Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational:  TCR is TR's first memescape

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 - BenTheBiased

1
"You're dragging two goats around a pasture, Dave. You're not controlling anything but the goats."

 controlling much more than that which you would know if you weren't such an idiot.
I know perfectly well what you've claimed. Claiming something isn't the same as demonstrating it...
which you would know if you weren't such an idiot.
2
"He was wrong about that.  He missed the primary mechanism by which sugar and refined flour, which he correctly observed were associated with dental caries."

 if you would actually quote some researchers who tested this idea, then I might believe you. But your "evangelistic" approach is not working with me.

😉

It would help if you would actually read what's already been posted, but here's yet another...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14522753
Quote
A dynamic relation exists between sugars and oral health. Diet affects the integrity of the teeth; quantity, pH, and composition of the saliva; and plaque pH. Sugars and other fermentable carbohydrates, after being hydrolyzed by salivary amylase, provide substrate for the actions of oral bacteria, which in turn lower plaque and salivary pH. The resultant action is the beginning of tooth demineralization. Consumed sugars are naturally occurring or are added.

Note also, of course...
Quote
Many factors in addition to sugars affect the caries process, including the form of food or fluid, the duration of exposure, nutrient composition, sequence of eating, salivary flow, presence of buffers, and oral hygiene. Studies have confirmed the direct relation between intake of dietary sugars and dental caries across the life span. Since the introduction of fluoride, the incidence of caries worldwide has decreased, despite increases in sugars consumption.

You will be happy to see...
Quote
Other dietary factors (eg, the presence of buffers in dairy products;

But of course, it's one of many other factors, also including...
Quote
the use of sugarless chewing gum, particularly gum containing xylitol; and the consumption of sugars as part of meals rather than between meals) may reduce the risk of caries. The primary public health measures for reducing caries risk, from a nutrition perspective, are the consumption of a balanced diet and adherence to dietary guidelines and the dietary reference intakes; from a dental perspective, the primary public health measures are the use of topical fluorides and consumption of fluoridated water.

As usual, it's a complex system. There is no one "big button."
3
Ben you are at the same time both right and wrong in your statement that most phenomena - and we are talking about biological phenomena here - are more complex than I imagine.

While it is true that biological systems are mind numbingly complex, it is also true that they are controlled very simply  if you understand their true nature and understand where the "buttons" are and what the buttons do. So simply that many "primitive" indigenous groups all over the world were able to completely control dental caries via one simple thing... Their diet.

Ponder that.
The fundamental problem with you people is that you are Darwinists.  and Darwinists do not understand the fundamental nature of biological systems  because their paradigm is fundamentally flawed, so how can we expect them to understand how to control them at all, let alone simply.
Dave, both of these posts are content-free sloganeering. You have not demonstrated that any natural systems actually have any sort of "big button" that you can just press and expect no other factors to have an effect. You have not demonstrated that you even understand what "Darwinism" is, let alone how it affects anyone's understanding of anything. You have nothing but empty words.
I'm controlling nature right now on my dairy goat system  with big buttons .
You're dragging two goats around a pasture, Dave. You're not controlling anything but the goats.
Prices indigenous groups controlled dental caries with big buttons as well.
No, they ate a largely non-cariogenic diet, which was one of many factors that gave them a low incidence of dental caries.
4
Ben you are at the same time both right and wrong in your statement that most phenomena - and we are talking about biological phenomena here - are more complex than I imagine.

While it is true that biological systems are mind numbingly complex, it is also true that they are controlled very simply  if you understand their true nature and understand where the "buttons" are and what the buttons do. So simply that many "primitive" indigenous groups all over the world were able to completely control dental caries via one simple thing... Their diet.

Ponder that.
The fundamental problem with you people is that you are Darwinists.  and Darwinists do not understand the fundamental nature of biological systems  because their paradigm is fundamentally flawed, so how can we expect them to understand how to control them at all, let alone simply.
Dave, both of these posts are content-free sloganeering. You have not demonstrated that any natural systems actually have any sort of "big button" that you can just press and expect no other factors to have an effect. You have not demonstrated that you even understand what "Darwinism" is, let alone how it affects anyone's understanding of anything. You have nothing but empty words.
5
If I summarized Price on this topic, it would be as follows ..

1)  Caries free people have "protective" saliva, which means "saliva that contains certain minimum levels of calcium and phosphorus"
I don't think anyone disagrees with this, but everyone except you understands that it's not the only factor.
... it appears that the dental industry is now rediscovering this as well ... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210815713000127
That article shows that the dental industry continues to develop new treatments and preventions for caries, not that they were ever unaware of the role certain minerals play.

2)  The FOODS of caries free people also contains "certain minimum levels of calcium and phosphorus" ... does this "prove" that eating foods which have these "certain minimum levels" will definitely cause saliva to also have certain (albeit lower) levels? Will eating these foods definitely prevent caries in all circumstances?  I think it does not "prove" these things but it seems to be the most attractive hypothesis that I'm aware of.
Well, as the articles I posted show, it's wrong. Beyond a certain level (which is present in most normal diets), salival content of these minerals has more to do with genetics than diet, and salival flow rate is at least as important as salival mineral content. And the degree to which eating foods that contain those minerals helps has more to do with their immediate effect on the oral environment while eating them than it does on saliva through digestion.

The fact that you think this one explanation that eliminates any other factors as important, and the fact that you think "eating these foods [will] definitely prevent caries in all circumstances" is even a reasonable thing to consider, let alone consider as "the most attractive hypothesis," is yet more proof of your difficulty with none/some/all. Most phenomena are more complex that you seem willing or able to consider.
6
Yes, and? What do you disagree with there?
7
Pingu now seems to buy into the idea that ...

IT'S THE CALCIUM AND PHOSPHORUS IN THE SALIVA THAT MAKES THE SALIVA PROTECTIVE

Good.  Progress.  Baby steps.

What she DOESN'T yet buy into is that NUTRITION directly controls the calcium and phosphorus content of saliva, although she admits "there may also be a nutritional route."

And I freely admit ... I myself haven't demonstrated that.  And I'm not sure Price did either at least not conclusively.

What Price DID do was analyze the calcium and phosphorus of food and saliva of many different caries free people groups and he noted that in all cases, the calcium and phosphorus content was much higher than the minimum government numbers. 

So it's definitely an attractive hypothesis.
I'm not sure you realize this, but no one is actually disagreeing with you (and I'm pretty sure no one ever has) that nutrition has an effect on dental caries. The point everyone is trying to make is that, as has been demonstrated many times since Price, once you get beyond a minimum level of nutrition, the effect of nutrition on the saliva is a relatively less important factor compared to others (the primary one being the effect of food while it's in the mouth, another being genetics). Unfortunately, your all/some/none disease seems to keep you from even understanding what the argument is. Anyway...

One of many possible references: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003996965900026
Quote
For the phosphate feeding experiment, eighty-one rats were divided into three groups of which Group 1 received a cariogenic diet alone while Groups 2 and 3 received supplements of 2% Na2HPO4 and 2·2% commercial Na phytate, respectively. Groups 2 and 3 had a reduced incidence of caries. By elimination, a direct effect of phosphate on the teeth is postulated as serum and salivary calcium and inorganic phosphate analyses did not differ significantly among the three groups.

Another: http://www.jendodon.com/article/S0003-9969(13)00350-6/abstract
Quote
Dietary intakes of calcium, phosphate and fibre, and salivary flow rate increased with time in both groups (p < 0.001, GLM for repeated measures). Fibre intake and salivary flow rate were higher in the intervention than in the control group (p = 0.042 and p = 0.0394, respectively, GLM for repeated measures). There were no correlations between dietary intakes and salivary concentrations of calcium or phosphate. Children who did not have caries experience (d3mft/D3MFT = 0) during the entire follow-up had higher salivary calcium than those who had caries already at 3 years of age. The association between salivary calcium and caries onset was significant up to 12 years of age. Toothbrushing frequency was statistically significantly associated with caries-onset at ages 6 (gamma statistic 0.457, p = 0.046) and 12 years (gamma statistic 0.473, p = 0.019).
8
Actually, it seems to me the person who has given ground in this discussion is Dave...
Caries IS indeed partly caused by acid,
What happened to the idea that these foods merely "displaced" other foods?
9
And Price went on to realize (whereas you and even these 2013 researchers don't realize) that ...

NUTRITION AFFECTS THE CALCIUM AND PHOSPHORUS CONTENT OF SALIVA

(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.
Please point me to a post of Pingu's where she ever said anything different from that.
10
I like competition!
No, you like constantly announcing you've won rather than actually competing.
11
Why don't these researchers realize the revelation of divine Price?
My best guess
Is worth less than nothing.
would be because Price's ideas

DIDN'T MAKE ANY MONEY FOR THE DENTAL INDUSTRY

So his research got lost ... until someone with an ounce of genuine altruism dusted it off and published it.

And Voila!  Now you have the Weston Price Foundation and the Price Pottenger Foundation.
Who still have no evidence.
12
You can make saliva protective

BY EATING PROPER FOODS
Except you still have no evidence of this.
13
Why don't these researchers realize the revelation of divine Price?
14
Politics and Current Events / Re: Goddamnit Al
If Democrats can't win a statewide seat in Minnesota in 2018, we're beyond doomed, anyway.
Yeah, I skimmed some article earlier this morning that was trying to make the case that this could blow Democrats' chances at the senate next year, but really, it's hard to imagine a scenario where they would have won the senate except for Minnesota.

(Now watch that happen.)
15
Quote
Dental research has shown the importance of calcium and phosphate ions in the remineralization process. Longbottom C. et al., proposed in 2009 that an ideal caries preventive material should release calcium and phosphate in the oral environment. 5 Therefore, manufacturers of novel caries preventive dental materials are now incorporating CPP-ACP in the composition of their products for the prevention of caries.

In other words ... PRICE ... to a tee.  These guys are literally rediscovering what Price discovered way back in 1930.
Weird. I don't see anything about diet in there.

Fake ETA: Ninja'ed, and Dave had nothing in response. Shocker.
16
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
LOL. Oh noes. Ignored by Cephus! What will I do?

BTW, I can't believe I left this part out...

Unless it becomes a cooling world of course.

What? The theory could be falsified?! This truly is a strange "new paradigm"!
17
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
My favorite bits...

The new paradigm is to look at the actual observations and compare them with the individual ensemble outputs.

They're doing what now? Testing their models against empirical observations? Tell me more about this crazy "new paradigm"!

They then identify which models are closest to the observations and give those model outputs a higher weighting in computing the grand canonical average.

They what? Refine their models based on their observations? What kind of crazy nonsense is that?

Obviously enough If you arrange for some algorithmic procedure to generate a combined output whilst weighting those which are currently running closest to the observations then you can in effect never be wrong.

Obviously enough, if you refine your theories to match your observations, your theories make accurate predictions. What a dastardly trick!
18
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
19
It's moot at this point anyway. The sentence is in. 20 years...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cop-michael-slager-faces-19-24-years-prison/story?id=51595376
Quote
Former South Carolina police officer Michael Slager was sentenced today to 20 years in prison for the 2015 deadly shooting of unarmed black man Walter Scott.
20
Dave, why is it impossible for you to consider the possibility that Price got certain things wrong?
Oh I have no problem considering the possibility ...
Yes, you do. You have been presented with the multitude of evidence that has accumulated since Price many times that shows exactly what he got wrong. Your only response has been to dismiss it by baselessly accusing the scientists of bias. Your only support for that claim is the fact that their research shows Price was wrong. Ergo, your position is that Price is right no matter what, and anything that says anything different from Price must be wrong because Price must be right. I.e., you are incapable of considering the possibility that he got anything wrong.
21
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
Schumer is trash when it comes to Israel and always has been. This is not a mystery.
22
Dave, why is it impossible for you to consider the possibility that Price got certain things wrong?
23
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Meanwhile, in the reality-based community, yet another study finds that most models have underestimated the extent of warming:

https://carnegiescience.edu/news/more-severe-climate-model-predictions-could-be-most-accurate
Quote
The climate models that project greater amounts of warming this century are the ones that best align with observations of the current climate, according to a new paper from Carnegie's Patrick Brown and Ken Caldeira published by Nature.  Their findings suggest that the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on average, may be underestimating future warming.

Cue ad-hom attacks on the authors and/or accusations of chasing money on the part of the (non-profit) funding source and/or evidence-free denial of the science and/or any number of other desperate excuses to wave away reality.
24
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
Sounds like it.
Interestingly, Trump apparently didn't use the word "undivided," and actually said he wasn't taking a position on the boundaries. So in this instance, Ryan is more of an idiot than Trump, or at least feels more comfortable throwing red meat to the base about it, which is kind of weird.
25
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
I assume it's there to state clearly that East Jerusalem won't be part of any potential Palestinian state.