Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttrdc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) Newsgroups: net.med Subject: Re: Teeth. Message-ID: <565@ttrdc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 9-Nov-85 23:37:19 EST Article-I.D.: ttrdc.565 Posted: Sat Nov 9 23:37:19 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 10:17:22 EST References: <4417@alice.UUCP> <2302@ukma.UUCP> <1973@aecom.UUCP> <2336@ukma.UUCP> <832@psivax.UUCP> Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL Lines: 45 In article <832@psivax.UUCP>, friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >In article <2336@ukma.UUCP> wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) writes: >>First: I made no "factual error" about cavities. >>Second: I stand by the statement that "positive (outward) flow >>through the microtubules can arrest decay of and even regenerate tooth >>enamel". >>> To set the facts straight: Enamel is ground substance - it is >>> extracellular. Microtubules are intracellular, ergo, enamel contains no >>> microtubules. Two, microtubules are structures, not pipes, nothing flows >>> through them, only along them , and then, only inside cells, >>> it being very energy intensive. Three, enamel is made from the inside out >>> by cells called ameloblasts. These are stripped away when the tooth erupts >>> and no more enamel can ever be made. >> There are at least a >>dozen observed phenomena that cannot be explained by Craig's paradigm; >>all of which are explained by the newer theories I tried to share with >>him in our "private correspondence". It seems he could not cope with >>the new info. > As a scientist who is willing to adjust my models on the basis >of real data, could you please provide more information. In particular: > 1) What are these phenomena not explained by the std model? > 2) What evidence is there for microtubules in teeth? > 3) What evidence relates microtubular flow to enamel formation? >>My question exactly. Who are you going to believe? > I believe the evidence, I have seen none as yet. >>regeneration of tooth enamel via microtubular flow was proven >10m >>years ago when fluorescent antibody research could be combined with >>radioactive tracer technology. > References please! Also a summary of the results would be nice. > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) May I add my question, too (addressed to both the holistic and non-holistic sides of the fence). I have seen toothpaste ads for fluoride toothpastes that say that the fluoride can help "weak places" on the tooth regenerate. If the tooth can't produce new enamel, how does that happen? And in any case, if topically applied fluoride is supposed to be good for teeth, doesn't it have to soak in somehow through the enamel coating? I don't know about "micro- tubules" but this might seem to imply that the enamel IS porous. -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy