The principle objection of the letter does not deal with the apparent lack of transmissibility as the only criteria for rejecting the hypothesis. Furthermore, inasmuch as spirochetosis is transmissible, the high sensitivity of epidemiological analysis in infectious diseases should reveal a correlation. You have simply no scientific basis to dismiss this lack of correlation on the long-term nature of the infection. There are plenty of other conditions, quite easily identified as contagious by epidemiologists with exactly the same characteristics. [And the criticisms found in this letter have nothing to do with medical researchers ignoring dentists or any other competent scientifically trained observers simply because they aren't MD's. Given the peer nature of the criticism, that particular ad hominem is simply irrelevant.]
Fred, we don't think this is the entire answer. However, perhaps I haven't made myself clear on what I meant about the long term nature of the infection. We are not so certain it is as transmissible as all that, while it is still infectious. It IS an infection, but the exposure is extremely long term. We think the intra-body spirochetes must be continually be re-supplied from the oral source over a long term through the gingival bleeding they themselves engender. This supply chain can be broken for periods by good oral health. . . oral hygiene care, change in diet, regular brushing and flossing. . . all can break the resupply chain for a time. To be transmissible, the vector would be oral, but the receiver would also have to have active gum disease.
We do know that 85-90% of the patients we see have been exposed because we SEE the spirochetes in their mouths! We especially see them in extremely high numbers in those patients who have type 2 diabetes, chronic heart or artery disease, and Alzheimer's disease. We see high levels of them also in our elderly patients who have old age dementia. My own mother, who just passed away at 95 and a half on May 1st, and was sharp as a tack right up to the last, showed no signs of spirochetes, until her last test in December when a very few started showing up in her mouth... (We also saw that her last cellular regeneration had not been a good one and her leukocytes were essentially moribund, looking deformed and listless. My dentist said she won't survive the next illness! She didn't! But she was one who had had NO spirochetes before and none of the chronic diseases and was sharp and fully functional) However, very few of our patients are experiencing active bleeding gums because we have trained them to brush regularly to keep their gums fairly strong and healthy. The spirochetes they have cannot get a foothold to get the bleeding going to gain access to the bloodstream for a sufficient time to reach a saturation point, if that's what's required, or to keep the access open long term to keep the "supply chain" going, before better oral hygiene, a change in diet, or what have you, closes the door of opportunity.
Basically, what I'm saying is that to GET these chronic diseases, the exposure must be almost continual AND long term over the 20-25 years. . . and the exposure is entirely internal from the victims own mouth, through the gingiva, to the bloodstream, to the internal organs. Person to person transmission occurs, but exposure and infection occurs separately, and personally. . . Intra-orally! So transmissibility may NOT be so obvious.