Correction:
"hydrogenperoxide", not "hydroperoxide"...

This is a molecular level model of what occurs when you use such
products.  It explains why oral surgeons are warning about cancer risks
for people who bleach their teeth white.  It is consistent with basic
science.  If you want to volunteer your mputh to be bombarded with H2O2
daily, I'd be curious to see what results.  If you know of a more on
point paper, then cite it.  Evidence is hardly ever perfect, but I
don't see any reason why one should expect something different to occur
in one's mouth.  If you have a reason to think otherwise, explain it.
Actin is actin, H2O2 is H2O2.  What antioxidant system will be at work
in your mouth when you bombard it with H2O2 all the time?  Your desire
to attack is irresponsible, possibly leading people to do horrible
damage to themselves.  But I guess if people aren't intelligent enough
to understand the difference between evidence that is basic and
troubling and evidence that is trumped up, they will just have to live
(or not) with the consequences.

The media ususally covers the epidemiological garbage instead of good
evidence such as the study I presented.  For example:

* 02:00 30 August 2005
* NewScientist.com news service
* Kurt Kleiner

Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new
analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with
experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50%
chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are
true.

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School
of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design,
researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to
make most research findings false. But even large, well-designed
studies are not always right, meaning that scientists and the public
have to be wary of reported findings.

"We should accept that most research findings will be refuted. Some
will be replicated and validated. The replication process is more
important than the first discovery," Ioannidis says.

In the paper, Ioannidis does not show that any particular findings are
false. Instead, he shows statistically how the many obstacles to
getting research findings right combine to make most published research
wrong.
Massaged conclusions

Traditionally a study is said to be "statistically significant" if the
odds are only 1 in 20 that the result could be pure chance. But in a
complicated field where there are many potential hypotheses to sift
through - such as whether a particular gene influences a particular
disease - it is easy to reach false conclusions using this standard. If
you test 20 false hypotheses, one of them is likely to show up as true,
on average.

Odds get even worse for studies that are too small, studies that find
small effects (for example, a drug that works for only 10% of
patients), or studies where the protocol and endpoints are poorly
defined, allowing researchers to massage their conclusions after the
fact.

Surprisingly, Ioannidis says another predictor of false findings is if
a field is "hot", with many teams feeling pressure to beat the others
to statistically significant findings.

But Solomon Snyder, senior editor at the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, and a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins Medical
School in Baltimore, US, says most working scientists understand the
limitations of published research.

"When I read the literature, I'm not reading it to find proof like a
textbook. I'm reading to get ideas. So even if something is wrong with
the paper, if they have the kernel of a novel idea, that's something to
think about," he says.