Julian Center

Article from: Vitamin Research Products

by Chris D. Meletis, ND

In last month’s newsletter, I discussed the effects of the chemical compound fluoride on the brain and cognition. This article furthers that discussion and covers the physiological impact of fluoride, found in most community drinking water, on other body systems. Research has shown that fluoride intake negatively affects numerous organs and physiological processes, including the bones, thyroid, cardiovascular system, kidneys, liver, breast, and immune and reproductive function. Numerous studies indicate that fluoride affects these organs and physiological processes by inducing free radical production resulting in oxidative damage.^1-3This is also apparent in the association between cancer rates and fluoridation of water supplies. Data indicates that increased water fluoride levels are associated with increases in several types of cancer including cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx, colon, rectum, liver, gallbladder, urinary organs, brain, Hodgkin’s and Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, melanoma and leukemia.⁴

Thyroid, Breast, and Bones

The thyroid is one of the organs affected by fluoride intake. In one study, researchers evaluated thyroid function in rats consuming a diet with added fluoride. The rats were evaluated for serum levels of the thyroid hormones triiodothyronine (T3), free T3, thyroxine (T4) and free T4. Free T3 and free T4 are hormones not bound to proteins, and thus are biologically active. The results of the study showed that the rats fed the diet with fluoride added had significantly decreased levels of all 4 thyroid hormone measurements.⁵ Another study evaluated thyroid function in individuals exposed to elevated fluoride levels in drinking water. In this study, 123 subjects were evaluated for thyroid hormone levels. The results indicated that prolonged consumption of drinking water with elevated levels of fluoride caused an increase in thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) released from the pituitary, decreased levels of T3, and a more intense absorption of radioactive iodine by the thyroid as compared to healthy individuals who consumed drinking water with the normal fluoride concentration.⁶

A third study evaluated the effects of long-term workplace exposure to fluorine on parameters of immune function. The researchers found that chronic fluorine exposure resulted in immune deficiencies in all workers. However, in the subset of workers with decreased thyroid function, the immune effects were more pronounced. In the subset with low thyroid function, there were increased numbers of T-lymphocytes (white blood cells); however, the functional activity of these cells was decreased, with adverse effects seen on measures of immune cell cooperation.⁷

Bones are just as vulnerable to fluoride’s effects. Research has shown that fluoride can cause increased bone turnover and altered mineral metabolism, which may affect bone density as well as cause exostosis formation (the growth of boney masses). Also, small doses of fluoride ingested over a long period of time with normal calcium intake can result in osteosclerosis, which is the abnormal hardening of bone.⁸ Studies have also demonstrated that fluoride administration results in apoptosis (programmed cell death) in osteoblasts, which are the cells that synthesize bone, as well as down-regulation of the synthesis of the collagen proteins found in bone.⁹ Similarly, another study showed that low dosages of fluoride result in decreased viability of osteoblasts, and increased markers of oxidative stress including increased lipid peroxidation and antioxidant enzyme activity in the osteoblasts.¹⁰

Furthermore, research has found an association between bone tumors and fluoride exposure. One study showed that serum fluoride levels were significantly higher in subjects with osteosarcomas compared to individuals with other boney tumors or healthy controls.¹¹ Similarly, another study found that the incidence of osteosarcoma in males correlated with levels of fluoride in the drinking water during childhood.¹²

Fluoride is also taken up by breast tissue. Researchers have shown that fluoride levels in breast milk parallel both serum levels of fluoride as well as fluoride levels in the drinking water.^13-14

Heart, Pancreas, Liver, and Kidneys

Fluorosis, or increased fluoride exposure, can damage the cardiovascular system. Researchers have shown that subjects with increased fluoride intake have global heart dysfunction and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, meaning the heart does not relax properly.¹⁵ Additionally, fluoride can cause abnormalities in the elasticity of the aorta, the primary blood vessel leading from the heart.¹⁶

Animal models suggest that fluoride also affects insulin secretion from the pancreas. One study showed that mice exposed to fluoride in the drinking water for 4 weeks resulted in elevated blood glucose levels, impaired glucose tolerance and decreased insulin secretion from the beta cells in the pancreas. The researchers also showed that these changes were related to an increase in markers of oxidative stress and free radical generation.¹⁷ Another study using mice revealed that fluoride exposure resulted in a reduction of insulin secretion by 85 percent compared to the control mice not exposed to fluoride.¹⁸

Research also indicates that fluoride impacts liver and kidney function. Using animal models, researchers showed that fluoride in the drinking water (15 mg/L) resulted in severe alterations in both the liver and kidney architecture.¹⁹ In another study, 332 middle-aged healthy subjects were evaluated for serum ionic fluoride concentrations and measurements of kidney function. The study found that serum ionic fluoride concentrations correlated to the estimated glomerular filtration rate, which is a measurement of kidney health, indicating an association between fluoride and age-related degeneration in kidney function.²⁰ Researchers have also shown that varying levels of fluoride in the drinking water influences kidney health in children. In this study, the researchers showed that over 2.0 mg/L fluoride in drinking water can cause kidney damage in children, and the degree of damage increases with the drinking water fluoride content.²¹

Reproduction

Several studies have shown that fluoride is a key factor in reduced fertility and declining health of spermatozoa. In one study, spermatozoa from mice treated with fluoride in the drinking water were compared to spermatozoa from mice without fluoride exposure. The study demonstrated that fluoride exposure resulted in increased measurements of oxidative stress in the sperm. Furthermore, the percent of spermatozoa that were capable of fertilizing an egg in the fluoride-treated group was 34 percent, compared to 55 percent of the spermatozoa from mice in the control group.²² Another study showed that fluoride exposure resulted in decreased sperm count, motility and density.²³

Data also shows that fluoride exposure in the drinking water influences fertility rates in humans. Using a database of drinking water fluoridation in 30 regions in the U.S., researchers showed that the annual total fertility rate was negatively associated with water fluoridation, meaning that as fluoride levels increased, the total fertility rate for that region decreased.²⁴

Fluoride, Other Halogens, and Health

Fluorine belongs to the halogen family of elements, a group of highly reactive non-metals including iodine, chlorine, bromine (found in most commercial, non-organic breads) and astatine. This is important as the halogens can displace each other in physiologic reaction and compete for uptake from the intestines. Organs such as the thyroid and breast tissue utilize iodine for physiological processes, and excessive fluoride intake can interfere with these reactions.

Thus, supplementation with another halogen, such as iodine, can compete with fluoride uptake by cells in the body. Research has shown that iodine supplementation can decrease fluoride uptake in cells. In one study, researchers showed that increased fluoride or chloride intake reduced the effectiveness of iodine administration in rats with hypothyroidism to improve hormone and lipid levels.²⁵ It is important to optimize iodine intake to reduce the impact of fluoride on the body.

Iodoral® is an oral iodine supplement that contains 5 mg iodine and 7.5 mg iodide as the potassium salt and is an ideal way to replenish body stores of this important mineral. An iodine sufficiency test can also be taken prior to supplementation in order to establish how much iodine is needed.

In addition to iodine supplementation, intake of riboflavin and niacin (as found in ATP Cofactors), should also be considered as these vitamins are important in the oxidation and incorporation of iodide into cells and hormones.²⁶ These B vitamins also support cellular energy (ATP) production, and riboflavin has been shown to increase fluoride excretion in the feces.²⁷

In addition, Celtic Sea Salt®, a natural form of salt, can be used to optimize intake of sodium, chloride and trace minerals including calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron and zinc. Chloride, which couples with such minerals as sodium, sodium chloride (NaCl), and potassium (KCl), is a critical mineral and friendly halide that can help one’s body cope with the balancing act of dealing with high fluoride and bromide levels, in the environment and diet. Salt has sustained humanity for millennia, yet the form of salt is critical. Celtic Sea Salt is vital for proper body mineralization and cellular function, including electro-gradients of cell membranes.

Conclusion

Fluoride is an ubiquitous chemical compound, which has both beneficial and adverse effects on health, with a narrow range between the intakes at which this occurs.²⁸ Supplementation with iodine and other trace minerals can compete with fluoride and reduce the impact of excessive fluoridation on physiological processes in the body.

References

1. Inkielewicz-Stepniak I, Czarnowski W. Oxidative stress parameters in rats exposed to fluoride and caffeine. Food Chem Toxicol. 2010 Jun;48(6):1607-11.

2. Morales-González JA, Gutiérrez-Salinas J, García-Ortiz L, et al. Effect of sodium fluoride ingestion on malondialdehyde concentration and the activity of antioxidant enzymes in rat erythrocytes. Int J Mol Sci. 2010 Jun 11;11(6):2443-52.

3. Shivarajashankara YM, Shivashankara AR, Bhat PG, et al. Lipid peroxidation and antioxidant systems in the blood of young rats subjected to chronic fluoride toxicity. Indian J Exp Biol. 2003 Aug;41(8):857-60.

4. Takahashi K, Akiniwa K, Narita K. Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on IACR/IARC (WHO) data (1978-1992). International Agency for Research on Cancer. J Epidemiol. 2001 Jul;11(4):170-9.

5. Wang H, Yang Z, Zhou B, et al. Fluoride-induced thyroid dysfunction in rats: roles of dietary protein and calcium level. Toxicol Ind Health. 2009 Feb;25(1):49-57.

6. Bachinskiĭ PP, Gutsalenko OA, Naryzhniuk ND, et al. Action of the body fluorine of healthy persons and thyroidopathy patients on the function of hypophyseal-thyroid the system. Probl Endokrinol (Mosk). 1985 Nov-Dec;31(6):25-9.

7. Balabolkin MI, Mikhaĭlets ND, Lobovskaia RN, et al. The interrelationship of the thyroid and immune statuses of workers with long-term fluorine exposure. Ter Arkh. 1995;67(1):41-2.

8. Krishnamachari KA. Skeletal fluorosis in humans: a review of recent progress in the understanding of the disease. Prog Food Nutr Sci. 1986;10(3-4):279-314.

9. Yan X, Yan X, Morrison A, et al. Fluoride induces apoptosis and alters collagen I expression in rat osteoblasts. Toxicol Lett. 2011 Feb 5;200(3):133-8.

10. Xu H, Wang CH, Zhao ZT, et al. Role of oxidative stress in osteoblasts exposed to sodium fluoride. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2008 Summer;123(1-3):109-15.

11. Sandhu R, Lal H, Kundu ZS, et al. Serum Fluoride and Sialic Acid Levels in Osteosarcoma. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2009 Apr 24. Published Online Ahead of Print.

12. Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, et al. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2006 May;17(4):421-8.

13. Sener Y, Tosun G, Kahvecioglu F, et al. Fluoride levels of human plasma and breast milk. Eur J Dent. 2007 Jan;1(1):21-4.

14. Esala S, Vuori E, Helle A. Effect of maternal fluorine intake on breast milk fluorine content. Br J Nutr. 1982 Sep;48(2):201-4.

15. Varol E, Akcay S, Ersoy IH, et al. Impact of chronic fluorosis on left ventricular diastolic and global functions. Sci Total Environ. 2010 May 1;408(11):2295-8.

16. Varol E, Akcay S, Ersoy IH, et al. Aortic elasticity is impaired in patients with endemic fluorosis. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2010 Feb;133(2):121-7.

17. García-Montalvo EA, Reyes-Pérez H, Del Razo LM. Fluoride exposure impairs glucose tolerance via decreased insulin expression and oxidative stress. Toxicology. 2009 Sep 19;263(2-3):75-83.

18. Menoyo I, Rigalli A, Puche RC. Effect of fluoride on the secretion of insulin in the rat. Arzneimittelforschung. 2005;55(8):455-60.

19. Chattopadhyay A, Podder S, Agarwal S, et al. Fluoride-induced histopathology and synthesis of stress protein in liver and kidney of mice. Arch Toxicol. 2010 Sep 22. Published Online Ahead of Print.

20. Itai K, Onoda T, Nohara M, et al. Serum ionic fluoride concentrations are related to renal function and menopause status but not to age in a Japanese general population. Clin Chim Acta. 2010 Feb;411(3-4):263-6.

21. Liu JL, Xia T, Yu YY, et al. The dose-effect relationship of water fluoride levels and renal damage in children. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu. 2005 May;34(3):287-8.

22. Izquierdo-Vega JA, Sánchez-Gutiérrez M, Del Razo LM. Decreased in vitro fertility in male rats exposed to fluoride-induced oxidative stress damage and mitochondrial

transmembrane potential loss. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2008 Aug 1;230(3):352-7.

23. Gupta RS, Khan TI, Agrawal D, et al. The toxic effects of sodium fluoride on the reproductive system of male rats. Toxicol Ind Health. 2007 Oct;23(9):507-13.

24. Freni SC. Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. J Toxicol Environ Health. 1994 May;42(1):109-21.

25. Voronych-Semchenko NM. Characteristics of hypothyroidism correction and lipid metabolism disorder in iodine deficiency. Fiziol Zh. 2007;53(3):38-42.

26. Abraham GE. The safe and effective implementation of orthoiodosupplementation in medical practice. The Original Internist. 2004;11(1):17-36.

27. Stookey GK. Influence of riboflavin on fluoride metabolism in the rat. J Dent Res. 1973 Jul-Aug;52(4):843.

28. Environmental Health Criteria 227: Fluorides. World Health Organization, 2002, Available at: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc227.htm#5.0. Accessed on: 2-27-11.

 

Causing hypothyroidism and immune deficiency

By Marianna Leigh

(NaturalNews) Fluoride is getting a lot of bad press these days, and for good reason: it is a toxic molecule that wreaks extensive, often irreversible, havoc on the body. The thyroid is particularly affected by fluoride exposure because its store of iodine is depleted. Iodine deficiency depresses the thyroid’s metabolic and immune functions, resulting in hypothyroidism and lowered immunity.

Fluoride and iodine are both halogens. Fluoride, the negative ion of the element fluorine, easily displaces iodine in the body because it is much lighter and therefore more reactive. In fact, the activity of any one of the halogens (Iodine 126.70, Bromine 79.90, Chlorine 35.45, Fluorine 18.99 are the most common) is inversely proportional to its atomic weight. In other words, one halogen can displace another one of a higher atomic weight but cannot displace one of lower weight.

Lack of iodine shuts down production of thyroxine, the thyroid prohormone that controls metabolism, and, in one way or another, impacts every aspect of health. The resulting hypothyroidism causes weight gain, cold intolerance, dry and prematurely aged skin, depression, constipation, hair loss, memory loss, irritability, increased cholesterol levels, heart disease and loss of libido.

But the action of iodine in the thyroid is not limited to metabolism; it also has an important immune function. Blood circulates through the thyroid once every 17 minutes in what has been called the ’17 minute passage’. Secretion of iodine, a potent germ killer, into the blood stream as it is passing through the thyroid weaken invading organisms, allowing them to be more easily eradicated. If the thyroid is deficient in iodine, this critical step in immunity will be reduced or eliminated.

Unlike iodine, which the body cannot store long-term, fluoride is a problematic and persistent toxin. Its effects are systemic and only about half of what is ingested can be excreted; the rest is stored in bones and tissues, blocking access to other elements, like iodine.

Fluoride exposure can come from multiple obvious and not-so-obvious sources. In addition to dental hygiene products and drinking water, many breakfast cereals, juices from concentrate, soda and other processed foods contain alarming levels. Fluoride-containing pesticide use means that the environment is being flooded with fluoride by conventional agriculture (http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-pesticides.htm). Also, many antidepressants contain large amounts of fluoride and are widely prescribed, often for a lifetime of use.

Conventional medicine’s response to hypothyroidism typically ignores causes and prescribes synthetic thyroxine hormone in an attempt to balance out the health equation with another unnatural substance; this is nothing new. But hypothyroidism is a national epidemic, affecting roughly 10% of the female population in the US and in no way sparing men. It has created a stable, ever-expanding market for these cash cow thyroid drugs (the leading thyroid drug was number 7 on JAMA’s list of ‘most commonly prescribed’ in 2006; one year later it was number 4).

One might assume then that fluoride’s role in depressing thyroid function is a new discovery, that government fluoride programs simply lack this vital information. Yet research has been taking place since the 1930s, when fluoride was used to treat individuals with overactive thyroid. The relationship is well established, and old.

Which leads inevitably to a difficult question: How could government allow fluoride addition to drinking water, approve fluoride-containing drugs and pesticides, and fail to test for fluoride content in food when there is a known connection with serious thyroid complications?

Perhaps the case value of the fact that millions of Americans take thyroid drugs, and most likely will take them the rest of their lives, can suggest an unbiased, honest answer.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.naturalnews.com/026853_thyroid_hypothyroidism_disease.html

http://www.livestrong.com/article/133622-common-prescription-drugs/

http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm

About the Author:

Marianne Leigh is a writer who is deeply concerned with environmental and natural health issues. Her latest project is creating a food blog for her community that provokes discussion about food, natural health and local sustainable agriculture.

By Dr. Mark Breiner

The optimal amount of fluoride in drinking water, as recommended by the Center for Disease Control (CDC), has been .7 – 1.2 ppm (parts per million), with a maximum allowed amount of 4 ppm.

Because fluorosis (the white and brown spots in enamel caused by fluoride) is becoming more and more prevalent, in early January, the CDC changed their position and now has set the optimal level for fluoride in drinking water at .7 ppm.

The reason for this change is that the rate of fluorosis has continued to increase over the years; it is now affecting 41% of children 12-15 years old! It is, however, absurd to think that excess fluoride affects only the formation of enamel. The CDC has failed to address the systemic effects of fluoride like bone fractures, and arthritis, etc.

A recent study published in Environmental Health Perspectives (which is a publication of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) found that serum fluoride correlates with fluoride in drinking water. They found that the higher the serum number, the lower the IQ of the subjects in the study. (I wish they would read their own research!)

Will reducing the optimal level of fluoride in drinking water lower the rate of fluorosis? I doubt it. Infants and children will still be receiving too much of the poisonous fluoride during the years of tooth development. Remember, infants are being fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water. They are, therefore, imbibing a dose of fluoride way over that which is considered safe for their body weight. The government agencies in charge of fluoridating our water confuse or ignore the concepts of concentration and dose. They discuss how much better a concentration .7 ppm will be, but they do not address the dose. Let us assume, for example, that there is a concentration of 1 ppm of fluoride in water. If you were to drink 1 quart of this water per day, that would equal an intake of 1 mg of fluoride. When prescribing drugs, a dose is figured in mg/body weight. Safe levels of fluoride should be calculated in the same manner.

So, if you want to use fluoride as a drug to prevent tooth decay, then it should be given in mg/body weight. An infant weighing 8.8 pounds equals a weight of 4 kg. The EPA’s upper tolerable level of intake of fluoride is .06 mg/kg. This means a 4 kg baby should take in a dose not greater than .24 mg. So we see that an 8.8 pound formula-fed baby will consume about 4 times the amount of fluoride considered safe by the EPA.

And what about the cumulative dose? Fluoride is everywhere – in pesticides, toothpastes, reconstituted juices, and sodas. Even many of our drugs today are fluoride-based, e.g., Cipro®, Lipitor ®, Prozac®, Celebrex®, and Diflucan®. There are reports of patients becoming very ill from fluoride-based drugs.

I have seen advertisements on television by lawyers telling people to call their office if they have been taking Levaquin® and have suffered ligament damage. One of the side effects of fluoride is ligament damage.

We need to get fluoride out of our water!

Kudos to Queens, NY, Councilman, Peter Vallone, who is introducing a bill to ban fluoride in NYC drinking water. This is a brave, bold move by Councilman Vallone. We should all contact his office to show our support.

On a happier note… Congratulations to the EPA on its decision to phase out the use of sulfuryl fluoride (SFL). Until now, large amounts of the residues of this pesticide have been allowed to remain on our food. When SFL enters the body, it breaks down to fluoride, with all its negative ramifications. Below are some examples of the levels of SFL residues which have been allowed on our food (in ppm).

Herbs and spices 70 ppm, coffee 15 ppm, oat flour 75 ppm, wheat germ 130 ppm, wheat flour 125 ppm, all types of benas 70 ppm.

Slowly, we make progress. As I have said time and time again, I find toxins to be the single most significant contributing factor to ill health. It is a shame we have to battle our own government to protect us.

2011, Mark A. Breiner, DDS

www.WholeBodyDentistry.com

Has Its Moment Finally Arrived?

By Dr. Mercola – January 28, 2011

At the end of the two-day hearing to evaluate the safety of amalgam, the FDA’s own scientific panel – including neurologists, toxicologists, epidemiologists, and environmental health specialists – told the agency to stop amalgam use in children, pregnant women, and hypersensitive populations.

After reviewing the available scientific studies and the presentations of researchers, experts, dentists, and injured consumers, the scientists concluded that – contrary to the claims of the FDA’s in-house dentist Susan Runner – amalgam is not safe for everybody.

According to the panel, the FDA’s amalgam risk assessments were not adequate to protect hypersensitive adults, children, and unborn babies. Repeatedly, panel members expressed their concern about amalgam use in children. Pediatric neurologist Dr. Suresh Kotagal of the Mayo Clinic summed it up for the entire panel:

“There is really no place for mercury in children.”

Other panelists went on to explain that dental mercury is like lead. The panel urged the FDA to quickly contraindicate amalgam for these vulnerable populations and insisted that the FDA provide consumers with labeling containing clear warnings.

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Dental “silver” amalgam fillings – or as I like to call them “mercury fillings” – are actually made from about 50 percent mercury and the rest of an amalgam is silver, tin, copper, zinc and other metals, and have been used for more than 150 years. An estimated 100 million mercury fillings are put into your mouths each year in the United States alone.

But the use of amalgam (mercury fillings), especially in pregnant women and children, has now been judged unsafe by a panel of scientists advising the FDA – the same FDA that has always defended the use of amalgam, and continues to defend its use!

In the words of Charlie Brown, president of the World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry, “Amalgam is a primitive, polluting, 19th century product that began when physicians were sawing off legs. Medicine has since moved forward.” Unfortunately, this aspect of dentistry has not, at least not yet in the United States.

Mercury Does NOT Belong in your Mouth — Period

Mercury is a potent toxin that can damage your brain, central nervous system and kidneys. Children and fetuses, whose brains are still developing, are most at risk, but really anyone can be impacted.

I find it quite ironic, not to mention unsettling, that the metallic mercury used by dentists to manufacture dental amalgam is shipped as a hazardous material to the dental office. And any amalgam leftover is also treated as hazardous and requires special precautions to dispose of.

Yet most dentists will readily implant this hazardous material directly into your mouth, with continued and emphatic assurance that it’s perfectly safe and harmless. Now, at least the FDA advisory panel has admitted the obvious: mercury fillings are not safe for everyone. The truth is, mercury fillings are a hazard to everyone and should be avoided until the slow moving and stubborn FDA finally bans them.

Just How Much Mercury Do These Fillings Release?

Remember, virtually any kind of stimulation can cause these fillings to release mercury. Eating, drinking, brushing your teeth, grinding your teeth, chewing gum, anything. If you want to see vapors released for yourself, watch this shocking video.

Mercury vapor from the amalgams passes readily through cell membranes, across the blood-brain barrier, and into your central nervous system, where it causes psychological, neurological, and immunological problems.

For an interesting comparison, consider that scientists recently made a wise warning about eating mercury-contaminated seafood. Well, eating such seafood will expose you to about 2.3 micrograms of mercury a day.  A single dental amalgam filling, meanwhile, releases as much as 15 micrograms of mercury EVERY day.

But that’s not all. The average person has eight amalgam fillings and could absorb up to 120 micrograms of mercury per day. Clearly this is cause for urgent action to be taken.

Why the FDA is Resistant to Banning Amalgam

FDA remains adamant in protecting mercury fillings, which no doubt has at least something to do with its commissioner. FDA Commisioner Margaret Hamburg has an egregious conflict of interest on amalgam, yet participated in the rulemaking that led to last year’s abysmal amalgam rule. Hamburg entered the FDA through the revolving government/private industry door after allegedly making millions as the director of Henry Schein Inc., the largest seller of amalgam (mercury fillings).

The FDA has a history of stacking the deck of its advisory panels so that the pro-industry, pro-mercury position is upheld.

Why?

In a word: money. Over 100 million fillings are put into mouths in the United States alone, and each tooth that’s filled with toxic mercury represents a profit source for the amalgam industry – an industry that is used to having its way with world governments for the past 100 years.

Folks, bringing about change in the health care field has always been about battling against entrenched profit centers, and this is no exception.

The dental amalgam industry and their paid shills and former executives in government simply do NOT want access to your mouth blocked, regardless of the health implications. The mercury fillings industry is an entrenched, embattled and a very profitable industry, and they have been on a war footing against scientists all over the world for decades.

The FDA has been far behind the rest of the world in stepping up to the plate to reduce mercury in your mouth. The FDA has been standing in the way of banning this dangerous dental material for 34 years — since 1976. But the very good news is that we are starting to win this battle.

Where Do Other Countries Stand on Mercury Dental Fillings?

Other countries are now beginning to restrict the use of mercury fillings, much to the dismay of the amalgam industry, which unfortunately still includes the ADA (American Dental Association):

• Canada advised dentists to stop placing amalgam in children and pregnant women in 1996 — 15 years ago!
• Denmark, Norway and Sweden have essentially banned amalgams.
• Worldwide amalgam (mercury filling) use is in decline
• One California city, Costa Mesa, has endorsed a city-wide amalgam ban
• The World Health Organization supports an amalgam “Phase Down”

For a country that is supposed to be so scientifically advanced, the United States is currently lagging behind many nations, and even behind some third-world countries, when it comes to mercury fillings.

Mercury Fillings and the Environment

The ADA and other pro-mercury proponents have always claimed that mercury fillings are a low cost and very cost effective way to treat dental decay. Is this true? Not when you examine the true cost to human health and the environment caused by mercury fillings!

Mercury from dental offices is actually the largest source of mercury found in wastewater. According to an article by Michael Bender (co-founder of the Mercury Policy Project), at least 40 percent of mercury flowing into municipal water treatment plants comes from dentist offices! And urban water treatment plants are not set up to remove it, so eventually this mercury flowing out of dental offices will end up in your fish on your dinner table.

When someone dies, their amalgam (mercury) fillings actually pose a risk to the living as well. Emissions from the combustion of mercury fillings during cremation are a significant contaminator of air, waterways, soil, wildlife and food.

Seven to nine metric tons of mercury per year escapes into the atmosphere during cremations, and it is estimated that, left unchecked, crematoria will be the largest single cause of mercury pollution by 2020. Sweden now mandates that all mercury fillings be removed prior to cremation for this very reason.

So when you factor in environmental costs and clean-up costs, amalgam is actually the MOST EXPENSIVE dental material in the world.

It is also the number one cause of mercury exposure for consumers, according to the Canadian government and other sources. As it stands right now, U.S. dentists remain free to offer you any kind of filling they want, and four out of five dental specialists are still placing amalgams.

Help for Those Who Already have Mercury Fillings

If your mouth is currently free of mercury fillings, good for you. Make sure you keep it that way by seeing a biological dentist who can recommend a truly inert material that will not harm your health in the event you do need a filling.

For those of you who have mercury fillings, I recommend that you have them removed… but avoid making the mistake I did 20 years ago by having it done by a non-biological dentist. When you have these fillings removed you can be exposed to significant amounts of mercury vapors if the dentist doesn’t know what he or she is doing.

It’s also for this reason that I suggest you get healthy BEFORE having your fillings removed, as you want your detoxification mechanisms optimized prior to removal.

Help to Make the FDA Act on this Important Issue NOW!

FDA operates on its own timetables. The wonder is that the FDA even agreed to re-consider a rule they wrote just 18 months ago, since they often appear to consider their infallibility to be at the level of the Pope.

This time, though, the FDA is under heat to act, and we need your support to keep the pressure on them to tell the public the truth about mercury fillings.

The agencies of government who work on mercury issues – the EPA, Council of Environmental Quality, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with the FDA – are meeting with the State Department to hammer out the U.S. position on all the mercury issues.

The FDA is the odd man out, the one favoring a mercury product; the heat is on FDA to join the rest of the Obama Administration, and join the modern world. So both because of the scientists’ recommendation, and because the FDA is increasingly alone both in the world and in the US government, we may have reached the tipping point.

The science is quite clear; the FDA has to date ignored it.

For 30 years, in violation of federal law, the FDA refused to classify dental amalgam (that is, develop a rule to regulate it), doing so only when ordered by a federal judge. In that court case, in 2008, the FDA agreed, in negotiations with Charlie Brown of Consumers for Dental Choice, to post strong warnings on its consumer website about amalgam’s toxicity and its particular risk to pregnant women and children.

So What Happened?

In 2009 Margaret Hamburg became the FDA’s Commissioner. With Hamburg’s participation in the rulemaking, the FDA withdrew all warnings from the consumer website, and hid them deep in the rule. The FDA effectively gave the green light for dentists in the United States to continue concealing the mercury content of fillings from consumers, and the green light to continue calling them “silver fillings.”

Throughout the rulemaking process, Hamburg was corresponding with Schein’s general counsel, who, immediately after the rule was issued, wrote to Hamburg that the corporation is “indebted to you” for her work as FDA Commissioner.

What Happened Next?

A consumer groundswell erupted, including many writing the FDA after reading about this outrage in the Mercola Newsletter. YOU were so active that FDA Webview, an independent publication, said, “No final rule in FDA’s modern history, or perhaps ever, has attracted this kind of organized opposition.”

The FDA then came under the microscope because of world treaty negotiations working to begin phasing out the mercury product, and the rest of the US government, especially EPA, was supporting efforts to finally address amalgam.

With four petitions in front of them to reconsider the amalgam rule, the FDA agreed, convening a panel of distinguished scientists for two days of hearings on December 14, and 15, 2010. The scientists at the hearings told the FDA (1) to ban amalgam for pregnant women and children (either to age six or 12), and (2) put labels on amalgam so every dental patient and parent is aware of its mercury content and toxicity.

Just three weeks after those hearings came the resignation of FDA Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein, who approved the 2009 FDA rule on mercury fillings that flew in the face of science.

Sharfstein dropped to a much lower perch within the government’s health ranks, caused most likely by his resistance at the FDA to facing the truth about mercury fillings. He is now the health director for Maryland.

What You Can Do Now to Make a Difference!

We need to get the assent of the rest of the resistant members at the FDA as well, or send them packing! And we are asking again for your help to do it! We simply cannot let the FDA get away with ignoring the scientists as it has done so many times before, we are so close now to bringing the truth about mercury fillings to the light. I encourage you to get involved!

Please write the FDA Director of the Division of Dental Devices, Anthony Watson, at: [email protected] .

Tell Mr. Watson of the FDA:

• Since the FDA’s own panel of scientists advises that amalgam should “definitely not” be implanted in children, pregnant women, and hypersensitive people, how soon will you take action to protect these vulnerable populations from this toxin?
• Since the FDA has a duty to tell consumers that amalgam contains mercury that can damage the neurological systems of unborn babies, children, and hypersensitive populations, when does FDA intend to clearly state this warning on its consumer website and in consumer labeling?
• Since Commissioner Hamburg claims FDA is committed to transparency, how does FDA plan to keep the public updated on its progress with regard to the amalgam issue?

Don’t sit this one out. With your help we can get the FDA to finally admit to the public what scientists have known for a long time – mercury fillings are a public health and an environmental hazard, and should not ever be allowed in the bodies of pregnant women or in children!

The time to act is now!

Together we can make a lasting change and help protect pregnant women and children, along with the health of our next generation!

Article from: http://www.Mercola.com

By: Dr. Mercola

By Dr. Mercola – January 22, 2011

A new study has found that the protective shield fluoride forms on teeth is up to 100 times thinner than previously believed. This raises questions about how this renowned cavity-fighter really works.

It has long been believed that fluoride changes the main mineral in tooth enamel, hydroxyapatite, into a more-decay resistant material called fluorapatite. But the new research found that the fluorapatite layer formed in this way is only 6 nanometers thick — meaning it would take almost 10,000 such layers to span the width of a human hair. According to Science Daily:

“The scientists question whether a layer so thin, which is quickly worn away by ordinary chewing, really can shield teeth from decay”.

Another new study shows that exposure to fluoride may lower children’s intelligence. In addition to toothpaste, fluoride is added to 70 percent of U.S. public drinking water supplies. PR Newswire reports:

“About 28 percent of the children in the low-fluoride area scored as bright, normal or higher intelligence compared to only 8 percent in the ‘high’ fluoride area… in the high-fluoride city, 15 percent had scores indicating mental retardation and only 6 percent in the low-fluoride city.”

Sources:

• Science Daily December 18, 2010
• PR Newswire December 21, 2010
• Langmuir December 21, 2010;26(24):18750-9
• Environmental Health Perspectives December 17, 2010 [Epub ahead of print]

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Fluoride is a potent neurotoxin that’s been fundamentally promoted as a cure for cavities for the past five decades. Finally, we’re beginning to see the kind of research needed to hopefully reverse this great injustice…

The two recent scientific developments about deserve special notice as together they offer a compelling picture of the truth. Not only do we now have yet another study showing that fluoridated water has a significant impact on children’s IQ, but researchers have also discovered that the benefits of topical application of fluoride is highly questionable.

Folks, there are FAR better options for decreasing tooth decay than using a topical poison or ingesting a harmful industrial pollutant.

Fluoride Does Not Make Your Teeth More Resistant to Decay

According to Science Daily, Americans spend a staggering $50 billion a year on the treatment of cavities. Fluoride, long heralded as the answer to decaying teeth, can be found in a vast assortment of toothpastes, mouthwashes and professionally applied fluoride treatments. It’s even added to your drinking water for this purpose.

Now, a groundbreaking study published in the journal Langmuir has uncovered that the fluorapatite layer formed on your teeth from fluoride is a mere six nanometers thick. To understand just how thin this is, you’d need 10,000 of these layers to get the width of a strand of your hair! Scientists now question whether this ultra-thin layer can actually protect your enamel and provide any discernible benefit, considering the fact that it is quickly eliminated by simple chewing.

An Even Bigger Issue: Water Fluoridation

The conventional wisdom has been that topical application of fluoride can help strengthen your enamel and help prevent decay. If that’s untrue, then the case against water fluoridation—the ingestion of fluoride—becomes even stronger than it ever was before.

There’s just no doubt that ingesting fluoride has no beneficial effect on your teeth. In fact, there’s overwhelming evidence indicating that fluoride is a potent toxin that can cause a wide array of severe health problems once ingested.

When evaluating the issue of water fluoridation it is also important to understand that fluoride is a drug. You can’t get fluoride without a prescription. Yet it’s being added to your water supply on a mandatory basis at various levels that may or may not be safe for various individuals, especially children, the sick, and the elderly. Water fluoridation is a major assault on your freedom of choice — to be drugged or not.

Sodium fluoride, which is a far simpler toxin than the fluoride compounds used for most water fluoridation, has also been used for rat and cockroach poisons, so there is no question that it is highly toxic.

Amazingly, the United States is only one of eight countries in the entire developed world that fluoridates more than 50 percent of its water supply. (The other seven are: Australia, Colombia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore.) In Europe, Ireland is the only country that fluoridates more than 50 percent of its drinking water, and England fluoridates 10 percent. Most of mainland Europe is not fluoridated, and yet, according to World Health Organization data, their teeth are just as good, if not better than Americans’.

Studies Link Water Fluoridation to Reduced IQ in Children

The latest study linking water fluoridation to lowered IQ was announced in a December 21 news release. However, this study was recently withdrawn from publication according to Jane Schroeder (NIH/NIEHS). In an email response she explained the reason for the withdrawal as follows:

“Following Ahead of Print publication EHP learned that many of the data had been published in a previous paper (Xiang et al. 2003 Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94), in violation of EHP’s policy regarding the use of previously published material in original Research Articles. Consequently, the paper had to be withdraw from publication.”

That said, the data published in 2003 still stands and is still valid. Dr. Connett has also stated that his comments still stand.

According to Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network:

“This is the 24th study that has found this association, but this study is stronger than the rest because the authors have controlled for key confounding variables and in addition to correlating lowered IQ with levels of fluoride in the water, the authors found a correlation between lowered IQ and fluoride levels in children’s blood.

This brings us closer to a cause and effect relationship between fluoride exposure and brain damage in children.

What is also striking is that the levels of the fluoride in the community where the lowered IQs were recorded were lower than the EPA’s so-called ‘safe’ drinking water standards for fluoride of 4 ppm and far too close for comfort to the levels used in artificial fluoridation programs (0.7-1.2 ppm).”

Trained as a chemist specializing in environmental chemistry, Dr. Connett is known throughout the world as a leader in the movement opposing water fluoridation because of his knowledge base. His organization, the Fluoride Action Network, contains a wealth of information on this topic.

Earlier this year I joined forces with Connett to publicize his game plan to end water fluoridation in Canada and the United States. I’ll review it again at the end of this article.

In December 2010, a second study reporting an association with exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children was pre-published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials.

According to the authors, “our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children’s intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose–response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis.”

This study indicates a 5 point lowering in IQ as the fluoride level in drinking water went from about 0.3 ppm to 3.0 ppm.

Fluoride has Been Repeatedly Linked to Brain Damage

In addition to this study, there are 23 more from four different countries (Mexico, Iran, India and China), which indicate that even moderate exposure to fluoride lowers IQ in children.

According to Dr. Connett, there are also more than 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage, spanning all the way back to 1941. Unfortunately, most of the IQ studies have been unavailable in English, which is why the 2006 fluoride report created by the National Research Council of the National Academies contained only five of the available studies.

Still, while reviewing just 20 percent of the evidence, the panel concluded that there was a consistent and plausible link between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ. The news release quotes Tara Blank, Ph.D., the Science and Health Officer for the Fluoride Action Network as saying:

“Millions of American children are being exposed unnecessarily to this neurotoxin on a daily basis. Who in their right mind would risk lowering their child’s intelligence in order to reduce a small amount of tooth decay, for which the evidence is very weak.”

Indeed.

According to Dr. Connett, the newest studies show that over 40 percent of American children are overexposed to fluoride. How can we know? Because they have the telltale sign of dental fluorosis. In its mildest form, dental fluorosis looks like little white specks on your teeth. But as it gets more serious, it begins affecting more of the surface of your teeth, creating yellow, brown and orange mottling.

Promoters of fluoridation scoff at these signs, saying that they’re “just cosmetic.”

But, since we already know that water fluoridation does NOT effectively reduce dental caries, this is an unnecessary cosmetic defect, and, worse yet, it is a worrisome indication that your body has been overexposed to fluoride. If it’s having a detrimental, visual effect on the surface of your teeth, you can be virtually guaranteed that it’s also damaging something else inside your body, such as your bones.

Other Fluoride-Induced Health Problems

In fact, fluoride will accumulate in your body and can, over time, lead to far more serious health concerns. There are plenty of studies showing the dangers of fluoride to your health–besides dental fluorosis–such as:

-Increases lead absorption, disrupts synthesis of collagen, hyperactivity and/or lethargy, muscle disorders, brain damage and lowered IQ, arthritis, dementia, bone fractures, lowers thyroid function, bone cancer (osteosarcoma), inactivates 62 enzymes, inhibits formation of antibodies, genetic damage and cell death, increases tumor and cancer rate, disrupts immune system, damages sperm and increase infertility

Parents Beware: Never Use Fluoridated Tap Water when Making Infant Formula

Most of the people who are educated about fluoride will avoid drinking municipal tap water that is fluoridated, and a reverse osmosis system is about the only way to rid your water of fluoride. However, there are many who simply don’t have the resources or the know-how to protect themselves and their young children. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) sent out an email to alert its members of their recommendation to parents to not use fluoridated tap water to make infant formula. A few days later, the CDC followed suit.

But neither of them openly informed the public!

So millions of parents are still using tap water to make up formula, oblivious of the fact that the agencies that promote fluoridation in this country have issued a specific warning against using fluoridated water for this purpose. Not only that, but by fluoridating the municipal water supply, you doom many low income families to fail to protect their young children from this dangerous drug, even if they have this information.

What’s the REAL Cause of Tooth Decay?

Tooth decay is caused by acids your mouth, typically created from sugar being metabolized by bacteria (Streptococcus mutans), and as you may already know, the number one source of calories in the United States is high fructose corn syrup.

The acid produced then attacks your enamel. Eventually the bacteria can get into the dentine, at which point tooth decay sets in. You typically don’t find dental caries in more primitive societies that do not consume these vast amounts of sugar. So, the real answer lies in your diet. Avoid excessive sugar consumption, and your dental health will improve along with the rest of your body.

How You Can Help End Water Fluoridation in Canada and the United States

The Fluoride Action Network is an absolutely phenomenal resources for further education, and they’re doing much to pressure the US government for change.

Later this year we plan on developing a massive social networking initiative to form local groups in which you can work on removing fluoride in your local community. We will have access to online tools that will help you replicate success other Canadian and American municipalities have had in removing fluoride.

Until then if you are a professional you can sign FAN’s statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide now been signed by more than 3,230 professionals. We encourage all medical and science professionals to sign this statement.

Our fluoride initiative will largely focus on Canada, because 60 percent of Canada is already non-fluoridated. If we can get the rest of Canada to stop fluoridating their water, we believe the U.S. will be forced to follow. If you live in Ontario, Canada, please join the ongoing effort by contacting Diane Sprules at [email protected]. The point-of-contact for Toronto is Aliss Terpstra. You may email her at [email protected].

We’re also going to address the two US communities: Austin, Texas and San Diego, California. If you live in Austin, Texas, you can join the effort by contacting Rae Nadler-Olenick at either: [email protected] or [email protected], or by regular mail or telephone:

POB 7486, Austin, Texas 78713 – (512)371-3786

If you’re in San Diego, California, contact Patty Ducey-Brooks, publisher of the Presidio Sentinel at [email protected].

Additionally, New York City council member Peter Vallone, Jr. introduced legislation on January 18 “prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply” in New York City. The ensuing debate alone could have major significance for our efforts in the US, considering that NYC is the nation’s largest city.

Therefore, New York City is now also on our list of targeted cities in North America. The point person for this area is Carol Kopf, at the New York Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). Email her at [email protected]. Please contact her if you’re interested in helping with this effort.

In addition, we’re willing to support any credible activist for this cause, who is scientifically based and grounded, regardless of where you live in the US. We can provide resources to help support you in your effort to eliminate fluoride from your local community — and it really needs to be a community battle.

We’re not going to be able to pass a federal law against fluoridation. There is not going to be Presidential mandate or even a State-wide elimination. This change will occur one community at a time.

So please, get informed; stay involved.

Article Written By Dr. Mercola –  http://www.Mercola.com

NEW YORK, Jan. 24, 2011

On January 18, 2011, NYC Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr. introduced legislation (Int 0463-2011) “prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply.” Today five additional NYC Council Members co-sponsored the bill (Council Members Cabrera, Crowley, Foster, Williams and Halloran.)

Fluoride chemicals are added to NYC’s water in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay.

Vallone writes on his website, “There is a growing body of evidence that fluoride does more harm than good.”

Recently, two federal government agencies admitted that US children are fluoride-overdosed and it’s ruining their teeth and may be damaging their bones. (1) The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that over 41% of adolescents suffer with dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth – 4% of it severe. (2) Both the CDC and the American Dental Association advise that infant formula NOT be mixed with fluoridated water, but do little to educate the public about this dire warning.

More than 3,450 professionals (including 299 dentists) urge that fluoridation be stopped citing scientific evidence that fluoridation is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluoridealert.org/statement.august.2007.html

Eleven US EPA unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals are calling for a moratorium on fluoridation.

Attorney Paul Beeber, President, NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation says, “It’s a rare legislator who’s willing to speak the truth about such a controversial issue, not for his own benefit but for the good of his constituents. Most government officials cling to outdates endorsements, baseless government pronouncements and fear of organized dentistry’s power and money. Vallone and the Council Members who support his bill are New York treasures.”

Vallone writes, “It’s time for an intelligent discussion to be had on this controversial practice. I believe after that occurs, most people will support NYC using the ‘Precautionary Principle,’ which says, if in doubt, leave it out.”

New Yorkers can be their own heroes and improve their own health by contacting their Council Member and Health Committee members to support Vallone’s legislation here:  http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2477/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5468

Non-residents can voice their concern here:  http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2477/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=5469

NYS Department of Health statistics show NO benefit from fluoridated water. See: http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/chart.htm

Studies show high tooth decay rates in NYC populations studied, despite decades of fluoridation. See: http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/fluoridationfailsnewyork.htm

Fluoridations cost NYC approximately $25 million in 2008. See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18235930/NYC-Fluoridation-Costs-2008-Feb-2-2009-Letter-Page-1

and

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18235931/NYC-2008-Fluoridation-Costs-Page-2-Feb-2009-Letter

By Dr. Mercola – www.Mercola.com

Many people have had questions about root canals so I thought it would be wise to repost this article.  It was an interview with Dr. George Meinig, who was dentist and leader in teaching people about the dangers of root canals.  He wrote the book Root Canal Cover Up.

Because I first became aware of this information in the early ’90s I was able to avoid having any root canals.  I elected to have three teeth extracted and now have two bridges to replace those teeth.

At the time that was my best option, as I believe that metal implants should be avoided.  However in the last few years non-reactive metal implants made from zirconium have become available and that is what I would use now if I had to have an alternative to a root canal.

Why I Encourage You to Think Twice Before Getting a Root Canal

Please don’t let your dentist mislead you that a root canal is your only option, or that it is entirely safe.

Teeth are similar to other organ systems in your body in that they also require a blood supply, lymphatic and venous drainage, and nervous innervations. Root canals, however, are dead teeth, and these dead teeth typically become one of, if not the worst, sources of chronic bacterial toxicity in your body.

If your kidney, liver or any other organ in your body dies, it will have to be removed so that bacteria and necrosis will not set in and kill you … but teeth are commonly left dead in your body.

Teeth have roots with main canals and thousands of side canals, and contained in those side canals are miles of nerves. When dentists perform a root canal, they remove the nerve from the main canals; however they do not have access to the microscopic side canals, which have dead nerves left behind in those spaces.

Anaerobic bacteria, which do not require oxygen to survive, thrive in these side canals and excrete toxicity from digesting necrotic tissue that leads to chronic infection. Blood supply and lymphatics that surround those dead teeth drains this toxicity and allows it to spread throughout your body. This toxicity will invade all organ systems and can lead to a plethora of diseases such as autoimmune diseases, cancers, musculoskeletal diseases, irritable bowel diseases, and depression to name just a few.

Even antibiotics won’t help in these cases, because the bacteria are protected inside of your dead tooth.

It appears that the longer root canal-treated teeth stay in your body, the more your immune system becomes compromised.

Seek Out a Biological Dentist Who is Aware of Root Canal Dangers

If your dentist is not actively engaged in continuing education, and is not open to alternative, toxin-free forms of dentistry, there’s a good chance he or she is not aware of the risks of — and alternatives to — root canals.  A biological dentist will be able to provide you with a more comprehensive, holistic solution for your teeth that will not harm your health.

Knowledgeable biological dentists can be hard to come by, so start your search by asking a friend, relative or neighbor who knows of one. If that fails you can contact several good natural health food stores in your area and ask a number of the employees or even the owner. The following links can also help you to find a biological dentist:

• Dental Amalgam Mercury Solutions: e-mail [email protected] or call 651-644-4572 for an information packet
• Consumers for Dental Choice
• International Academy of Biological Dentistry and Medicine
• International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
• Holistic Dental Association
• International Association of Mercury Safe Dentists

An Interview with George Meinig, D.D.S.

Dr. Meinig brings an interesting perspective to expose the latent dangers of root canal therapy.

Dr. Mening is particularly well qualified to comment on this topic as 60 years ago he was one of the founders of the American Association of Endodontists (root canal specialists)!

So he’s filled his share of root canals — and when he wasn’t filling canals himself, he was teaching the technique to dentists across the country at weekend seminars and clinics.

After he retired he decided to read all 1,174 pages of the detailed research of Dr. Weston Price, (D.D.S). Dr. Meinig was startled and shocked as he found a valid documentation of systemic illnesses resulting from latent infections lingering in filled roots.

After reviewing Dr. Price’s materials he wrote “Root Canal Cover Up.”

Please explain what the problem is with root canal therapy.

GM: First, let me note that my book is based on Dr. Weston Price’s 25 years of careful, impeccable research. He led a 60-man team of researchers whose findings — suppressed until now rank right up there with the greatest medical discoveries of all time. This is not the usual medical story of a prolonged search for the difficult-to-find causative agent of some devastating disease.

Rather, it’s the story of how a “cast of millions” (of bacteria) become entrenched inside the structure of teeth and end up causing the largest number of diseases ever traced to a single source.

What diseases? Can you give us some examples?

GM: Yes, a high percentage of chronic degenerative diseases can originate from root filled teeth. The most frequent were heart and circulatory diseases and he found 16 different causative agents for these.

The next most common diseases were those of the joints, arthritis and rheumatism. In third place — but almost tied for second — were diseases of the brain and nervous system. After that, any disease you can name might (and in some cases has) come from root filled teeth.

Let me tell you about the research itself. Dr. Price undertook his investigations in 1900. He continued until 1925, and published his work in two volumes in 1923. In 1915 the National Dental Association (which changed its name a few years later to The American Dental Association) was so impressed with his work that they appointed Dr. Price their first Research Director.

His Advisory Board read like a Who’s Who in medicine and dentistry for that era. They represented the fields of bacteriology, pathology, rheumatology, surgery, chemistry, and cardiology.

At one point in his writings Dr. Price made this observation: “Dr. Frank Billings (M.D.), probably more than any other American internist, is due credit for the early recognition of the importance of streptococcal focal infections in systemic involvements.”

What’s really unfortunate here is that very valuable information was covered up and totally buried some 70 years ago by a minority group of autocratic doctors who just didn’t believe or couldn’t grasp – the focal infection theory.

What is the “focal infection” theory?

GM: This states that germs from a central focal infection — such as your teeth, teeth roots, inflamed gum tissues, or maybe tonsils — metastasize to hearts, eyes, lungs, kidneys, or other organs, glands and tissues, establishing new areas of the same infection.

Hardly theory any more, this has been proven and demonstrated many times over. It’s 100 percent accepted today. But it was revolutionary thinking during World War I days, and the early 1920’s!

Today, both patients and physicians have been “brain washed” to think that infections are less serious because we now have antibiotics. Well, yes and no. In the case of root-filled teeth, the no longer-living tooth lacks a blood supply to its interior. So circulating antibiotics don’t faze the bacteria living there because they can’t get at them.

You’re assuming that ALL root-filled teeth harbor bacteria and/or other infective agents?

GM: Yes. No matter what material or technique is used — and this is just as true today — the root filling shrinks minutely, perhaps microscopically. Further and this is key — the bulk of solid appearing teeth, called the dentin, actually consists of miles of tiny tubules.

Microscopic organisms lurking in the maze of tubules simply migrate into the interior of the tooth and set up housekeeping. A filled root seems to be a favorite spot to start a new colony.

One of the things that makes this difficult to understand is that large, relatively harmless bacteria common to the mouth, change and adapt to new conditions. They shrink in size to fit the cramped quarters and even learn how to exist (and thrive!) on very little food. Those that need oxygen mutate and become able to get along without it.

In the process of adaptation these formerly friendly “normal” organisms become pathogenic (capable of producing disease) and more virulent (stronger) and they produce much more potent toxins.

Today’s bacteriologists are confirming the discoveries of the Price team of bacteriologists. Both isolated in root canals the same strains of streptococcus, staphylococcus and spirochetes.

Is everyone who has ever had a root canal filled made ill by it?

GM: No. We believe now that every root canal filling does leak and bacteria do invade the structure. But the variable factor is the strength of the person’s immune system.

Some healthy people are able to control the germs that escape from their teeth into other areas of the body. We think this happens because their immune system lymphocytes (white blood cells) and other disease fighters aren’t constantly compromised by other ailments. In other words, they are able to prevent those new colonies from taking hold in other tissues throughout the body.

But over time, most people with root filled teeth do seem to develop some kinds of systemic symptoms they didn’t have before.

It’s really difficult to grasp that bacteria are imbedded deep in the structure of seemingly hard, solid-looking teeth.

GM: I know. Physicians and dentists have that same problem, too. You really have to visualize the tooth structure — all of those microscopic tubules running through the dentin. In a healthy tooth, those tubules transport a fluid that carries nourishment to the inside. For perspective, if the tubules of a front single-root tooth, were stretched out on the ground they’d stretch for three miles!

A root filled tooth no longer has any fluid circulating through it, but the maze of tubules remains. The anaerobic bacteria that live there seem remarkably safe from antibiotics. The bacteria can migrate out into surrounding tissue where they can “hitch hike” to other locations in the body via the bloodstream.

The new location can be any organ or gland or tissue, and the new colony will be the next focus of infection in a body plagued by recurrent or chronic infections.

All of the “building up” done to try to enhance the patient’s ability to fight infections – to strengthen their immune system – is only a holding action. Many patients won’t be well until the source of infection – the root canal tooth – is removed.

I don’t doubt what you’re saying, but can you tell us more about how Dr. Price could be sure that arthritis or other systemic conditions and illnesses really originated in the teeth — or in a single tooth?

GM: Yes. Many investigations start with the researcher just being curious about something – and then being scientifically careful enough to discover an answer, and then prove it’s so, many times over. Dr. Price’s first case is very well documented. He removed an infected tooth from a woman who suffered from severe arthritis.

As soon as he finished with the patient, he implanted the tooth beneath the skin of a healthy rabbit. Within 48 hours the rabbit was crippled with arthritis!

Further, once the tooth was removed the patient’s arthritis improved dramatically. This clearly suggested that the presence of the infected tooth was a causative agent for both that patient’s and the rabbit’s – arthritis.

Here’s the actual story of that first patient from Dr. Meinig’s book:

“(Dr. Price) had a sense that, even when (root canal therapy) appeared successful, teeth containing root fillings remained infected. That thought kept prying on his mind, haunting him each time a patient consulted him for relief from some severe debilitating disease for which the medical profession could find no answer.

Then one day while treating a woman who had been confined to a wheelchair for six years from severe arthritis, he recalled how bacterial cultures were taken from patients who were ill and then inoculated into animals in an effort to reproduce the disease and test the effectiveness of drugs on the disease.

With this thought in mind, although her (root filled) tooth looked fine, he advised this arthritic patient, to have it extracted. He told her he was going to find out what it was about this root filled tooth that was responsible for her suffering.

“All dentists know that sometimes arthritis and other illnesses clear up if bad teeth are extracted. However, in this case, all of her teeth appeared in satisfactory condition and the one containing this root canal filling showed no evidence or symptoms of infection. Besides, it looked normal on x-ray pictures.

“Immediately after Dr. Price extracted the tooth he dismissed the patient and embedded her tooth under the skin of a rabbit. In two days the rabbit developed the same kind of crippling arthritis as the patient – and in ten days it died.

“..The patient made a successful recovery after the tooth’s removal! She could then walk without a cane and could even do fine needlework again. That success led Dr. Price to advise other patients, afflicted with a wide variety of treatment defying illnesses, to have any root filled teeth out.”

In the years that followed, he repeated this procedure many hundreds of times. He later implanted only a portion of the tooth to see if that produced the same results. It did. He then dried the tooth, ground it into powder and injected a tiny bit into several rabbits. Same results, this time producing the same symptoms in multiple animals.

Dr. Price eventually grew cultures of the bacteria and injected them into the animals. Then he went a step further. He put the solution containing the bacteria through a filter small enough to catch the bacteria. So when he injected the resulting liquid it was free of any infecting bacteria. Did the test animals develop the illness? Yes.

The only explanation was that the liquid had to contain toxins from the bacteria, and the toxins were also capable of causing disease.

Dr. Price became curious about which was the more potent infective agent, the bacteria or the toxin. He repeated that last experiment, injecting half the animals with the toxin-containing liquid and half of them with the bacteria from the filter. Both groups became ill, but the group injected with the toxins got sicker and died sooner than the bacteria injected animals.”]

That’s amazing.  Did the rabbits always develop the same disease the patient had?

GM: Mostly, yes. If the patient had heart disease the rabbit got heart disease. If the patient had kidney disease the rabbit got kidney disease, and so on. Only occasionally did a rabbit develop a different disease — and then the pathology would be quite similar, in a different location.

If extraction proves necessary for anyone reading this, do you want to summarize what’s special about the extraction technique?

GM: Just pulling the tooth is not enough when removal proves necessary. Dr. Price found bacteria in the tissues and bone just adjacent to the tooth’s root. So we now recommend slow-speed drilling with a burr, to remove one millimeter of the entire bony socket.

The purpose is to remove the periodontal ligament (which is always infected with toxins produced by streptococcus bacteria living in the dentin tubules) and the first millimeter of bone that lines the socket (which is usually infected).

There’s a whole protocol involved, including irrigating with sterile saline to assure removal of the contaminated bone chips, and treating the socket to stimulate and encourage infection-free healing. I describe the procedure in detail, step by step, in my book [pages 185 and 186].

Perhaps we should back up and talk about oral health — to PREVENT needing an extraction.  Caries or inflamed gums seem much more common than root canals.  Do they pose any threat?

GM: Yes, they absolutely do. But let me point out that we can’t talk about oral health apart from total health. The problem is that patients and dentists alike haven’t come around to seeing that dental caries reflect systemic — meaning “whole body” — illness.

Dentists have learned to restore teeth so expertly that both they and their patients have come to regard tooth decay as a trivial matter. It isn’t.

Small cavities too often become big cavities. Big cavities too often lead to further destruction and the eventual need for root canal treatment.

Then talk to us about prevention.

GM: The only scientific way to prevent tooth decay is through diet and nutrition. Dr. Ralph Steinman did some outstanding, landmark research at Loma Linda University. He injected a glucose solution into mice — into their bodies, so the glucose didn’t even touch their teeth. Then he observed the teeth for any changes. What he found was truly astonishing.

The glucose reversed the normal flow of fluid in the dentin tubules, resulting in all of the test animals developing severe tooth decay! Dr. Steinman demonstrated dramatically what I said a minute ago: Dental caries reflect systemic illness.

Let’s take a closer look to see how this might happen. Once a tooth gets infected and the cavity gets into the nerve and blood vessels, bacteria find their way into those tiny tubules of the dentin. Then no matter what we do by way of treatment, we’re never going to completely eradicate the bacteria hiding in the miles of tubules.

In time the bacteria can migrate through lateral canals into the surrounding bony socket that supports the tooth. Now the host not only has a cavity in a tooth, plus an underlying infection of supporting tissue to deal with, but the bacteria also exude potent systemic toxins.

These toxins circulate throughout the body triggering activity by the immune system — and probably causing the host to feel less well.

This host response can vary from just dragging around and feeling less energetic, to overt illness — of almost any kind.

Certainly, such a person will be more vulnerable to whatever “bugs” are going around, because his/her body is already under constant challenge and the immune system continues to be “turned on” by either the infective agent or its toxins — or both.

What a fascinating concept.  Can you tell us more about the protective nutrition you mentioned?

GM: Yes. Dr. Price traveled all over the world doing his research on primitive peoples who still lived in their native ways. He found fourteen cultural pockets scattered all over the globe where the natives had no access to “civilization” – and ate no refined foods.

Dr. Price studied their diets carefully. He found they varied greatly, but the one thing they had in common was that they ate whole, unrefined foods. With absolutely no access to tooth brushes, floss, fluoridated water or toothpaste, the primitive peoples studied were almost 100% free of tooth decay.

Further — and not unrelated — they were also almost 100% free of all the degenerative diseases we suffer — problems with the heart, lungs, kidneys, liver, joints, skin (allergies), and the whole gamut of illnesses that plague Mankind. No one food proved to be magic as a preventive food. I believe we can thrive best by eating a wide variety of whole foods.

Amazing.  So by “diet and nutrition” for oral (and total) health you meant eating a pretty basic diet of whole foods?

GM: Exactly. And no sugar or white flour. These are (and always have been) the first culprits. Tragically, when the primitives were introduced to sugar and white flour their superior level of health deteriorated rapidly. This has been demonstrated time and again.

During the last 60 or more years we have added in increasing amounts, highly refined and fabricated cereals and boxed mixes of all kinds, soft drinks, refined vegetable oils and a whole host of other foodless “foods.”

It is also during those same years that we as a nation have installed more and more root canal fillings — and degenerative diseases have become rampant. I believe — and Dr. Price certainly proved to my satisfaction — that these simultaneous factors are NOT coincidences.

I certainly understand what you are saying.  But I’m still a little shocked to talk with a dentist who doesn’t stress oral hygiene.

GM: Well, I’m not against oral hygiene. Of course, hygiene practices are preventive, and help minimize the destructive effect of our “civilized,” refined diet. But the real issue is still diet. The natives Dr. Price tracked down and studied weren’t free of cavities, inflamed gums, and degenerative diseases because they had better tooth brushes!

It’s so easy to lose sight of the significance of what Dr. Price discovered. We tend to sweep it under the rug — we’d actually prefer to hear that if we would just brush better, longer, or more often, we too could be free of dental problems.

Certainly, part of the purpose of my book is to stimulate dental research into finding a way to sterilize dentin tubules. Only then can dentists really learn to save teeth for a lifetime.

But the bottom line remains: A primitive diet of whole unrefined foods is the only thing that has been found to actually prevent both tooth decay and degenerative diseases.

Article from www.Mercola.com

For the most part we are a society that expects to go into a doctor or dentist’s office and receive a quick fix. Modern life has spoiled us all into believing that since our lives are so busy, our bodies should follow suit and either not get sick at all or not inconvenience us by taking any length of time to heal. Nature didn’t plan it that way. Take a look at gum disease for example. Depending on the level of infection, this is one problem that may take some time to eliminate and to heal. While a dentist is the best person to help with the process you can help things allow by implementing a holistic cure for gum disease. Here is [a] look at gingivitis and periodontal disease and some of the natural gum disease treatments.

• symptoms of gum disease
• potential results of the disease
• natural treatment of gum disease

Orally speaking, your gums are one of the most important things to keep healthy. They are responsible for holding your teeth in place. There are certain signs you should be on the watch for in regards to your gum health. If you notice any bleeding during brushing or flossing, this is a symptom of a gum disease problem. Along with chronic bad breath and increased gum and teeth sensitivity, bleeding is one of the first things to go wrong when gum disease causing bacteria gets a hold of the soft tissue of your mouth.

Many people underestimate the potential damage this disease can do. If left untreated, you may experience loose teeth, an unpleasant change in your bite, and even possible tooth loss. Gum disease is the leading cause of adult tooth loss. It’s easy to see why swift, early intervention is very important. In its early stages, gum disease can be reversed and your dental health restored.

The natural treatments for gum disease are easy to use. Eating well and staying hydrated are huge parts of the process. Using botanical dental products is useful as well. Look for cleaning products that contain essential mint oils and citrus oils. These products are safer than conventional dental products even without the presence of gum disease.

Excerpt from: http://www.oramd.com/gumdisease/84-holisticgumdiseasecure.htm/

Article from The Natural Recovery Plan

A cavitation is a hole in the bone, often where a tooth has been removed and the bone has not filled in properly.  In the last several years, the term cavitation has been used to describe various bone lesions which appear both as empty holes in the jawbones and holes filled with dead bone and bone marrow.  Dead, cavitational areas, which produce pain, are now called NICO (Neuralgia Inducing Osteonecrosis) lesions.  Cavitations are often a result of either ischaemic osteonecrosis, due to poor blood flow in the marrow, or a traumatic bone cyst.

In his book an oral pathology, Dr. G. V. Black, one of the early experts on cavitations, suggested surgical removal of these dead bone areas.  Other less traumatic measures are now first used and surgery with curetting is used primarily where the patient has significant health effects not resolved by other means.  When a tooth is being extracted, in what has been normal dental procedure, the surrounding periodontal membrane is usually left behind.

Theoretically, when a tooth has been pulled, the body will eventually fill in the space in the bone where the tooth once was.  But when the membrane is left behind, an incomplete healing commonly taks place which leaves a hole or a spongy place inside the jaw bone.  Experts speculate that perhaps this is because the bone cells on either side sense the presence of the periodontal membrane and “think” that the tooth is still there.  This appears to be one common cause of cavitations.

Ododontic cysts are also commonly occurring usually in the gums at the tip of a tooth, that have pockets of bacterial infection that can cause inflammation and pain in some cases similar to cavitations.  Bacterial infections are also known to have systemic effects.

A cavitation can form in any bone in the body, not just in the jaw bones.  There are also other reasons that cavitations form, some of which are localized traumas, poor circulation to the area, clotting disorders, and the use of steroids.

On X-ray of an extracted tooth site, this membrane can form an image that appears to be a shadow of a tooth.  Almost always, this is indicative of a cavitation.  Most dentists are aware of this phantom tooth image, but they do not recognize it as a site of potential problems.  Other means of locating or identifying cavitational areas include sonic imaging (CAVITAT), local anaesthesia, Spect Scan, pressure to determine trigger points, Computer Electro Dermal System, etc.  While positive Spect Scans were found in 19 of 20 patients with jaw pain, several control patients with no pain also had positive scans- often finding previous jaw pathoses.  Thus the Spect Scan was not sensitive at differentiating painful from non-painful conditions.  Some of the other methods had more success at such differentiation.

The Natural Recovery Plan: Dental Cavitations and Health