Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TR has really spoiled me for post quality.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - JonF

I wrote

"3) explained his hypothesis clearly - that it's not "cleanliness" or anything else ... it's NUTRITION that controls caries"

 but due to the limitations of our language, this really doesn't capture the complete picture.

 maybe a better way to say it was that price discovered "a big button" to control dental caries much more effectively than any other means being attempted in his day.


 and he found many indigenous groups which were using this "big button" effectively  with the result of near perfect teeth.

 The contrast between the result  of using this "big button" by "primitive" people versus  The pushing of "many small buttons" by supposedly "advanced" society could not be more vividly illustrated than by the comparison of the LV children versus the Saint Moritz children.
This  is a better way to state prices hypothesis... And that paper is chock-full of evidence supporting this hypothesis
So tell us what it is.
I'm always looking for concise ways to say things so how about this?


In fact, no other "buttons" are necessary if we push that one.
Imagine I'm eating a "Price diet" that enriches my saliva minerals.
If I used an antiseptic mouthwash (like Listerine) numerous times a day would you say I'm helping, harming or keeping neutral my teeth health?

Remember that a mouthwash would rinse out all the mineral rich saliva and replace it with a mouthwash system at a mouthwash pH.
"Harming" would be my guess because you are killing bacteria.  Also, those indigenous groups never used Listerine and their teeth were near perfect.
[citation needed]

So all these doctors reports, scientific studies and many many many many many anecdotal accounts from people that say that a mouthwash (alchohol, salt bath, hydrogen peroxide, etc; all antiseptic in strength to kill bacteria) is a GOOD CONTRIBUTOR to oral hygiene; they are all lying?

Why is that Dave?
Not lying. Just operating under an incorrect paradigm.
But you're claiming the results are faked.
Post your X-rays when you get them. Nobody gives a shit about what you suspect.

ETA and post a full specification of your diety.
I'm always looking for concise ways to say things so how about this?


In fact, no other "buttons" are necessary if we push that one.
Shame that there is no evidence for that (Price supplied un-checkable assertions) and mountains of evidence for the mainstream view (which has been supplied and you've ignored). .

Repeating Price's assertion without including evidence is pointless. We know what he claimed. At least two intelligent and capable people have scoured his available writings looking for evidence. It ain't there.

ETA you are forgetting that you acknowledged that Price's work supports multiple hypotheses including the maiblnstrey.
It's clear Dave has no fucking clue what an experimental control is, or why it is important. You can't discuss science with a labradoodle either, Dave needs to pick up some basic understanding before he can contribute intelligently to this topic.

It won't stop him from making some idiotic pronouncements based off his misunderstandings and calling it "good science".

Yeah well my "good science" is fixing people's health problems while simultaneously feeding people real food instead of fake food and reversing land degradation.
Whose health problems have you fixed? Around zero, right?
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Your link led me to the following article.  I've now found the one by Price. Will read.
Dave won't.
But it does raise the question ... why didn't parents / dentists / teachers push "real food" in St. Moritz as opposed to pushing "good dental hygiene" as a cure / prevention for dental caries?  Regardless of which theory is correct?  Obviously their neighbors had much better teeth WITHOUT all the dental hygiene complexity.
Blah blah blah ... lots of words ...

But no answer to THIS specific question ...
Nobody, especially you, has an answer to that question. That's the "answer".

We might speculate that they weren't researchers and didn't see the connection.  And/or the non-dentists didn't know enough about others' teeth. And maybe even the dentists weren't gathering statistics. And Pingu's point about possible within-group dietary differences.  And probably things we haven't thought of.

One way or another, assuming Price did report correctly (not a given), his failure to report sufficient data makes it impossible to evaluate the situation.
"but was wrong about the primary driver of the association."

You keep repeating this claim over and over again ad nauseum Goebbels style hoping - I suppose - that I will buy it WITHOUT you having to demonstrate it.

All it would take for you to demonstrate it would be to supply me ONE SCIENCE PAPER where they tested the thing I mentioned that needs testing to determine if Price was wrong about this or not.


Reading the Price papers that Pingu dug up for you  ... again ... while you wait?
Knowing how thorough Price was, you can make a safe bet he got as large a sampling as he could.
Knowing how sloppy and biased Price was, we have no idea of the size of his sample.
"Price observed two types of people in all his travels... Those who ate town food and those who didn't.  those who ate town food had bad teeth and those who didn't had good teeth."

I use shorthand a lot.  Get used to it.  You know what I'm saying.
Often we don't.  Get used to writing what you mean.

What you quoted above is flat-out false, not shorthand for truth.
We know what you and Price are claiming.

Your inability to present rigorous evidence for it and your inability to address rigorous evidence against it tell the tale.

Not that you are capable of comprehending that.
Here it is again:

Toddlers who fall asleep with mothers' milk in their mouths often get dental caries.  Toddlers who stay awake for a while afterwards mostly don't.

Why Dave?
Your answer to this question ... "Answer this question for me ... if Arnold Schwarzeneggar beat on a 4 foot thick solid concrete wall with a sledgehammer for 1 hour would the brick wall fail? How about for 8 hours?"  will help me answer your question.
Then I'll answer it myself ...

No and no.

Point being, a strong man with a sledgehammer is no match for a heavily reinforced wall whether he beats on it for 8 hours or for just 1 hour.

Similarly, bacterial acid is no match for heavily reinforced tooth enamel in infants whether exposed for 8 hours or for just 1 hour.

You've never understood that analogies are not evidence.

We understand your claim. No need to explain it.

We have investigated it, as have many scientists.

It's false.
EVERYTHING else in my life - tarps, iphones, my car - all of that is NOT necessity. It's luxury.
You've often stated that you won't give those up.
In process of a tremendous wealth transfer from  the poor and middle class to the rich.

Media/Republican perverts encouraged

CNN credibility destroyed in the minds of the fools who think when he cries "Fake news" he manes thaq news is fake rather than he doesn't like the truth.

All the world realizing that the US no longer leads the world in much of anything; China and Germany are now the leaders, largely due to his insulting foreign leaders and making it clear he thinks he's the boss of them. Dismantling the State Department doesn't help.

Almost every head of a department or cabinet post is fanatically opposed to their mission.

Wholesale dismantling of worker protections

Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, sparking  violence around the world and setting back Mideast peace prospects for years, maybe decades, maybe forever.

Passed sensitive highly classified intelligence to the Russians.

Many attempts to shut down investigations involving him.

Continuously and egregiously violating the Emoluments Clause.

Making up and spreading uncountable numbers of lies, especially about Obama and Hillary.

Insisting on disavowing the Iranian nuclear agreement because they have not violated it but he wants them to do things not covered in the agreement.

Begging oil and gas companies to please destroy national monuments and parks and create more pollution.

Claims that Europe owes "vast sums" to NATO, thereby revealing he has no clue about NATO's finances.

Refused to carry out laws that Congress passed and he signed (e.g. more Russian sanctions.

Still pushing the useless wall boondoggle.

At the head of the most powerful and widespread intelligence system in the world,  gets his news from Breitbart and Fox.

YOU said "Price missed it."

He didn't.
You forget, moron, that's what's in contention is the major contributor to the process in the mouth.

You say it's nutrition.

Reality says that (assuming reasonably adequate nutrition) the effects of sugars and carbs on the oral environment.
if you don't believe me, then ask yourself if there is any other single species on earth that is able to either completely destroy all life on the planet ... or restore life on the whole planet. 

 i'm not aware of another one besides humans.
Might makes right?

WTF does the ability to destroy all life [1] have to do with how ecologies work?
Except of course for bacteria and cockroaches.
And Price went on to realize (whereas you and even these 2013 researchers don't realize) that ...


(Although I think you are starting to realize your error so you are starting to make comments like "There may also be a nutritional route.")
At least I finally got Pingu to acknowledge this ...

Baby steps I guess.

Dave, if you read my posts you would not repeatedly MISREPRESENT MY POSITION.

I actually posted a paper, back on TR that showed that there may be SOME protective nutritional effects on saliva.  In other words some nutrients my lower the risk, just as eating sugar raises it SUBSTANTIALLY if you also have a mouth that has the specific species of bacteria that eat sugar and excrete acid.

One day, you should google "risk factor" and see what it means.

Or just read my post a few pages back. The one you quoted a single sentence from, and ignored the rest of.
you still have not answered my question about whether these researchers that subscribe to the "poison theory" of sugar / refined carbs (vs. the displacement theory) actually tested it or not.
They did.

Multiple references previously provided.
have you never heard a public health service saying milk builds strong teeth and bones?
Sure.  But I've never heard "calcium and phosphorus in the saliva prevents cavities."
They don't.
Lol @ JonF ... he's hopelessly behind.
No, I'm far ahead of your low-power thing that we call a mind" for lack of a more accurate term.
From the paper you just franoogled:

4. Mechanism of action
Casein phosphopeptide forms nanoclusters with amorphous calcium phosphate thus providing a pool of calcium and phosphate which can maintain the super saturation of saliva. Since CPP-ACP can stabilize calcium and phosphate in the solution, it can also help in the buffering of plaque pH and so calcium and phosphate level in plaque is increased. Therefore calcium and phosphate concentration within the subsurface lesions is kept high which results in remineralization.4

5. Delivery of CPP-ACP
Mazzaoui et al., in 2003 used CPP-ACP with fluoride and demonstrated a synergistic remineralization potential.11 It can be delivered via tooth mousse, chewing gum (chewing gum increases the salivary stimulation and the benefits of CPP-ACP are also present), mouth rinses and toothpastes4 and CPP-ACP helps in the reduction of tooth sensitivity when it is present in tooth pastes.12

It works the way I said it worked IN THE MOUTH and is delivered IN THE MOUTH.

It is not a nutrient.  It is a topical application.  That's the part Price got wrong.  He thought the problem with sugar was that it DISPLACED NUTRIENTS.  It isn't. The problem occurs before the stuff is even in your stomach, let alone the blood stream.  And a buffering material (as in some chewing gums) can work IN THE MOUTH before you even swallow it.

He DIDN'T get it wrong.

He - unlike you - realized that it was calcium and phosphorus in the saliva which protects teeth from acid attack and that IF calcium and phosphorus are sufficient in the saliva, then you can eat sugar and refined carbs with no worries, as was demonstrated by Price with his orphanage experiment.
That's what he claimed.  He did not demonstrate it was true.  It was not and is not true. As has been demonstrated over and over again since Price's time.

YOU, on the other hand, apparently think that your teeth will be attacked - no matter what - if you eat sugar and refined carbs.
There are more things in heaven and Earth, Davie-Dork,, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

It's more complex than that, as people have explained ever so many times.  Your simple-minded misunderstandings suit your simple mind.
It would be surprising though if photons farm grasses were not depleted, given the practices of European farming.
It would be astonishing if you had a clue about the likelihood of Photons grasses were depleted.
I think you are smart enough to read the footnotes and find it yourself if you really want to see it.
Your claim, your responsibility to support it.

Time Magazine, 1938. Long, long ago and not a scientific journal.
Very next paragraph ...

"In a recent magazine article, I have presented data (1) comparing the mineral content of different pasture grasses, and relating these to deficiencies in cattle. Unfortunately, space does not permit reviewing these data here in detail. They show that calcium varied from 0.17 per cent for a dry pasture grass in Arizona to 1.9 per cent in a Pennsylvania pasturage plant, to 2 per cent in a British Columbia pasturage plant, a range of over ten fold. Similarly, phosphorus was shown to vary from 0.03 per cent to 1.8 per cent, a range of sixty fold. Neither pasture animals nor human beings can eat a sufficient amount of low mineral plant food to provide the total mineral requirements of ordinary metabolism. In cases of overload, such as pregnancy and lactation in adults, and rapid growth in children, the demand is increased greatly. For example, a high-milk-production cow from southern Texas on a certain low mineral pasture will run behind her normal requirements about 60 grams of phosphorus and 160 grams of potassium per day. In that district large numbers of cattle were unable at the time to maintain their own bodies, let alone reproduce or provide milk. Many cattle in the district developed loin disease. It was found that moving them to another plot of ground where the soil was not depleted provided recovery."
Let's see the "magazine article".
Price ch. 20 ...

"If we relate the levels of life of human and domestic animals to the problem of soil depletion, we find two important groups of data. First, there are those which relate to specific land areas, some small and some very large; and second, those which relate to civilizations and groups, both large and small that have passed out of existence or are rapidly deteriorating. A study of the skeletons of the past and present often discloses a progressive breakdown. For example, we may mention the important anthropological findings of Professor Hooton of Harvard, who, in his examinations of various pueblos of the Western Plains, especially at the Pecos Pueblo where the progressive burials have been uncovered, has brought to light the calendar of a civilization extending over a thousand years. These findings show that there has been over the period of years a progressive increase in skeletal deformities, including arthritis and dental caries, together with a reduction in stature, suggesting a direct relationship to progressive depletion of the soil."
[reference required]
The rational conclusion is that Price and you are full of shit and Photon's report is pretty accurate.