what happened was that she responded on friday to the tribunal, but didn't include me in the recipient list. she indicated that ryan is a real person, and she's not representing him.

that's proof that she filed a false report.

so, i sent a form 10 to the tribunal to amend that information to the file. i also forwarded that information to the recipient list in the divisional court case and asked them for a response, and if that altered their approach to the case. she literally just admitted to lying to the cops, and that lie was the basis of the arrest. that should have a dramatic effect on how they respond further, if they're operating rationally.

i need to now figure out how to react to the information regarding the false report. i'll send an email, first.

i've got the email out to the cda, as well:

i recently picked up a tube of this stuff, on the realization that i could benefit from some stannous fluoride. this product comes with some hefty advertising, including your endorsement.

but, after looking through the ingredients list, there are two confusing ingredients, and i'm wondering if you could help clarify.

1) zinc lactate. this is a salt produced by attaching zinc to lactic acid. i understand that zinc has some proposed antibacterial benefits. but, if one separates zinc from zinc lactate to utilize those supposed antibacterial benefits (evidence for which is fairly weak), it leaves behind lactic acid. am i then correct in believing that this product will actually administer lactic acid to my teeth, and that zinc lactate is in truth a delivery mechanism for lactic acid?

2) carrageenan. this is a polysaccharide composed of a chain of galactose molecules. the amylase in your saliva should break this down into galactose. and, s. mutans eats galactose. am i then correct in deducing that the carrageenan in this product is a delivery mechanism for galactose?

do you think your endorsement is still justified?

j