One of the things I've heard is the worst for tooth decay are sweet sticky or starchy things that cling to the teeth. Like dried fruit, breads and such.

Well, I'm not sure about that as arabs have been eating dates for millenia, and didn't have caries before the advent of refined sugar, and plenty of people ate high quality fresh wholemeal bread without caries before the advent of white flour and sugar...
I agree that chewy candy and tofee are killer for the teeth though!

I am very cavities prone. I've been going to the dentist every 6 months or so for decades. Every single visit there is a new cavity to be filled. Every tooth in my head has been filled a couple of times.

I also had a love for sweetened coffee. Every morning would start off with a coffee with cream and 2 packets of sugar.

Since I quit putting sugar in my coffee.. you guessed it... no cavities.

The next visit will be interesting. I have kinda falled off the low-carb bandwagon, but I have never resumed putting sugar in my coffee.

Gotbeer, I don't think the statin study is so badly done - I will look at it. I believe one can check whether it is the LDL levels or the drug action that protects simply by looking WITHIN each drug group: If the reason why one statin is better than the other is because it lowers LDL more, that correlation should be true within the half of the patients in that group. If one drug acts better than the other irrespective of the LDL levels, as MacK.. suggests, there should be no correlation between LDL and protection within the patients treated by that drug. But it may means re-analyzing in a way the authors didn't.

In any case it is one of the classics: correlations does not mean causation. Drug/LDL/bad outcome were correlated, but so is red hair, green eyes and melanoma risk - it still doesn't prove that dying your hair black would protect you from melanoma!

The other thing about this study is it was on patients after having a severe MI and found to have severe, pervasive vascular disease. The very first article I read about this stated clearly that this was on VERY sick patients, that the risk of side effects was minimized because these people were going to die without intervention, and they didn't know how much of the success was due to the lowering of cholsterol or the minimizing of inflamation!

Unfortunately, the original article has been "edited" and now it sounds like this is how ALL people with high cholesterol should be treated!

I think the study is valid....but the conclusions being written about are not.

If I'd had a heart attack, I'd go on statins. If I had even ONE sign of having CAD, I'd consider going on the statins. But even tho my cholesterol is high, I refuse because I'm not convinced of it's safety OR the need for it.

For very sick people with major CAD, yes they need statins. For the rest of us, I believe what my level are when I'm eating healthy, exercising regularly, and at a good weight are what mother nature intended for me....and remember "it's not nice to fool mother nature!"