Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site aecom.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!mcnc!philabs!aecom!werner
From: werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Re: The tooth -- the truth.
Message-ID: <2083@aecom.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Nov-85 23:12:39 EST
Article-I.D.: aecom.2083
Posted: Sun Nov 24 23:12:39 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Nov-85 22:18:58 EST
References: <2044@aecom.UUCP> <784@sfmag.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY
Lines: 17


	As expounded in my posting "Science and Semantics', I noted that if
and only if you define decay as encompassing a prior step (demineralization)
to matrix (of enamel) breakdown then can 'decay' be considered reversible.
Only demineralisation is reversible (by remineralisation), not decay as 
defined by an actual breakdown of the matrix.

	Ignoring the rest of the character assasination directed towards me
in particular and medicine in general in the rest of Stoll's posting, I can
only say, that if he would specify his terms, not make sweeping generalization,
or expound on impossible mechanisms for real phenomenon, he would have a 
greater credibility in both mine and most likely everybody else's opinion.
-- 

				Craig Werner
				!philabs!aecom!werner
                      "It's tough to incriminate a bread mold."