There is a conflict of interest when dentists advise on tooth care.

The whole of your post is off topic, but hey, I'm having fun. So here we go. You appear to have ignored my suggestion of spell check. I'll help out. Note the words of your I put in parenthesis. "Truth - Scholarship's are free." It's called opportunity cost and scarcity. Scholarships are limited, and competition for them is fierce. They hardly add up to school being free, in fact thats why scholarship funds were invented in the first place. "I find one that can schedule me an appointment for that afternoon." Try that in the bible belt on a Friday at 4:30pm, you wont see a dentist till 8am Monday at the earliest. Assuming you can afford one. Most dentists require pay or insurance information up front, there is no such thing as a dental clinic for most Americans. Pro bono and aid programs require application and scheduling, which of course acute tooth pain makes rather difficult. "Oral Surgery is a recognized international specialist training course in Dentistry." Oral surgeons may be dentists as well but not all dentists are oral surgeons, in any case that's off topic, we are talking about preventative maintenance and non surgical repair. "Innovation does not equal safety." Innovation is the progression of a given field. Therefore innovation in any medical field is by definition safer because it saves lives or improves existing care. If it does not then it was either experiment ion or outright failure. You might as well bring up weapons innovation. "Mexico's safety regulation is not near as strict" Again, I reject the notion that increased regulation always equals increased safety. Excessive regulation can even inhibit innovation. "Your poverty or ignorance that (committing) crimes will cause a dentist to lose their license has no bearing on your (assertion) that there is a conflict of interest when dentists advise on tooth care." A failure to innovate or adopt the latest methods is not a crime. "I never said that the American way is the best way. " You said "Mexico's safety regulation is not near as strict as safety regulation in the US." What exactly were you trying to imply by that, if not superiority of the American system? "malpractice in Mexico does not result in (jail time)" Nor does it in America. "You say there has been no innovation in (Dentistry) but the fact that I know longer go to the barber to have my teeth pulled after I drink a bottle of whiskey is (definitely) an innovation..." I said "Dental 'innovation' moves at a snail's pace when it moves at all." "We understand AIDS. " No we don't that why we pay for research. "International Association for Dental Research. " That is a great resource. I don't see a list of innovations, but I did find the 75K$ "IADR/GlaxoSmithKline Innovation in Oral Care Awards" which is laughable in the face of multi-billon dollar tooth paste industry. No does that doesn't remove the conflict of interest. "the cure for tooth decay is to stop eating things that decay the teeth. " One of the suggested areas of interest for the award is "inhibition of tooth surface loss and gingival recession, and amelioration of their effects" which would be a cure. As of this moment the field claims that such repair is impossible. Check out the Wiki on enamel. I say again, why not home sealants? "As virtually every food decays the teeth to SOME degree..." Wiki says milk and cheese actually aids in remineralization. But I suppose a negative degree is still a degree. "Do you watch TV? " No. I watch shows online, Hulu is your friend. :) Advertising is hardly a reliable source of information. "Dentists (recommend) preventative care products constantly. " Yeah. But could they theoretically profit from either failing to release a far more effective method, or promoting products they knew worked only to an extremely limited degree? Which is more profitable, costly continuous prevention, or cheap long term prevention? Keep in mind that Colgate revenue was $15.12 billion as of 5/20/2009 4:50 PM (http://www19.wolframalpha.com...+) "Have you ever been to a dentist? " Rarely. I brush twice a day. I have a calcium rich diet. I don't smoke. I don't drink excessive amount of, of soda. (maybe 3 cans a week) I've had one cavity so far. I'm 29. My experiences with dentists were universally good, when I still had insurance. That is despite a crushing phobia of needles and drills. "Some Dental Innovations: taken from http://www.simplyteeth.com...; Again, slow innovation, not absence of. When I see any of these as a regular dentists office and not buried in some lab somewhere, then we can talk. "If there were a conflict of interest Dentists would not be so quick to announce these things " An announcement is not a release. How quickly are these innovations adopted? How many of these innovations are so absurdly expensive thanks to tactical patenting that that not even a dentist can typically afford them? How many require additional costly training? How can you be sure there is not an infinitely better way buried somewhere? We have no way of knowing. I'll ask again, which is more profitable? A one time prevention that butchers the need for dental repair, or constant ineffective prevention that results in eventual costly dental repair anyway? "It is also clear that (Dentistry) has come along way from "scraping" as you so un-informedly put it. " You tell me one active oral hygiene action that does not boil down to mechanical removal of detritus via scraping or a toxic attack. Brushing. Scrape. Floss. Scrape. Tooth paste. Scrape lubricant, abrasion, toxic. Mouthwash. Toxic. Interdental brushing. Scrape. Tongue cleaning. Scrap/toxic. Gum care. Scrape. What else is there that I can actively do? "It is clear from your ramblings that you have something against dentists. " Oh yes, and all atheists hate god. Apart from being a personal attack that has no impact whatever on the topic at hand, even if it were true is has no impact on the factuality of my other statements. How do I know that's not just motivated by self interest? At the end of the day its as irrelevant as your favorite color. For all I know you're a Colgate stock holder. Your motives are irrelevant as are mine. Learn to debate. "Despite this, there is NO conflict of interest when a dentist advises on tooth care. " Then why the efforts to negate what supposedly does not exist? Why bother with third party independent research? Why bother with certification? Why bother with investigation? Why have dental boards? The conflict is clear, and so are the efforts to reduce it. They may even be largely successful, in the cases of eliminating gross misconduct or incompetence, but there is absolutely no way to detect or prevent a lack of innovation, or misdirected innovation. None of these efforts has any impact on the conflict's existence in the first place other than to make clear that it exists. "That is - in fact, what Dentists do. If they fail to advise properly they will be sued and lose their right to be Dentists at worst. (etc)" In order to bring suit or initiate complaint you must first recognize error. As I said, cases of profoundly negative treatment can be detected, cases of failure to innovate can not, especially if that failure is system wide. We have nothing to compare dentists to except other dentists, does that honestly not present a potential problem in your mind? "Because of these things the potential for a conflict of interest is negated very clearly." So, you admit that a conflict of interest exists to be negated. Then we agree.