You say I impugned Miklossy's reputation and suggest "dark motives," no, actually you started that with your repeated assertions that any researcher who's found null results vis a vis Miklossy is engaged in shoddy science.
This, coming from someone who has made one non-scientific claim after another.
I'll repeat what I said, and maybe you'll eventually get around to answering it: Your claims that you see this or that in a dental practice and this correlates to oral spirochetosis, IS NOT SCIENCE. It's just some stories. A lot more is required to make it science.
You seem to think that only people with diagnosed, and symptomatic AD have spirochetes... and that they have to be required therefore to be symptomatic
This is from Miklossy's own control group, in which spirochetes are found in 30+% of cases with no symptoms of AD. Take it up with her.
It's remarkable that with the observed oral infections in the mouths, that the rate is not higher!
It would be remarkable, if a link had been established, but since one hasn't been, it isn't even noteworthy, let alone "remarkable." Again, these people all drink water also. But there is no proven link to water, so the fact that 100% of them drink it means nothing whatsoever.
In addition, these studies did not include histories that determined the condition of their hearts, arteries, or whether these people might be type 2 diabetics or pre-diabetics.
Here we go again, with an unproven claim. You have a citation that establishes a link between oral spirochetes, diabetes and heart disease? Or is this just another story comparing senile old Mrs. MCgillicutty and your bright eyed grandma?
You make a number of claims about epidemiology which are complete nonsense. To the extent that you embarrass yourself with these assertions, I'm content to let anyone reading your post decide for themselves. Epidemiologists make delicate statistical inferences about heritability and transmissible on the basis of extremely noisy data. You have no one to back you up on your baseless denials.
Finally: what I fear. I fear quackery. I fear a number of interesting and intriguing correlations being asserted as a scientific fact. That's what I fear. I wouldn't recommend anybody start gargling with dilute Clorox on the basis of one paper and a handful of anecdotes. If you look at most of Miklossy's citations that impinge directly on her statistical correlations, they are SELF cited. There has been ample time to examine these assertions and so far, this theory IS NOT regarded as mainstream science by Alzheimer's researchers. Maybe someday it will be. It isn't now, so please stop making medical recommendations on the basis of it.
Fred. Use some logic. Every disease has the causative agent present prior to presentation of symptom. Or do you believe that cause follows effect? Especially one that requires 20 years to develop symptoms after exposure.
You make a number of claims about epidemiology which are complete nonsense. To the extent that you embarrass yourself with these assertions, I'm content to let anyone reading your post decide for themselves. Epidemiologists make delicate statistical inferences about heritability and transmissible on the basis of extremely noisy data. You have no one to back you up on your baseless denials.
And all we have is YOUR unsupported word on these magical inferences that epidemiologists can make that I and the doctors I have talked to tell is BS in a population where 85-90% of the population already endemically carry the bacteria that is the causitive agent! Again, I ask you, who are you? What is YOUR expertise! I know the doctors and researchers I'm talking to. You are an anonymous guy on the Internet throwing brickbats that most times has said things about this paper that can easily be checked that I've found not to be the case, such as b. burgdorferi being her primary focus and the spirochete with the greatest correlation in the 2011 paper, which makes me think you did not even bother to read the paper before jumping in with both feet to denigrate it, or make arguments that simply do not follow logically, such as your argument that asymptomatic controls must a priori not have spirochetes in their systems as absolute evidence disproving the case on a disease with such a long time between exposure and first diagnosis when symptoms are noticed!
You've used ad homonym argument, a logical fallacy to attack the author of the paper, and now me, and my office, the researchers, and the dozens of dental offices that have been participating in the research when you use terms such as "quackery" referring to peer reviewed research and work done by medical professionals and well regarded people at the top of their fields who are also peer-reviewed published researchers.
Insults and ad homonym attacks are a sure sign you really have no case. You've been repeating the same nonsense with outdated references. You do not speak for the AD researchers. This paper has been out for less than a month. You've given no sign you even bothered to read it beyond the abstract, and you dismiss the author and any who support its conclusion out of hand, as "Quacks," for suggesting an extremely safe protocol—used in dentistry for over fifty years to kill oral bacteria—as a reasonable prophylactic approach to preventing a potential spirochete infection? You've apparently decided the last word on this issue was written in 1993 or 1999. What IS your agenda Fred???