“Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure-grain alcohol?”
I also heard the #1 producer of dental floss is headquartered in Montana, and has been there since 1974.
The Dental Floss Conspiracy indeed runs deep and wide. :eek::smack::dubious:
Is it really so hard to believe an industry whose substantial profits are based almost entirely around expert recommendations would endeavor to protect those profits?
Sounds like a tycoon.
Settle down. Flossing is like abortion in that there are those who believe in the necessity and those who do not, for whatever reason and it’s unlikely there will ever be the consensus on the issue or the one you seem to seek on flossing.
Do you floss?
Regardless of your position, go with it. They’re your teeth.
I’m not too surprised at your naivete but an industry-run study getting pocket-vetoed when its results are against the industry’s interest (selective reporting) is not exactly a moon landing hoax; it is pretty well accepted as an issue by the mainstream of medicine. And anyway floss runs long and narrow.
I am surprised though by your lack of contempt at the dismissal of the need for actual scientific method as the basis for recommendations “because we already know the answer” and on the basis of “common sense”. You and I have been at this about as long as each other, dating back to before thinking beyond what some expert “said” was true and critically evaluating the actual data was rebranded as a new thing of “evidence-based medicine” and both have seen many recommendations that were things we all “already knew” and advised by most experts turn out to be ineffective or harmful under the light of critical review of actual quality studies.
There is no published evidence that demonstrates flossing as done at home by most people is ineffective (or effective) but the lack of a published decent even case control study is if not damning then minimally pathetic for dental science. It’s one their core bits of home care recommendation, something Americans alone spend a billion dollars a year on and hours a year each of doing something they dislike. And even a decent case control study is too much to expect?
Dereknocue67, no this is not “like abortion” … questions of the morality of abortion are religious ones, the space of “revealed truths”, not answerable by data. The question of flossing’s efficacy or inefficacy in preventing clinically relevant disease or dysfunction is very answerable by evidence.
I use floss like I would use toothpicks. That is, when I can feel a bit of food stuck in between my teeth. Flossing removes the stuck bit of food. Therefore, flossing can be beneficial. No study required.
[QUOTE=DSeid;
Dereknocue67, no this is not “like abortion” … questions of the morality of abortion are religious ones, the space of “revealed truths”, not answerable by data. The question of flossing’s efficacy or inefficacy in preventing clinically relevant disease or dysfunction is very answerable by evidence.[/QUOTE]
Your took a partial quote from my post and misinterpreted what I wrote. The point I made was about consensus, as stated and obviously there is none with abortion nor with flossing. Morality is a different issue for another day and/or another topic.
The SDMB has to be the only place where people use a conspiracy theory to justify their shitty oral hygiene.
No, really, you are missing the highly significant difference. They are completely different things. For abortion we have nothing but consensus to go by. In a society in which different people have different religious truths we (currently) have a consensus that one group cannot impose this particular revealed truth upon others.
Issues like - does smoking cause lung cancer, does regular exercise reduce the risk of hypertension and other clinically significant outcomes, does flossing reduce adverse clinical outcomes (most proximately periodontal disease) - do not have to be the realm of data-free consensus and should be such as little as is possible.
SDMB, especially GQ, is in fact where skepticism thrives. Research regarding flossing has been mostly funded by and sometimes performed by the companies with a direct interest in having dentists continue to strongly promote flossing daily. There is really no question that industry funding causes a publication bias favorable to the sponsor and of results and conclusions that are favorable to sponsor’s interests. That is no conspiracy theory; it is simple reality.
The efficacy or lack of efficacy of one of the main recommendations given by dentists, with that much time and money spent by Americans performing it, is not a trivial question of no importance. The companies that benefit from the billion dollars spent in America on it every year would no doubt love to have a study to point to that provides good evidence of its efficacy. It is not prohibitively expensive to do a good case control or retrospective cohort study and there are no ethical problems doing such. We have the solid evidence of fluoride’s clinical efficacy (and an appreciation of its potential harms in excess) because it has been well studied. Its use is well supported. Why do we not have anything other than crap studies (and studies that fail to show any clinically significant benefit) of individuals flossing at home?
[quote=“DSeid, post:31, topic:838416”]
/QUOTE]
Have a nice day.
You failed to consider the possibility that I am a shill for Big Floss. :eek:
Your belief that negative data from flossing studies is being concealed by Big Floss requires actual evidence. Otherwise, it falls in line with all manner of other health conspiracy theories covering such things as water fluoridation, statin prescribing and vaccines.*
*y’know, DOCTORS used to promote SMOKING in CIGARETTE ADS!! Don’t trust anything they say!!! And DENTISTS are poisoning us with amalgam fillings and root canals!!!
If your teeth are straight (aligned properly) and not jacked up whack-a-mole teeth, then flossing is definitely less important, as brushing regularly will get most of the cleaning done. But if you’ve got teeth like your hillbilly cousin, then flossing will definitely make a difference as brushing will have a hard time getting in those nooks and crannies.
I use a Water Pik, it squirts a jet of water between my teeth to dislodge food without scraping my gums with a waxed garrote. I find it a bit more pleasant than flossing.
I’m not sure I need a study to tell me that leaving a chunk of meat to rot stuck between my molars for a week might be deleterious to my oral health.
So, you’re saying that people have been getting fluoride from more sources? You’re saying that because of this increased exposure to fluoride from multiple sources, the U.S. Government has stepped in and recommended a lower level of fluoride in municipal drinking water? How exactly is that statement any different than, “there have been plenty of studies showing that increased sources of fluoride over the past decades have elevated our exposure to potentially harmful levels.”
You seem to be focused on water fluoridation studies and drinking water. I never said fluoridated water was unsafe. I merely pointed out that there are studies (legitimate studies) exploring the dangers of high-level exposure to fluoride. In addition to the “staining of teeth” that you mention, “exposure to higher levels of fluoride may harm your health. Skeletal fluorosis can be caused by eating, drinking, or breathing very large amounts of fluorides. This disease only occurs after long-term exposures and can cause denser bones, joint pain, and a limited range of joint movement. In the most severe cases, the spine is completely rigid.” (Agency for Toxic Substance & Disease Registry, 2003)
Why would the U.S. Government recommend that levels of fluoride need be reduced if there is no potential for chronic health effects caused by elevated fluoride exposure? Because of course there is. Yes, fluoridated water is completely safe. I’m sorry if I’ve been mistaken for some kind of anti-fluoride nutter. I had no idea there were such people. But excessive levels of Fluoride can cause acute and chronic problems, beyond just “staining of teeth”. Acute Fluoride toxicity has caused polyuric renal failure and even death (Smith FA. Fluoride toxicity. New York: Handbook of Hazardous Materials; 2012. pp. 277–283.
I agree with all of this. Yes it has obvious and important medical benefits, and you’re right that the second part of my response was off-topic. I guess I initially mistook his question for something else. I figured that both the medical benefits and safety of therapeutic doses and the potential dangers of over-exposure were simple facts that weren’t up for debate. I’m sorry if my post was taken for something else.
To be fair, the third cite is from The National Research Council. It is a 2006 study which reviewed ten years of research on “various health effects from exposure to fluoride”. It explains, “* Fluoride pollution from various industrial emissions can also contaminate water supplies. In a few areas of the United States fluoride concentrations in water are much higher than normal, mostly from natural sources. Fluoride is one of the drinking water contaminants regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because it can occur at these toxic levels. In 1986, the EPA established a maximum allowable concentration for fluoride in drinking water of 4 milligrams per liter, a guideline designed to prevent the public from being exposed to harmful levels of fluoride. * (emphasis added).
Earlier you said:
Forgive me for assuming you were referring to water fluoridation.
If your idea of “harmful levels” is potential risk of stained teeth (mild to inapparent in most cases) then yeah, there’s possible “harm” that the government recommendation for lower levels in tap water was intended to mitigate. But this doesn’t involve"very large amounts of fluorides". Municipal water fluoridation (or to my knowledge naturally elevated fluoride levels in tap water) has not been linked to symptomatic skeletal fluorosis.
I think you may be confused about the difference between toxic factory effluents and fluoride at a low concentration used to treat water supplies and for dental treatments. There’s a well-known principle that “the dose makes the poison”.
I sympathize with your shock and dismay. :dubious:
No. I’m not confused about the difference at all. You’re projecting that on me. Had I known Fluoride was such a charged topic, I would have chosen my words more carefully, or probably have just not posted. I didn’t know dental floss and fluoride were so controversial. My god.
Had the OP asked a question like, “Here’s a study showing that too much bread is unhealthy. Are there similar studies on water?” I would have probably said, “Yes, there are plenty of studies showing the harmful effects of drinking too much water. There’s a bunch of such studies in the bibliography of this pamphlet here”
Then everyone would say, “That is a horrible source. It comes from an anti-water wackjob conspiracy organization” and “There’s no danger from drinking normal amounts of water!”.
Then I have to point out that I was merely providing a convenient list of studies about Hyponatremia, water intoxication, etc.
Then all hell breaks loose.
Strange that you would assume that when I never even mentioned water. Hell, when I think of “fluoride”, my first thought is “toothpaste”, but whatever.
And I, yours.
My idea of “harmful levels” is no different than the EPA’s. That’s the exact language used by the agency. I quoted a passage from The National Research Council above. “Fluoride is one of the drinking water contaminants regulated by the U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA) because it can occur at these toxic levels. In 1986, the EPA established a maximum allowable concentration for fluoride in drinking water of 4 milligrams per liter, a guideline designed to prevent the public from being exposed to harmful levels of fluoride.”
Toxic levels of fluoride can occur, and are more likely to occur due to increased sources of contamination and exposure over the last few decades. The government has an interest in preventing the public from being exposed to “harmful levels of fluoride”. If anyone is redefining “harmful” to mean something else, it’s you, not me.
It seems like there might be zealots on both sides of the fluoride debate. I had no idea such a simple, factual statement would be met with such fervor.
On the one hand, there are science-based advocates of a health intervention with proven benefits and safety.
There’s also a loud minority of alarmists and conspiracy theorists trumpeting non-hazards in an attempt to scare people.
If both groups strike you as contemptible “zealots”, your perspective is awry.*
*do tell us where there’s been an outbreak of arthritis due to “skeletal fluorosis” from fluoridated drinking water.