23
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
23 points (92.6% liked)
Ask Science
8645 readers
1 users here now
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm not an expert, but I clicked on the link to the studies and got this jargle:
Emphasis mine. This is a huge red flag. Additionally, they don't have basic links to the studies in reputable journals. You have to email them to get the studies, which makes me suspicious that it has any kind of objective peer review.
I did find this 2016 paper, however. No idea if Science Direct is reputable. The notable section is this:
They're essentially trying to do the same thing here, with Fluoride being their analogous antibiotic. The electricity at that frequency is supposed to break up a protective "biofilm" the bacteria produces, ostensibly allowing the fluoride to do its work.
However, I fail to see how it's significantly better than just brushing your teeth, which is what the brushing is supposed to do. Furthermore, what happens to plaque? Or the dead bacteria? Does it just stay on your teeth?
The inventor is a PhD Electrical Engineer, so this just seems like an over-engineered toothbrush to me.
Thanks; I appreciate your thoughts on this! I did miss the 'in-house' part in my initial read, and I agree that is the major red flag! Essentially, enough to end the discussion IMHO.