"These data were first published in 1924. Why has such a major medical finding, published in high-impact peer-reviewed journals, faded into obscurity?"<p>Possibly because the reported research results were not replicated? I wish I had the citation at hand for a finding that 50 percent or more of all medical research findings published in top peer-reviewed journals end up not being replicated. But perhaps that finding can be found in one of the sources cited in Peter Norvig's excellent article about analyzing scientific research papers,<p><a href="http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html" rel="nofollow">http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html</a><p>which I recommend readers of this thread check as they consider the claims made in the submitted blog post.<p>After edit: Another problem at the practical level is that it may very well be that a diet optimal for recalcification of teeth (there is no controversy at all that teeth can recalcify throughout life, that's the point of fluoride treatments, but the question is by how much) may not be optimal for cardiovascular health or some other aspect of your health that is important to you. The way human evolution works is that all of your body parts are fitted by haphazard adaptation from ancestral patterns using available materials in an environment of biochemical trade-offs, and it may be a better trade-off to have teeth that decay after reproductive age and a heart that keeps beating longer than to have teeth that never need to have cavities filled. That would have to be the subject of further research, to see which diet is optimal overall. (Yes, I am aware that some research tends to show that good dental hygiene contributes to good cardiovascular health, with the hypothesized mechanism being that infected gums allow bacteria to enter the bloodstream and cause inflammation of the heart's blood vessels.)