Dental health – it’s not all about fluoride

cross-section-of-tooth

Fluoride is not the only element involved in preventing decay. See Fluoridation – topical confusion  for a description of how fluoride, calcium and phosphate react at the tooth surface.

Fluoride is not the only factor in oral health. But it is generally the only element in drinking water considered for its effect on our teeth.

Drinking water fluoride benefits existing teeth by chemically reacting with the tooth surface. Involvement of fluoride in the apatite structure at the tooth surface helps prevent demineralisation, due to acid attack, and also encourages remineralisation – tooth enamel repair.

But fluoride is not the only chemical species in drinking water and food that promotes this reaction at the tooth surface. Calcium and phosphate must also be involved. (Bioapatites in teeth and bones are chemical compounds of calcium, phosphate and fluoride). However, these other ions have generally been neglected in studies of the effects of drinking water composition on dental health.

I recently came across a scientific paper which helps overcome this deficiency:

Bruvo, M., Ekstrand, K., Arvin, E., Spliid, H., Moe, D., Kirkeby, S., & Bardow, A. (2008). Optimal Drinking Water Composition for Caries Control in Populations. Journal of Dental Research, 87(4), 340–343.

It compared the dental health of Danish children with the most significant drinking water characteristics. Data for the decayed missing and filled tooth surfaces (DMF-S) of 15 year old schoolchildren were used.  The drinking water characteristics included the concentration of a range of cations and anions, organic carbon, hardness, pH, ionic strength and residue content.

Statistical analysis identified calcium and fluoride as having the major effect and the authors used their data to produce a model relating DMF-S to both calcium and fluoride. The figure below give some idea of predictions from this model.

Ca and F

The model explains about 45% of the variance – better than when fluoride is considered alone (Ekstrand et al., 2003 were able to explain 35% of the variance using fluoride alone).

Community water fluoridation is not used in Denmark but the natural concentration of fluoride in the drinking waters reported in this study ranged from 0.06 – 1.61 (mean 0.33) mg F/L. The concentration of calcium ranged from 31.4 – 162.3 (mean 83.5) mg Ca/L.

So, a result that is hardly surprising for chemists familiar with the surface chemistry of apatites. But it does suggest that perhaps health authorities should consider the calcium concentration of drinking waters as well as fluoride.

According to the authors optimal drinking water should contain medium concentrations of both ions – about 90 mg Ca/L and 0.75 mg F/L. I suspect our drinking water calcium concentrations in New Zealand tend to be lower than this.

Perhaps this is something to think about. And perhaps those anti-fluoride fanatics who use distillation or reverse osmosis to remove fluoride are also forgoing the oral health benefits of calcium. A case of throwing out two babies with the bath water.

Similar articles

216 responses to “Dental health – it’s not all about fluoride

  1. “Drinking water fluoride benefits existing teeth by chemically reacting with the tooth surface.”
    So is there equal effect in vitro with no proteolytic organisms?

    Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism. It makes it harder for the tooth decay bacteria Strep mutans to grow. When there is some phosphate present even 0.5mg/l fluoride inhibits enolase.

    http://www.pediatric-dental-journal.com/article/S0917-2394(13)00036-0/abstract
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enolase

    Like

  2. “Perhaps this is something to think about. And perhaps those anti-fluoride fanatics who use distillation or reverse osmosis to remove fluoride are also forgoing the oral health benefits of calcium”

    So perhaps the Ministry of Health and Ken should stop saying concerned parents of infants can use filters.

    Like

  3. soundhill,

    “Fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase…” You missed out the significant part of the reference that says the organism concerned is Streptococcus mutans. Not Homo sapiens.

    You also neglected to acknowledge that the action of fluoride in humans is mainly by its chemical interaction with bioapatites at the tooth surface. Ken mentioned it above, in case you weren’t aware. Nothing to do with enolase.

    Since you brought up the subject of enolase, and you obviously think that inhibition of enolase by fluoride is a significant factor in humans with CWF, here are a few questions to which you should already have considered the answers (by which I mean that you should have considered them if you’re following the scientific method and not just cherry picking for FUD):

    1. Is enolase present in the enamel and dentine of the tooth to be acted on topically by fluoride from CWF?
    2. What concentrations of fluoride are capable of inhibiting human enolase?
    3. Can human homeostatic mechanisms allow the concentration of serum fluoride obtained from CWF to reach or exceed that concentration?
    4. What side effects are seen in humans when enzymes of the glycolytic pathway, of which enolase is just one, are inhibited?
    5. Have those side effects been observed in ANY of the millions of people worldwide who have had CWF for generations and decades?

    Those questions arose in my mind as I read your comments, so I would have expected them to also arise in the mind of any scientist who wrote them. To be fair to you, my preclinical studies at medical school several decades ago gave the answers to four of them. I’d like you to answer them in order to demonstrate to readers of Ken’s blog that you have actually thought about the comments you posted rather than just producing copy pasta.

    Like

  4. “So perhaps the Ministry of Health and Ken should stop saying concerned parents of infants can use filters (to remove fluoride)”.

    None of the anti-fluoridationists I’ve encountered have been concerned about anything other than fluoride. None have been concerned about the sodium, magnesium, calcium, chloride, potassium or other “dissolved solids” found in drinking water. (I just read the side of a bottle of Pump…)

    So, even if their filters remove other minerals as well as fluoride, those “concerned parents” haven’t been worried. Just as long as that nasty, unnatural, poisonous fluoride has gone😀

    I think it’s telling that it’s scientists who are concerned about calcium levels in drinking water and not the woo-masters.

    Like

  5. Oh… Don’t the “dissolved solids” in bottled water include fluoride?😋

    Like

  6. Hmmm. No answer from soundhill, even given three days to think. Maybe the answers aren’t supporting his religious beliefs about fluoride?

    Well, here are the answers to those questions about enolase in humans:

    1. No.
    2. No idea, and I’m not interested in finding out because 3, 4 and 5.
    3. No.
    4. Death. Cyanide also inhibits glycolysis.
    5. No. As an example, we didn’t see mass deaths when Hamilton re-introduced CWF after its referendum.

    So, when someone tells us “fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase that is needed for our energy metabolism”, we can be certain that scientific thought wasn’t involved in the creation of the sentence.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. soundhill,

    “… which is needed for our energy metabolism.”

    You are the one who implied that inhibition of enolase by CWF in humans is relevant.

    I’ve told you why the “problem” is non-existant.

    Now, instead of starting a Gish gallop through the byways of unavailable papers on the effect of fluoride on unicellular organisms, why not provide the evidence that makes you believe that CWF, as it has been used by millions of people over multiple decades and multiple generations, has been shown to inhibit human enolase and human glycolysis.

    Like

  8. soundhill,

    And what have those to do with your belief that fluoride found in CWF inhibits human enolase?

    In case you weren’t aware, Bifidobacteria are not human beings. And then speculation about effects of antibiotics on unicellular gut organisms? It looks like you’re starting the irrelevant Gish gallop I advised against.

    Show the evidence for your faith/belief that CWF, as used by millions for decades and over generations, inhibits human enolase and human glycolysis.

    There’s been plenty of time and sufficient numbers drinking CWF that any effect on human enolase would be documented. No need to produce speculative papers on fluoride or other substances in unicellular organisms. Show us the effects on humans in the real world – unless, of course, there aren’t any.

    Like

  9. “You also neglected to acknowledge that the action of fluoride in humans is mainly by its chemical interaction with bioapatites at the tooth surface. Ken mentioned it above, in case you weren’t aware. Nothing to do with enolase.”

    The mouth is not simple chemistry.

    Strep mutans growing on food in the mouth produces acid which attack teeth.

    Fluoride reduces the attack, and fluoride’s effect on the enolase of the Strep mutans reduces the Strep mutans growth therefore reduces acid production and so reduces attack on the teeth.

    But fluoride does not only affect Strep mutans, I suggest, but also growth of human gut flora, via its affect on enolase. Stuartg do you not think that it is a worry when human gut flora are damaged, as by antibiotics?

    Ken’s diagram is too simple.

    http://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6831-6-8

    Amine fluoride works better than sodium fluoride at re-mineralising teeth.
    I suggest mouth biology could be looked at as a mechanism for amination of fluoride, amongst probably other ways it concentrates fluoride, magnesium on the tooth surface.

    Like

  10. “Show the evidence for your faith/belief that CWF, as used by millions for decades and over generations, inhibits human enolase and human glycolysis.”

    What I had written: “Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.”

    Agreed the level of fluoride in serum may be too low to affect enolase there, but note gut flora metabolism are important for our energy.

    Like

  11. “So, even if their filters remove other minerals as well as fluoride, those “concerned parents” haven’t been worried. Just as long as that nasty, unnatural, poisonous fluoride has gone”

    And they need educating, not just having it suggested to them, as Ken now admits, that filters are good if they want to avoid fluoride in a fluoridated area.

    Like

  12. My, Monday often sees a sudden increase in rate of posts from you Brian, Does Matron restrict access to the computer room over the weekends?

    Like

  13. soundhill,

    “Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.” – your comment, without even a reference to who “said” it (was it soundhill1?)

    Note the use of “our” – meaning humans. Human enolase is needed for human energy production by glycolysis. Not the enolase found in unicellular organisms. Streptococci and Bifidobacter have their own versions of enolase to produce energy for their own metabolism. Not that of humans. Why are all of your comments and references about enolase of unicellular organisms rather than that found in humans?

    From reading your original comment I would have thought you would have evidence for the effect of CWF on human enolase. After all, we have used CWF for decades, for multiple generations, with millions of people. If there was any effect of CWF on human enolase, surely it would have been documented by now? Especially as inhibition of the glycolytic pathway causes death. Where are the mass deaths in CWF areas that would demonstrate the inhibition of human enolase from CWF?

    Even your previous references from naturally high fluoride areas, where you have tried to argue that known effects of high fluoride intake are representative of CWF, do not mention anything about inhibition of enolase and the glycolytic pathway. Where are the deaths from inhibition of human enolase by fluoride in high fluoride areas of China, for example?

    I said: “Show us the effects on humans in the real world – unless, of course, there aren’t any.”

    Since you continue trying to divert the comments away from your original reference to human enolase, you merely highlight that you lack evidence to support your belief.

    The scientific evidence shows, as would be expected from a knowledge of the glycolytic pathway, that CWF has exactly no effect on human enolase.

    Anyone would think that a person who believed that CWF inhibited human enolase, and kept trying to defend that belief against the scientific evidence, was clinging to that belief as though it were a religion.

    Like

  14. soundhill,

    “Agreed the level of fluoride in serum may be too low to affect enolase there…”

    It appears that you are unaware that enolase is not found in human serum…

    “…but note gut flora metabolism are important for our energy.”

    How does “gut flora metabolism” supply energy to the human organism? Peer reviewed references in quality journals or well established textbooks, please.

    Like

  15. soundhill,

    “Ken’s diagram is too simple.”

    That may or may not be so, but where is your alternative? There certainly isn’t one in your reference.

    Like

  16. soundhill,

    “And they need educating…”

    Cetainly. That’s what Ken is trying to do, in case you hadn’t noticed.

    Ken is trying to help educate people:
    – that fluoride, at the levels found in CWF, has benefit to teeth at the population level without having significant detrimental effects
    – that high fluoride levels are not found naturally within New Zealand (except maybe in some volcanic spring water? http://www.weatherwatch.co.nz/content/potentially-toxic-fluorine-found-tongariro-ash, https://www.mpi.govt.nz/document-vault/138 )
    – that there is no need to filter most NZ tapwater supplies
    – that a filter being used to remove CWF may also be removing other minerals to the detriment of consumers of that water
    – that “suggestions” about filters from the anti-fluoride gurus are about lining the pockets of those doing the suggesting (entirely by coincidence, they are prepared to sell you the filters and supplies they recommend…)

    Like

  17. soundhill,

    “The mouth is not simple chemistry.:

    True, nobody said it was.

    But Ken’s blog was about the simple chemistry of the human mouth – you were the one who diverted to enolase of unicellular organisms.

    Like

  18. “But Ken’s blog was about the simple chemistry of the human mouth – you were the one who diverted to enolase of unicellular organisms.”

    a rough equation of cleaning a car exhaust

    HC + NX + CO => H2O + CO2 + N2.

    It requires a catalyst and the diagram Ken has copied can be thought to be sort of like just the equation. Interesting but not much use in getting the job done as one of my cites indicated for sodium fluoride. Even school children learn about different ways of catalysis.

    Like

  19. “But Ken’s blog was about the simple chemistry of the human mouth – you were the one who diverted to enolase of unicellular organisms.”

    Fluoride compounds can help reduce tooth loss by re-mineralising tooth lesions caused by acid-forming organisms.

    The diagram Ken has copied is about that sort of process rather than the original laying down of apatite.

    Fluoride also reduces the activity of the fluoride-forming organisms – Strep mutans, by blocking their enolase action.

    So watch out for fluoride blocking other enolase.

    Like

  20. Sorry not “fluoride-forming organisms”; “acid-forming.”

    Like

  21. “Ken is trying to help educate people:– that a filter being used to remove CWF may also be removing other minerals to the detriment of consumers of that water”

    Eventually. Do you remember our protracted discussion about “natural”?

    Like

  22. “How does “gut flora metabolism” supply energy to the human organism? Peer reviewed references in quality journals or well established textbooks, please.”
    If the metabolism of the gut flora is disabled many problems occur. The link which I suggested you scroll down cited this: http://aac.asm.org/content/55/4/1494.long

    Like

  23. ““Ken’s diagram is too simple.”

    That may or may not be so, but where is your alternative? There certainly isn’t one in your reference.”

    It’s quite complex. Some may remember I have previously linked to my quiz:

    QUIZ – Which of the following tooth skin layers will be missing and
    which different 8 hours after abrasive brushing?

    Adapted from D.B.Ritchie “Balance of Health [1] Teeth”

    MATURE PLAQUE (some weeks after stopping abrasive brushing)

    E Layer: Self-determining external mucous coat of the dental plaque

    D2 layer: the mature bacterial zone, now a well-mixed, and ordered
    population, remote from the enamel surface

    C layer: the built up mineral layer of the plaque membrane, with high
    fluoride, phosphate, etc.

    B layer: the initial plaque membrane

    A layer: the tooth enamel

    Answer: 8-hour plaque has only
    D1 layer: the bacterial zone dominantly strep. mutans, with easy access
    to the fissure defects of the enamel surface

    B layer: the initial plaque membrane

    A layer: tooth enamel (if lucky)

    Like

  24. ““Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.” – your comment, without even a reference to who “said” it (was it soundhill1?)”

    “In S. mutans, fluoride ions combine with
    H ions forming the HF molecule, which can eventually inhibit
    the glycolytic enzymes like enolases (Sutton et al.
    1987; Eshed et al. 2013).”

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohammad_Khan24/publication/284813098_Calcium_fluoride_nanoparticles_induced_suppression_of_Streptococcus_mutans_biofilm_an_in_vitro_and_in_vivo_approach/links/565c072908aefe619b2518ab.pdf

    Like

  25. Richard Christie | August 1, 2016 at 9:28 am |

    “My, Monday often sees a sudden increase in rate of posts from you Brian, Does Matron restrict access to the computer room over the weekends?”

    I can easily get into trouble from Stuartg answering you Richard. You are taking the thread off topic by asking about my life. But I’ll go there a bit.
    On Sunday evenings on Prime has been “Elementary.”

    The take-over Moriarty was said by Sherlock Holmes to be senior advisor to the UN Fund for Developing Nations. In real life Helen Clark is the head of that fund isn’t she? Wonder why it was brought up.

    Intrigue in this:
    http://thetyee.ca/Culture/2016/06/22/Cholera-In-Haiti/

    I was also working on recovering a file which Windows 10 messed up as it has done with FAT32 wav files on flash drives.

    Like

  26. Of course I will be trying to sniff out any parallels to fluoridation.
    “But Deadly River is not just a scientific-research journey; Frerichs presents an abbreviated science of cholera and epidemiology of cholera pandemics, and focuses extensively on efforts by the UN, ambassadors from various countries, the US of course (including the CDC), etc – to politicize the science in order to protect their interventionist efforts.”

    Like

  27. Definitely a Gish gallop.

    …and yet still no evidence to support the religious faith/belief that CWF causes inhibition of human enolase.

    Like

  28. soundhill, why do you think you are in “trouble”?

    Just because someone points out your Gish gallop, your switching goalposts, your cherry picking – and how you are using them to avoid considering that reality could possibly differ from your conspiracist faith/belief view of how the world works? Why is that “trouble”?

    Perhaps, if you paid some attention to the education that you are so scathing about, you may actually learn something about reality.

    Like

  29. “Definitely a Gish gallop.”

    Wiki: “However, the only condition for a Gish Gallop is that there be too many arguments for reasonable refutation, not that they be flawed.”

    Only applies when time for reply is limited as in a time-limited debate. Here we have and have had plenty of time to discuss.

    “…and yet still no evidence to support the religious faith/belief that CWF causes inhibition of human enolase.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enolase relates of the isoenzymes, and says “Fluoride is a known competitor of enolase’s substrate 2-PG. The fluoride is part of a complex with magnesium and phosphate, which binds in the active site instead of 2-PG.[4] As such, drinking fluoridated water provides fluoride at a level that inhibits oral bacteria enolase activity. Disruption of the bacteria’s glycolytic pathway – and, thus, its normal metabolic functioning – prevents dental caries from forming.[20][21]”

    I am not quite sure which isoenzymes are in humans, but we are animals, and “inhibition of purifiewd enolases from a number of animal and microbial sources has been well documented.” from:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC350948/pdf/iai00158-0228.pdf
    which also states “Percent
    inhibitions were determined under standardized
    conditions (0.16 mM NaF,” which I think is about 3 mg/litre F. plus other stuff including phospho.. so the phosphate in Ken’s copied picture could be working to potentiate the effect of fluoride against enolase, as well as remineralisation.

    Somewhere I have read fluoride can act against enolase even at something like 0.5 mg/l.

    I apologise I am not totally knowledgable about how enolase gets into cytosol where glycolysis takes place. I think I confused cytosol and serum.
    .

    Like

  30. soundhill,

    So, still no evidence to support your religious faith/belief that CWF causes inhibition of human enolase…

    Like

  31. “I am not totally knowledgable about how enolase gets into cytosol where glycolysis takes place.”

    I think that I was taught that in year nine at school.

    “I think I confused cytosol and serum.”

    How? Again, I was taught the difference in year nine at school.

    If you had learned the basics, and become able to integrate those basics into a coherent whole, then you would be able to see why your confused, directionless ramblings are derided by readers of this blog. Perhaps you would also see why your cherry picked references have already been superseded and become obsolescent.

    Like

  32. “So, still no evidence to support your religious faith/belief that CWF causes inhibition of human enolase…”

    Hint: integrate the basics.
    – human enolase (isoenzyme knowledge not required)
    – the differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic enolase (for starters)
    – location of glycolysis, and hence enolase, in humans
    – difference between cytosol and serum
    – homeostasis of fluoride (and other ions) within human serum and human cytosol
    – serum concentration of fluoride
    – cytosol concentration of fluoride
    – concentration of fluoride within CWF
    – amount of fluoride ingested with CWF
    – amount of fluoride ingested from other sources
    – amount of fluoride absorbed from that ingested
    – amount of fluoride passively excreted from that ingested
    – amount of fluoride actively excreted from that absorbed
    – amount of fluoride reaching the site of glycolysis
    – amount of fluoride interacting with human enolase
    – fluoride concentration required to inhibit human enolase
    – what happens when an enzyme of the glycolytic pathway is inhibited
    – what happens when glycolysis is inhibited
    – all those reports of mass deaths when CWF was started (try all those reports about the mass poisonings and deaths that happened in Hamilton when CWF was restarted to begin with…)
    – Streptococci and Bifidobacter are not human organisms
    – and neither are any other microorganisms
    – … (I could carry on)

    (Perhaps those decades of learning the basics before I graduated in medicine were not lost after all? …and I’m not an expert on the subject!)

    You commented (back at #1) “fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.”

    If you had learned and integrated the basics you would have realised exactly how fatuous that comment was and never produced it. Perhaps you have learned since then? Nevertheless, since you have found yourself unable to retract the statement since you made it, we still have to ask you to supply the references upon which you base that statement. Peer reviewed papers from reasonable journals or accepted textbooks, please.

    Like

  33. Stuartg it is taking a while for gut ecology to be recognised as a factor in human health. Were you taught about effects of antibiotics on gut ecology and consequences for prescription and maybe need for nutritional supplementation when prescribing them long term?

    See: “Prokaryotic and eukaryotic diversity of the human gut”
    “Recently, the gut microbiota have been implicated as an environmental factor in health and disease;”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20602987

    Like

  34. soundhill,

    Still trying to divert from your inability to provide any references to support your religious belief that CWF causes inhibition of human enolase, then?

    Just to satisfy you, yes, it was part of the basics both before and during medical school. That’s why I didn’t bother to comment. That and your obvious ploy in using it to divert attention from your lack of basic understanding of science. Do you really consider decades old basic science and medical education to be earth shattering news?

    “Maybe need for nutritional supplementation when prescribing (antibiotics) long term.” Or maybe not. Another belief of yours? Real world clinical trials in peer reviewed articles from reasonable journals or accepted textbooks, please.

    And don’t forget to supply those references to support your religious belief that CWF inhibits human enolase that we’re still waiting for.

    Like

  35. soundhill,

    There’s a reasonable description of how medical education works here: https://vaccinesworkblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/how-much-do-doctors-and-nurses-know-about-vaccines/

    OK, it’s specifically about vaccines, but you could substitute antibiotics, gut microbiology, community water fluoridation, almost anything else basic about medicine, for vaccines, and the descriptions used by the author would still apply.

    Have you ever taken the time and trouble to learn the basics enough to be able to integrate your random readings into a coherent, scientific, whole?

    Like

  36. Stuartg,
    You have been suggesting that though fluoride affects Strep mutans (prokaryote) enolase in the mouth it would not apply to other human-involved micro-organisms and their enolases.

    You seem to want to apply the words “human metabolism” in the fashion of a car repair teacher who teaches how an engine works but does not teach the interaction with external variability in fuels coolants and lubricants.

    I am not sure if it be taught in medical schools, but here related of how some doctors are pulling out of the convention of labelling atypical vaccine response as mental illness. https://healthimpactnews.com/2015/gardasil-vaccine-in-denmark-serious-adverse-reactions-now-number-1-in-500-girls/

    One in 500 may not be thought a great percent. But is it the best athletes?

    Perhaps your knowledge of side-effects of long term antiobiotic therapy gradually developed as it appears for some doctors and vaccines.

    Like

  37. soundhill,

    Your comment, the first one actually posted on this thread, was “fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.”. Check back if you don’t believe me.

    Since then, I’ve just pointed out your actual words, the errors in the basic thinking behind them, and how little is the scientific knowledge that you have demonstrated with those utterances.

    Since you first said it, I’ve repeatedly asked you to provide the evidence to justify your initial claim. You haven’t done so. Check back if you don’t believe me. If there was anything to back that fantasy of yours, it would have been so easy for you to have produced the evidence. You didn’t because there isn’t any. Basic scientific knowledge and the ability to think critically could have told you that.

    You used the word “our” in that first comment of yours and I made the assumption that you were human and not a unicellular organism. Was I wrong to assume that you were implying human enolase and metabolism when you used “our”? Are you now saying that you are not a human, so the word “our” did not apply to humanity? Be specific in your answer rather than avoiding the question as you so frequently do.

    You now try, yet again, to change topic, in the futile hope that readers won’t notice your inability to use scientific knowledge and critical thinking. Futile because we can read through your past comments as well as the current one.

    You attempt to change topic by referring to an antivaccine conspiracist site that does not produce a shred of scientific evidence in support of its fantasies about the most investigated vaccine product of the past quarter century. I had wondered where your own methods of ignoring reality came from. Now it seems obvious.

    I asked you if you had sufficient basic scientific knowledge to integrate your random readings into a coherent, scientific, whole. Since you avoided answering that question and have been unable to give coherent answers to other simple questions, it would appear not.

    We must therefore conclude the exact opposite, that your ideas are incoherent, unscientific gobbledegook based on conspiracist fantasies.

    Like

  38. Stuartg wrote: “Your comment, the first one actually posted on this thread, was “fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.”. Check back if you don’t believe me.”

    Of course. And you have been making lot of it, forgetting I also said, “Agreed the level of fluoride in serum may be too low to affect enolase there, but note gut flora metabolism are important for our energy.”

    And you seem to be taking that back to front that I am trying to prove a direct effect in our blood or cells. Quite the opposite, don’t you see I said fluoride level is too low in serum to have any effect on enolase. Then you make a big fuss that there is no enolase in serum, so that is another reason why the effect won’t be there!

    But you seem to think that for fluoride to lessen activity of enolase in prokaryotic or eukaryotic gut bacteria and affect our energy metabolism is wrong or you are trying to give that impression to other readers without actually saying it.

    Like

  39. https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.elsevier-a2d16e97-c432-3cec-a621-8bcd2f3c9b63 The old HPV vaccine said to “work” against 4 strains of HPV has about 3 times greater incidence of causing fainting and 8 times the incidence of causing seizures that other vaccines given to girls of the same age have.

    Compared to the 4-type the new HPV vaccine said to be effective against 9 strains has more mild to moderate adverse reactions at the injection site, which they say made up “most” of the adverse effects. Why are they keeping quiet about the others?

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6411a3.htm?version=meter+at+null&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click

    “Safety has been evaluated in approximately 15,000 subjects in the 9vHPV clinical development program; approximately 13,000 subjects in six studies were included in the initial application submitted to FDA (2). The vaccine was well-tolerated, and most adverse events were injection site-related pain, swelling, and erythema that were mild to moderate in intensity. The safety profiles were similar in 4vHPV and 9vHPV vaccinees. Among females aged 9 through 26 years, 9vHPV recipients had more injection-site adverse events, including swelling (40.3% in the 9vHPV group compared with 29.1% in the 4vHPV group) and erythema (34.0% in the 9vHPV group compared with 25.8% in the 4vHPV group). Males had fewer injection site adverse events. In males aged 9 through 15 years, injection site swelling and erythema in 9vHPV recipients occurred in 26.9% and 24.9%, respectively. Rates of injection-site swelling and erythema both increased following each successive dose of 9vHPV.”

    Like

  40. soundhill,

    What I think has nothing to do with you making claims based entirely on your own imagination and then refusing to acknowledge that they are fantasies with absolutely no basis in reality.

    As I said, your comments are incoherent, unscientific gobbledegook based on conspiracist fantasies. You haven’t even tried to deny it, which speaks volumes in itself.

    Like

  41. Stuartg, don’t you realise people are starting to see through emotive verbiage, seeing it to be the last grasp of a failing shill and their sockpuppets?

    I admitted I said serum instead of cytosol. All you can do is go on and on about it. It was not unscientific it was a mistake between the non-red-cell, non-clotting factor part of blood (serum) and the non-nucleus liquid part of cells. I said there was not enough fluoride concentration in serum to have an effect on enolase, and you pointed out the enolase is not there anyway. I was instead directing at the gut part of our metabolic system. But I would like to know the various fluoride levels in cytosol since enolase is there. The body works very hard to keep fluoride level in serum and human milk low. I don’t know if it succeeds with cytosol and any effect on the enolase and glycolysis there.

    So there are things I do wonder about. In a democracy I should be able to say them, without being classed as having psychological problems. Perhaps you mean by conspiracy that point in the replies about the HPV stuff where someone pointed out the adverse HPV vaccination troubles are reported by athletes, and it is noted that exercise can turn back the immune system. You don’t want people to put forward ideas and get them thought about.

    You don’t like to admit doctors have been telling patients with trouble after vaccination that they have psychological problems. By the way you go on in this group I would say you have been a big culprit in that respect, trying to avoid reporting to such as VAERS.

    Even some birds like to look for cause and effect. The NZ parrot the kea is fascinating that way. Once they were skating down a mountain hut roof in early morning. The occupant banged on the ceiling with a broom handle to shoo them off. And again. Third time one hung on the edge of the roof and peered in to the hut to see what was happening while the other skated down.

    Like

  42. So, soundhill, you still don’t have any evidence to support your incoherent, unscientific gobbledegook statement that CWF inhibits human enolase.

    In case you don’t remember, you made that statement in the very first comment on this thread. You’ve been asked to support that statement but instead of doing so have used multiple, unsuccessful, methods in trying to disguise the lack of evidence to support it.

    Now you’re fantasising about what other people may or may not be doing (“You don’t like to admit…”). Instead of fantasising, why not try to learn something – maybe some of the basics of science? Maybe critical thinking?

    Perhaps then you would then be able to admit that CWF has absolutely no effect on “our”, human, enolase.

    P.S. I said “It appears that you are unaware that human enolase is not found in serum…” Since then it’s you who’s gone “on and on about it”. Check back if you don’t believe me.

    Don’t attribute to others what you have been doing and they haven’t. All it does is make you look foolish.

    Like

  43. soundhill,

    Just for your information, I have encountered exactly one post vaccination side effect in my entire career.

    I didn’t report it because we realised the painful deltoid was the opposite one to that which had been injected.

    Like

  44. “Stuartg, don’t you realise people are starting to see through emotive verbiage, seeing it to be the last grasp of a failing shill and their sockpuppets?”

    Yes, soundhill, and we also realise that you are producing a heck of a lot of this “emotive verbiage” in trying to avoid acknowledging that you have no evidence to support your statement in the first comment on this thread.

    It’s very easy to see through your incoherent, unscientific gobbledegook based on conspiracist fantasies.

    Like

  45. “Tony Phillipps · Works at Retired
    Is it possible that the symptoms of SIRVA can also affect other or opposite shoulder???
    Like · Reply · Apr 17, 2016 12:53am
    Melanie Henry · University of Colorado Boulder
    I am trying to figure that out also. My massage therapist seems to think that it is very possible. Both my shoulders have rotator cuff tears that I believe are a result of the flu vaccine I received in November of 2015. I had no prior shoulder problems and have been experiencing the total breakdown of both shoulders during the last 6 months.
    Like · Reply · Jun 19, 2016 5:05am”

    http://news.nationalpost.com/health/needle-in-the-wrong-spot-can-turn-injection-into-a-big-pain?__lsa=f363-e0a2

    Like

  46. “I got my tetanus shot in my left arm Friday and am wondering if what I feel today is normal side effects.?
    I woke up Saturday with a screaming head ache, major neck pain and shoulder pain in the opposite shoulder – it feels like I injured my rotator cuff, and cannot turn my head to the right. I have been alternating between Tylenol and ibuprofen every 3-4 hours, but nothing is making the pain better. Is this normal? ”
    https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100213231826AAz8t3k

    Like

  47. soundhill…

    Leaping on to a side effect, yet again unsuccessfully trying to camouflage the lack of evidence to support his incoherent, unscientific, gobbledegook fantasies…

    Like

  48. soundhill,

    That’s a another good example of you producing the “emotive verbiage” you then accuse others of doing. It just makes you look foolish.

    Like

  49. VAERS ID: 589343 (history) Vaccinated: 2015-07-23
    Age: 61.0 Onset: 2015-07-30, Days after vaccination: 7
    Gender: Male Submitted: 2015-08-03, Days after onset: 4
    Location: Michigan Entered: 2015-08-03

    Life Threatening? No
    Died? No
    Permanent Disability? No
    Recovered? No
    ER or Doctor Visit? No
    Hospitalized? No
    Previous Vaccinations:
    Other Medications:
    Current Illness: None
    Preexisting Conditions: Allergies to Penicillin
    Diagnostic Lab Data:
    CDC Split Type:
    Vaccination

    Manufacturer

    Lot

    Dose

    Route

    Site
    VARZOS: ZOSTER (ZOSTAVAX) MERCK & CO. INC. L013546 SC LA
    Administered by: Private Purchased by: Unknown
    Symptoms: Rash vesicular
    SMQs:, Hypersensitivity (narrow)
    Write-up: Rash on opposite shoulder from vaccine administration; near right clavicle with 1 mm of vesiculation.
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ARXWvIXiqrAJ:www.rulabinsky.com/vaersdb/findfield.php%3FEVENTS%3Don%26PAGENO%3D24184%26PERPAGE%3D20%26ESORT%3DAGE%26REVERSESORT%3D%26+&cd=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-b

    Like

  50. soundhill:

    Still trying to divert readers’ attention away from his fantasy-based statements.

    Like

  51. soundhill,

    Just so you don’t dig yourself further into a hole trying to argue pain in the deltoid was a side effect of vaccination in the opposite arm:

    I considered the tender circular bruise overlying the deltoid was perfectly consistent with the impact from a squash ball, during a game of squash, that had occurred about half an hour after the vaccine was given. No need to notify CARM. The injury was registered with ACC instead.

    Learn from this – don’t engage in flight of ideas, especially about correlation and causation, when you are lacking evidence.

    Like

  52. You reported that it was the opposite shoulder, Stuartg, but that by itself was not sufficient to exclude vaccination causation.

    And how do you know it might not have been an effect on the system making the body bruise more easily in some genetic type?

    Better be very sure.

    Yes there are economic considerations and the economic effect on vets of reducing vaccinations in the new protocol is considered here:
    https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/17032755/147204086/name/Vaccines.doc

    Always report since patterns may appear .

    Like

  53. Yes, soundhill.

    It was about as relevant to the vaccination as the deaths from drowning, reported in VAERS, that occurred six months after Gardasil vaccination are relevant to those vaccinations. I suggested that you read VAERS about its own limitations. You obviously haven’t done so.

    I also note that you still are not providing any evidence to support your vacuous statement in the very first comment on this thread.

    What evidence do you have to support your statement that CWF inhibits human enolase? Further, why, following 53 comments subsequent to your statement, including multiple requests for you to supply the evidence, have you been unable to supply any evidence to support your statement?

    Anyone would have thought that a statement, such as you made, would have been supported by evidence. You haven’t supplied the evidence, even following polite requests. No reply suggests no evidence.

    Is it because no reply means that you have no evidence at all, and the entire statement was derived from your conspiracy-based fantasies?

    Like

  54. Stuartg, that’s your thoughts about what is relevant.

    How would you know whether a drowning had been a result of the ongoing seizures which Gardasil can cause? Or suicide from depression when the doctor won’t listen to the obvious change in the patient’s life and labels them psychiatrically?

    I can’t yet find the possible levels of fluoride in cytosol. So I don’t know if the alpha-enolase could be inhibited there.

    I said the fluoride level it is not high enough in serum, if the enolase had been there, which you say it isn’t.

    I had said the effect on our energy metabolism. You seem to want to exclude gut biology as a part of our energy metabolism, and focus me on human metabolic pathways. I do not believe that to be justified, but however I am trying to find the difference as you say between human and Strep mutans enolase. I am having trouble finding the difference. Of course there are different types but they differ within humans, too.

    As far as I can see at the moment this paper does not distinguish between alpha-enolase in Strep mutans and some human cells.

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benjamin_Terrier/publication/6514589_Terrier_B._et_al._Alpha-enolase_a_target_of_antibodies_in_infectious_and_autoimmune_diseases._Autoimmun._Rev._6_176-182/links/09e4150e5e655e5763000000.pdf

    Like

  55. So, soundhill, you now admit that you had no evidence to support your statement and that you’re still trying to find some. When are you going to realise that you can’t find any evidence because there isn’t any?

    Your statement that CWF inhibits human energy metabolism is only true in your own imagination.

    “You seem to want to exclude gut biology as part of our energy metabolism”. Not quite. The only place that gut biology is part of human energy metabolism is also your own imagination.

    Let’s try and teach you by going back to some basics of science and biology.

    Microorganisms perform glycolysis as part of their metabolism. That glycolysis provides energy to the microorganism. It cannot provide energy to any other organism. A microorganism cannot obtain energy from the glycolysis of another organism. If glycolysis is inhibited, say by inhibiting enolase, the microorganism cannot provide energy to drive the rest of its metabolism and it dies.

    Humans perform glycolysis as part of their metabolism. Glycolysis occurs within the cytosol and provides energy for individual cells. Cells cannot transmit energy to or obtain energy from other cells, not even other human cells and definitely not from microorganisms found within the human mouth or gut.

    And, just as with microorganisms, if we inhibit glycolysis in humans, say by inhibiting enolase, the cells die and so does the rest of the organism.

    Cyanide also inhibits glycolysis, and people who ingest it tend to die rapidly. If CWF inhibited enolase, and so glycolysis, we would see exactly the same effects from CWF as we would from cyanide. We would see mass deaths everywhere CWF had been introduced. There haven’t been any.

    So, CWF inhibits human enolase only within your own imagination.

    This has been basic science, nothing beyond high school level. You can verify it from a high school biology textbook.

    You have managed two things with your statement:
    1. Demonstrated your lack of knowledge of the basics of science/biology.
    2. Made yourself look foolish.

    I suggest that you look up Dunning-Kruger, and then maybe enrole in a high school science class.

    (Now let’s wait for this comment to be ignored and for the inevitable attempt at diversion away from the subject)

    Like

  56. Gut micro-organisms help us digest our food. Does food have anything to do with our energy?

    They also help with our bowel regularity. Do you deny our energy to be affected by bowel health?

    Do you think there is a tipping point in a cell at which all the enolase is deactivated at once, or would you consider some of it being bound so as to only reduce cell action rather than stop it?

    Like

  57. soundhill,

    “Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.” By typing that sentence you set the parameters for the entire discussion. I just followed them.

    (By the way, I’ve previously asked you who was it who “said” that? It wasn’t Mercola, and it’s just so wrong that I’ve been assuming that you were the origin)

    Well, as you said previously, “Here we have and have had plenty of time to discuss.” You have had plenty of time to review your comments before posting and so we have to assume that your comments were exactly what you meant to post. Any errors are therefore due to your lack of knowledge and/or your conspiracy based fantasies.

    From your last comment:

    “Gut micro-organisms help us digest our food.” Citations from accepted textbooks or quality peer reviewed journals, please. Humans are not ruminants.

    “Does food have anything to do with our energy (metabolism)?” No. The food we eat has nothing to do with how human cells derive energy from metabolic processes like glycolysis. You set the parameters to “energy metabolism”, not me. By dropping the word “metabolism” you are trying to move the goalposts and divert away from your errors.

    “Do you deny our energy (metabolism) to be affected by bowel health?” Yes. How cells produce energy from metabolic processes has nothing to do with bowel function. You set the parameters to “energy metabolism”, not me. Don’t move the goalposts.

    “Do you think there is a tipping point in a cell at which all the enolase is deactivated at once, or would you consider some of it being bound so as to only reduce cell action rather than stop it?” What I think, or even what you think, has absolutely no relevance to the science. You don’t seem to understand that. If an enzyme is inhibited, it is inhibited. It no longer works. You set the parameters by using the phrase “inhibiting the enzyme enolase”. Again you are trying to move the goalposts.

    You are just making yourself look foolish.

    Have you looked up Dunning-Kruger yet?

    You really should take that high school science class.

    Like

  58. “Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase”

    Yes and I gave refs, it is not just protecting teeth by remineralisation.

    “which is needed for our energy metabolism.”

    yes unless the all the bits of our body are able to work fully we may lack energy.

    I am trying to find the variations in distribution of fluoride in the cell’s cytosol where glycolysis happens.

    Like

  59. ““Gut micro-organisms help us digest our food.” Citations from accepted textbooks or quality peer reviewed journals, please. Humans are not ruminants.” A good part of our bowel bulk is micro-organisms which grow in the gut. They help the food move through the intestines at a rate for water to be absorbed and various things to happen. Some people absorb from their lower bowel vitamin B12 which the micro-organisms produce there, which is very necessary for our metabolism. If you aren’t lucky enough to have that correct you must take it in in food or supplements..

    Like

  60. soundhill,

    Sighs. Round and round in circles. Yes, you gave some references to enolase in microorganisms. Since humans are not microorganisms, those articles give no support to your statement about “our energy metabolism.” Where are the references that support your statement about fluoride and “our energy metabolism”? Read back above to see why there aren’t any.

    “our energy metabolism”, as you specified it, occurs by glycolysis in individual cells. It doesn’t need all the bits of the body to be present in order to occur. Simplest example – human blood can be stored for weeks outside of the human body and still the blood cells have an “energy metabolism”. There are other examples that can be given as well.

    “Gut micro-organisms help us digest our food.” So, no references, then. Just things that soundhill1 “knows”. Since B12 is digested by neither human nor microorganism, how is its mention relevant to your statement?

    Go and learn the basics – I advise you to start with high school science.

    Like

  61. If a patient asks you if there is a way to boost their metabolism what do they really mean?

    If they ask for a test to see if they are “digesting” their vitamin B12 what do you say and do?

    Like

  62. I think we have previously seen examples of use of restricted meanings of words on this group.

    Stuartg doesn’t want to encompass some of the uses of the words “digest” and “metabolism” on Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

    I think he knows what I was meaning. To write stuff using only technical uses of the terms would take a lot more sentences and be very clumsy when people already knew what I meant.

    I think Stuartg is just trying to avoid discussing what he knows I am getting at.

    Like

  63. soundhill,

    “Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.” Other than yourself, has anyone else ever “said” this?

    I’m quite willing to discuss what you said. Right now, though, you are changing the goalposts and trying to deny that you ever said things. Fortunately we are able to scroll up the page and re-read your comments in order to be sure of them.

    “Technical terms”, as you refer to them, allow for accuracy of comments. Use of scientific jargon is expected on a scientific blog. Use of jargon conveys meaning very accurately without being “very clumsy”, and by increasing accuracy it decreases the verbiage necessary to convey ideas. (Example: the curly bit of pipe under the sink that you can remove to find the ring that went down the sink (colloquial) = waste trap (jargon))

    I would also note that, if you do not want others to use “technical terms”, then you should either not use them or give the definition that you mean when you do use them.

    After all, it was yourself who used the terms “in vitro”, “inhibiting”, “enolase”, “energy metabolism”, “distillation”, “reverse osmosis”, “Strep mutans”, “enolase deactivation”, “bifidus”, “gut flora”, “homeostasis”, “digest”, “gut flora metabolism”, “nutritional supplementation”… If you were not using those as “technical terms”, then exactly what meanings were you trying to convey by using them?

    “I think he knows what I was meaning.” Yes, I do. So does everyone else.

    You are claiming that what you posted earlier was not what you meant. However, each time you posted you had plenty of time to compose your words before posting the comment. You even said so yourself. If you had meant to post something else, then you would have posted that something else.

    You meant exactly what you posted.

    Like

  64. soundhill,

    “If a patient asks you if there is a way to boost their metabolism what do they really mean?

    If they ask for a test to see if they are “digesting” their vitamin B12 what do you say and do?”

    Like many of your comments, neither of those questions make sense.

    Like

  65. Poor patients. You know what they would have meant. They have read about vitamin B12 perhaps helping with anaemia and wonder if they have that as a cause of low energy. They want to know if they are absorbing vitamin B12, though they said digesting which is within Websters definition anyway. They don’t want to embarass you in case you will snap at them if they start to talk of stomach acid or intrinsic factor. so they use simpler question.

    Like

  66. Stuartg: ““Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.” Other than yourself, has anyone else ever “said” this?”

    My cite in that comment said fluoride could “inhibit” (and reading elsewhere that might be 50% inhibition) enolase. And it can do it at 0.5 mg/litre if phosphate is present..For those who may have forgotten it was the enolase of the tooth decay bacteria Strep mutans, whcih I was talking about and which I have reported later as alpha-enolase. That is the same name as one of the human enolases involved in glycolysis, as I pointed out. You haven’t come back and said it to be different.

    I used to be an electronics technician. I would know about many different component parts and their behaviours. If I were suspecting a part to be behaving improperly in a particular circuit I couldn’t look up journals or manuals to find out if that part had behaved badly in that particular circuit board, though I could look up the specs of the component. My performance and pay depended on having to work out new things for myself all the time. For some devices we would keep books of faults which others could consult. Or if several of us were working on runups of identical boards we would tell one another about common faults. (Apologies, Stuartg for using the adjective “component” as a noun.)

    So alpha-enolase, fluoride, phosphate and glycolysis are the component parts and I read of a combined behaviour in Strep mutans, so my thinking goes to whether it will happen in other cell cytosol. If there is 0.5 mg/lire fluoride, phosphate in this other cytosol, then I need to check out if alpha-enolase will also be inhibited 50%. If I am wrong I am wrong but I may not be. If in electronics I may fix the fault and earn my keep.

    Like

  67. soundhill,

    Direct quotes from your comments:

    “Also fluoride is said work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.”

    “It was the enolase of the tooth decay Strep mutans, whcih (sic) I was talking about”

    So, “our energy metabolism” is that of S mutans. You identify yourself as a Streptococcus rather than a human being?

    Like

  68. soundhill,

    Goalpost switching, irrelevant diversions, “emotive verbiage”, claiming not to have said things that are there in black and white, now claiming those carefully composed comments don’t mean what they say…

    You are doing anything at all to avoid using science and critical thinking to show that your incoherent, unscientific, conspiracist gobbledegook fantasies about the world are wrong.

    Like

  69. soundhill,

    If the carefully considered and composed comments that you post don’t mean what you want them to say, the solution is simple – either don’t post or change them so they say what you mean.

    Like

  70. soundhill,

    Component
    Noun
    A part or element of a larger whole

    Why apologise for using a noun as a noun? Unless, of course, you meant something else when you used the word.

    Like

  71. soundhill,

    The last paragraph is going around in circles.

    Multiple comments about human enolase and CWF, but all of a sudden none of yours were about human enolase. They probably weren’t about fluoride either. Or enolase.

    You’ve probably even convinced yourself that it wasn’t you making a fool of yourself with those comments.

    Like

  72. soundhill,

    I build my own computers and repair my own electronics, but I would never call myself an electronics technician because I just don’t have the training.

    You believe that, since you used to be an electronics technician, you are qualified in science and medicine after a few minutes on Google. By definition, that is arrogance.

    Read this link and try to learn:
    https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/08/01/are-scientists-arrogant-close-minded-and-dismissive/

    High school science classes would give you an introduction to scientific thinking and the scientific method.

    Like

  73. Stuartg: ” now claiming those carefully composed comments don’t mean what they say…”
    I quoted and was commenting on Ken’s statement: “Drinking water fluoride benefits existing teeth by chemically reacting with the tooth surface.”
    Since you have quoted this next bit bit so many times another won’t hurt, but including the qualifying after-bit:
    “Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism. It makes it harder for the tooth decay bacteria Strep mutans to grow.”

    Perhaps I could have changed the order: [besides remineralisation] “Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase: It makes it harder for the tooth decay bacteria Strep mutans to grow. Enolase is also needed for our energy metabolism.”

    You haven’t addressed my comment about the enolase in Strep mutans and the energy-involved one in human cytosol are both called alpha-enolase. You believe there is a difference. Could you give more details please?

    Or I still have to claim “our” in “our energy metabolism,” refers to all entities included in discussion, including both the energy metabolism of the Strep mutans and that of the humans it resides in.

    Like

  74. Stuartg: “irrelevant diversions”
    You are the one who introduced a vaccine article.

    We are now in the middle of examining whether “no definite proof yet” means “definitely wrong,” which is the unscientific propaganda notion you are trying to implant.

    Like

  75. Round and round in circles…

    If you have evidence in support of your statement, then produce it.

    If you didn’t mean what you typed, then what did you mean?

    “You haven’t addressed my comment” Perhaps because it made no sense, and you subsequently told us it wasn’t what you meant?

    You have never commented about any of my statements, each of which is backed by science. Perhaps because to acknowledge them raises questions about the veracity of your own conspiracist fantasies?

    Why should I comment about things you say you didn’t mean when you don’t supply any evidence to support those statements that you say don’t mean what you said?

    …and if you think that’s a confusing sentence, then just read your own incoherent, unscientific gobbledegook.

    Like

  76. As to your changing the order, that would raise the question of why you are trying to conflate the actions of human enolase and the enolase of another species.

    Even if S mutans enolase is inhibited by fluoride of CWF, exactly how does that relate to CWF inhibiting human enolase? Explain why we do not see the mass deaths from CWF if the two actually were related.

    Or is that another comment where you are going to claim that what you said is not what you meant?

    Like

  77. soundhill,

    Why should I, or anyone else, respond further to your comments, when, after your comments have been shown to be unscientific fantasies, you then go on to say that what you posted is not what you meant?

    Like

  78. Stuartg you are trying to read my two sentences without context. Here they are again: “Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism. It makes it harder for the tooth decay bacteria Strep mutans to grow.”

    The word, “Also” ties them back to what has been said by Ken [about fluoride doing remineralisation.]

    The way you seem to want to interpret my first sentence, is to put it by itself and read it as, “Also fluoride is said to work by [you are deleting “work by” and inserting, “have the adverse effect of”] inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.

    Ken is talking about fixing teeth, and I say it also fixes teeth [works] by inhibiting the enzyme enolase, and I give the follow on explanation in the next sentence, the consequence of inhibited enolase on Strep mutans.

    I do add that enolase is important for other things which happen in the human body. That includes the mouth environment and the gut.
    I did note that the serum would not have the needed 0.5 mg/liter of fluoride to have any effect on enolase even if phosphate were there. As you point out there is no enolase there either. So that could have been the end of consideration of that., leaving gut effects to consider. I had written:
    “soundhill1 | July 30, 2016 at 11:00 pm |

    Stuartg enolase deactivation would not be of consequence just in serum. Check bifidus and gut flora.”

    But you ignored that and tried to reverse it pretend I was saying it is of consequence in serum, and repeated it over and over. But I am patient I have cared for a dementia sufferer.

    You also said human enolase is a different type from Strep mutans enolase. But there are several types of human enolase. One is alpha-enolase which has the same name as the one in Strep mutans.

    Do you proclaim the two alpha-enolases to be different?

    Like

  79. soundhill,

    Don’t focus on your fantasies about what other people think.

    Unlike what you claim after you’re shown to be wrong, I write what I mean. If I make a mistake I will acknowledge it.

    Don’t bother making comments about what you think that other people think. In the written format of blogs all you have to comment on is what has been written. Any comments about what you think people are thinking are pure fantasy on your part.

    I interpreted your comments to say that CWF causes inhibition of human enolase, and said so in order to clarify my comments. I showed that you were completely wrong with this fantasy

    If your comments had meant something else, then you have had more than 60 comments in order to correct that interpretation. You haven’t done so. Therefore we all understand that you meant that CWF causes inhibition of human enolase. Despite multiple requests, and recognising that you have never denied that was your meaning, you still have not provided any evidence to support that claim.

    Like

  80. “Do you proclaim the two alpha-enolases to be different?”

    No, soundhill, I don’t. Unlike you, I rely on the scientific evidence.

    Like

  81. “Therefore we all understand that you meant that CWF causes inhibition of human enolase. Despite multiple requests, and recognising that you have never denied that was your meaning, you still have not provided any evidence to support that claim.”

    The evidence I gave early on, as I wrote last comment, was that concentration of fluoride not to be great enough to do it serum, according to the figures I had. So I suggested to look at the effect in our gut.

    Now what do you know science says about the two alpha-enolases?

    Like

  82. soundhill,

    “You haven’t addressed my comment about the enolase in Strep mutans and the energy-involved one in human cytosol are both called alpha-enolase. You believe there is a difference. Could you give more details please?”

    No, I don’t believe anything about a difference between enolase in different organisms. Unlike you, I use science, which doesn’t involve belief.

    “”enolase deactivation would not be of consequence just in serum. Check bifidus and gut flora.”

    But you ignored that and tried to reverse it pretend I was saying it is of consequence in serum, and repeated it over and over.”

    My comment was: “It appears that you are unaware that enolase is not found in human serum…”, followed later by a recommendation that you learn the difference between cytosol and serum.

    You may fantasise about what you thought I said, or you could actually scroll up the page and read it. I would add that a single comment that enolase is not present in serum is hardly repeating things over and over.

    If you truly believe that enolase is present in serum and that its presence is significant, then that’s another two things that you need to produce evidence for.

    Like

  83. “No, I don’t believe anything about a difference between enolase in different organisms. Unlike you, I use science, which doesn’t involve belief.”

    You said you believed the enolase in human cells and Strep mutans are different.

    Does your use of science reiinforce that?

    “My comment was: “It appears that you are unaware that enolase is not found in human serum…”, followed later by a recommendation that you learn the difference between cytosol and serum.”

    Yes I know but it was of no consequence to the progress of this argument, where I say there is going to be no effect of fluoride there with my knowledge at this point. You seem to be making out I am still trying to claim an effect in that situation: a straw man to shoot down, get people confused and bored and turn them off this thread.

    Like

  84. So, are you denying that your comments were about CWF inhibition of human enolase?

    If you say “yes”, then you will have to explain why you have not said that in the 50, 60, or 70 comments since I clarified what I was talking about.

    Like

  85. Early on in this thread I asked two questions:

    And what have those to do with your belief that fluoride found in CWF inhibits human enolase?

    and: Show the evidence for your faith/belief that CWF, as used by millions for decades and over generations, inhibits human enolase and human glycolysis.

    These were straightforward questions and not subject to misinterpretation.

    You have not denied that you believe that CWF inhibits human enolase.

    You have not provided any evidence to contradict the science.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You provide silence.

    Why do you expect me to teach you basic science, that could be learned in a high school science class, when you completely ignore anybody else’s questions where the answers would disprove your conspiracist fantasies?

    Like

  86. soundhill,

    I said: “There’s been plenty of time and sufficient numbers drinking CWF that any effect on human enolase would be documented. No need to produce speculative papers on fluoride or other substances in unicellular organisms. Show us the effects on humans in the real world – unless, of course, there aren’t any.”

    From you: silence.

    I guess that means there are no effects of CWF on human enolase in the real world.

    Like

  87. soundhill,

    “Even your previous references from naturally high fluoride areas, where you have tried to argue that known effects of high fluoride intake are representative of CWF, do not mention anything about inhibition of enolase and the glycolytic pathway. Where are the deaths from inhibition of human enolase by fluoride in high fluoride areas of China, for example?”

    Like

  88. soundhill,

    ““…but note gut flora metabolism are important for our energy.”

    How does “gut flora metabolism” supply energy to the human organism? Peer reviewed references in quality journals or well established textbooks, please.”

    Like

  89. soundhill,

    “Stuartg: “irrelevant diversions”
    You are the one who introduced a vaccine article.”

    You introduced Helen Clark. So what?

    Like

  90. soundhill,

    Your comment: “You said you believed the enolase in human cells and Strep mutans are different.”

    Contrary to your fantasy, what I actually said was that you should learn “the differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic enolase (for starters)”

    No mention of belief there, just a suggestion that you learn the basic science.

    Like

  91. soundhill,

    “Have you ever taken the time and trouble to learn the basics enough to be able to integrate your random readings into a coherent, scientific, whole?”

    Like

  92. soundhill,

    ““Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.”

    Who was it who “said” that?

    Like

  93. soundhill;,

    ““Also fluoride is said work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.”

    “It was the enolase of the tooth decay Strep mutans, whcih (sic) I was talking about”

    So, “our energy metabolism” is that of S mutans. You identify yourself as a Streptococcus rather than a human being?

    Like

  94. “So, are you denying that your comments were about CWF inhibition of human enolase?”

    I still don’t know if the concentration of fluoride in cytosol is big enough in compbination with phosphate to have any effect on the alpha-enolaase there. alpha-enolase t

    But as for alpha-enolase in gut, I still put up the caution.

    The overall caution was:

    One of the ways fluoride reduces tooth decay is inhibition of the alpha-enolase in Strep mutans.

    Alpha-enolase is a glycolytic enzyme in humans, too, besides the gut mechanisms. So take care that fluoride does not reduce glycolysis there.

    Then I found out the concentration of fluoride in human cells was hard to find out about but may be too low to inhibit the alpha-enolase there. I am still looking.

    Like

  95. soundhill,

    “Even if S mutans enolase is inhibited by fluoride of CWF, exactly how does that relate to CWF inhibiting human enolase? Explain why we do not see the mass deaths from CWF if the two actually were related.

    Or is that another comment where you are going to claim that what you said is not what you meant?

    Like

  96. soundhill,

    I’ve just posted a lot of quotes from this thread that asked for an answer from you. There were others that asked for evidence to back your statements.

    You didn’t answer any of them.

    You whine: “You haven’t addressed my comment” – perhaps it’s because you ignore everyone else’s comments in what you seem to believe is a one-way glorification of your incoherent, unscientific, conspiracist fantasies.

    In case you were not aware, discussions are supposed to be two-way.

    You now need to justify why anyone should answer your questions when
    – you are not prepared to answer anyone else’s questions;
    – you claim your statements are not what you meant to say;
    – you decline the opportunity to clarify those statements;
    – you tell us that others using scientific jargon both detracts from clarity and lengthens the typing;
    – you freely use scientific jargon and then subsequently say it wasn’t what you meant.

    I have previously suggested that you enroll in a high school class on basic science. Maybe that should also include one on critical thinking. It’s obvious that you missed out on both when you became an electronic technician.

    Like

  97. soundhill,

    “I still don’t know if the concentration of fluoride in cytosol is big enough in compbination with phosphate to have any effect on the alpha-enolaase there. alpha-enolase t

    But as for alpha-enolase in gut, I still put up the caution.”

    Clarify the above please, it doesn’t make sense. (Why am I not surprised?)

    Like

  98. ““Even if S mutans enolase is inhibited by fluoride of CWF, exactly how does that relate to CWF inhibiting human enolase? Explain why we do not see the mass deaths from CWF if the two actually were related.

    Or is that another comment where you are going to claim that what you said is not what you meant?”

    Merriam Webster:
    “Simple Definition of inhibit

    : to keep (someone) from doing what he or she wants to do

    : to prevent or slow down the activity or occurrence of (something)”

    Inhibit can mean just slowing down without totally stopping. I think I said 50% in some circumstances. Not enough to produce mass deaths, But should be checked as a possible for why Auckland produced no more All Black captains born after fluoridation started.in 1966. Aucklanders can still play good rugby but are not the best. Of course there is G-protein &c.

    Like

  99. I’ve been invaded by a flight of thought, a notion.

    This study finds a correlation linking people with better sight to presence of amalgam fillings.
    http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/1998/pdf/1998-v13n03-p161.pdf
    They ask could the mercury from the amalgams be helping. But I see another possible reason.

    Eye lens contains enolase. People with amalgam fillings may have those fillings because they had low fluoride. Therefore possibly less fluoride to cause an eye-lens problem related to enolase inhibition.

    Like

  100. Stuartg: “Even if S mutans enolase is inhibited by fluoride of CWF, exactly how does that relate to CWF inhibiting human enolase?”

    “Enolase is a highly conserved protein found in Archaea, Bacteria, and eukaryotes with catalytic properties that are similar among divergent organisms. The ubiquitous presence of the enzyme and the sequence homology between enolases from extant organisms belonging to different phyla indicate that an enolase gene has already been present in the common ancestor and diversified by speciation of organisms and gene duplication within organisms” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092696/

    Stuartg I can’t find out where science says fluoride has some inhibiting effect on Strep mutans ENO1 but not human ENO1. Could you be of help, please? Otherwise I have to presume it does affect both.sorts of ENO1.

    Like

  101. soundhill,

    So, no clarification for what you said? That suggests you agree that writing it was pointless.

    “I think”, “I have to presume”. No, soundhill, you have to look at the scientific evidence. You don’t seem to realise that.

    “I’ve been invaded by a flight of thought (and want to divert attention away from people seeing I’m not prepared to answer questions)”

    “Could you be of help, please?” I have been, scroll back on the thread. What you need to do is:
    Demonstrate that fluoride inhibits (scientific jargon – “stops”) human enolase.
    Demonstrate the concentration at which that occurs.
    Demonstrate that human homeostasis allows serum fluoride to exceed that concentration.
    Demonstrate that intracellular homeostasis allows cytosol concentrations of fluoride to exceed that concentration.
    Finally, show us figures from the real world, as opposed to your fantasy-based world, that there are mass deaths from inhibition of human enolase when CWF is introduced.

    So far you have completely ignored that help, because to acknowledge it is to disprove your conspiracy-based fantasies.

    Like

  102. “Stuartg: “Could you be of help, please?” I have been, scroll back on the thread.”
    I was asking for help in relation to verifying a particluar comment of yours. As frequently you are quoting out of context. I had written:
    “Stuartg I can’t find out where science says fluoride has some inhibiting effect on Strep mutans ENO1 but not human ENO1. Could you be of help, please? Otherwise I have to presume it does affect both.sorts of ENO1.”

    We have got into that long discussion because of a comment of yours, though, wastefully, since it has been after I said the effect I thought of would not happen because of low fluoride concentration in, I said serum, but cytosol is where the ENO1 is, and fluoride concentration is probably low there, too.

    The caution I hypothesised about fluoride inhibiting ENO1 in the body rather than in the gastro-intestinal system had quickly been put aside by me by Aug 1. I suppose you will keep on pretending it hadn’t been. Though I don’t mind going on about some of the misunderstadnings that have come up since Aug1.

    So I’ll comment on you lastest list, but please not it jhust for interest it is of no consequence in changing my Aug 1 conclusion.

    “What you need to do is:
    Demonstrate that fluoride inhibits (scientific jargon – “stops”) human enolase.”

    It’s not relevant since I said on Aug 1 I don’t think it will happen because of low fluoride concentration. But if concentration could get to 0.5 mg/litre in presence of phosphate it could , I suggest by you are not saying which science says that difference between Strep mutans ENO1, whcih is inhibitied and human ENO1, which I suggest have a common enough genetic background to both be affected. And we should look in the gut for the effect, maybe or maybe not rule it out there, too.

    As for “inhibit” = “stops” yes per molecule but it is reversible I think. And fluoride can only stop as much ENO1 as there are ions of fluoride to do that one per one ENO1 entity, I presume

    “Demonstrate the concentration at which that occurs.”

    I cited the paper early on whcih said 0.5mg/litre in presence of phosphate.

    “Demonstrate that human homeostasis allows serum fluoride to exceed that concentration.”

    I said on Aug 1 I do not think it does reach near the required figure. Depending on pH gradients there may be some places in cells where fluoride is hgher in concentration.

    “Demonstrate that intracellular homeostasis allows cytosol concentrations of fluoride to exceed that concentration.”

    Same again I do not think it would.

    Though we take in and excrete or send to bones some 5mg fluoride per day blood flows at about 5 litres per minute. Even if the fluoride stays in for several circuits teh concentration is not going to be enough.

    Finally, show us figures from the real world, as opposed to your fantasy-based world, that there are mass deaths from inhibition of human enolase when CWF is introduced.

    Perhaps I could give an analogy: I think it is like the light of a thousand candles some not sheltered from the wind ad going out, as opposed to a thousand candle power electric light being switched off.

    Like

  103. soundhill,

    Yet again you expect answers from others without answering questions yourself.

    “Could you be of help, please?” Yes I can, but by far the best form of help is advice.

    Follow the science, instead of your fantasies. If it involves you taking a high school science class, then that’s what it will take.

    Like

  104. soundhill,

    All from your last comment:
    “I have to presume”
    “I hypothesised”
    “I suggest”
    “maybe or maybe not”
    “I think”
    “I presume”
    “I do not think ”
    “Perhaps”

    It is of interest that none of these terms are indicative of critical thinking. All of them indicate a lack of knowledge about how science operates.

    Add to those your complaints about others using the scientific jargon you yourself are trying to use, complaints that what you said isn’t what you meant, not being prepared to provide evidence, not answering others’ questions, not clarifying your statements even when asked…

    …And you want a “discussion”?

    It’s highly obvious that your meaning of the word “discussion” is far removed from that found in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary you are so fond of.

    Like

  105. Stuartg

    I said I thought the concentration of fluoride in human non-gut metabolism not to be great enough to affect ENO1. You want definite proof. Do you think there to be some doubt?

    Like

  106. soundhill,

    “Simple definition of inhibit…”

    “Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.”

    Simple definitions are irrelevant to the precise meaning of the scientific jargon you elected to use and how you chose to use it in the sentence.

    An enzyme inhibitor stops an enzyme from working.

    If you did not know the meaning of the jargon you chose to use, then explain why you chose to use it.

    Like

  107. soundhill,

    “I said I thought the concentration of fluoride in human non-gut metabolism not to be great enough to affect ENO1. You want definite proof. Do you think there to be some doubt?”

    Clarify that first sentence. Exactly what do you mean? It’s capable of several interpretations (and you would then say that’s not what you meant…)

    I follow the science, not my thoughts and fantasies.

    Like

  108. “An enzyme inhibitor stops an enzyme from working”

    Yes but sometimes there is only enough of the inhibitor to stop some of the enzyme from working.

    Like

  109. Stuartg | August 9, 2016 at 5:38 pm |

    “soundhill,

    “I said I thought the concentration of fluoride in human non-gut metabolism not to be great enough to affect ENO1. You want definite proof. Do you think there to be some doubt?”

    Clarify that first sentence. Exactly what do you mean? It’s capable of several interpretations (and you would then say that’s not what you meant…)

    I follow the science, not my thoughts and fantasies.”

    Please tell what interpretations you can give it to help me rephrase it for you.

    Like

  110. “Yes but sometimes there is only enough of the inhibitor to stop some of the enzyme from working.”

    In that case the enzyme is not inhibited…

    Like

  111. “Please tell what interpretations you can give it to help me rephrase it for you.”

    No, soundhill, it’s up to you to write exactly what you mean to say. As you have told us, you have plenty of time to do so. Otherwise what’s the point of writing, when you later say that what you wrote was not what you meant.

    Like

  112. Still doing anything to avoid providing evidence, answering questions or even clarifying his own statements…

    Like

  113. But, to help:

    What evidence makes you “think” – the evidence is needed to be able to discuss.
    Concentration of fluoride – where? What compartment?
    “Human non-gut metabolism” – why are you excluding gut wall from your statement?
    Are you including liver as “gut”, or not?
    As you word it, you have excluded the non-human content of the gut, but previous statements suggest you didn’t mean to. Is that correct?
    ENO1 – do you include other isoenzymes as well?

    soundhill, to take part in scientific discussion, you need to understand how science works. You obviously don’t. You need to be specific with questions you ask in order to get accurate answers. You ask vague questions that cannot be answered without lots of assumptions, generalisations and provisors on the part of anyone trying to answer.

    No wonder, when someone tries to answer, you then say it’s not what you meant.

    You really need to do a high school class in science.

    Like

  114. Stuartg: ““Yes but sometimes there is only enough of the inhibitor to stop some of the enzyme from working.”

    In that case the enzyme is not inhibited…”

    Partially inhibited. Enough to affect health depending on how able the body is to make more of the enzyme.

    http://www.aaccnet.org/publications/cc/backissues/1983/Documents/Chem60_260.pdf

    Like

  115. soundhill,

    So you aren’t using the scientific definition of enzyme inhibition, even though you introduced the term to a scientific thread?

    Like

  116. soundhill,

    I’ve asked you many times, but each time you have ignored the question:

    Show us your evidence from the real world that CWF inhibits human enolase.

    CWF has been used in populations for decades, by multiple generations, and by hundreds of millions of people. If human enolase is inhibited by CWF, the evidence is available.

    Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them.

    It’s your fantasy, now show us the evidence to support it.

    Like

  117. soundhill,

    That PDF has no mention of enolase. Was there a point?

    You can answer that rhetorical question after you produce the evidence that CWF inhibits human enolase.

    Like

  118. Stuartg: “So you aren’t using the scientific definition of enzyme inhibition, even though you introduced the term to a scientific thread?”

    From the pdf “Trypsin was considerably inhibited.”
    I think you are telling me that usage of “inhibited” does not fit what inhibition really is: an all-or-nothing matter.

    Like

  119. soundhill,

    Cyanide inhibits glycolysis and people die.

    CWF inhibits glycolysis and people die. Oh, wait. No they don’t. Perhaps because CWF inhibition of human enolase is pure fantasy?

    You claim that CWF inhibits human enolase. By definition that is an inhibition of glycolysis. We know what happens when glycolysis is inhibited. Where is your evidence that shows the mass deaths from inhibition of glycolysis when CWF is introduced to a population?

    Hamilton recently re-introduced CWF. You can start by showing the evidence from there that human enolase, and hence glycolysis, has been inhibited by CWF.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Like

  120. Stuartg: “You can answer that rhetorical question after you produce the evidence that CWF inhibits human enolase.”

    Have you forgotten my Aug 1 comment?

    Like

  121. soundhill,

    You’re finally getting the idea. Inhibition of an enzyme IS an all-or-nothing process.

    If there is insufficient inhibitor to block all of the enzyme molecules then the biochemical pathway carries on working.

    Like

  122. Stuartg: ” We know what happens when glycolysis is inhibited. Where is your evidence that shows the mass deaths from inhibition of glycolysis when CWF is introduced to a population?”

    *IF* it is doing inhibition I suggest it would be similar to the effect in the mouth on Strep mutans’ glycolysis. The amount of Strep mutans-produced acid attack gets reduced but not entirely eliminated.

    Like

  123. soundhill,

    “Have you forgotten my Aug 1 comment?”

    Do you mean the one where you forgot to post any evidence that CWF inhibits human enolase?

    Still waiting for the comment, and the evidence.

    Like

  124. Stuartg: “It’s your fantasy, now show us the evidence to support it.”
    Yes it was a cautionary notion which I thought better of on Aug 1, though I still need to look at gastrointestinal effects.

    Like

  125. “*IF* it is doing inhibition I suggest…”

    …but you said it was.

    Still waiting for the evidence.

    Like

  126. soundhill,

    Are you now saying that you never meant that CWF inhibits human enolase?

    You’ve now decided, after over 120 comments, multiple opportunities to explain your meaning (none of which you’ve taken…), that you were completely wrong and CWF has no inhibitory effect on human enolase?

    Like

  127. soundhill,

    Maybe you should follow the science.

    It’s better in the long run than following conspiracist fantasies.

    Like

  128. Stuartg:”Are you now saying that you never meant that CWF inhibits human enolase?”

    When I saw Ken’s article I needed to add that besides what Ken was relaying to us that fluoorde also has an effect of disabling some Strep mutans, “molecule by molecule” stopping its enolase from performing its glycolysis.

    So I had the cautionary notion might it also do the same thing to other enolase, maybe in our cells or our gastrointestinal tract.

    On Aug 1 I realised that even in the presence of phosphate the fluoride concentration in our cells ( I mistook cell fluid and blood serum) would not be sufficient to have noticeable effect. And I noted that for the group.

    It still remians for me to find out about any effect the cells in the stomach wall and intestinal wall in the presence of sufficient acidity, and for beneficial microorganisms in the intestines.

    So it is not the yes or no answer that you demand, sorry.

    Like

  129. So, soundhill, you eventually acknowledge that you have no evidence to support your fantasy. Without evidence, all you do is demonstrate the unscientific origin of that fantasy.

    Millions of people have used CWF for many decades, for multiple generations. Those numbers are sufficient to enable extremely rare side effects to be separated from background random noise.

    You can use exactly the same data to show the lack of side effects of CWF on cells of the stomach and intestines (or any other human cells for that matter).

    Post the real world data that shows there is actually something to investigate.

    Show us that this is not another example of your religious belief in your own conspiracist fantasies.

    Like

  130. Stuartg: “So, soundhill, you eventually acknowledge that you have no evidence to support your fantasy. Without evidence, all you do is demonstrate the unscientific origin of that fantasy.”

    What percent of hypotheses do not bear up under testing? Do you then call that percentage unscientific?

    I had said “I admit” already on Aug 1. It is not “eventually” as you claim.

    As for oral- gastrointestinal matters, and “inhibition” that label does not only apply to 100% inhibition.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1399-302X.1997.tb00623.x/abstract
    And please note “Lactobacillus rhamnosus” in that and this
    http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v77/n6/full/pr201551a.html

    Like

  131. soundhill,

    “Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.”

    Apart from soundhill1, who “said” that?

    – but what soundhill says is not what soundhill means.
    – the jargon soundhill uses means different things to the same jargon used by the sciences he comments about.
    – “our energy metabolism” refers to that of Streptococcus species, not humans.
    – uses many circumlocutions to avoid saying so, but is never quite able to deny his belief that CWF causes inhibition of human enolase, in spite of the lack of any evidence amongst the hundreds of millions of humans who have partaken the benefits of CWF.

    Like

  132. ““Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.”

    Apart from soundhill1, who “said” that?

    Stuartg once again you are misleadingly pasting the sentence of mine without the following one which adds meaning to it.

    I have given the ref for how fluoride ions inhibit Enolase entities, maybe getting up to 50% of the Strep mutans being affected.

    You claim Strep mutans ENO1 enolase is suffciently different from “human” ENO1 that fluroide would not affect the “human” ENO1, but that only appear to be your conjecture.

    And you do not seem to be able to comprehend that I “admitted” on Aug 1 that in places in the body the concentration of fluoride would not be great enough to have affect on ENO1 even in the presence of phosphate.

    However it is suspected that, as I commented with refs, that certain beneficial bacteria in our intestinal system have the effect of reducing ADHD. The ENO1 in those bacteria are fluorde-susceptible.

    KEN

    Like

  133. followon
    Ken ought to take another look at the Malin and Till study.
    And I do not think it to be correct to use just CWF figures, but better to use actual fluoride levels in drinking water.

    Levels were allowed to be up to 4 mg/litre and to combine such a State with the non-CWF Syayes would be wrong.

    Considering levels 20 years prior would allow for fluoride consumption by infants and the later effect on ADHD.

    Like

  134. soundhill,

    “Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism.”

    OK, so no-one else “said” that. Since you won’t acknowledge or attribute any other origin for the statement, I’ll accept that it came from your fantasies.

    You said, of me: “You claim Strep mutans ENO1 enolase is suffciently different from “human” ENO1 that fluroide would not affect the “human” ENO1, but that only appear to be your conjecture.”(sic)

    For at least the second time, no, I made no such claims. I follow the science. In this case I merely suggested that you also follow the science and consider “the differences between prokaryotic and eukaryotic enolase”. I can’t help your fantasies about what you thought I wrote, but if you had scrolled up the page you would have seen the reality.

    You say: “in places in the body the concentration of fluoride would not be great enough to have affect on ENO1”. OK, we can accept that, especially since there is no evidence that fluoride affects enolase anywhere in the human body. It’s a funny way of phrasing it though – you seem to believe there are places in the human body where fluoride levels do affect human enolase. If that really happens then show us the evidence that is out there.

    Provide us with evidence from the real world, where hundreds of millions of people have benefited from CWF, that people have had their enolase function affected by fluoride. Such an effect would be even more prominent in high fluoride areas – so where is it recorded? Even those low impact, non peer-reviewed articles from high fluoride areas that you are so keen on don’t seem to mention any effect by fluoride on enolase. Show us that this is not just another fantasy of yours.

    A gentle reminder: you are talking about an effect on humans and human enolase. The contents of the gut cannot be construed to be human beings, and neither can unicellular organisms.

    The science demonstrates that fluoride at the levels found in CWF has not been shown to have any effect on human enolase. Even when higher levels of fluoride are studied, there is still no effect on human enolase that has been documented.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    In this case, all you have to do to prove that CWF has an effect on human enolase is to overturn the science of hundreds of thousands of textbooks.

    Like

  135. One proof that fluoride works against human enolase is that some blood technicians have used it to preserve blood by lowering glycolysis in the blood. For longer durations of more than an hour it can work better than some preservatives at keeping the glucose level constant for delayed assessment.

    Like

  136. soundhill,

    Yes, those are the grey topped tubes that phlebotomists take at every lab in order to measure glucose or ethanol levels. It doesn’t preserve the blood, it preserves the glucose and ethanol. It does it by instantly inhibiting glycolysis and killing the cells.

    Your own reading and commenting has just confirmed what I’ve been telling you all along. If there is sufficient fluoride around to have an effect on human enolase, it kills the cells by inhibition of glycolysis. That results in death of the (human) organism.

    If there is insufficient fluoride concentration, there is no effect. Fluoride inhibition of human enolase is an all-or-nothing effect.

    Now show us where in the real world we can see that effect of fluoride on a human population. Where do we see the mass deaths you believe are caused by CWF?

    Surely, among the hundreds of millions of people who have benefited from CWF, or even those numbers exposed to naturally higher concentrations of water fluoride, you can find some evidence of mass poisoning from fluoride in drinking water?

    Show us the real world evidence that would support your beliefs and overturn all those decades of science discussed in the textbooks.

    Show us this is anything more than your own conspiracist fantasy.

    Like

  137. “Preserve” as in preserving food which of course kills it.

    The level of fluoride used would be about 4000 times that of water fluoridation and it will “inhibit” all the glycolysis.

    As I admitted on Aug 1 the level of fluoride in the blood from fluoridation would not be great enough to have that effect. All the glycolysis will not be stopped.

    Like

  138. “Preserve” as in preserving food which of course kills it.

    It’s already dead, stupid.

    Before it became food it was prey or crop.

    (Unless Brian is partial to eating live things, which wouldn’t totally surprise me it true.)

    Like

  139. Yes Richard I eat some probiotics which will grow from the spores with the environment there.

    Our intestinal tract can produce useful stuff like vitamin K2 from bacterial action there. Cows have more stomachs and are better at producing it and if we eat butter we get vitamin K2 from that. (Maybe not so much if the cows are protein-fed indoors.)

    Now people are told not to eat butter because of the cholesterol so perhaps that is why osteoporosis is more prevalent sinc vitamin K2 helps get calcium to the bones.

    We still make some in our intestines but does fluoride hurt the bacterial glycolysis used to do it in us?

    Several studies associate fluoridation with brittle bones. Any meta analysis needs to look at confounding factors like traditional eating habits such as sauerkraut or fluffy tofu or perhaps tempeh ooor natto which invovle fermentation or even good butter-consumption.

    Like

  140. soundhill,

    Ignoring the science and religiously sticking to your (long disproven) beliefs.

    Even that well respected medical journal, the New Zealand Herald, changed its mind about butter more than a year ago.

    Still unable to provide any evidence for your belief that CWF inhibits human enolase, then?

    Like

  141. For example this meta-analysis http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0126488

    The study of Cauley in Pittsburg found fluoridated people perhaps did better with regard to non-spinal fractures. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jbmr.5650100712/abstract

    The Pittsburg Allegheny area had a lot of German and Croat settlement. The traditional diet seems to be hanging on
    https://alleghenycollege.catertrax.com/shopportal.asp?pageid=11
    with fermented foods: sauerkraut sour-dough bread.

    And remember our earlier discussion sufficient iodine can alleviate affect of fluoride on IQ.

    Ken has opened thsi article up to calcium, why not help for some people to avoid negative fluoride effects?

    I note one of the Allegheny menu items is sweet and sour cabbage which has quite a bit of vinegar in it.

    Like

  142. So, still trying to avoid a definitive answer about your religious beliefs then, soundhill?

    No evidence to present, so yet again to try to change the goalposts and divert the thread that originated with your own statements.

    Why are you unable to provide evidence to support your beliefs? Maybe it’s because there isn’t any evidence, only your own fantasies.

    It’s amazing how you also think your avoidance activities are going to obscure your true beliefs and the lack of evidence for them.

    Like

  143. soundhill,

    Yes, I remember a previous discussion about iodine and fluoride.

    I especially remember how you had no evidence to support your beliefs.

    Since hundreds of millions of people have been exposed to the benefits of CWF for decades, and even more people have been exposed to naturally occurring even higher levels of fluoride in their drinking water, there must be some evidence, somewhere among those hundreds of millions of people, to support your beliefs.

    …Unless, of course, those beliefs are pure fantasy.

    Like

  144. Stuartg: “Still unable to provide any evidence for your belief that CWF inhibits human enolase, then?”

    I said on Aug 1 that it looks like the fluoride concentration coming from CWF is too low to affect enolase in human blood components.

    Like

  145. And Stuartg I didn’t ever claim that enolase in our blood components would be inhibted by CWF.
    I was adding to Ken’s story of the ways fluoride works to protect teeth.

    Here is what I wrote and for you to say that I am saying CWF inhibits enolase in blood components you would also have to say I were claiming fluoride level in blood components were 0.5mg/litre or greater. EH?

    “Also fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase which is needed for our energy metabolism. It makes it harder for the tooth decay bacteria Strep mutans to grow. When there is some phosphate present even 0.5mg/l fluoride inhibits enolase.”

    Like

  146. soundhill,

    Let’s try to clarify your comment:

    “Fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the enzyme enolase in S. mutans. There is also a version of enolase used in our (human) energy metabolism but fluoride has no effect on it so there really is no need to mention it.”

    Or:

    “Fluoride is said to work by inhibiting the prokaryotic enzyme enolase that is found in S. mutans. There’s a eukaryotic enolase found in humans, used for our energy metabolism, and, although it’s unrelated, if I mention it in the same sentence I can deliberately conflate the two. That will allow me to imply, without a scrap of evidence, that inhibition of enolase by CWF in S. mutans also occurs in humans. I have a religious belief about this even though there is absolutely no evidence for it occurring, so I’m doing this to sow FUD about CWF.”

    Which one better fits your initial and subsequent comments?

    I note that, in a thread of over 140 comments, you have neither clarified your meaning, nor provided any evidence to support your beliefs.

    You haven’t even managed a citation for who “said” it.

    Like

  147. Qualification for the first version:

    “…but fluoride in drinking water has no effect on it…”

    Like

  148. Stuartg: “That will allow me to imply, without a scrap of evidence, that inhibition of enolase by CWF in S. mutans also occurs in humans.”

    I needed to say that the mechanism of fluoride action is broader than what Ken had said. He was adding the calcium effect, and I the partial inhibtion effect. Indeed I also thought of the caution, the level of fluoride action being less than the concentration in fluoridated water. You could have said straight away blood won’t have that level of fluoride in it, but I worked it out and said it on Aug 1. I suppose you will go on pretending I hadn’t said it to make something out of it.

    Some side issues have come up. You are suggesting the difference between human and Strep mutans ENO1. You haven’t given a reference. Yet you admit fluoride inhibits “human” enolase as in preserving the glucose/alcohol level of blood specimens. But it means nothing after I said the concentration in blood component would be too low.

    Like

  149. soundhill,

    Why not read my comment of 27 July. Maybe earlier than yours of 1 Aug?

    Like

  150. Stuartg: “Why not read my comment of 27 July. Maybe earlier than yours of 1 Aug?”

    I did read it and confusion was spreading:

    Stuartg Aug 27: “1. Is enolase present in the enamel and dentine of the tooth to be acted on topically by fluoride from CWF?”

    I did not feeling like getting into that confusion.

    So I just admitted the concentration in blood component would not be great enough to have much affect on enolase there.

    You seemed to be trying to generate confusion to keep people away from thinking about fluoride reducing the activity of Strep mutans in which the enolase is.(Not the tooth enamel !!confusion!!) But you could have just said the concentration is not enough in the blood component. I found it out for myself.am commented straight away.

    But what may happen in the stomach where acid converts the fluouride ion to the much more absorbable HF is another story isn’t it? And where micro-organisms are growing further on to assist digestion and provide nutrients, too.

    And commenting on another of your comments about fluoride “homeostasis”: fluoride does not get kept within a tight range of concentration in bood the way for example calcium is kept. It gets into the plasma pretty quickly from the acid stomach and the level of fluoride in blood plasma may more than double for some 20 minutes then gradually drop off. Fluoride affects PTH and calcium: can weaken bones. I am slowly trying to learn about it and dental fluorisis striations?

    Like

  151. soundhill,

    Confusion?

    Ken’s blog is about acellular tooth enamel and the chemical reactions thereof. Your first comment is about an intracellular prokaryotic enzyme, but you then deliberately conflate that enzyme with your fantasies about human enolase and it’s (evidence free) interaction with fluoride intake in an attempt to generate FUD about CWF.

    Ignore your fantasies and look at the evidence. Who initiated any confusion in this thread?

    Like

  152. soundhill,

    Your first comment on this thread was an attempt to produce confusion about fluoride and human enolase. My first comment was to demonstrate the lack of uncertainty about the science of fluoride and enolase; it was there to reduce the confusion you are trying to produce.

    You fantasise there is some uncertainty about fluoride and enolase, so I asked you clarify the confusion and provide some evidence to support your fantasies.

    More than 150 comments later and you still have not provided any evidence, but you continue to sow confusion.

    I’ll ask you a couple of those questions again.

    4. What side effects are seen in humans when enzymes of the glycolytic pathway, of which enolase is just one, are inhibited?
    5. Have those side effects been seen in ANY of the millions of people worldwide who have had CWF for generations and decades?

    If there is any evidence, then produce it as a scientist would. Or tell us you have no evidence, as a scientist would.

    Demonstrate that you are not trying to sow confusion in order to provide FUD about CWF.

    Like

  153. Stuartg I made caution and corrected it but you seem to be saying things you know are wide of the mark.

    Like

  154. so, soundhill, you believe that I am confused about what you have written.

    Maybe I am. If so, then it is what you have written that is the cause of any confusion.

    That means that it is entirely your responsibility to reduce that confusion. It’s up to you to reduce the confusion that your writing has produced.

    Explain what you mean to say. Clarify your words. Take the time to write exactly what you mean to say and ensure there is no possibility of misinterpretation. Use little words and avoid scientific jargon if you don’t know the scientific meaning of the words.

    After all, that’s what the scientific method requires of communication – accuracy and clarity. The length and time taken to communicate doesn’t matter, as you have said yourself.

    Perhaps you can also take the time to provide the evidence that I and others have asked you to provide.

    Like

  155. Stuartg, I do not think you to be confused about what I have said, I believe you are attemtping to use the divert technique. EG when I talk about solar flares and radiation you divert to Van Allen belts and prove there was no trouble with them. &c &c.

    Like

  156. soundhill,

    Thanks, I didn’t think I was confused, either.

    So, since you are the one saying there is confusion on this thread, that means you are the one who is confused.

    Maybe, if you followed the evidence and science rather than a religious belief in your own fantasies, that confusion would be alleviated.

    Since you have ignored multiple requests to provide evidence in support of your fantasies, the conclusion is that you don’t have any. The inference of no evidence is that you are babbling about your own fantasies.

    Like

  157. Stuartg: “Thanks, I didn’t think I was confused, either.”

    No and nor are many global warming deniers confused, but they admit they set out to disinform – spread confusion amongst other people.

    Like

  158. Still no evidence, no answers to questions…

    Conclusion: he’s only be here to spread FUD about CWF

    Like

  159. Stuarg: “Still no evidence, no answers to questions…

    Conclusion: he’s only be here to spread FUD about CWF”

    “CWF” is not a constant. Why has it been changed?

    Like

  160. Stuartg please answer my Aug 9, 2:40am question in regard to your Aug 16, 9:16am comment.

    Like

  161. And with regard to my last comment, please remember part of that is just a side issue being cleared up because I already admitted on Aug 1 that the level of fluoride in blood constituent is too low to have much effect.

    Like

  162. OK, soundhill,

    I’ll accept you can’t provide evidence or answer questions.

    Like

  163. Stuartg | August 20, 2016 at 5:25 pm |

    “OK, soundhill,

    I’ll accept you can’t provide evidence or answer questions.”

    The reduction in “optimal” fluoridation level was accompanied by a comment on the harm it had been doing. No of course not your “mass deaths” immediately after drinking.

    And it would help if you answered my question reply rather than say I haven’t replied. Then we may proceed for there, after clarifying your understanding.

    As a doctor please isolate yourself from your usual protocols of defending yourself against the horrors of iatrogenic disease.

    Like

  164. I believe Stuartg to be trying to disinform readers when claiming anything which inhibits human enolase would cause mass deaths.

    (As far as blood goes I am still dealing with the offshoot of this topic, knowing that fluoride would not be concentrated enough in blood to do much disabling as I agreed on Aug 1.)

    Cyanide can cause mass deaths but the body makes an enzyme to detoxify it, that is rhodanese. Things get dangerous when the body cannot produce rhodanese fast enough to detoxify the incoming cyanide. There will be a gradual transition from hardly noticeable toxic effect to disabling toxic effect.

    The impression Stuartg seeks to give is that there is no toxic effect at all until death.

    Like

  165. Yep,

    Still no evidence, or any answers to questions.

    Doing his best to divert away from his fantasies.

    Like

  166. soundhill,

    All you need to do is provide some evidence to support your statements.

    Why can’t you do so?

    It suggests that your statements are pure fantasy, with no evidence to support them.

    Like

  167. Soundhill,

    “there is no toxic effect at all until death.”

    OK. Tell us what that toxic effect is. Prove, amongst the hundreds of millions of people who have drunk CWF, over decades and even generations, that there is such an effect.

    It’s not up to me to prove lack of effect, it’s up to you to prove that your fantasies have any reflection in reality.

    Like

  168. soundhill,

    Show us the evidence to support your fantasies.

    Answer the questions that have been asked of you.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Show us your evidence.

    Like

  169. I have given several examples from papers in which “inhibit” does not have to mean that every molecule is stopped. By claiming “inhibit” means every molecule I believe him to be disinforming.
    Stuartg on July 27 :”4. What side effects are seen in humans when enzymes of the glycolytic pathway, of which enolase is just one, are inhibited?”
    And his answer to his own question July 30: “4. Death. Cyanide also inhibits glycolysis.”

    He spent a lot of our time with that theory.

    Now he seems to be opening a door where it does not have to be total. Success!!
    ““there is no toxic effect at all until death.”

    Stuartg: “OK. Tell us what that toxic effect is. Prove, amongst the hundreds of millions of people who have drunk CWF, over decades and even generations, that there is such an effect.”

    In the USA, Dunedin and Auckland they must think dental fluorosis is harm or else they would not have reduced the level to 0.7.

    Wiki: “In April 2015, recommended fluoride levels in the United States were changed to 0.7 ppm from 0.7–1.2 ppm to reduce the risk of dental fluorosis.[57] The 2015 Cochrane review estimated that for a fluoride level of 0.7 ppm the percentage of participants with fluorosis of aesthetic concern was approximately 12%.”

    Like

  170. soundhill,

    Don’t attribute to me your own interpretation “there is no toxic effect at all until death.”

    If I had actually said it, I would acknowledge it. You said it, I quoted you. That’s what the quotation marks mean, in case you weren’t aware.

    Tell us what the toxic effect of CWF is.

    Show us the evidence to support your fantasies.

    Where, in the hundreds of millions of people exposed to CWF in the real world, for multiple decades and multiple generations, is there evidence of anyone being harmed by CWF?

    I know I’ve asked the same question many times before, but I’ve never received an answer from you.

    Show us any real world harm caused by CWF.

    It’s not up to me (or others) to claim lack of harm, it’s up to you to demonstrate the harm you claim is there.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Where is your.evidence?

    Like

  171. Stuartg since you must think that dental fluorosis not to be harm then you must be displeased with water authorities who have lowered the level?

    Like

  172. soundhill,

    “What side effects are seen in humans when the enzymes of the glycolytic pathway, of which enolase is just one, are inhibited?”

    Yes, I asked that question. Then, since you couldn’t (or wouldn’t) provide an answer, I answered it for you – death.

    Do you have evidence of an alternative answer? You’ve had more than 150 comments to do so, but you still haven’t provided evidence of any other answer.

    If there is evidence that CWF inhibits the glycolytic pathway in humans, then produce it. If there isn’t any evidence, then we understand your continuing silence.

    Like

  173. soundhill,

    “…since you must think that dental fluorosis not to be harm then you must be displeased with water authorities…”

    Could you clarify that? Maybe in grammatical English?

    Why “must” I “think” something I haven’t said? Unlike you, I say what I mean to say.

    Like

  174. Some 2.5 mg would be in the solution in a phlebotomy tube to more or less totally inhibit glycolysis in the sample of blood. If 10 ml of blood goes in that would make 250mg per liter or 250 times water fluoridation concentration. I am not sure on those figures. I wouldn’t want even 1/250th the eath concentration in my blood in my body. The fluoride must be removed when making saline solution for a drip.

    Like

  175. soundhill,

    I’m repeating myself, obviously, because of your previous ignorance of earlier requests.

    Show us, in the real world, any harm produced by CWF.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    We’ll understand your lack of an answer.

    Like

  176. soundhill,

    Now you need to explain and clarify your comment at 11:17 pm, August 20.

    It has nothing at all to do with the effects of CWF on a human being.

    …and don’t forget to clarify your earlier statement from 11:01 pm, preferably using English grammar that the rest of the world recognises.

    Like

  177. Stuartg: “…since you must think that dental fluorosis not to be harm then you must be displeased with water authorities…”

    Could you clarify that? Maybe in grammatical English?”

    Sorry I was going to say “since you must think that dental fluorosis is not harm then you must be displeased with water authorities…”

    then I realised I should be using the subjunctive, “to be,” rather than “is” but I forgot to remove, “that.”

    You must think it since you have not acknowledged my 9:29pm comment about water authorities.

    Like

  178. Stuartg” “Now you need to explain and clarify your comment at 11:17 pm, August 20.

    It has nothing at all to do with the effects of CWF on a human being.”

    No but both are fluoride, but as I agreed on Aug 1 the concentration in bood constituent is too low to have any appreciable effect there.

    Like

  179. Stuartg | August 20, 2016 at 11:20 pm |

    Sturartg: “soundhill,

    I’m repeating myself, obviously, because of your previous ignorance of earlier requests.

    Show us, in the real world, any harm produced by CWF.”

    I showed you the harm of dental fluorosis and point out that a number of water authorities have reduced their fluoride levels to reduce that harm.

    But since you ignore that you must think dental fluorosis not to be harm. However you are not in line with water authority thinking.

    So it is likely you also won’t think other things to be harm such as a few IQ points. But I do especially at the top and bottom of the distribution.

    Like

  180. soundhill,

    “You must think it since you have not acknowledged my 9:29pm comment about water authorities.”

    Why “must” I “think” anything? Only in your fantasies.

    Science requires clarity and precision, so let’s look at one of your recent comments for clarity and precision:
    “Some 2.5 mg (of what?) would be in the solution (of what?) in a phlebotomy tube (phlebotomy tubes are dry apart from buffered sodium citrate tubes)) to more or less (is it more, or is it less?) totally inhibit glycolysis in the sample of blood (what sample of blood?). If 10 ml of blood goes in (but the tube volume is less than 5 mL!) that would make 250mg per liter (wrong) or 250 times water fluoridation concentration (again, wrong). I am not sure on those figures (so I see!). I wouldn’t want even 1/250th the eath (Why use middle English? It makes no sense anyway) concentration (of what?) in my blood in my body. The fluoride must be removed (how?) when making saline solution (salt + water = saline, no need to add or remove fluoride) for a drip (where did that come from? Flight of ideas?).”

    I don’t actually think that you need to clarify that comment. It appears to have absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

    You have plenty of time to think about and review what you are going to post.

    There is no need to later “realise” and say “I forgot to remove”. You said yourself that there is plenty of time in a blog discussion to think about what to say, review, and even correct, comments before they are stated. You now imply that you can’t do what you expect others to do.

    Duplicating my previous comment:

    I’m repeating myself, obviously, because of your previous ignorance of earlier requests.

    Show us, in the real world, any harm produced by CWF.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    We’ll understand your lack of an answer.

    Like

  181. “The fluoride must be removed (how?) when making saline solution (salt + water = saline, no need to add or remove fluoride) for a drip”

    So you think it is OK to use fluoridated water to add salt to to make a saline drip?

    Like

  182. “Show us, in the real world, any harm produced by CWF.” Do you accept dental fluorosis as harm?

    Like

  183. soundhill,

    What harm does occasional mild tooth discolouration produce? Compare and contrast such harm to the cosmetic effect and pain of increased dental decay in communities who do not benefit from the action of fluoride on their teeth.

    We’ll understand your lack of an answer.

    Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You still have to supply any evidence to support your claims.

    You keep asking questions in an ineffectual attempt to conceal the fact that you are unable to provide the evidence or answer the questions asked of yourself.

    And just why do you think I am not in line with water authority thinking? Since I have never mentioned mentioned water authorities, and I’m unlikely to apart from this comment, the only source of such a belief is your own fantasy. It’s like most of your comments, “unsullied by such a meagre thing as evidence”.

    Like

  184. soundhill,

    “So you think it is OK to use fluoridated water to add salt to to make a saline drip?”

    Do you?

    I know nowhere in the world where such a thing happens. The idea must be from your own imagination rather than reality.

    Like

  185. (phlebotomy tubes are dry apart from buffered sodium citrate tubes)”

    If they are for collecting blood for glucose analysis I read they will have fluoride as well as citrate.

    Like

  186. ““So you think it is OK to use fluoridated water to add salt to to make a saline drip?”

    Do you?

    I know nowhere in the world where such a thing happens. The idea must be from your own imagination rather than reality.”

    Of course the fluoride level would be far too great in the blood stream.

    Like

  187. soundhill,

    Instead of trying to divert the thread away from the religious fantasies that you believe in, why not actually answer some of the questions that you’ve been asked. Why not provide some evidence to support your beliefs?

    As I’ve said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far you haven’t supplied any evidence at all. All you have to do to prove your claims is to overturn the science produced over the last century or so.

    We’ll understand if you can’t.

    Like

  188. “What harm does occasional mild tooth discolouration produce? ”
    Water authorities have considered it sufficient cause for concern to lower the fluoridation level.
    Auckland Watercare has recently reduced their level by about 18%.
    Therefore from the tone of what you have said you must think what Watercare has done to be wrong.

    The thing is how the discolouration occurs – by disabling of the ameloblasts. You have more faith then I if you believe that is the only thing fluoridated water is disabling.

    Like

  189. soundhill,

    “So you think it is OK to use fluoridated water to add salt to to make a saline drip?”

    Tell us where in the world intravenous saline solution is produced from fluoridated water. Evidence required.

    You brought up the topic, now it’s up to you to produce the evidence that it happens anywhere but within your own imagination.

    We’ll understand if you can’t produce the evidence.

    Like

  190. Stuartg seeking to confuse: “Tell us where in the world intravenous saline solution is produced from fluoridated water. Evidence required.”

    It is obvious that my point is that it would not be since the fluoride level is far too great.

    Like

  191. Stuartg when you seek to confuse you do not do the reputation of medical profession any service. Do you mind if I out you so that it is confined to you?

    Like

  192. soundhill,

    “Teeth with fluorosis are relatively resistant to dental caries, although they may be of potential cosmetic concern.” (not a quote from soundhill!)

    Explain how the “potential cosmetic concern” of fluorosis is harmful to the individual but pain and dental destruction from caries in non-fluoridated persons isn’t. I note that all through this thread you have been on about harm from fluoride (inhibition of enolase by fluoride), but now you have changed from “harm” to “potential cosmetic concern”.

    It seems that you can’t produce any evidence of actual harm from CWF, but you are unable to concede that any of your religious beliefs and fantasies about it can be wrong. Because of that, you are now doing your best to change the topic and try to make others forget that you ever mentioned your unscientific, evidence free beliefs about CWF.

    “Therefore from the tone of what you have said you must think what Watercare has done to be wrong.”(sic)

    Again, why “must” I “think” something that I have made no comments about? Only in your imagination…

    “You have more faith then I if you believe…”(sic)

    Your fantasies again… I have mentioned no faith, no belief. I follow the science. Unlike you, I have no religious beliefs based on unscientific conspiracist fantasies.

    Like

  193. ““Therefore from the tone of what you have said you must think what Watercare has done to be wrong.”(sic)”
    “Again, why “must” I “think” something that I have made no comments about? Only in your imagination…”

    Because until now you failed to acknowledge. Now you have implied Watercare have done something because of “potential cosmetic concern.”

    However since you think “dental health” to be more important than “potential cosmetic concern” you must think that what Watercare has done is wrong.

    Like

  194. soundhill,

    “So you think it is OK to use fluoridated water to add salt to to make a saline drip?”

    You asked the question, not me. Scroll up if you don’t believe me.

    I know it doesn’t happen. So do scientists all around the world. If you already knew the answer, then why ask the question? The only reason I can see would be to produce confusion or to demonstrate that your scientific knowledge is even less than is apparent.

    Like

  195. soundhill,

    “Now you have implied Watercare have done something…”

    Scroll up.

    Read.

    Don’t fantasise.

    You still have to tell me why I “must” “think” something that only exists in your own fantasies.

    Like

  196. A common tactic of Stuartg to take part of what I am saying and then be messing with it: “So you think it is OK to use fluoridated water to add salt to to make a saline drip?”

    You asked the question, not me. Scroll up if you don’t believe me.

    I know it doesn’t happen. So do scientists all around the world. If you already knew the answer, then why ask the question?”

    Here is what I had said: “Some 2.5 mg would be in the solution in a phlebotomy tube to more or less totally inhibit glycolysis in the sample of blood. If 10 ml of blood goes in that would make 250mg per liter or 250 times water fluoridation concentration. I am not sure on those figures. I wouldn’t want even 1/250th the eath concentration in my blood in my body. The fluoride must be removed when making saline solution for a drip.”

    (Sorry “that” got mangle to “the eath.”)

    To say again, the concentration of fluoride in fluoridated water is far too great in my view to be left in teh water for a saline drip to go into living human blood supply.

    Like

  197. soundhill,

    Please, tell me why, when I choose not to comment on an irrelevance, you fantasise that somehow my lack of comment means something other than me choosing not to comment.

    After all, I made no comment after you said “I am trying to find the variations in distribution of fluoride in the cell’s cytosol where glycolysis happens” but you didn’t appear to believe I was implying something when I didn’t comment.

    For the record, whoever “Watercare” is, their decision(s) are irrelevant to the science of community water fluoridation. You appear to think their decision is about science, but your own comments suggest to me that it is more about politics.

    I have repeatedly told you that, unlike you, what I type is what I mean.

    My silence on a subject merely means that I have not commented on the subject.

    Like

  198. I wrote:“Now you have implied Watercare have done something…”

    Imply means to express, suggest, or show something without stating it directly: A friend’s gruff manner would imply that she’s in a foul mood.

    The things you said had the implication.

    You seem to want “imply” to mean “say rather directly,” which is not normal usage.

    Corbett Report: “In a roundabout way perhaps the 9/11 commission reveals more than it lets on when it tries to dismiss key insider trades with the pithy observation that the (insider) traders had no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda. If those with foreknowledge of the attacks weren’t connected to Al Qaeda what does that say about the identity of the real 9/11 perpetrators?”

    The 9/11 Commission concede there to have been insider trading. Insider trading can only be done by traders in the know. If they had got knowledge through Al Qaeda links that would have implied links to Al Qaeda!! If there were no link to Al Qaeda it could not have been Al Qaeda doing it the 9/11 attack is “implied.”

    Like

  199. soundhill,

    Direct quote from you: “So you think it is OK to use fluoridated water to add salt to to make a saline drip?”

    Later on you denied it: “Here is what I had said: “Some 2.5 mg would be in the solution in a phlebotomy tube to more or less totally inhibit glycolysis in the sample of blood. If 10 ml of blood goes in that would make 250mg per liter or 250 times water fluoridation concentration. I am not sure on those figures. I wouldn’t want even 1/250th the eath concentration in my blood in my body. The fluoride must be removed when making saline solution for a drip.”

    Well, If you don’t believe what you said, you can always scroll up the page and check. After all, that’s what I did. You said both. They were in different comments and appeared completely unrelated to each other.

    What do you call it when someone says one thing, then turns around and says they said something completely different?

    Like

  200. Stuartg “My silence on a subject merely means that I have not commented on the subject.”

    I offered dental fluorosis as an example of harm. It is caused by fluoride disabling the ameloblasts. The Auckland Water Authority, who go by the name “Watercare,” have reduce their fluoridation by 18% in response to the concern.

    You are out of sync.

    Like

  201. Stuartg: “Direct quote from you: “So you think it is OK to use fluoridated water to add salt to to make a saline drip?”

    Later on you denied it: “Here is what I had said: “Some 2.5 mg would be in the solution in a phlebotomy tube to more or less totally inhibit glycolysis in the sample of blood. If 10 ml of blood goes in that would make 250mg per liter or 250 times water fluoridation concentration. I am not sure on those figures. I wouldn’t want even 1/250th the eath concentration in my blood in my body. The fluoride must be removed when making saline solution for a drip.””

    Not “later on”, before. You have reversed the order. “So”….. ? means “that could imply.” It means “Please say yay or nay.”

    Like

  202. soundhill,

    Changing topic again? Or flight of ideas?

    Exactly what has 9/11 got to do with your belief that CWF inhibits human enolase (scroll up – you changed the topic of the thread to fluoride and human enolase, remember?)

    Oh, and imply? – indicate the truth or existence of (something) by suggestion rather than explicit reference. You used the term, not me. You mentioned “Watercare”, not me. I still have no idea who or what “Watercare” is, so how can I imply anything about them.

    Scroll up.

    Read.

    Don’t fantasise.

    Like

  203. I repeated later on what I had said before. But you Stuartg are making it try to look as if it were the first time I said it.

    Ken is going to be way up in logins this month.

    Like

  204. soundhill,

    You are correct, I had reversed the order.

    Unfortunately I relied on your own comment at 1:12 am, where you also reversed the order. I should have known better.

    Like

  205. “Exactly what has 9/11 got to do with your belief that CWF inhibits human enolase.”

    I was the 9/11 Commission matter to explain the meaning of “imply,” which you seemed to have given a different meaning to it from what people usually mean it to have.

    Like

  206. soundhill,

    Following your concern about Ken: “Ken is going to be way up in logins this month.”

    The easy way to reduce that concern would be for you to produce any evidence you have to support your contention that CWF causes inhibition of human enolase.

    After all, you say there is some evidence. All the textbooks say there isn’t any.

    The textbooks have produced evidence to contradict your fantasy, but we’re still waiting for you to produce your evidence…

    Like

  207. soundhill,

    “you seemed to have given a different meaning to it from what people usually mean it to have” Did I? What a relevation! Let’s see…
    Google can give you the most common meaning:
    https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=meaning%20imply

    …and, surprise, surprise, we find that I actually copied and pasted the most common meaning of imply from the first item on a Google search.

    Maybe you should check the meanings of the words you use?

    Like

  208. Stuartg: “I have mentioned no faith, no belief. I follow the science. ”

    Scientists literally put their money on what to test, what experiment to do. They have to judge what to put their money on. A result may not ensue.

    Perhpas I should have siad, “You judge that fluoridated water will affect nothing else but our ameloblasts.”

    Like

  209. soundhill,

    I have mentioned no faith, no belief. I follow the science.

    Maybe I should also add that by following the science I have no need to make a judgement over CWF.

    Like

  210. “A friend’s gruff manner would imply that she’s in a foul mood.”

    You Stuartg read that they intended to imply that.

    But others will read it, “would imply, but it’s not actually the case. It’s her normal manner.” And I think the latter would be correct because of the word, “would,” before “imply.”

    In the way I was writing, I was perhaps a bit economical with words for writing to you, Stuartg. I thought “your words could imply,” would be obvious when I wrote “you imply.”

    And now in case I have got you overstimulated I shall let you have a few last comments for the night.

    Like

  211. Stuartg: “Maybe I should also add that by following the science I have no need to make a judgement over CWF.”
    Text books take a while to catch up. Science takes as while to “catch up.”
    It gradually progresses. Ken talks of my “hubris.” Can observations outside of formal science studies be taken up and investigated in formal science studies? Can flying thoughts land and take root?

    I have been talking on this group for some two years now about fluoridation and football performance.
    In a recent experiment two different genetic types of mice were both fed on low fluoride diets and deionised water.

    http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1678-77572016000300250&script=sci_arttext

    “In conclusion, A/J mice had an increase in proteins related to energy flux and oxidative stress. This could be a possible explanation for the high susceptibility of these mice to the effects of F, since F exposure also induces oxidative stress.”

    Maybe top football players also have some genetic connection to energy flux.

    I think a lot of science has a long way to go getting past putting so much weight on averages.

    Like

  212. Brian: “Text books take a while to catch up. Science takes as while to “catch up.””

    the hubris is in your thought that you are way ahead of science and text books and they need to catch up with you.

    Science is always catching up in the sense it is producing a picture of reality closer and closer to the truth with time. It uses its interaction with reality, evidence, to do this.

    But it is no way running to catch up with the idiot down the road who has flights of fancy.

    Like

  213. Ken, “I read that the hole in the ozone was present in the data for many years, but it wasn’t “discovered” until they stopped deleting the outliers.”

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/08/the_best_questi.html

    Like

  214. Following the science but whose message about it when the scientists are not saying the same as the perception the public have been given?
    https://www.independentsciencenews.org/health/how-the-ge-food-venture-has-been-chronically-dependent-on-deception/

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s