4 ms·

Bogus headline, article confirms basic beliefs are true: > brushing with fluoride toothpaste that matters, not the brushing alone. Doing that doesn’t just prev

Bogus headline, article confirms basic beliefs are true: > brushing with fluoride toothpaste that matters, not the brushing alone. Doing that doesn’t just prevent gingivitis and plaque formation; it also prevents cavities, which is the outcome that we care most about. > powered toothbrushes reduce both plaque and gingivitis more than regular toothbrushes > toothbrushing with flossing versus toothbrushing alone most likely reduced gingivitis, or inflammation of the gums Article seems to miss that gingivitis is a bigger concern than cavities for adults

mikeash 8y ago
I guess people wouldn’t click on “Most of the standard advice about dental health is spot on but there’s some doubt around the edges.” I wonder how many people will toss their toothbrushes after only reading the headline and develop problems as a result. Seems like journalistic malpractice.
- gist 8y ago
  > Seems like journalistic malpractice. It's not 'malpractice' and it's a mistake to think that what you consider journalism is anything other than a vehicle to sell advertising in the end. There seems to be this assumption that what is written (especially and actually in the NY Times (which I do read and pay for)) is pure and good and the people writing spend untold hours to get the story right and fairly balanced. My anecdote is when I was interviewed a few times in the past by the NYT the writer fed me conclusions and it was very easy to figure out what to say in order to get my name printed. (A contrary position to the point and stated vehemently was almost certainly the way to go..)
  - mistermann 8y ago
    Obligatory: https://medium.com/@addictiondocMD/a-new-corollary-to-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-3578a37ed3e9 https://medium.com/@addictiondocMD/a-new-corollary-to-the-ge... It's concerning to me how prevalent this seems to be in a number of Very Important news memes we've been listening to for the last several years.
    - raws 8y ago
      This piece while interesting does not seem to differentiate mainstream articles vs highly specialized fields when it compares both in terms of accuracy. I would bet it's not only profitability but also ROI that dictates how long a paper can part with a journalist for his investigation in a story before it becomes too much time in the eyes of management; the highly comprehensive piece does not bring that many more readers and possibly even less if the topic at hand is very specific. As well politics on the other hand are dealt with on a daily basis and accuracy can more easily be measured even by the mainstream reader unlike a highly specialized field.
      - mistermann 8y ago
        True, but in this case the information the newspaper got from the "expert in the field" source is also flawed. So I guess it's different than the normal case where the journalists get it wrong, but the end result is the same and the rule of thumb remains: whether the topic is dentistry, politics, or something else, don't be too sure that the "facts" you're reading in the paper are actually facts.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    You’re talking about what is. I’m talking about what should be. It’s not somehow ok to harm people in the pursuit of advertising money just because it’s the norm.
    - gist 8y ago
      > I’m talking about what should be. What about journalism to you means it should have some kind of a higher calling? The people working in that industry have jobs and families to feed. If they simply did the right thing they wouldn't be employed very long if their competitors didn't follow the same path. When 'journalists' write either left leaning or right leaning pieces are they being circumspect and covering all angles with fairness? Or are they just making sure they have food on the table and/or ensuring that readers continue to patronize the paper (or broadcast) that they work for? It's nice to think that someone else who has to earn a living and feed their family should be 'above it all' but in reality that is never going to be the case. Maybe a better idea is to teach children in school over and over that what you read and what is reality are two different things. Don't believe what you read.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        You could write almost the same thing about doctors, yet we have no problem using the term “malpractice” with them, to the point that it’s just assumed you mean medical malpractice if you don’t qualify the word.
        gist 8y ago
        Doctors take an oath and it is very clear what they are expected to do. (Some of them stray of course but it is atypical). Additionally 'Physicians' (if that is what you mean by 'Doctors') are a more homogeneous and generally trustworthy group than 'journalists'.
- ordu 8y ago
  I believe that it is the case when we should not lower the level because stupid people exist. My anecdotal experience with medicine is the experience of the doctors making decisions about my body use by themselves, being unable to support my decision making process by their expertise. I suppose it is due to the reasons listed in the article discussed. Doctors rely on unscientific knowledge (it is ok, when there are no scientific knowledge) and lack a mental discipline to demarcate in their mind scientific and unscientific knowledge. So when I start answer questions, like "if I have been riding my bike for 10 years already and there is no retina detachment, might we see it as an evidence that all is ok and a retina detachment is an unlikely outcome in my case", the doctor asked cannot say nothing of importance. All she could is to continue to insist that I should abandon my bike. But it is not her decision, it is my body, so it is my decision. I asked about physiological mechanism behind a retina detachment, to understand it and to be able to limit my physical activities, to find a compromise between no physical activities and retina detachment. She was unable to answer my questions. Why? Because her knowledge is tribal ritual knowledge, not a scientific one. Her knowledge is a bunch of rules in a form "if <symptom> then <treatment>". Completely useless knowledge for my decision making process. So it is a good thing when mass-media brings an attention to this sad fact. We need to bring an attention to this, to make medicine to think big phylosophical questions and to change itself. On the way of this we can damage people with a bad decision making process, who could stop brushing their tooth because of headlines. It is bad, but there are upsides of that: next time when they come to a dentist, they will get an evidence that their decision making process is not perfect. So they will be able to learn something. To my mind, a couple of teeth as a payment for an improved decision making process is a good deal.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    I’m not sure if I’ve understood this comment properly. Are you saying that it’s ok if the headline is full of shit, because it serves the more noble purpose of getting people to trust their doctors less?
    - ordu 8y ago
      I see it differently. 1. It is not full of shit, there are only one word in a phrasing that makes the headline misleading. It is "surprisingly". In medicine there are nothing surprising when there are not enough scientific verification for a conventional wisdom. And yes, I'm ok with it. 2. It doesn't serve the purpose of getting people to trust their doctors less. If someone do it the wrong way, the reality would fix it anyway. It is a good outcome. People would learn how to do decision making, doctors would be forced to rethink ways they persuade their patients that doctors know better. It is more contraversial, I agree, but I can live with it. Why should I have less information I need, if someone cannot deal properly with information of this kind? You know, I'm riding bike as I rode before despite of risk of retina detachement. I decided that 10 years of riding is good enough evidence for me. When I have no access to a scientific knowledge on topic, I have no other options except to fall back to use an anecdotal evidence. In any case I'm not going to through out my bike, I like it and I believe that psychological health is more important than physical.
DamnInteresting 8y ago
The headline seems pretty accurate, it says "surprisingly little evidence," which is more than none.
- askvictor 8y ago
  Important to note that little/no evidence doesn't mean it's false, it's just that it hasn't been (rigorously) studied. When the flossing story came out a couple of years ago (no evidence that flossing is good for your teeth), the headlines jumped on that and distorted the fact the it was just that it hadn't been studied, not that it didn't have an effect. There are surely cases where something is so bleedingly obvious no one has thought to do a peer reviewed study of it. Then there are things long assumed and just part of standard procedure in the same category that are worth a bit of rigor.
  - DamnInteresting 8y ago
    Well, I am quite aware that lack of evidence does not always mean a thing is not true; but I do prefer to have some evidence to go with claims, especially when they directly affect my day-to-day.

mikeash 8y ago

I guess people wouldn’t click on “Most of the standard advice about dental health is spot on but there’s some doubt around the edges.” I wonder how many people will toss their toothbrushes after only reading the headline and develop problems as a result. Seems like journalistic malpractice.

gist 8y ago
> Seems like journalistic malpractice. It's not 'malpractice' and it's a mistake to think that what you consider journalism is anything other than a vehicle to sell advertising in the end. There seems to be this assumption that what is written (especially and actually in the NY Times (which I do read and pay for)) is pure and good and the people writing spend untold hours to get the story right and fairly balanced. My anecdote is when I was interviewed a few times in the past by the NYT the writer fed me conclusions and it was very easy to figure out what to say in order to get my name printed. (A contrary position to the point and stated vehemently was almost certainly the way to go..)
- mistermann 8y ago
  Obligatory: https://medium.com/@addictiondocMD/a-new-corollary-to-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-3578a37ed3e9 https://medium.com/@addictiondocMD/a-new-corollary-to-the-ge... It's concerning to me how prevalent this seems to be in a number of Very Important news memes we've been listening to for the last several years.
  - raws 8y ago
    This piece while interesting does not seem to differentiate mainstream articles vs highly specialized fields when it compares both in terms of accuracy. I would bet it's not only profitability but also ROI that dictates how long a paper can part with a journalist for his investigation in a story before it becomes too much time in the eyes of management; the highly comprehensive piece does not bring that many more readers and possibly even less if the topic at hand is very specific. As well politics on the other hand are dealt with on a daily basis and accuracy can more easily be measured even by the mainstream reader unlike a highly specialized field.
    - mistermann 8y ago
      True, but in this case the information the newspaper got from the "expert in the field" source is also flawed. So I guess it's different than the normal case where the journalists get it wrong, but the end result is the same and the rule of thumb remains: whether the topic is dentistry, politics, or something else, don't be too sure that the "facts" you're reading in the paper are actually facts.
- mikeash 8y ago
  You’re talking about what is. I’m talking about what should be. It’s not somehow ok to harm people in the pursuit of advertising money just because it’s the norm.
  - gist 8y ago
    > I’m talking about what should be. What about journalism to you means it should have some kind of a higher calling? The people working in that industry have jobs and families to feed. If they simply did the right thing they wouldn't be employed very long if their competitors didn't follow the same path. When 'journalists' write either left leaning or right leaning pieces are they being circumspect and covering all angles with fairness? Or are they just making sure they have food on the table and/or ensuring that readers continue to patronize the paper (or broadcast) that they work for? It's nice to think that someone else who has to earn a living and feed their family should be 'above it all' but in reality that is never going to be the case. Maybe a better idea is to teach children in school over and over that what you read and what is reality are two different things. Don't believe what you read.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      You could write almost the same thing about doctors, yet we have no problem using the term “malpractice” with them, to the point that it’s just assumed you mean medical malpractice if you don’t qualify the word.
      - gist 8y ago
        Doctors take an oath and it is very clear what they are expected to do. (Some of them stray of course but it is atypical). Additionally 'Physicians' (if that is what you mean by 'Doctors') are a more homogeneous and generally trustworthy group than 'journalists'.
ordu 8y ago
I believe that it is the case when we should not lower the level because stupid people exist. My anecdotal experience with medicine is the experience of the doctors making decisions about my body use by themselves, being unable to support my decision making process by their expertise. I suppose it is due to the reasons listed in the article discussed. Doctors rely on unscientific knowledge (it is ok, when there are no scientific knowledge) and lack a mental discipline to demarcate in their mind scientific and unscientific knowledge. So when I start answer questions, like "if I have been riding my bike for 10 years already and there is no retina detachment, might we see it as an evidence that all is ok and a retina detachment is an unlikely outcome in my case", the doctor asked cannot say nothing of importance. All she could is to continue to insist that I should abandon my bike. But it is not her decision, it is my body, so it is my decision. I asked about physiological mechanism behind a retina detachment, to understand it and to be able to limit my physical activities, to find a compromise between no physical activities and retina detachment. She was unable to answer my questions. Why? Because her knowledge is tribal ritual knowledge, not a scientific one. Her knowledge is a bunch of rules in a form "if <symptom> then <treatment>". Completely useless knowledge for my decision making process. So it is a good thing when mass-media brings an attention to this sad fact. We need to bring an attention to this, to make medicine to think big phylosophical questions and to change itself. On the way of this we can damage people with a bad decision making process, who could stop brushing their tooth because of headlines. It is bad, but there are upsides of that: next time when they come to a dentist, they will get an evidence that their decision making process is not perfect. So they will be able to learn something. To my mind, a couple of teeth as a payment for an improved decision making process is a good deal.
- mikeash 8y ago
  I’m not sure if I’ve understood this comment properly. Are you saying that it’s ok if the headline is full of shit, because it serves the more noble purpose of getting people to trust their doctors less?
  - ordu 8y ago
    I see it differently. 1. It is not full of shit, there are only one word in a phrasing that makes the headline misleading. It is "surprisingly". In medicine there are nothing surprising when there are not enough scientific verification for a conventional wisdom. And yes, I'm ok with it. 2. It doesn't serve the purpose of getting people to trust their doctors less. If someone do it the wrong way, the reality would fix it anyway. It is a good outcome. People would learn how to do decision making, doctors would be forced to rethink ways they persuade their patients that doctors know better. It is more contraversial, I agree, but I can live with it. Why should I have less information I need, if someone cannot deal properly with information of this kind? You know, I'm riding bike as I rode before despite of risk of retina detachement. I decided that 10 years of riding is good enough evidence for me. When I have no access to a scientific knowledge on topic, I have no other options except to fall back to use an anecdotal evidence. In any case I'm not going to through out my bike, I like it and I believe that psychological health is more important than physical.

DamnInteresting 8y ago

The headline seems pretty accurate, it says "surprisingly little evidence," which is more than none.

askvictor 8y ago
Important to note that little/no evidence doesn't mean it's false, it's just that it hasn't been (rigorously) studied. When the flossing story came out a couple of years ago (no evidence that flossing is good for your teeth), the headlines jumped on that and distorted the fact the it was just that it hadn't been studied, not that it didn't have an effect. There are surely cases where something is so bleedingly obvious no one has thought to do a peer reviewed study of it. Then there are things long assumed and just part of standard procedure in the same category that are worth a bit of rigor.
- DamnInteresting 8y ago
  Well, I am quite aware that lack of evidence does not always mean a thing is not true; but I do prefer to have some evidence to go with claims, especially when they directly affect my day-to-day.