Talk:Early childhood caries
I am a physician and the references to Xylitol are blatant product placement and certainly out of place here. This is rarely used and may deserve a mention, but the last paragraph is clearly biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.240.46.175 (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 | Dentistry Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
10/09/07 - Vital Health Knowledge is being hidden from the public as the tooth decay theory police come by and delete valid links to published medical resources for parents. All information should be available for parents. You cannot keep deleting valid and truthful informational resources, unless you want to try to control people rather than give them a free choice! - yourreturn
Numerous references to a product called 'Spiffies Baby Tooth Wipes' ; Have removed these, as quite blatent product placements. For that matter, not sure how much the page itself is worth... seems to be fairly pointless. Seydlitz 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The article's vastly different since the dispute tag was added. And, since there's zero discussion on the talk page about the dispute tag, it seems pointless to have it there. I'm taking it off. If anyone wants to put it back on, post on the talk page to explain exactly what's in dispute. adavidw 03:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I cleaned up the layout a little, so I removed the "cleanup" tag. Again, if you want to put it back, don't do it without explaining here what needs cleanup next. Oh, and the links that were on the page didn't really have anything to do with teeth - iust hippy whole health type sites.adavidw 05:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I dispute this. This article only presents half the truth. Early Childhood Caries is both Curable and Preventable. The current theory is false, bacteria's do not cause tooth decay in children. Your false information amounts to lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.245.179 (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Why are New Theories Removed
Hi,
I put links to legimitate sources of medical journals and scientific journals and people keep removing them. Stop it.
Links restored, and more neutral content added
yourreturn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.183.225 (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- The edits you provide will be removed. The statements, such as "Micro-organisms do not cause tooth decay! Do not use xylitol it is harmful!", are untrue and against widely accepted science. In case you are wondering, this is not a method to remove "New Theories", but to prevent what is regarded as junk science from being presented as widely accepted in the scientific community. - Dozenist talk 12:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Dozenist - You keep removing valid links, and sure, you can remove one sentence, but you are also removing references to valid external links, and to dental journals. - yourreturn You are also promoting a theory of tooth decay that is not scientifically valid, and fails even the basic checks. Thus an alternative theory must be displayed.
- The idea that bacteria cause tooth decay is widely accepted by science. As much as you say that the theory "is not scientifically valid", there sure are a lot of scientists and medical professionals that believe the theory is true. I removed your edits and the associated links again because the article must reflect what is believed by the vast majority of science. In particular, this text from WP:UNDUE should help: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." - Dozenist talk 11:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Couldn't agree more with Dozenist. The links I went to contained information that could not even be considered pseudoscience. Absolute unsubstantiated garbage displaying a lack of understanding of even the basics of tooth development and anatomy. There were no links to an evidence base and even the anecdotal evidence was poorly analysed showing a complete, total and utter lack of any knowledge of teeth whatsoever. A first year science student could point out the flaws in this rubbish. How can you disagree with current theories if you have no knowledge of the problem you are dealing with?Dr-G - Illegitimi non carborundum est. 18:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)