The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
it's extremely non-invasive right the the way that you do this clinical trial is you have people come in for a for a dental exam right before and after treatment so you've got you've got a shot at seeing quant changes in quantitative endpoints that we can not just delay but actually reverse the declines in mice in people you know in a reasonable time frame
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
so the reason why i like periodontal disease right is the endpoints are extremely quantitative right so what we looked at in the mice are gingival inflammation bone around the teeth which can be measured you know crudely by pocket depth more quantitatively by x-ray um and microbiome that's that's really the at least in my understanding i'm not a dentist but i've learned a lot about uh oral health over the last few years that's my understanding of you know if you have gingival inflammation you've lost enough bone around the teeth you don't even have to have the dysregulation of the oral microbiome but it always goes along with it you've got periodontal disease right