this point has to sink in.

if you're older, or have an existing condition, your life will never return to normal. your kids will beat it, but you won't. this virus will be here forever, and you'll never be able to live free from fear of it.

and, that's unfortunate.

but, it doesn't mean everybody else has to suffer for it.

see, this is why i was skeptical about vaccines; if it was that easy, we'd have solved this, already.

viruses are a fact of life, and you're going to have to deal with this.

the reaction is no doubt going to be to bring in even stricter measures, but it's the definition of insanity. there was never any other solution to this besides to let it run rampant, in the hopes that we'd water it down, and to tell people vulnerable to it that they have to be extra careful, potentially for the rest of their lives.

we can only hope that awareness is building around what's happening around us, and people start to realize the depth of the abuses of power we're experiencing, and the ramifications of them in the long run.

we have to understand what's happening before we're able to stand up and fight back.

this is obviously ridiculous. if they were acting out of any legitimate public health basis, they wouldn't be breaking distancing rules by grabbing him like that - what they're doing is the most dangerous thing happening on the rink, ignoring the fact that nobody in the video is likely to suffer serious consequences from this.

if they wanted to be excessively conservative in a way that made sense, they would warn the less resistant and more pliable people to get off the ice and let him skate by himself. they don't - they just want to throw their authority around for the sake of it, and that must be resisted.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-skating-rink-arrest-1.5848904

as it is, i vaguely recall having white spots on my teeth when i was a kid and my dentist telling my mom "but, that's a good thing". it must have been fluorosis, and it would have been from overbrushing rather than swallowing - and from drinking an insane amount of water, because my mom smoked three packs a day in the house.

it's in the same spots as it used to be. 

so, it's probably evidence that my fluoride stores are rebuilding to what they used to be.

but, i can hold out hope that it's more than that.

you'd think there'd be some kind of genetic condition where your body goes into arrested development and you keep your ameloblasts. i could only be so lucky as to have that defect, right? it's gotta exist...

fuck adulthood. i don't want anything to do with it.

so, they say fluorosis only happens in children, but i'm developing white spots, and they're not cavities.

so, is that genetic proof that i never grew up and remain a child?

to be clear - i don't want a war with china, but i suspect it's not avoidable.

and, if it is avoidable, the way to avoid it is to project power.

...because they certainly want a war with us.

coexistence is the preferred end point, but what that means is, unfortunately, mutual deterrence - at least for now.

i'm going to leave this here, for now:

https://essexregionconservation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/chapter-2-watershed-characterization.pdf

i was looking for data on sodium, and it's not there, but there is data on nitrates (amongst other things) that upholds the lowball i used as reasonable.

water in leamington is quite high in nitrates, but i likely get my water from canard and/or turkey river, and they're both fairly low.

it seems daft to make predictions this far out, but i'll make this one: the next republican candidate will be so utterly, blatantly stupid that he (or she.) will make trump seem like a brilliant genius, in comparison.

who do they got out there? look for the dumbest ones you can find - one of them will be the one that wins.

with the recent shift of conservatives to the democrats, the likelihood of a competent candidate winning has actually dramatically decreased.

the average republican voter has gotten even dumber over the last four years.

to be clear: a competent fascist may very well take a run at it, but no competent person could win the republican primary.

republican voters completely reject competency.

so, a competent fascist wouldn't stand a chance - not because the voters would reject fascism, but because they'd reject competency.

again: it's the democrats that pose the real threat, nowadays.

i was watching a chris hedges video the other day, where he suggested that trump was the opening act for a "competent" fascist, implying the next republican leader would be competent.

let's look at the last few republican presidents:

- trump 

- w. bush 

- hw bush

- reagan

- ford

- nixon

- eisenhower

- hoover

- coolidge

- harding

- taft <-----competent, at least

so, you see my point - over the last 100 years, there hasn't been anything approaching competency in the republican party. and, the direction is towards further and further levels of incompetency, to the point where it is probably likely that kanye west would actually win the nomination, if he decides to run.

i'm consequently not particularly concerned that the next republican president will be a competent fascist; my concern is that the next republican president will be even more incompetent. and, in comparison, that may be preferable.

no, chris - the party of competent fascism is the democratic party, and we've certainly seen some competent fascists - obama & clinton both fit that description quite well.

what's unusual about biden is that he doesn't seem to be particularly competent in his age. but, it's perhaps just an illusion.

if you are to be concerned about a competent fascist right now, that competent fascist is right in front of you - it's kamala harris.

on top of it all, my genes are just shit.

the reason i'm focusing so much on my diet is that life expectancy on my father's side is under 50 years old. 

this lineage should die out. it's for the benefit of the genome.

if you don't let your kids transition when they're young and still can, they're going to end up like me.

the concern is about people that will transition when they're 15 and regret it when they're 40.

but, the empirical data suggests that the much larger concern is regarding people that are 40, and are essentially useless to society because they didn't transition properly when they were 15.

this is why you can't let parents make decisions for their kids about transitioning.

i told you when i was 20 that i'll never want kids and you didn't believe me.

now, i'm 40 and i'm telling you exactly the same thing, and you still don't believe me.

do you need to wait until i'm 60 before you believe me, or what?

and, it's not like my thinking has fluctuated on this, either.

i was convinced at the age of 15 that i'd never breed, and i haven't wavered an inch on it. i've never been remotely interested in parenting anybody, and i'm never going to be.

our lives are so short and meaningless; about the last thing i want to do is enslave myself to a shit-machine that needs diapers and braces and schooling. to fucking hell with that.

i'd fucking kill myself.

if i ever managed to accidentally have children, i would hate them and treat them like shit.

i don't understand why these stupid doctors think i want kids.

i'm 40 years old and live on permanent disability. i haven't had sex in 15 years. i hate everybody and spend all of my time by myself. i'm the worst candidate for child-bearing that you could possibly imagine.

so, the options are 

a) i can remain on cyproterone acetate for the rest of my life, which will probably kill me.

b) i can get the surgery asap, and get off the drugs.

this third option of having children is not realistic. i don't want them, and i couldn't imagine anybody wanting to have them with me, even if i did.

it's the stupidity of denying me access to this that i just find baffling - it's damaging my organs, under the insistence that i want something that i don't want, and am entirely unsuited for.

for now, what do i do?

well, the blood test i got on thursday is actually measuring my potassium & sodium levels.

that's the best place to start, i guess - beyond setting data based on the official recs.

.....buuuut, the testosterone-blockers i'm on are also known to interfere with aldosterone production, and lead to excess potassium syndrome.

it's just another reason to get the operation asap and get me off these fucking drugs...

ok, this is the answer i'm looking for - sodium levels relative to water intake are maintained mostly via a hormone called aldosterone. so, it doesn't seem like i need to be all that concerned about flushing out the sodium with too much water.

Sodium homeostasis is maintained over a wide range of environmental and dietary circumstances, primarily through the action of the hormone aldosterone on the renal tubules of the kidney. When sodium intake is high, the aldosterone level decreases and urinary sodium increases. When dietary sodium intake is low, the aldosterone level increases and urinary excretion of sodium rapidly falls almost to zero. Although the kidney can thus conserve sodium, there is some obligatory loss via feces and sweat. Sodium deficiency resulting from low dietary intake thus does not normally occur, even among those existing on very low sodium diets (Page, 1976, 1979). Even relatively heavy sweating does not normally create a need to provide salt supplements (Conn, 1949). The body may be depleted of sodium under extreme conditions of heavy and persistent sweating, or where trauma, chronic diarrhea, or renal disease produce an inability to retain sodium (Gothberg et al., 1983). These latter conditions require medical attention.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234935/

if i can't find an answer rooted in nutrition science, i'm going to take a guess based on mimicking ocean water. while i understand that we can't drink saltwater, it's also the case that the salinity of our blood is about the same as seawater's, and that's long been thought of as more than coincidence.

that would suggest about 1%.

for the breakfast bowl, i'm currently at about .5%, but i've missed a few sources.

like most people, i have variable blood pressure - it comes in a wide range. but, i've gotten off my bicycle with a cup of coffee and still tested freakishly low five minutes later. it runs well below a normal range.

the symptoms of low sodium include headaches, as well.

i don't want to fuck with this without seeing some guidelines. i'm aiming for low sodium, and i'm getting it with minimal difficulties. it's not hard, either - you just have to eat actual food as the basis of your diet. so, i'm not going to just boost my sodium, haphazardly. i'm going to keep it as low as is reasonable.

but, i need to get some data that will help me set better lower limits for a high water diet, and the google results are just skewed towards the fact that 98% of people have the opposite problem.

everything's always complicated, right?

i'm supposed to get less than 2300 mg of sodium a day, and more than 1500. the average sodium intake is well over 2300. i'm currently getting 1693, by my calculations, if i eat thrice a day. and, if i don't, it's less than that. so, great, right?

i'm supposed to get more than 4700 mg of potassium a day. if i eat these three meals, i'm getting 4820 - and this is unusual to succeed in.

further, that means my k:na ratio is actually above 2:1, at around 2.8475. this is once again exceeding the targets. most people have something more like a 10:1 sodium:potassium ratio.

so, i'm doing great, right?

...except that i'm consuming something like 6 L of water a day, and i can't find a source to tell me what my sodium intake should be when i'm drinking that much water. am i actually getting too little sodium, relative to my water consumption? what should my sodium consumption be when i'm drinking that much water?

ok.

so, let's look at sodium.

just a reminder: these are the shortest days of the year, this weekend, with the shortest on monday.

the days get longer again starting on tuesday.

...and, they're still looking to do clinical trials of this stuff. this is very specific; i'm not going to find a way to hack it, or at least not for a reasonable price. synthesized amelogenin costs a lot...

i could maybe sign up to take part in a trial, but i otherwise have to wait, it seems.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283438670_Efficacy_of_amelogenin-chitosan_hydrogel_in_biomimetic_repair_of_human_enamel_in_pH-cycling_systems

i'm also going to pick one or two teeth to start and stick with it. we'll see how much "gel" i can get out one of these tablets, each of which should have roughly 1 gram of mcha in it.

the container has 120 doses, or enough for roughly four months, in it. that's more than enough time to evaluate it, and determine if it's doing anything or not.

ok. so, i'm convinced that this is the way to do it, to start:

- clean mouth as much as possible

- cut open mcha pill and empty contents onto a plate or other flat surface

- spit onto contents

- mix them up

- apply as topical to demineralized area

- let it sit for around ten minutes, or longer if i can. it depends on how well it sticks. any residue is ideal.

- rinse with water and spit out, if it doesn't stick well. otherwise, wait until next brushing to remove.

if that does not gel enough to apply as a topical, i will add a bit of toothpaste to gum it up enough to stick. that will introduce a little fluoride. but, to start, i'd rather try to avoid it.

and, i'll start tonight after the pasta bowl, with hemp.

For application, a thin ribbon of gel was applied with a finger over the enamel surface of each tooth block and left for 3 min, after which the gel was removed gently with gauze, followed by rinsing under running deionized distilled water (DDW) for 30 s, and the samples placed back into AS. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41405-020-0037-5

regarding the nail varnish...

even "non-toxic" nail varnish seems to have quite a few things in it that you're not going to want to put anywhere near your esophagus, or your trachea. 

but, even if i could find an acceptable non-toxic nail varnish, that's not what i want right now because it could interfere with the uptake of any mineralization. and, i'd need somebody with better qualifications to determine what areas are mineralized enough to coat.

i don't mind if my teeth end up looking gummy or glossy, in the end, either. again: this is about my oral health and trying to save my teeth from the effects of aging and erosion, not about the plasticness of my smile. if it works, that's more important.

but, that's not my concern for the moment, it would likely just decrease the effectiveness of the other things i'm doing, and i should put it aside for now.

here's something else that's curious - all these studies are in vitro and many of them coat the teeth in "acid resistant nail varnish" before soaking them in lactic acid (the chemical that oral bacteria produces that breaks down enamel) to produce caries.

so, in order to create fake cavities, they protect 98% of the tooth with nail varnish, then dip it in lactic acid. and, that works to protect 98% of the tooth from cavities.

it's not hard to understand why using nail polish on your teeth is a bad idea. but, are there non-toxic versions of this?

i might criticize this study by pointing out that the topical hydroxyapatite was prepared with artificial saliva, while the topical fluoride solution was prepared with distilled - that is, mineral-free - water. you wouldn't expect fluoride to do much by it's lonesome, without calcium & phosphorus. the results are consequently perhaps badly skewed.

regardless, i'm not using it as a replacement for fluoride and not intending to replace fluoride with hydroxyapatite - this is intended to be used in addition to fluoride and, eventually, perhaps in conjunction with a high concentration fluoride topical.

so, i may want to create the gel by mixing it with spit, rather than water.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3636833/

....and, my microhydroxyapatite is here.

how am i going to do this? well, i need to find some way to turn it into a paste or gel and paint it on the areas of my teeth that i want to remineralize.

i need to be clear: i have no idea if this is going to work or not. it at least makes sense, if the product is what it claims to be (ground up cow bones), which isn't even clear either, because it's a natural supplement. i don't know if this product is even legally for sale in this country, but it's actually being marketed as a calcium supplement. 

my diet is actually too high in calcium, which can lead to heart disease concerns. i'm going to need to find ways to reduce or otherwise neutralize my calcium, not ways to increase it. so, i don't want to swallow this, and i need to be clear in stating that i am not in any way recommending that this stuff be eaten, even if i eventually argue that the treatment is effective.

i have already posted some studies that suggest that topicals and toothpastes with this product have shown some promise. these items are, like, 10% nanohydroxyapatite. this purports to be ground up cow bones, and should consequently potentially be 100%, but is probably polluted with various things. that's the danger of taking supplements like this - nobody tests them. it could be fucking anything, although the company would no doubt face a backlash if it were shown to be ground up mushrooms or something, instead. so, even if this is 50% hydroxyapatite, that's much more potent than any topicals on the market.

and, i'll keep reading up on the peptide gels even as i try this out.

this seems extremely promising, but isn't available yet.

i need to make sure they're as clean as possible, first.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-materials-research/article/abs/repairing-human-tooth-enamel-with-leucinerich-amelogenin-peptidechitosan-hydrogel/2DA770FD730F18B0AC71DC5E0FCBE07F

....and here is a link to the first two sides of the new son lux project, which i may splice up a little over the next few days.

it is broadly quite strong, but there's a few cringey parts i'm going to scalpel out.

so, the new autechre record is kind of messy at points, but i'm still chewing over whether it's enjoyable or not. i've tended to react against accusations that these guys are totally pretentious hacks for the reason that they actually have tended to be compositionally interesting in both conventional and unconventional ways for quite a long time; the accusations against them have simply been demonstrably false, over and over.

but, on this record, they commit a lot of the errors they've avoided in the past - and right when people have apparently started letting up on the criticism of them for it.

*shrug*

in the end, what matters is how enjoyable it is and, like i say, i'm still chewing on it.

no beeturia, either - it's just bright yellow from the yeast.

so, what should i do if this pans out? should i call bulk barn?