Anyway Pingu, I will be happy to test my theory versus  yours this coming year with things like going to bed with syrup in my mouth and having the dentist check me every 6 months or so. Would you like to make some predictions?

N=1

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".

One of my goals for the upcoming year is to do some mineral  analysis of my pasture grasses and my milk and my grass fed beef to try to get a handle on all of that.

Just like several years ago it was one of your goals to pursue the helium/zircon research project!

How did that work out?

Price gives abundant evidence. One that sticks out in particular is LV vs. St Moritz. I covered that one already. Did you miss that?

both groups ate sugary starchy food

[citation needed]

I found this RE: Loetschental:

The nutrition of the people of the Loetschental Valley, particularly that of the growing boys and girls, consists largely of a slice of whole rye bread and a piece of the summer-made cheese (about as large as the slice of bread), which are eaten with fresh milk of goats or cows. Meat is eaten about once a week.

... which hardly looks like a complete description of the "average" LV diet, but as far as it goes does not seem to support the contention that it involves a lot of "sugary starchy food".

And this, RE: St. Moritz

St. Moritz is a typical Alpine community with a physical setting lar to that in the Cantons of Bern and Wallis (Valais). It is, however, provided with modern nutrition consisting of an abundance of white-flour products, marmalades, jams, canned vegetables, confections, and fruits--all of which are transported to the district. Only a limited supply of vegetables is grown locally.

The claim that the two were comparable in terms of "sugary starchy foods" seems, [ahem] less than accurate.

^^^^^

Did YOU miss THAT?

One of my goals for the upcoming year is to do some mineral  analysis of my pasture grasses and my milk and my grass fed beef to try to get a handle on all of that.

Just like several years ago it was one of your goals to pursue the helium/zircon research project!

How did that work out?

And to check the cross matching on Ferguson's dendro sequence. I even got him the data nad the software and showed him how to use it. But he doesn't check on things he doesn't really want to know the answer to.

One of my goals for the upcoming year is to do some mineral  analysis of my pasture grasses and my milk and my grass fed beef to try to get a handle on all of that.

Just like several years ago it was one of your goals to pursue the helium/zircon research project!

How did that work out?

And to check the cross matching on Ferguson's dendro sequence. I even got him the data nad the software and showed him how to use it. But he doesn't check on things he doesn't really want to know the answer to.

And, of course, to conduct endotoxin injection of mice studies.

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.

One of my goals for the upcoming year is to do some mineral  analysis of my pasture grasses and my milk and my grass fed beef to try to get a handle on all of that.

Just like several years ago it was one of your goals to pursue the helium/zircon research project!

How did that work out?

And to check the cross matching on Ferguson's dendro sequence. I even got him the data nad the software and showed him how to use it. But he doesn't check on things he doesn't really want to know the answer to.

Did you?  I had forgotten that.  Maybe in a couple years I might be ready to do some of these advanced things.  For now, I have to stick with more mundane things.  Like jumping through all my local county hoops in order to pave the way for a far more sensible, far less expensive, far more environmentally friendly grey water system.  Completed a major step on that yesterday.

No. of health problems "fixed" - 0
No. of people fed - 0
Area of degraded land reversed - 0

Top hit rate you got there.

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.

In your imagination, anyway.
We have seen no data in support of this fantasy.

Anyway Pingu, I will be happy to test my theory versus  yours this coming year with things like going to bed with syrup in my mouth and having the dentist check me every 6 months or so. Would you like to make some predictions?

Dave, one day, when you have a moment, google the word "risk factor".

Pingu,  one day, when you have a moment, Google the word "lobotomy reversal."

No. of health problems "fixed" - 0
No. of people fed - 0
Area of degraded land reversed - 0

Top hit rate you got there.

Keep lying Fenrir.  Seems to be the norm in the life sciences.

No. of health problems "fixed" - 0
No. of people fed - 0
Area of degraded land reversed - 0

Top hit rate you got there.

Keep lying Fenrir.  Seems to be the norm in the life sciences.

Standard Dave reaction. When presented with facts or questions he can't fight, he accuses the poster of lying, without ever even pointing to what the supposed lie is.

Grow up, Hawkins.

Pingu,  one day, when you have a moment, Google the word "lobotomy reversal."

I'm serious, Dave.

You seem to have missed entirely the concept of "risk".  Otherwise why would you ask me what my "prediction" would be if you mouthwashed with maple syrup for a year?

I have no prediction.  All I can say is that the EVIDENCE suggests that it would INCREASE YOUR RISK of dental caries relative to if you didn't.  If that risk is low, then increasing the risk may still mean a low probability of developing more caries.  If that risk is already high, then increasing the risk may turn it into a quite likely outcome.

This is WHY you need SUBSTANTIAL SAMPLE SIZES when establishing whether something increases, or reduces, RISK.

It is also WHY you need a CONTROL GROUP (another concept you seem to have no clue about) so that you can compare the proportion of people who get whatever it is (e.g. dental caries) under the "maple syrup" condition with the proportion in the "no maple syrup condition".

In such a study, I would PREDICT more dental caries in the "maple syrup" condition.

In a non-controlled study with an N of 1 I would make no PREDICTION at all.

perhaps it is you who should consider a lobotomy reversal.

Dave, you have totally faceplanted here.

You posted a link to that paper by Price, saying you thought it was "very good science" and asking me what I thought.  I read it carefully (in fact I read TWO papers carefully, because I am a fairly concientious person, and you'd given me a link to the wrong paper first time), and in both cases, spent some time writing my commentary.

You ignored all but ONE of my comments on the Price paper, and for that comment had a total tantrum because I said that the first figure was misleading junk.  I explained why.  You were perfectly entitled to query my evaluation "junk" but you actually agreed with the substance which was that the figure doesn't actually tell you anything.  So not "good science" and certainly not "very good science" there.

The rest of my commentary you totally ignored.

When asked why YOU thought it was "good science" you posted this:

So Dave, tell us why you think it is "very good science".

What are the features or points in the paper that in your view make it "very good science"?

Lots of reasons ...

1) got out of his ivory tower and got his hands dirty trekking the globe collecting actual data
2) used controls
3) explained his hypothesis clearly - that it's not "cleanliness" or anything else ... it's NUTRITION that controls caries
4) figured out the exact mechanism of control ... calcium, phosphorus in the saliva etc
5) figured out the role of Vitamins A and D in helping the body use these minerals

On and on

To which I responded with these questions to you:

So Dave, tell us why you think it is "very good science".

What are the features or points in the paper that in your view make it "very good science"?

Lots of reasons ...

1) got out of his ivory tower and got his hands dirty trekking the globe collecting actual data

I sometimes wonder where you think any scientist gets her data.  But sure, he did a lot of travelling to get it.  Cool.  Doesn't make it "very good science" though.  You can do "very good science" sitting at the top of your ivory tower with a telescope, like Galileo.

2) used controls

Please show me the part where he used "controls" and how he used them.

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

Yes, he explained his hypothesis.  Again, that doesn't make it good science. But it's good to know that his hypothesis was that NUTRITION controls caries, and not anything else.

4) figured out the exact mechanism of control ... calcium, phosphorus in the saliva etc

What evidence does he give to support his hypothesis that NUTRITION and ONLY nutrition controls dental caries? 

What evidence does he give to support this hypotheses that it does so by means of these minerals to control dental caries?

5) figured out the role of Vitamins A and D in helping the body use these minerals

What evidence does he give to support this hypotheses regarding the role of Vitamins A and D in helping the body use these minerals to control dental caries?

On and on

So where is the evidence to support his hypotheses, Dave?  Please give the page where he gives the data to support each his hypotheses:

• That NUTRITION and ONLY NUTRITION controls dental caries
• That NUTRITION controls dental caries by means of minerals in the saliva
• That NUTRITION controls minerals in the saliva through the action of vitamins A and D.

Apparently realising that you had no answers to them (you laughably pointed to Price's metaphorical use of the word "control" in his introductory sentence about the natural experiment of "civilisation", but could not produce any evidence that Price had actually "used controls" in the paper), you then backpedalled with this:

Price's hypothesis is simple ...

Town food causes bad teeth.

His paper gives ample support for this.

QED

If you can't see it you're blind.

Which of course nobody has disputed.  Even though his paper does NOT actually support it - he provides NO evidence in that paper, other than mere assertion, illustrated by a figure showing what the data would look like if this hypothesis were true, not data that would actually support the hypothesis.

Then you bailed.

Then it was back to insults.

Pathetic.

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?

No. of health problems "fixed" - 0
No. of people fed - 0
Area of degraded land reversed - 0

Top hit rate you got there.

Keep lying Fenrir.  Seems to be the norm in the life sciences.

Nice.  I like that Dave has dropped the pretence of Christianity.  A baby step toward honesty.
ETA: how about a dental check-up with decent X-rays, and then we all can count the healed teeth.  I lost track of your pivots in the teeth thread, are we agreed now that cavities can't heal shut?

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.

NUTRITION

 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.

I'm always looking for concise ways to say things so how about this?

NUTRITION IS A MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE "BUTTON" WE CAN PUSH THAN ANY OTHER TO CONTROL CARIES.

In fact, no other "buttons" are necessary if we push that one.

And of course this statement was amply supported by prices investigations.  and that's what I really mean when I say the price did "good science."

I'm always looking for concise ways to say things so how about this?

NUTRITION IS A MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE "BUTTON" WE CAN PUSH THAN ANY OTHER TO CONTROL CARIES.

In fact, no other "buttons" are necessary if we push that one.

Dave,
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.

Mike, I'm not convinced Dave knows what 'antiseptic' even means.

I'm always looking for concise ways to say things so how about this?

NUTRITION IS A MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE "BUTTON" WE CAN PUSH THAN ANY OTHER TO CONTROL CARIES.

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.