werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (11/09/85)
[Maybe I'm harping on this a little too much, but I don't believe in letting
incorrect information go unchallenged.]
From Wheater, et al. _Functional_Histology_ 1982 edition, p, 175.
Fully formed enamel contains less than one percent organic material
and is the hardest and most dense tissue in the body.
The structure of mature enamel is not fully understood, but it
appears that the process of mineralization is not uniform and, as a
result, mature enamel consists of highly calcified prisms separated so
so-called interprismatic material, which may differ only in the
orientation of its crystals. Each prism extends from the dentino-enamel
junction to the enamel surface and may represent the enamel from a single
ameloblast [enamel-forming cell].
Overlying the ameloblast layer are several layers of cells, also
of epithelial origin, which constitute the enamel organ. As enamel
formation progresses, the Enamel Organ becomes reduced in thickness
compared with the earlier stages of its [embryonic] development. At tooth
eruption, the enamel organ, including the ameloblasts, degenerate leaving
the enamel exposed to the hostile oral environments, completely incapable
of regeneration.
[Let me repeat the last line: completely incapable of regeneration.]
[Let me translate the first: Microtubules are organic matter (made up of
protein). If < 1% of the matrix is organic, that rules out the presence of
microtubules, even if you don't beleive me that they only occur within
cells - which they do.]
[Incidentally, the text was accompanied by the Micrographs, so that one
could look and account for all the layers with one's own eyes.]
Hence we're back to Stoll's claim that microtubular "flow"
regenerates Enamel being incompatible with the available evidence. I
don't think he's being malicious in this respect - he's just repeated
someone else's claim.
--
Craig Werner
!philabs!aecom!werner
"I never knew there was anything wrong with me till I met Dr. Hackenbush."wws@sfmag.UUCP (Bill Stohl) (11/22/85)
I am mailing this for Walt Stoll who is having a terrible time with postnews and line noise at present-- his email address is cbosgd!ukma!wws Bill Stoll, ihnp4!attunix!wws ------------- cut here ------------- Craig Werner says: "I don't believe in letting incorrect information go unchallenged". I'm afraid I share the same compulsion. However, I also have no need to "shake a dead rat to pieces". There are lots more rats to kill. Therefore, unless some new data become available, this will likely be my last communication on this subject. > > >From Wheater, et al. _Functional_Histology_ 1982 edition, p, 175. > > The structure of mature enamel is not fully understood,...leaving > > the enamel exposed to the hostile oral environments, completely incapable > of regeneration. > > [Let me repeat the last line: completely incapable of regeneration.] > [Let me translate the first: Microtubules are organic matter (made up of > protein). If < 1% of the matrix is organic, that rules out the presence of > microtubules, even if you don't beleive me that they only occur within > cells - which they do.] > [Incidentally, the text was accompanied by the Micrographs, so that one > could look and account for all the layers with one's own eyes.] > > Hence we're back to Stoll's claim that microtubular "flow" > regenerates Enamel being incompatible with the available evidence. I > don't think he's being malicious in this respect - he's just repeated > someone else's claim. > -- According to all KNOWN aerodynamic principles, the bumblebee cannot fly. Yet it does. Statements like this drive people like Craig Werner crazy. I think I'll throw in another one for good measure: "The appearance of one sparrow proves the existance of birds". The fact is: regeneration of enamel has been observed to occur. If the Craig Werners of the world can come up with a better explanation of how that happens, I'll be among the first to listen. Until then, the following information from the very first attempt to observe, and explain, the phenomenon (Dr. Steinmann's work in the 1960's), still has not been superceded: There is a necessary relationship between the parotid and pituitary glands for the mechanism to function. Apparently, this is the mechanism through which the general state of health of the individual influences whether enamel will be replaced or not. Refined sugars upset the system---this is in addition to the surface etching the current paradigm would have us believe is the ONLY mechanism. The history of medicine is replete with mechanisms which, at first understanding, seemed simple. Later on, as we understood better we, almost invariably, learned that the MECHANISMS were far more complicated and integrated with the function of the rest of the body. Fluid flow can be measured through the odontoblastic tubules and continuing into the enamel. Mineral tracers can trace the minerals continuing into the enamel from their transporting through the odont. tubules first. If bacteria become established on the surface of the enamel and begin producing acids and chelating agents as their life processes, there will be a leaching of minerals from the enamel surface. This is the beginning of the decay process. However, this is a reversable process just as etching the enamel surface is. IF STOPPED BEFORE THE "MATRIX" BREAKS DOWN, NEW MINERALS CAN FILL IN THE VOIDS AND THE TOOTH WILL REMAIN COMPLETE ON THE SURFACE. Once a section breaks down, however, that part of the scaffolding is broken out and will not be replaceable. The surface can be "hardened" both from surface remineralization (which explains the observed remineralization from surface fluoride application) and from under the surface through the above explained effective mechanism (possibly also aided systemically by fluoride supplementation). If Craig could spend more time observing the human body he would be much less likely to think it can be explained by what is already written in books. Try having exactly the same conversation, about some significant mechanism involving human function, with a newly trained physician and a physician who has been out in practice for 30 years. There was a time when I too believed that medical science knew most of what there was to learn about the human being. I now know that we have barely begun to scratch the surface. Craig will learn. I have great hopes for that boy. Walt Stoll, cbosgd!ukma!wws Holistic Medical Centre 1412 N. Broadway Lexington, KY 40505 (606)233-4273 "You are more than you think"
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/24/85)
Stoll: > According to all KNOWN aerodynamic principles, the bumblebee cannot > fly. Yet it does. Statements like this drive people like Craig > Werner crazy. I think I'll throw in another one for good measure: > "The appearance of one sparrow proves the existance of birds". I'm not a doctor, so I can't comment on the rest of your article, but this is pure horsepuckey. That particular peice of popular anti-scientific folklore is based on an incorrect interpretation of the study. The correct statement should be: "according to known aerodynamical principles, the bumblebee cannot glide." You want to know something? The bumblebee cannot glide! And how do you know your one sparrow isn't a clever mock-up? -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (11/25/85)
As expounded in my posting "Science and Semantics', I noted that if
and only if you define decay as encompassing a prior step (demineralization)
to matrix (of enamel) breakdown then can 'decay' be considered reversible.
Only demineralisation is reversible (by remineralisation), not decay as
defined by an actual breakdown of the matrix.
Ignoring the rest of the character assasination directed towards me
in particular and medicine in general in the rest of Stoll's posting, I can
only say, that if he would specify his terms, not make sweeping generalization,
or expound on impossible mechanisms for real phenomenon, he would have a
greater credibility in both mine and most likely everybody else's opinion.
--
Craig Werner
!philabs!aecom!werner
"It's tough to incriminate a bread mold."friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (11/26/85)
In article <784@sfmag.UUCP> wws@sfmag.UUCP (Bill Stohl) writes: > > According to all KNOWN aerodynamic principles, the bumblebee cannot >fly. Yet it does. Wrong!! The aerodynamics of Bumblebee flight have been known for 10 to 15 years! There was even an article in Scientific American a year or two ago explaining it! It seems that this "fact" that was published decades ago has become so widespread that everyone believes it because everyone says it! >"The appearance of one sparrow proves the existance of birds". > >The fact is: regeneration of enamel has been observed to occur. > ... Until then, >the following information from the very first attempt to observe, and >explain, the phenomenon (Dr. Steinmann's work in the 1960's), still >has not been superceded: > >Fluid flow can be measured through the odontoblastic tubules and *odontoblastic* tubules!! Why didn't you say so in the first place! There is a *world* of difference between *microtubules* and odontoblastic tubules. The terms are *not* interchangeable. >continuing into the enamel. Mineral tracers can trace the minerals >continuing into the enamel from their transporting through the odont. >tubules first. If bacteria become established on the surface of the >enamel and begin producing acids and chelating agents as their life >processes, there will be a leaching of minerals from the enamel >surface. This is the beginning of the decay process. > IF >STOPPED BEFORE THE "MATRIX" BREAKS DOWN, NEW MINERALS CAN FILL IN THE >VOIDS AND THE TOOTH WILL REMAIN COMPLETE ON THE SURFACE. Once a >section breaks down, however, that part of the scaffolding is broken >out and will not be replaceable. > >The surface can be "hardened" both from surface remineralization >(which explains the observed remineralization from surface fluoride >application) and from under the surface through the above explained >effective mechanism (possibly also aided systemically by fluoride >supplementation). > And if you would be more careful with your terminology there would be less confusion and misunderstanding. The mechanism above at least sounds plausible. I would like to see more studies to confirm Dr. Steinmann's work before I decide whether I believe it or not. (That is what *replicability* is all about). -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa