Blog

0

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/21/us-dementia-teeth-idUSBRE87K06D20120821

Here is a fine example of our millions of tax dollars going towards public health studies, and this is what they come up with.

How can the medical community be so unscientific with these studies? Are they even doctors or just a bunch of social science bureaucrats?

flag
It might have to do with an inherent forgetfulness and negligence rather than the actual act of teeth-brushing. Correlation does not imply causation! – Dan Aug 21 at 16:03
This study does not suggest correlation or causation. Merely coincidence. Most observational studies try to get their name in the paper by framing the results in correctly. This is not one of those cases. – CD Aug 21 at 16:38

3 Answers

2

I'm not sure what is bad science here. A link between oral health and physical health has been known for years. This is an observational study, observational studies are very powerful tools to help us figure out where to look. They are not saying A causes B or even that there is a correlation. All they are saying is that there is a coincidence of these two factors.

"...it may be that your oral health habits influence whether or not you get dementia," said Annlia Paganini-Hill

Look at the statement "it MAY BE that your oral health habits INFLUENCE whether or not you get dementia".

This is standard, good science to identify potential connections that will require further research to understand. There's a lot of bad science out there, this report is not one of them.

Here's another quote: "Statistically, however, the effect was so small it could have been due to chance, the researchers said." -- imagine that, scientist admitting there is not a statistical correlation -- What bad science.

link|flag
Okay, perhaps you're right. I guess I misinterpreted the article as it initially seemed to suggest dental health was the causation of dementia, but reading it again it suggested there is a correlation. – RacerRex9727 Aug 21 at 18:13
not correlation -- The study merely opines on coincidence. Coincidence occurs when there is not a theoretic explanation of the connection between two events. Correlation occurs when there is a theoretic explanation. Causality occurs when one event predictably effects the outcome of another event. It may seem subtle, but it's very important to differentiate between the three. – CD Aug 21 at 18:34
2

BS (bad science) is abundant in medical science....you have to wonder sometimes.

I was under the impression that alzheimer's was type 3 diabetes.

link|flag
Correct on both accounts. – Amy B. Aug 21 at 21:15
0

In comparison, among those who brushed at least once a day, closer to one in every 4.5 women developed dementia which translates to a 65-percent greater chance of dementia among those who brushed less than daily.

Can someone explain that to me? I thought the people who brushed at least once a day would have LESS of a chance of developing dementia than the people who brushed less than daily. Or am I reading it wrong??

link|flag
read the entire article: Of 78 women who said they brushed their teeth less than once a day in 1992, 21 had dementia by 2010, or about one case per 3.7 women. In comparison, among those who brushed at least once a day, closer to one in every 4.5 women developed dementia which translates to a 65-percent greater chance of dementia among those who brushed less than daily. – CD Aug 21 at 16:31

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.