Thanks for that link. I appreciate it. The problems they are pointing out are related to the assumption it is infectious... it is but the time factor is over decades!
One of the major disconnects that has occurred in medicine is that MDs do not treat the mouth and dentists do not treat the body... and ne'er the twain shall meet. Yet the mouth is the major gateway to the body!
Here we have a situation where communication has broken down. Even Dr. Miklossy is not talking to the people who work with ORAL infections... yet she is observing ORAL spirochetes in places they should not be, in the brain, in the islets of Langerhans in the Pancreas, in the plaques in the heart, veins, and arteries, yet they have YET to open a dialogue with the dentists who are researching the SAME issues from the ORAL periodontal infection approach. Why? Because they are MEDICAL DOCTORS... and a tad arrogant who think that dentists cannot possibly have input on the issue. Dr. Miklossy hasn't even broached the subject of attacking the problem at the source of the infection, the mouth!
How do you see people get an infection from an infected person when the damage of infection takes 20-30 years to evince? You simply don't. Even making the CONNECTION to the toothpaste spread... with a 20-25 year trailing connection is difficult... but it's been done by the dentists looking... It's buried in noise.
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.]
Thank you. There is always a naysayer to correct. ;-)
Your research and conclusions make a lot of sense to me. Thank you for the heads up on peroxide. I've been using 1.5% for an after-brushing (with toothpaste) rinse for several years now, and I had abandoned brushing with baking soda. I floss with Clean Paste by Reach before brushing.
That's all going to change today, but the horse may have left the barn since I'm 64 and have my Type II diabetes under control with diet and exercise.
I use a Sonicare toothbrush. Do you have an opinion about the type of toothbrush and whether an electric one is any better than manual?