We have all heard about flat-Earthers (in Spanish: terraplanistas). We are all aware of how ridiculous pseudoscience and conspiracies are. Or so I hope!

However, an opposed kind of people also exists: sphere-Earthers (in Spanish: terraesferistas). They are much less heard of, but they are much easier to stumble upon than actual flat-Earthers, who are just a meme for the most part.

Jasiel Paris Álvarez, Spanish political scientist, used the term sphere-Earther to describe, not those that defend evidence and proper science, but those that go a little too far and end up adopting equally irrational, dogmatic “pro-establishment” positions, disregarding any kind of diverging opinion as conspiracy. He did so in a very interesting article published in 2020 (in Spanish). Here, we will stick to the purely scientific part of the debate. This project is controversial enough as it is.

Sure, the Earth is not flat, but did you know it is not a mathematically perfect sphere either? Not only its surface isn’t perfectly smooth: there is also a very slight equatorial bulge. And the poles are very slightly flattened too. Hence the name of sphere-Earthers: people that go a bit too far in their defense of “reason”, sometimes overlooking the subtle complexities of reality. To quote Paris Álvarez himself: they follow a “rationalist dictatorship”.

To bring up some of the other examples in his article: chemtrails are not real, but there have been real instances of highly questionable experiments involving chemical and biological agents, such as the American project SHAD.

Homeopathy doesn’t make any sense and doesn’t work, but that doesn’t mean that big pharmaceutical companies on the other hand are “free from sin”, as we would say in Spanish. Things such as the Tamiflu® scandal show it.

A sphere-Earther would deny or overlook things like these without a second thought.

As far as dentistry goes: amalgam is not toxic. Fluoride is safe and effective. Root canals don’t increase the risk of systemic infections. Your average dentist is not corrupt nor motivated by money to treat patients excessively. “Flat-Eathers” might tell you otherwise, but they are wrong, my dear reader.

However, that doesn’t mean mistakes and wrong approaches aren’t a thing in dentistry. And in particular, they are a very real thing as far as the management of wisdom teeth goes. Wisdom teeth get removed excessively and unnecessarily because of the wrong criteria of many general dentists, orthodontists and oral surgeons. This is a fact.

A sphere-Earther is the kind of person that would get angry at me for making this claim; the kind of person that would immediately accuse me of being some kind of attention-seeking magufo, opposed to evidence, because they’d imagine that criticizing unnecessary removals is somehow an “anti-establishment”, “alternative” position. This couldn’t be further from the truth, as my philosophy is backed by serious studies and the official guidelines of several countries. You can consult them in the Resources section of this website. If anything, it’s the dentists who still recommend removing asymptomatic wisdom teeth that sphere-Earthers should go after. They are way closer to their flat-Earther enemies than I am!

In other words: as widespread as the preventive (i. e., unnecessary) removal of wisdom teeth is in certain countries or regions, it is still not an “establishment” or “official” position.

People are not perfect, disciplines are not perfect, health sciences are not exact sciences, and knowledge is continually changing and evolving. We must be well aware of this and understand the implications and the real need of any medical procedure that we’re going to go under, as patients; or to offer to patients, as professionals. In particular: we should be well aware that only pathology and symptoms justify the removal of wisdom teeth, and that a preventive removal, even in cases of impaction or “lack of space", is unnecessary.

Now, I would like to bring up a historical example. An example of an occasion when plenty of doctors (the majority of them) were miserably wrong, while a particular doctor was right, defended the truth and suffered greatly because of it.

I am talking about Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865), an ethnically German, Austro-Hungarian obstetrician who mostly worked in Vienna between the 1840s and the 1860s. Learning about him literally made me shed tears. I am a highly sensitive person (HSP), after all. Let this whole project be an homage to both him and Jay W. Friedman. May their legacy and their memory live forever on.

Also known as “the savior of mothers”, Ignaz Semmelweis lived before Robert Koch’s findings. Meaning: it was not yet known how microorganisms could cause and transmit infectious diseases. People, doctors included, still believed in miasmas: the idea that some kind of mystical “corrupt air” was to blame for the transmission of diseases.

Semmelweis had to deal with a really bad epidemic of puerperal fever, or postpartum infections, which often resulted in new mothers losing their lives shortly after giving birth.

It was unknown how puerperal fever was transmitted. But at one point, his colleague (and friend) Jakob Kolletschka accidentally punctured himself with a contaminated instrument. He developed the disease and died. This led Semmelweis to believe that, somehow, some kind of “substance” from sick people was causing the disease. It wasn't an obvious conclusion. Remember, Koch's postulates only came later.

The infection rates were also much higher in one of his hospital’s obstetrics clinics. In particular, in a clinic where medical students were working. These students were training on cadavers. Many of them, cadavers of women who had died from puerperal fever.

They washed their hands, of course, but not thoroughly. So, Semmelweis made them follow a much stricter disinfection protocol, with calcium hypochlorite instead of only water and soap.

The result? Infections and mortality plummeted. Semmelweis had hit the nail on the head! It is very easy to see nowadays. But in his time, no one took him seriously.

He was a sensitive and diligent man, a lover of what he did. He was enthusiastic about saving lives. And he had lost a close friend to these horrifying infections. When he tried to spread his findings, he was met with rejection and attacks. He was right, but ignored. And him being ignored caused preventable deaths along the way. He just couldn’t stand it and eventually lost his mind. The exact reasons are unclear, but he put himself under great stress as he tried to defend his theories, and that played a role, most likely. Semmelweis was locked up in a mental health institution in 1865. He died there shortly after, presumably from an infected wound caused by the guards.

I can understand him a little too well, modesty aside. Being rejected for defending proper handwashing sounds similar enough to being criticized for opposing the removal of healthy teeth, don’t you think? And I also have close friends that underwent the removal of their third molars without a real need. Friends that were mutilated.

Ignaz Semmelweis’ main problem seems to be the way he communicated his findings. He tended to be aggressive, which alienated many other doctors against him. I can only hope I’m not doing the same!

It is not my intention to look down on the work of other professionals. Which is why I always make it clear that I am not a better dentist than any other. I am just expressing my personal and subjective opinion here. Dentistry is an art, and I am not a better dentist than any other, just like Ana Belén is not a better singer than Édith Piaf.

Or, like the Spanish juvenile judge Emilio Calatayud once said after one of his lectures: Mis opiniones son discutibles y mis sentencias son recurribles. O sea, ¡que yo no he dicho nada! Meaning: My opinions are debatable and my sentences are subject to appeal. So, I haven't said anything!

Saludos cordales.

‍