health in both cities.

In Graphs 1, 2 and 3, we can see that children in Birmingham have more spent upon them, and measures to prevent tooth decay are also more evident.

In Graph 4, it can be seen that more under-18 children in Manchester have fillings than their counterparts in Birmingham. But considering the benefits already afforded to children in Birmingham, and the advantages they enjoy over manchester, is it hardly surprising they have fewer ordinary fillings? We'd venture to say that IF manchester enjoyed the same privileges that Birmingham enjoys, then Manchester would likely have FEWER fillings per child! Something to chew on, perhaps!

In Graph 5, we see some astounding figures! Truly amazing! Manchester children have almost as many teeth extracted as children in Birmingham! What a revelation - and all without consuming fluoridated water!

Graphs 6 and 7 tell an even more damning story. This is where Community dental staff reach out to children beyond the dentist's surgery and gives their services to children regardless of their attendance in conventional surgeries. We can clearly see that, again, Birmingham is far more privileged than Manchester.

These 7 graphs tell a different story to the one used by the prof-luoridation lobby and their shoddy shock tactics. It shows that when consdiering dental health, you have to take into acount all those factors which can impact upon dental health.

On this final topic of confounding factors, also consider than Manchester suffers more deprivation tna Birmingham. Jarman-scored statistics have shown this, and that Birmingham North, and South, are nowhere as near as deprived as Manchester. In fact, and overall, Birmingham is, respectivley, far less deprived then their counterparts in the North-West of England.

Here's some simple figures (Jarman Scores, measuring social deprivation, taken from 'The Other Side of the Coin'):

Note: the higher the score, the greater the social deprivation

In a nutshell ...

The simplistic DMFT charts used by pro-fluoridationists is nothing but quackery. It is poorly-designed propaganda and a disgrace. But this bandwagon will continue to roll as those who are wound-up like clockwork toys, will continue to go out into the greater environment and keep repeating the endless stream of garbage they are fed by those with no decency, credibility or integrity.

As a closing shot across the bows of the pro-fluoridation lobby, we have provided the reader with a graph (8) of Wolverhampton, compared to Manchester. It demonstrates how the pro-fluoridation lobby tries to make it appear that once water fluoridation is introduced to a community, that dental health improves. But it can be seen from the graph that once water fluoridation is introduced, then in comes all the extra dentists, finance, and all forms of assistance to help children in the newly-fluoridated community. In other words, look at all the extra and spanking, brand new privileges these children enjoy when the water fluoridation bandwagon rolls into town. This is the blatant truth about water fluoridation. It is nothing to do with improving children's teeth, because without all the extra support of all those extra privileges which come with it, water fluoridation would fail to do anything significant, or anything at all, to improve children's dental health.

It's been observed before, but it is frequently overlooked. After all, water fluoridation is all about propaganda, and nothing to do with science. Or as they say in the media industry, never let the truth get in the way of a good story. The pro-fluoridation lobby writes it's limited and biased script, and then publishes in defiance of all credibility. This scam works on a regular basis, so why should they worry about the truth?

Graph 1. How much is spent on child treatments? Age under-18.

Graph 2. Gross fees including capitation (treatments and registration costs per child). Age under-18.

Graph 3. 'No Dental Intervention' - Number of preventative measures for children (inc. varnishes, sealants, etc.). Age under-18.

Graph 4. Ordinary fillings per child. Age under-18.

Graph 5. Extractions per child. Age under-18.

Graph 6. Children screened by Community Dental Services - Ages 0 to 4.

Graph 7. Children screened by Community Dental Services - Ages 5 to 15.

Graph 8. How much is spent on child treatments? Comparing Wolverhampton to Manchester. Age under-18.

This comparison has been included because Wolverhampton has been *100% fluoridated since 1997 (*previously 32% fluoridated). It gives some idea how dental health expenditure increases after water fluoridation is fully introduced.

Data used for graphs.

Graphs 1-5 and 8: Dental Practice Board data is given between December 1997 (D97) and March 2002 (M02).

Graphs 6 and 7: Community Dental Service data is given for the years ending 1997 to 2001.

FULL comparison data tables are available as a PDF Publication (opens in a new 'non-responsive' window)

Data Tables

Graph 1. Child item of service & weighted entry

#	Qtr	Birmingham	Manchester
1	D97	£869,553.15	£340,228.42
2	M98	£906,322.13	£339,885.62
3	J98	£897,495.00	£369,228.35
4	S98	£864,280.74	£337,402.82
5	D98	£962,774.64	£377,569.88
6	M99	£917,639.77	£372,432.20
7	J99	£942,269.63	£335,592.64
8	S99	£949,690.55	£341,965.28
9	D99	£975,074.66	£367,429.71
10	M00	£944,777.51	£370,645.13
11	J00	£1,011,787.70	£389,285.14
12	S00	£955,034.42	£359,677.06
13	D00	£988,565.79	£383,618.30
14	M01	£937,131.15	£370,520.06
15	J01	£934,944.88	£390,131.31
16	S01	£975,821.19	£348,336.50
17	D01	£1,059,942.32	£339,779.99
18	M02	£1,077,458.20	£325,862.01

Data Tables

Graph 2. Total child gross fees per registration.

#	Qtr	Birmingham	Manchester
1	D97	£12.12	£11.16
2	M98	£13.72	£12.45
3	J98	£13.51	£12.80
4	S98	£13.52	£12.53
5	D98	£14.09	£13.26
6	M99	£13.85	£13.21
7	J99	£14.24	£12.74
8	S99	£14.36	£12.79
9	D99	£14.64	£13.31
10	M00	£14.50	£13.36
11	J00	£14.99	£13.78
12	S00	£14.79	£13.65
13	D00	£15.04	£13.99
14	M01	£14.75	£13.79
15	J01	£14.86	£14.32
16	S01	£15.36	£13.72
17	D01	£15.95	£13.66
18	M02	£16.14	£13.57

Data Tables

Graph 3. Type 7 Procedure: No Dental Intervention.

#	Qtr	Birmingham	Manchester
1	D97	9602	1757
2	M98	9809	1897
3	J98	10397	1759
4	S98	9559	1473
5	D98	11306	2125
6	M99	11083	1980
7	J99	11034	2042
8	S99	11347	1798
9	D99	11521	2201
10	M00	11583	2092
11	J00	12022	2419
12	S00	11139	2226
13	D00	12074	2630
14	M01	11821	2543
15	J01	12934	2800
16	S01	12755	2646
17	D01	12763	2579
18	M02	12144	2689

Data Tables

Graph 4. Procedure: Ordinary Fillings [under-18]

#	Qtr	Birmingham	Manchester
1	D97	0.12	0.15
2	M98	0.11	0.15
3	J98	0.11	0.17
4	S98	0.1	0.15
5	D98	0.11	0.16
6	M99	0.1	0.16
7	J99	0.11	0.16
8	S99	0.11	0.15
9	D99	0.11	0.17
10	M00	0.1	0.17
11	J00	0.11	0.17
12	S00	0.1	0.16
13	D00	0.1	0.16
14	M01	0.1	0.15
15	J01	0.1	0.15
16	S01	0.08	0.14
17	D01	0.07	0.14
18	M02	0.07	0.13

Data Tables

Graph 5. Procedure: Extractions [under-18]

#	Qtr	Birmingham	Manchester
1	D97	0.018	0.029
2	M98	0.017	0.031
3	J98	0.018	0.029
4	S98	0.017	0.027
5	D98	0.019	0.028
6	M99	0.018	0.023
7	J99	0.017	0.021
8	S99	0.018	0.021
9	D99	0.017	0.021
10	M00	0.017	0.021
11	J00	0.018	0.019
12	S00	0.016	0.018
13	D00	0.017	0.02
14	M01	0.016	0.021
15	J01	0.017	0.023
16	S01	0.017	0.02
17	D01	0.02	0.019
18	M02	0.018	0.019

Data Tables

Graph 6. Community Dental Services: Number of children screened. Age 0-4.

#	Yr	Birmingham	Manchester
1	97	10224	2471
2	98	9863	2041
3	99	7801	2832
4	00	8410	1416
5	01	7062	1608

Data Tables

Graph 7. Community Dental Services: Number of children screened. Age 5-15.

#	Yr	Birmingham	Manchester
1	97	92198	23478
2	98	88824	16535
3	99	76570	17903
4	00	87833	18985
5	01	77026	18261

Data Tables

Graph 8. Child item of service & weighted entry.

#	Yr	Wolverhampton
1	d97	£132,315.37
2	m98	£126,919.62
3	j98	£137,045.50
4	s98	£133,772.41
5	d98	£152,386.18
6	m99	£140,042.23
7	j99	£150,689.88
8	s99	£157,219.48
9	d99	£167,901.40
10	m00	£164,266.82
11	j00	£187,231.99
12	s00	£184,476.47
13	d00	£167,326.11
14	m01	£166,558.50
15	j01	£177,886.23
16	s01	£197,668.14
17	d01	£189,485.04
18	m02	£217,660.74