What this text gets right (science-based)
This article is largely accurate and responsible:
Early decay can be reversed
White spots = early enamel demineralization
This stage can be remineralized
Once there’s a hole (cavity) → natural methods do not repair it 
This is textbook dentistry
Role of saliva
Saliva buffers acids
Supplies calcium + phosphate
Dry mouth = higher cavity risk
Correct and important (especially for older adults)
Fluoride
Fluoride promotes fluorapatite, which is more acid-resistant
Strong evidence it halts early decay Well supported by decades of data
Skepticism about “miracle” remedies
Oil pulling / herbs alone ≠ proven cavity reversal Excellent myth-busting tone
Small things that could be tightened or clarified
These aren’t “wrong,” just places where precision helps.
1. “Avoid visiting the dentist”
This headline is a bit misleading.
A better framing would be:
“Avoid fillings”
“Reduce the need for invasive dental work”
Because even with perfect habits: 
Regular dental checkups are still essential
2. “Natural” vs fluoride
Fluoride isn’t exactly “natural” in the way readers often interpret that word.
You might clarify:
Remineralization is biological
Fluoride is evidence-based, not a folk remedy
That avoids attracting the anti-fluoride crowd accidentally.
3. Age 50+ mention
This is correct, but you could strengthen it by briefly naming causes:
antidepressants
blood pressure meds
antihistamines (all cause dry mouth)
That boosts credibility.
What this text does not do (and that’s good)
No miracle claims
No “cure cavities naturally in 7 days”
No replacement of dentists
No pseudoscience detox language
This puts it far above most viral dental posts.
Overall verdict 
Credibility score: 8.5 / 10
Evidence-based
Responsible tone
Clear limits stated
Educational, not deceptive
With a slightly less click-bait headline and a bit more precision around fluoride and dentist visits, it would be solid health content.