I don’t dispute her lead findings, but her statement about Hydroxyapatite shows she’s willing to give comment on things she knows nothing about.
Hydroxyapatite is extracted from cow bone and added because it allegedly helps teeth absorb calcium, though Rubin said she doubts it does.
Hydroxyapatite is used as an alternative to flouride, as it’s able to attach to the enamal and act as a barrier similar to how flouride does.
Research has shown it’s less effective than flouride overall (it can’t withstand as low a pH/acidity before dissolving), but it’s not added to increase calcium absorption, like she claims.
Hydroxyapatite is basically bone without the last calcium ion, which is calcium apatite
Hydroxyapatite is present in bones and teeth; bone is made primarily of HA crystals interspersed in a collagen matrix—65 to 70% of the mass of bone is HA. Similarly HA is 70 to 80% of the mass of dentin and enamel in teeth.
I think you may want to reconsider, it might not be used for calcium absorbtion (that’s via preferential binding and transport pathways in the gut lumen), the apatite is absorbed by the collagen matrix for the outer coating, effectively regenerating the tooth.
Flouride is a stronger, but worse version of this (strengthing apatite without the Ca++ ion), though both together could theoretically be optimal, I don’t know of any studies looking into this, and we should be wary of making such claims barring evidence.
I’m not suggesting hydroxyapetite is without merit for dental purposes, it absolutely is useful, and I agree combining it with flouride would likely be optimal (I recall reading a study that seemed to suggest HA can actually remineralize deeper into the tooth than flouride can).
I was just pointing out that the woman in the article didn’t seem to know what hydroxyapetite is actually used for, despite trying to seem like a source of knowledge.
I don’t know the woman, I’m just against improper use of science.
Most of the Flouride studies are a century old, I consider all medicine of that era to be effectively meaningless.
Let’s do some new studies and put this stupid shit to bed.
Id love studies with apetite and fluoride combined, I’d also like to see the efficacy of Flouride mouthwash and toothpaste vs in water, no reason to treat systemically if we can treat topically.
We’re practicing voodoo medicine based on tradition, let’s see if we can come up with something even better now that we’re not illiterate morons.
Tamara Rubin is a grifter with no expertise who bought an XRF gun to use to scan random objects as fodder for her blog where she gets money from affiliate links. Her wikipedia page talks about a few of her financial crimes. I wouldn’t worry anything she puts out.
I don’t dispute her lead findings, but her statement about Hydroxyapatite shows she’s willing to give comment on things she knows nothing about.
Hydroxyapatite is used as an alternative to flouride, as it’s able to attach to the enamal and act as a barrier similar to how flouride does.
Research has shown it’s less effective than flouride overall (it can’t withstand as low a pH/acidity before dissolving), but it’s not added to increase calcium absorption, like she claims.
Hydroxyapatite is basically bone without the last calcium ion, which is calcium apatite
I think you may want to reconsider, it might not be used for calcium absorbtion (that’s via preferential binding and transport pathways in the gut lumen), the apatite is absorbed by the collagen matrix for the outer coating, effectively regenerating the tooth.
Flouride is a stronger, but worse version of this (strengthing apatite without the Ca++ ion), though both together could theoretically be optimal, I don’t know of any studies looking into this, and we should be wary of making such claims barring evidence.
I’m not suggesting hydroxyapetite is without merit for dental purposes, it absolutely is useful, and I agree combining it with flouride would likely be optimal (I recall reading a study that seemed to suggest HA can actually remineralize deeper into the tooth than flouride can).
I was just pointing out that the woman in the article didn’t seem to know what hydroxyapetite is actually used for, despite trying to seem like a source of knowledge.
I don’t know the woman, I’m just against improper use of science.
Most of the Flouride studies are a century old, I consider all medicine of that era to be effectively meaningless.
Let’s do some new studies and put this stupid shit to bed.
Id love studies with apetite and fluoride combined, I’d also like to see the efficacy of Flouride mouthwash and toothpaste vs in water, no reason to treat systemically if we can treat topically.
We’re practicing voodoo medicine based on tradition, let’s see if we can come up with something even better now that we’re not illiterate morons.
Tamara Rubin is a grifter with no expertise who bought an XRF gun to use to scan random objects as fodder for her blog where she gets money from affiliate links. Her wikipedia page talks about a few of her financial crimes. I wouldn’t worry anything she puts out.