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 However, most of these studies used outdated methods or tested few people.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.'"

Comments

Re: CoffeE and Nicotine

[AK Marc]

The same scandals came out under Reagan, Bush, and other Republicans, and nobody from the right cared. But Hillary does it, and everyone loses their mind.

I put classified information into an email not on the physically separate classified networks (which were not hacked) even once and I go to jail,

I've known people to have done worse. They lost their clearance, sometimes their jobs, but never ended up in jail. I think your CO scared you a little too much. Though, those from military generally don't get it. They are more greatly punished under UCMJ than civilians under the USC.

Again, as I noted, you are confusing the "law" with the actual law. What's written isn't the law. It's called "common law". We don't live under "Civil Law". The law isn't the law as written, but as applied. De facto, what she did was legal, because she wasn't found guilty of it in a court of law. Arguing that she broke the law because your opinion is that she should have been found guilty just shows that you know nothing of the law (even if you can quote it), and you shit on the principal of innocent until proven guilty. Why do you hate individual rights?