Slashdot Mirror
Dental Floss May Have No Medical Benefits, Says AP Report (gizmodo.com)
Joe_NoOne quotes a report from Gizmodo: Flossing may not yield the protective benefits we've been told to expect. Since 1979, the federal government in the U.S. has recommended daily flossing, but by law these dietary guidelines, which are updated every five years, have to be supported by scientific evidence. Surprisingly -- and without any notice -- the federal government dropped flossing from its dietary guidelines this year, telling the Associated Press that "the government acknowledged the effectiveness of flossing had never been researched, as required." AP national writer Jeff Donn reports: "The two leading professional groups -- the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Periodontology, for specialists in gum disease and implants -- cited other studies as proof of their claims that flossing prevents buildup of gunk known as plaque, early gum inflammation called gingivitis, and tooth decay. However, most of these studies used outdated methods or tested few people. Some lasted only two weeks, far too brief for a cavity or dental disease to develop. One tested 25 people after only a single use of floss. Such research, like the reviewed studies, focused on warning signs like bleeding and inflammation, barely dealing with gum disease or cavities. Wayne Aldredge, president of the periodontists' group, acknowledged the weak scientific evidence and the brief duration of many studies...Still, he urges his patients to floss to help avoid gum disease. 'It's like building a house and not painting two sides of it,' he said. 'Ultimately those two sides are going to rot away quicker.'"
And coffee and cigarettes are the new wonder drug. Obvious clickbait headline to get everyone who wants to prove that all those years without flossing were justified, as they get their new dentures.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
I call Bullshit. Breaking the law does NOT require intent before you can be charged.
"Honestly, officer, I didn't MEAN to speed. I just wasn't paying attention."
"But I didn't MEAN to kill that other hunter. I just shot at the sound and didn't know what was in the bushes."
"I didn't MEAN to run that stop sign. I didn't see it because I was busy playing with my cell phone."
If intent was part of the prosecution then there wouldn't be a need for the saying "Ignorance of the law is no defense." You can still be charged and prosecuted for breaking a law even if you didn't KNOW it was illegal.
Disclosing classified material, which she should have known was classified, is breaking the law. If I did that when I was in charge of classified information it would have gotten me arrested, my security clearance revoked, and my job changed. I would never be allowed to handle classified material again.
Instead the FBI says "Oh, let's not prosecute her because she didn't MEAN to reveal classified material over an illegal, unsecured email system.
The more likely reason they decided not to prosecute was that they didn't want to draw attention to the fact that multiple classified email messages were sent over an unsecured system and are possibly stored in the backup systems of the commercial email servers. Sweep it under the rug, deny there was any wrongdoing, and hope nobody remembers it once the election circus starts.