 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / November 2005Robert Kulacz, D.D.S.- Contact Informayion
I can be reached at drkulacz@optonline.net. >I can be reached at drkulacz@optonline.net. There is another Dr. Kulacz posing as you .... its in the thread above. Excuse my typo on the word information. I do not use these forums and it was a a process for me to even get here to post. Just wanted people to know how to get in touch with me since there was a person that wanted to contact me and an implication that I did not want to be found. (Not true). The data will be flowing out soon on root canals. Data that all dentists should have been taught and were not, and data that they refuse to read. Ask the ADA about their data to refute what I say. I have tried and not received any. Do you know why? They do not have any.I wish that I was wrong. Life would be a heck of a lot easier!!! Root canals are very very profitable and most of the time not very difficult to perform. Physicians, when explained the root canal process, fully understand the problem with root canals. Dentist, who do not know medicine and make a lot of money on root canals, refuse to even look at the common sense data that has been reported for about 100 years and is still being investigated and reported. Not everyone gets sick from root canals . But some do. And some quite seriously. I have seen them. For those dentists that do not, they are not making the connection or looking for correlatopn. The Americam Academy of Endodontics has changed the information on their website over the last 10 years. I bet they hired a good team of lawyers to word the current site. By the way. For all those dentists that rely on x-rays for determination of root canal success, I have a report with numerous references by the ADA that says that X-rays are not an accurate assesment. I will not post on this site anymore. I can be reached at the email above. drkulacz@optonline.net. >Excuse my typo on the word information. >I do not use these forums and it was a a process for me to even get [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Ask the ADA about their data to refute what I say. I have tried and not >received any. Do you know why? The ADA is very busy raking in money and they do not have time to reply ..... >They do not have any.I wish that I was >wrong. Life would be a heck of a lot easier!!! Root canals are very [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >I will not post on this site anymore. >I can be reached at the email above. drkulacz@optonline.net. The good doctor makes a lot of broad generalizations here, so I will make one myself...people who communicate in this manner (degrading everyone else's ability to understand issues they alone have somehow managed to grasp) are usually bullshit artists. I wonder if this generalization applies to the good doctor? T >The good doctor makes a lot of broad generalizations here, so I will make >one myself...people who communicate in this manner (degrading everyone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >T I often wondered about the term "artists" when used in this context! Joel > >The good doctor makes a lot of broad generalizations here, so I will make > >one myself...people who communicate in this manner (degrading everyone [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Joel Some people use oil paint as their medium, others use clay, but the con artist usually dabbles in BS. T > > >The good doctor makes a lot of broad generalizations here, so I will make > > >one myself...people who communicate in this manner (degrading everyone [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Some people use oil paint as their medium, others use clay, but the con > artist usually dabbles in BS. And I haven't heard one scientific reference from you. Just a bunch of bluster and Ego driven attacks based on the fact that what you believe to be the standard should be "self-evident" because your a "professional". Would you care to show proof for example that x-rays are a reliable method for detecting residual infectin in root canals? Didn't think so. Thanks for showing everyone how dentistry (and the dental boards) really work. Your not a scientific organiztion, your an ego driven mob. > And I haven't heard one scientific reference from you. > Just a bunch of bluster and Ego driven attacks based on the fact [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (and the dental boards) really work. Your not a scientific organiztion, > your an ego driven mob. I note you let slide the fact the post I responded to had no scientific information and just a lot of "I can understand things you can't" bullshit. Then again, I would expect nothing less from you. Who said x-rays are " a reliable method for detecting residual infectin in root canals" ?? I didn't...why should I defend it? The Doctor throws out a fact that is evident to anyone who practices dentistry and counts it as evidence of his tremendous insight and then unknowing but easily led buffoons like you take it as proof of...well, I don't know what you feel it is proof of. To me, it is proof that the good doctor is trying to pass himself off as something more than he is. X-rays show the condition of hard tissues. Signs of a residual infection can sometimes be seen radiographically, but more often, especially in early stages, they are noted by clinical exam or a review of patient's subjective reports. Has anyone here ever said or implied (other than the dr. that initiated this topic) that an x-ray is the only way to detect residual infections"? The doctor builds a straw man and you bow down before it...what a dolt you are. I'd suggest you learn a little more before you choose your idols otherwise you are going to find yourself running into the same problems you had before, where a questionable practitioner takes advantage of you and does you harm. T > I note you let slide the fact the post I responded to had no scientific > information and just a lot of "I can understand things you can't" bullshit. Dr. Kulacz wrote a whole book on the subject, try reading that! > Then again, I would expect nothing less from you. > > Who said x-rays are " a reliable method for detecting residual infectin in > root canals" ?? I didn't...why should I defend it? Not even residual infection, infection. maybe I shouldn't use that term. What do you mean by "residual" ? Why? because when people like sherry from the other thread get infections or my mother goes in and can feel the infection and the dentist keeps looking at the x-ray and saying, nope no sign of infection. Then after a month they final go in, and sure enough, there is infection! How about when that spreads to the jaw and the OS says's Gee, the panorex looks fine. That's what happened to me, and many other people I've talked to. And if you admit that x-rays cannot diagnose infection then what proof to you have of the safety, reliability of root canals. Zero! > The Doctor throws out a fact that is evident to anyone who > practices dentistry and counts it as evidence of his tremendous > insight and then unknowing but easily led > buffoons like you take it as proof of...well, I don't know what > you feel it is proof of. To me, it is proof that the good doctor > is trying to pass himself off as something more than he is. Which is conjecture on your part, so what are you reacting to? A percieved threat to dental dogma or what you really know about a dentist who questions root canals. by the way Dr. Kulacz does a lot of specialized surgery. He's talking from clincal experience. It's evident from what you say that rarely venture beyond the tooth. So you can't see what you don't look for, right? I don't know how i got into this mess ,but Hg can leak from the amalgam, damage the bone, and infection can get into the jaw without being detected, including necrotic and osteomyletic type infection. I lived it! You should see my CAT scan and you read the bio of the first dentist that skipped town! And.. fillings can even work as radio's. It's all true, but hard to believe! I guess I wouldn't have believed it either if I hadn't gone through it , but I try to keep an open mind in general, so maybe not. > X-rays show the condition of hard tissues. Signs of a residual infection can > sometimes be seen radiographically, but more often, especially in early > stages, they are noted by clinical exam or a review of patient's subjective No, infection can exist IN THE BONE (or inbetween the bone) too and not be apparent on x-ray and I guess in the canal. Look at the people coming on here TELLIng YOU that. Don't belive me. I'll show you an x-ray of Jaw bone and then the actual infected jaw bone. And clinical exam of the patient? All that tells you is what kind of sound their tooth makes when you thump it. > I'd suggest you learn a little more before you choose your > idols otherwise you are going to find yourself running into the > same problems you had before, where a questionable practitioner > takes advantage of you and does you harm. Well , thanks for your concern ,but that is very unlikely. This reply is so full of confused thought and misinformation on your part it would take me a very long time to reply...but this bit of convoluted logic... > And if you admit that x-rays cannot diagnose infection then what > proof to you have of the safety, reliability of root canals. Zero! ...just serves as a wake up call that there is absoluetly no point in debating this with you. I don't like to see people taken advantage of, but people like you who think they know sooo much when they really know so very little are really ripe for the plucking. Best of luck to you Clinton. I know you see me as the "enemy", but I sincerely hope you don't fall prey to some of the hucksters and con men out there who to me commit the biggest sin any healthcare provider could commit, selling false hope to desperate and vulnerable people. T You obviously have not read the literature. Don't be lazy. It is there on Medline. You should talk to physicians that have seen my patients and know medicine and stop being simply a "tooth carpenter" technician. If you are a dentist you do not,in my opinion, deserve the title of doctor. Your posts border on slander/libel. Keep it up. Looking forward to more ignorant and malicious humour from you. > Keep it up. > Looking forward to more ignorant and malicious humor from you. Hey, who is this dude talking to ? Is this dude the funny guy who thinks research in 1918 can never be proven wrong? BTW, I took out any references to proper names or email addresses so as to reduce the amount of Spam going to the dude.  Signature/ Amatus / <drkuz@optox.ne.net> wrote in message > You obviously have not read the literature. Don't be lazy. It is there > on Medline. You should talk to physicians that have seen my patients [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Keep it up. > Looking forward to more ignorant and malicious humour from you. >> Keep it up. >> Looking forward to more ignorant and malicious humor from you. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >BTW, I took out any references to proper names or email addresses so as to >reduce the amount of Spam going to the dude. You mean this ? Path: news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: drkulacz@optonline.net Newsgroups: sci.med.dentistry Subject: Re: Robert Kulacz, D.D.S.- Contact Informayion Date: 19 Oct 2005 10:55:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 9 Message-ID: <1129744530.861457.7540@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1129431976.844251.62110@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1129473545.592393.62330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <isE4f.8216$1X1.5682@fe12.lga> <eat6l15bh4f9fj3k8bvtufslmffe8qhe9d@4ax.com> <4SP4f.29287$Ge5.10381@fe10.lga> <1129566585.927528.151970@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <lNQ4f.3126$vV4.747@fe08.lga> <1129570838.222991.308210@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <BNR4f.4357$vV4.479@fe08.lga> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.224.57 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1129744536 14023 127.0.0.1 (19 Oct 2005 17:55:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:55:36 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <BNR4f.4357$vV4.479@fe08.lga> User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.120.224.57; posting-account=EMJPAg0AAADMifCHyqyG44Tn_TQwiX_t Xref: core-easynews sci.med.dentistry:271673 -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com "W_B" <no_one@nowhere.net> wrote.............. > You mean this ? > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Take out the G'RBAGE > wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com Probably :-) carabelli > You obviously have not read the literature. Don't be lazy. It is there > on Medline. You should talk to physicians that have seen my patients [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Keep it up. > Looking forward to more ignorant and malicious humour from you. ...and the implication that everyone but you and like minded individuals are "tooth carpenters" is what?...a compliment? How do you know I haven't read the literature and simply reached a conclusion different than yours. You seem to employ the same tactics many other non-professionals do in this forum...assuming the only explanation for an opinion that differs from your is ignorance. What a great basis for discussion and a great way to entice people to listen to your message! As I said before, my opinion of those who employ such tactics is very low. You are the one who came in here making broad generalizations (and continues that approach) and immediately lost any shred of credibility or respect you might have otherwise deserved. T > You obviously have not read the literature. Don't be lazy. It is there > on Medline. I didn't realize that Price's research has been replicated in controlled studies. Could you provide the Medline references? You do the work regarding research. I have for ten years. Price is only the tip of the icederg as far asall the data is concerned. Infection remains in the tooth. The ADA admits this. Infection is in the bone.All proven recently. The condensing osteitis you see is actully chronic osteomyelitis.. This was published by physicians sevaral years back at Yale University. Look it up. You people do not want to know the data so you do not look. Instead you slam me. That is the normal response for people that cannot accept change. Your anger is amusing yet typical. Granulomas and cysts around root canal teeth as Dr. Dodes points out on a website is NOT normal. No orthopedic surgeon leaves dead infected body parts including bone in the body. Would you take out a root canal tooth and put it in your femur? Of course not. Why? (other then there is no reason to put a tooth in the femur? ) It is infected. The ADA admits that. Yet we leave it in the jawbone. Malpractice in my opinion. Fortunately most patients have strong enough immue systems to fight off the infection. But who knows what systemic disease years later is caused by this infection and is never correlated. Continue to beleive what you want. I once beleived as you did until I did the research. And my clinical results support what I have stated. . When was the last time any of you dentists did a biopsy or a culture? The decision how to practice is up to you. But ridiculing me in an antagonistic way is childish and a reflection on the state of the dental profession. . > You do the work regarding research. I have for ten years. > Price is only the tip of the icederg as far asall the data is [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > But ridiculing me in an antagonistic way is childish and a reflection > on the state of the dental profession. I had not followed this thread. I just now read it. This is an example of the trash that comes out of the mouths of the dentists on this newsgroups. Good God in heaven. It's ALL about EGO, and NOT about the patient!!!! More power to you Dr. Kulacz! Thank God we have a few HONEST people that actually stand for *truth* These jerks are only interested in what they had been taught in dental school. This is EXACTLY what I think is my problem. I am in the process of finding out. It is VERY expensive, but if it is the answer, I will be overjoyed, as my jaw has bothered me now for eight long years. Most MD's know nothing of this problem, so they are telling me it is the arthritis in my neck, however the pain was there before I was told I had the arthritis, and I had NONE any place else, so I am not buying the arthritis, just yet. I must know if it is the jaw bone. Tony just recently made fun of me, even after I said, I had lost 35 pounds and had no energy. They have NO decency!!!!! God Bless you, Dr. Kulacz. Keep up the good work. It is *their* problem, and you are 100% correct, their behavior is a reflection on the dental profession! Sincerely, Jan Drew > You people do not want to know the data so you do not look. Actually, I did look and couldn't find the data you're referring to. If there are any controlled studies which confirm Price's findings, the NCBI is keeping them under wraps... > > You people do not want to know the data so you do not look. > > Actually, I did look and couldn't find the data you're referring to. If > there are any controlled studies which confirm Price's findings, the > NCBI is keeping them under wraps... I don't think anyone said all Price's experiments had been replicated exactly. And Prices's focal theory is one small aspect of this controversy. Apparently many of Price's expriments involved using rabbits and inducing disease in the rabbits with RC that were actually sewn on their backs. Probably difficult to exactly replicate that kind of study in a humane way in this day and age. Did you look at Haley's site? I took a quick look at: http://www.altcorp.com/AffinityLaboratory/sterilerct.htm The first thing is recent research showing how all RC are not sterile. Haley has done a lot of research in this area. > Did you look at Haley's site? I took a quick look at: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not sterile. Haley has done a lot of research in this > area. I don't think anyone doubts that not *all* RCs are sterile. From the link: "The microbiological analysis carried out in this study after endodontic treatment demonstrated the efficacy of the therapeutic procedures in reducing the microbial population present in previously infected root canals. No obligate anaerobic bacteria were recovered after treatment." > > Did you look at Haley's site? I took a quick look at: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > infected root canals. No obligate anaerobic bacteria were recovered > after treatment." What part of the body IS sterile? http://textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html The key question is can we function and remain healthy despite this flora? T > > > Did you look at Haley's site? I took a quick look at: > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > T My understanding is Haley also has tested the toxicity of root canals and found the bacteria that remains, or the toxins they produce to be very toxic. Keep in Mind this was the first research haley did and he was a chemistry professor NOt a dentist. I guess the former head of the entire chemistry department is mistaken as well? I really haven't formed an opinion on the overall safety of RC treatment because my concern is more about amalgam but I can see where the controversy is. YOu also haven't given a straight answer about the diagnostic capabilities of x-rays, NOtice how the AEE even admits they are virtually useless for diagnosing NICO legions, and I guess x-rays can determine the bacterial counts in root canals too? >What part of the body IS sterile? > >http://textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html > >The key question is can we function and remain healthy despite this flora? Robulacz's brain is sterile, he autoclaved it. -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > > > Did you look at Haley's site? I took a quick look at: > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > What part of the body IS sterile? There are good bacteria and bad bacteria. Some are beneficial and some will kill you or make you ill. Simple. R. Kulacz > http://textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html > > The key question is can we function and remain healthy despite this flora? > > T >> What part of the body IS sterile? > >There are good bacteria and bad bacteria. >Some are beneficial and some will kill you or make you ill. >Simple. >R. Kulacz I call 'em germies ...... the little ones anyway. There are good bacteria and bad bacteria. Some are beneficial and some will kill you or make you ill. Simple. R. Kulacz ******************************************************************** Some nonpathogenic bacteria can make one ill as well. Ex. Staphylococcus epidermidis, considered normal skin bacteria can be trouble. We generally see less than a 1% infection rate with our implanted medical devices (Medtronic, Inc). However when we do, it is most often on reoperations (replacement). Interestingly, when signs of infection occur following reop, the culture will come back from the lab "negative." We have found staph bacteria that make their way to these devices, produce a protective "slime," a biofilm layer (extra-cellular glycocalyx) which coats the bacteria. This protects the bacteria from macropahge and neutrophil phagocytosis and also makes it less suspectible to antibiotic treatment. Seems the "slime" also interferes with demonstrating these bacteria on culture. If the specimen is vortexed (i.e. if the slime can be broken-up), then these can be grown on cuture... but that is not standard procedure. -Sue > > Did you look at Haley's site? I took a quick look at: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > infected root canals. No obligate anaerobic bacteria were recovered > after treatment." I'm not sure what "obligate bacteria" means, but right below that which you conviently snipped (either addedd by Haley or part of the original discussion) "interactions, are able to promote a decrease in the anaerobic population present at those sites (9). If on the one hand, the results of this study confirm the effectiveness of endodontic treatment in reducing the microbial population, on the other hand they also show the permanence of viable microorganisms inside the root canals due to their survival after treatment, contamination during the different manipulation phases or even due to the penetration of microorganisms from the oral cavity through inadequate temporary sealing. Initially, aerobic bacteria are rarely found in infected root canals but may be introduced into the canal during treatment (28), as observed for Psuedomonas, which was recovered from one canal after chemomechanical preparation and the use" We could have snipping wars all day, snipping the parts of one paper that seem to favor our view, and ignoring what is written just below it. This is ridiculous. It is also ridiculous to ask for large "controlled" studies when guess who? probably hasn't done any meaningful research on this for 50 years. I personally never had a RC, nor am i an expert in root canals. I'm just saying that there is research and controversy out there. >>>Did you look at Haley's site? I took a quick look at: >>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > it. This is ridiculous. It is also ridiculous to ask for large > "controlled" studies when guess who? I give up--who? Steve probably hasn't done any > meaningful research on this for 50 years. I personally never had a RC, > nor am i an expert in root canals. I'm just saying that there is > research and controversy out there. SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 . It is also ridiculous to ask for large > > "controlled" studies when guess who? > > I give up--who? Can you quote any controlled studies done by the NIDCR, NIH, AEE, ADA etc. This also holds true for amalgam where NO large studies have been done. It's pretty easy to say, look there are no controlled studies when no one does them. > . It is also ridiculous to ask for large > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > when > no one does them. There are entire journals devoted to endodontic research. I can't spend my whole time here doing literature review for my posts here, but while I don't have a subscription to the J. or Endo., I'll look around when I get the chance to reference some studies regarding clinical outcomes, bacterial leakage, etc. I cannot promise they will fulfill your stringent requirements for clinical control, but I'll see what I can come up with. Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 http://tuberose.com/Root_Canals.html >> > Did you look at Haley's site? I took a quick look at: >> > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > nor am i an expert in root canals. I'm just saying that there is > research and controversy out there. >>Did you look at Haley's site? I took a quick look at: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > infected root canals. No obligate anaerobic bacteria were recovered > after treatment." Interestingly, in my school days we ALWAYS cultured root canals. We were not allowed to obturate until we achieved a negative culture. Now, I would be the last to proclaim that a negative culture means there are no bacteria hiding in the dentinal tubules. But it seems intuitive to me that a negative culture implies a lower bacterial load. But we stopped doing cultures, because repeated studies showed no improvement in clinical outcomes, so long as good technique were followed. Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 > Interestingly, in my school days we ALWAYS cultured root canals. We > were not allowed to obturate until we achieved a negative culture. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But we stopped doing cultures, because repeated studies showed no > improvement in clinical outcomes, so long as good technique were followed. Just curious, How did you measure "clinical outcome". It's hard for me to imagine a study follwing a patient for a long time or having a meaningful way of measuring health effects. In fact even many people who get really sick from infection from poor dental work and have posted here are usually misdiagnosed initially. >> Interestingly, in my school days we ALWAYS cultured root canals. We >>were not allowed to obturate until we achieved a negative culture. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > who get really sick from infection from poor dental work and have > posted here are usually misdiagnosed initially. Obviously I didn't measure it, and I don't have the studies at hand. The usual criteria for clinical success are retention of the tooth without symptoms, and with neither clinical nor radiological evidence of pathosis. Mind you, I'm not commenting on theoretical late sequellae of disseminated disease viz. focal infection. I'm talking about local signs of disease that can be clearly linked to a failed root canal. Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 First. Find controlled studies that were performed to refute Price and repeat his work. Second. Forget about Price altogether. Look at the data on necrotic debris left in most all root canals. Root canals are not sterile. ADA agrees with this. The jaw bone is infected from the non sterile root canals. There are plenty of studies on that. if you can't find them then you do not know how to do research as they are abundant. Enough fun for me on this board. I would like to help and offer an intelligent exchange of data but this is too hostile a place for me and life is too short for this. Have fun. >First. >Find controlled studies that were performed to refute Price and repeat [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Root canals are not sterile. ADA agrees with this. >The jaw bone is infected from the non sterile root canals. My friend, You need to review immunology! The world is a hostile place .... bacteria are everywhere! The world as you describe it would soon be devoid of organisms like us! Joel >There are plenty of studies on that. if you can't find them then you do >not know how to do research as they are abundant. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Have fun. TO ALL: I am not familiar to the use of these groups so if my posts are somewhat out of order it is becuse I do not normally post on these tppes of forums and i am not famoliar with them. To Take out the Garbage: another one of you posts that shows the level of intellogemce in dentistry.. Now to immunology. This is a subject that I know a LOT about and I am often asked to consult with Infectios disease physicians. To Joel. No need to brush up point my immunology. Don't even go there because I will embarress you if you want to show your level, or more imprtantly your lack of) knowledge on this subjest. The posts about the body being sterile shoiws the ignorance of dentists and their lack of medical knowledge. ) Yes we live is a world full of germs. But there are good germs and bad germs. Some we can handle and some we cannot. Our GI tract is full of bacteria but it is not really "inside the body proper. Get a GI perforation or a ruptured appendix and you will get peritonitis and coud die. Pnenonia, Mentgitis, flu, periodontal disease, most root canals are caused by infection. So don't talk to me about body sterility or immunology unless you can makje intelligent statements. Therefore do not talk at all about this issue at all.. >TO ALL: >I am not familiar to the use of these groups so if my posts are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >because I will embarress you if you want to show your level, or more >imprtantly your lack of) knowledge on this subjest. I would welcome your discussions ....... Joel >The posts about the body being sterile shoiws the ignorance of dentists >and their lack of medical knowledge. ) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >makje intelligent statements. Therefore do not talk at all about this >issue at all.. > >TO ALL: > >I am not familiar to the use of these groups so if my posts are [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Joel This is not the thread to discuss it. First I suggest you spend at least 6 months learning immunology at a university before I would attempt to discuss it with you. That is if I ever want to discuss it with someone with your attitude. Rk > >The posts about the body being sterile shoiws the ignorance of dentists > >and their lack of medical knowledge. ) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >makje intelligent statements. Therefore do not talk at all about this > >issue at all.. >This is not the thread to discuss it. >First I suggest you spend at least 6 months learning immunology at a >university before I would attempt to discuss it with you. That is if I >ever want to discuss it with someone with your attitude. > >Rk You saved both os us and this newsgroup lots of verbiage, which is just as well. Six months? Is that YOUR DEFINITION of an expert? Six months at Podunk U? Joel > >This is not the thread to discuss it. > >First I suggest you spend at least 6 months learning immunology at a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Joel Actually Joel, in your case their would not be any amount of time even at the finest university to help you out understanding immunology. So don't even consider it. But Podunk U is probably a good school for you to start with your intelligence and reasoning capabilities. Glad you thought of it. RK >Actually Joel, in your case their would not be any amount of time even >at the finest university to help you out understanding immunology. So [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >RK Hardy-har har. >>Actually Joel, in your case their would not be any amount of time even >>at the finest university to help you out understanding immunology. So [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hardy-har har. If it were SHMNBM he would be called a chicken. Take him on Joel. Your up to it. BFD, he's on staff - we all could be if we wanted to. carabelli > >>Actually Joel, in your case their would not be any amount of time even > >>at the finest university to help you out understanding immunology. So [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to it. BFD, he's on staff - we all could be if we wanted to. > carabelli No need to take me on. Words cannot explain why most physicians think dentists are idiots with the type of posts form Carabelli, Joel, T and some others. There was a recent post by "Sue" that was right on. Staph epidermidis, considered a normal skin contaminate, causes biofilms in the capillaries and is not normal when found in bone cultures.It is pathogenic there. Yet we culture it all the time in clean catch cultures under infected teeth among other organisms such as aspergillus niger and bacteria that you probably never heard of. Even the microbiology lab at the hospital is shocked by the diversity of pathogens cultured. You think that periodontal disease is bad? It is. But it brings in business to dentists to have it treated so you hear all about it. It is nothing new. Admitting root canal can be bad takes money out of the dentists pocket since it is the most profitasble procedure/unit time in dentistry. (Reported from your ADA buddies) The use of epinepherine in local anethetic, especially in the mandible where the blood circulation is similar to that of a finger shoud never be used. The transient ischemia can cause necrosis in some patients, especially those with coagulation abnormalities or infection.(Infection also causes hypercoagulation) In medicine epinepherine is never used in the fingers, nose, toes, or penis. It is not needed in dentistry and can cause damage to the bone and also the teeth. Interligamentarry injections are absurd as is the stabident if you know anything about bone biology. There is too much to cover here, especially with a group that has their dental school ideas implanted in their brain making them unable to think. That is why dentists should understand medicine and we come full circle to my term "tooth carpenters" describing most dentists. Now it is time to go sit back and monitor this forum periodically. <drkulacz@optonline.net> wrote .............. > Now it is time to go sit back and monitor this forum periodically. Gee, we're not worthy. Better keep that ego away from sharp objects. carabelli Rides pretty tall in the saddle..... I don't want to be around when that blister bursts. Dartos >>Now it is time to go sit back and monitor this forum periodically. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > carabelli ><drkulacz@optonline.net> wrote .............. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >carabelli On second thought, see you at the dart tournament ! -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com ><drkulacz@optonline.net> wrote .............. > >> Now it is time to go sit back and monitor this forum periodically. > >Gee, we're not worthy. Kulacz, you sponge-worthy? Joel >Better keep that ego away from sharp objects. > >carabelli > The use of epinepherine in local anethetic, especially in the mandible > where the blood circulation is similar to that of a finger shoud never [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the fingers, nose, toes, or penis. It is not needed in dentistry and > can cause damage to the bone and also the teeth. Now you're showing some real stupidity. Epinephrine (1:100,000 or 1:200,000) used in a IANB does not cause transient ischemia for the mandible and teeth. The epinephrine reacts in the tissue around the injection, but does not have much effect on the artery carrying blood to the bone and teeth of the mandible itself. You obviously don't understand half of what you think you do. If you are not an impostor, you are an embarrassment. Dartos > > The use of epinepherine in local anethetic, especially in the mandible > > where the blood circulation is similar to that of a finger shoud never [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > effect on the artery carrying blood to the bone and teeth of the > mandible itself. Woa, what a minute , is this more ADA propgaganda. Who conducted these tests? Besides aren't there smaller blood vessels in the jaw. I am not an expert on this but it seems like who gives a darn about the artery, a powerful drug that constricts smaller vessels seems like it would be a concern. The shot isn't given completely outside of the jaw is it? I see this on Jerry B's site: To these potential causes we can add others which are rather unique to dental procedures: local anesthetics used to numb to jaw for tooth procedures or oral surgery contain powerful chemicals (vasoconstrictors, e.g. epinephrine) designed to drastically reduce the blood flow in the area, thereby keeping the anesthetic in place longer and allowing more time to work. This is wonderful for the procedure itself but can be disastrous for someone with an one of the undiagnosed hypercoagulation disorders previously mentioned. Moreover, the poor outflow characteristic of osteonecrosis means that the vasoconstrictor can remain in the area much, much longer than the few minutes needed for profound local anesthesia. And to add injury to insult, literally, the reperfusion of the bone after the vasoconstrictor wears off releases large numbers of tissue-damaging oxyradicals. Normal tissues can withstand this onslaught nicely, but a nutrient-starved ischemic marrow is at risk I not really read up on this issue, but are saying that is wrong? if so according to whom? > > > The use of epinepherine in local anethetic, especially in the mandible > > > where the blood circulation is similar to that of a finger shoud never [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > vessels seems like it would be a concern. The shot isn't given > completely outside of the jaw is it? If by "the jaw" you mean the bone...the answer is YES! > To these potential causes we can add others which are rather unique to > dental procedures: local anesthetics used to numb to jaw for tooth [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > itself but can be disastrous for someone with an one of the undiagnosed > hypercoagulation disorders previously mentioned. We could say the same thing about any number of things. A peanut butter sandwich (preferably with Fluff) makes a nice lunch "but can be disastrous for someone with an undiagnosed" allergy. The allegation was that the use of epinepherine is univerally a bad idea...not a bad idea for people with undiagnosed conditions. Moreover, the poor > outflow characteristic of osteonecrosis means that the vasoconstrictor > can remain in the area much, much longer than the few minutes needed > for profound local anesthesia. I am sorry but I don't understand this? The necrotic bone is necrotic...dead...late...it has ceased to be! The concern about how anesthetic effects or clears from necrotic bone seems to be the same that we should have about the effects of local anesthesia on Generalissimo Francisco Franco, who, as of this writing, is still dead! T >> > > The use of epinepherine in local anethetic, especially in the >> > > mandible [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > We could say the same thing about any number of things. ZZzz. We are NOT talking about any number of things. [ diversion snipped] > Moreover, the poor >> outflow characteristic of osteonecrosis means that the vasoconstrictor [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > T Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. When are you going to realize that some of us actually have a clue about which we speak? Why do I care about the artery? Very, very simple. A lower nerve block is given over an inch away from the teeth and the bone supporting these teeth. The only way that this injection could reduce blood flow to these areas would be by acting upon the artery supplying that blood flow. Having a vasoconstricting effect at the site of injection is to reduce the 'washing out' of the anesthetic from the injection site. It is MILD with *most* local anesthetics. There are anesthetics with higher concentrations of epi than 1:100,000 but these are not commonly used by general dentists. It is very difficult to cause any ischemia with routine dental anesthesia. Don't believe me? Come watch a few extractions and you tell me if there seems to be an adequate blood supply! Dartos >>Epinephrine (1:100,000 or 1:200,000) used in a IANB does not cause >>transient ischemia for the mandible and teeth. The epinephrine [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > I not really read up on this issue, but are saying that is wrong? > if so according to whom? > Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. When are you going to realize that > some of us actually have a clue about which we speak? [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> I not really read up on this issue, but are saying that is wrong? >> if so according to whom? Educate yourself! http://www.drshankland.com/nico.html > No need to take me on. Words cannot explain why most physicians think > dentists are idiots with the type of posts form Carabelli, Joel, T and > some others. I have asked you to answer some valid questions about your positions, and the cases you use as part of your indictment of various dental positions and dentists, and you haven't responded, instead you'd rather debate who is the bigger idiot and the correct spelling of cooties. Who is the idiot here? T >> No need to take me on. Words cannot explain why most physicians think >> dentists are idiots with the type of posts form Carabelli, Joel, T and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >T Speling bee format. "cooties" k u l a c z 'cooties' right ? -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com [ snip waste of bandwidth ] > No need to take me on. Words cannot explain why most physicians think > dentists are idiots with the type of posts form Carabelli, Joel, T and > some others. Dr. Kulacz: I don't know that most physicians think dentists are idiots. Certainly the physicians I know don't think dentists are idiots, and I find it strange that they would say that to you. Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 >Now it is time to go sit back and monitor this forum periodically. You've said that before, we don't believe you anymore. Wait !!! ... We *never* did believe you ! -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com Dear Robert: I wrote you 3 new mails. 2 days ago, yesterday and today. Still i Have no answer chau bernardo from bolivia What????? You thought this was a real individual who actually cares what you think???? SM > Dear Robert: > > I wrote you 3 new mails. 2 days ago, yesterday and today. Still i Have > no answer > > chau bernardo from bolivia > What????? > > You thought this was a real individual who actually cares what you think???? > > SM He's real enough. Steve >>Dear Robert: >> >>I wrote you 3 new mails. 2 days ago, yesterday and today. Still i Have >>no answer >> >>chau bernardo from bolivia Signature{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 Arial;}} {\*\generator Msftedit 5.41.15.1507;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 Remove "nospam" to reply\par } >What????? > >You thought this was a real individual who actually cares what you think???? > >SM This is a funny reply .... but an accurate reply. Joel >> Dear Robert: >> >> I wrote you 3 new mails. 2 days ago, yesterday and today. Still i Have >> no answer >> >> chau bernardo from bolivia Yeah, he's fro Oblivia >What????? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> chau bernardo from bolivia -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com I'm begining to think that he is either bipolar or sneeky smart. I'll send some more info tomorrow regarding an e-mail that he first sent me before sending me the exact same e-mail that he sent to Joel talking about his inability to respond to smd directly. ooooooooooooeeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooo, Dartos >Yeah, he's fro Oblivia > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Take out the G'RBAGE >wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > I'm beginning to think that he is either > bipolar or sneaky smart. I vote for bipolar, sneaky or stupid. Signature/ Amatus / > > I'm begining to think that he is either [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >>Take out the G'RBAGE >>wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com Well, he sends me the exact same e-mail that he sends to Joel, but also sends me an e-mail (to my other address) stating that I am a stupid tooth carpenter and should have my license taken away. Must not have realized that both were sent to the same person. Dartos >>I'm beginning to think that he is either >>bipolar or sneaky smart. > > I vote for bipolar, sneaky or stupid. > Well, he sends me the exact same e-mail that he sends > to Joel, but also sends me an e-mail (to my other address) > stating that I am a stupid tooth carpenter and should have > my license taken away. In that case, I take back what I said in the last post. Probably not bipolar or sneaky. Signature/ Amatus / > > Well, he sends me the exact same e-mail that he sends [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> I vote for bipolar, sneaky or stupid. sends me an e-mail (to my other address) > stating that I am a stupid tooth carpenter and should have > my license taken away. Hah, You deserved it! But what is so insulting about that? People refer to me as a carpenter all the time. Zimmerman means carpenter. If I were a dentist i would be Dr. Carpenter. No way Clinton, Jesus was a carpenter and you ain't no Jesus. Actually "Clinton" conjures up worse images than Zimmerman.. ....I see a cigar and a handshake between a couple that is not having sex. -Sue Ughh. NOW I have to leave. These jokes are getting too bad. Anyone know why the "dude" really lost his dental license ? Or, is the hearing still pending ? Signature/ Amatus / "Sue" <chrlie699@yahoo.com> wrote in message >[snip] having > sex. > > -Sue > > Ughh. NOW I have to leave. These jokes are getting too bad. > Anyone know why the "dude" really lost his dental license ? Or, is the > hearing still pending ? Huh? He didn't lose his license...he said he gave up his practice. T > Huh? He didn't lose his license...he said he gave up his practice. I hope you are right, but I got the opposite impression. No one would give up their practice willingly. They might re-locate or merge with someone else, but not just throw in the towel. Unless they hated dentistry, in which case they would not show up in a NG calling anyone who disagreed an idiot. Signature/ Amatus / > >> Anyone know why the "dude" really lost his dental license ? Or, is the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > T > > Huh? He didn't lose his license...he said he gave up his practice. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which case they would not show up in a NG calling anyone who disagreed an > idiot. You can check the status of a dentists license on the NYState office of professions web page. T > > Huh? He didn't lose his license...he said he gave up his practice. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which case they would not show up in a NG calling anyone who disagreed an > idiot. You need to read more carefully. Dr. Kulacz already explained that he was not meeting his expenses. In this case that information is correct (as far as I know). Apparently devoting a large part of your practice to the area that he did is not very profitable. One reason (as was explained, (man can you read Amatus)) is that it is difficult to do many of the types of surgies he did per day. Each patient also requires a lot of follow up care, I.E recomendations for Antioboitics, processing cultures, conferring with other doctors, conferring with ENT's and radioligists, reviewing scans etc which it is difficult to charge for. I suspect Dr. Kulacz probably new for at least a year that his practice may not be economically sustainable, and i hear he seemed down this last year or so. Many doctors who do a lot of ON/OM surgery also seem to get burned out from dealing with sick patients, many of who may not be able to pay all their expenses and may be so sick and confused that they are not easy to deal with either. What are Dr. Kulacz's future plans? Who knows. He may indeed return to dentistry in the same area with an economic model that is viable or make a concession to also provide more profitable treatments. I will tell you this though. Dr. Kulacz is the type of person who likes to be fully in charge of his own destiny and not to have to work within another organization or abide by someone else's policies, so it is very possible he may never return to denistry if he can't practice it in a way he likes. Do you have any ideas of how to make such a unique practice profitable (Amateous) or is it easier just to criticize and say what someone else should do? Maybe he should start a chain of dental stores with OS's who practice using his unique surgical approach and dental philosphy. This is a Dr .Kulacz approved oral surgery center! Got any money to invest? >> > Huh? He didn't lose his license...he said he gave up his practice. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >You need to read more carefully. Dr. Kulacz already explained that >he was not meeting his expenses. KULACZ: "When your outgo exceeds your income, then your upkeep is your downfall." > In this case that information is >correct (as far as I know). Apparently devoting a large part of your [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >.Kulacz >approved oral surgery center! Got any money to invest? >> Huh? He didn't lose his license...he said he gave up his practice. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >which case they would not show up in a NG calling anyone who disagreed an >idiot. Perhaps it was the load of malpractice claims pending. -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com I hear them lawsuits comin' They're rollin' round the bend And he won't see the sunshine till I don't know when D > Perhaps it was the load of malpractice claims pending. > -- > > W_B > Take out the G'RBAGE > wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com Good one JC ! >I hear them lawsuits comin' >They're rollin' round the bend [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> Take out the G'RBAGE >> wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > I hear them lawsuits comin' > They're rollin' round the bend [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > W_B Thanks again you both for demonstrating what true a.sholes you really are, and apparently the only time you take your head out of your a.s is to read this newsgoup. This is precisly why establishment dentists and the state boards should expect no mercy over patient lawsuits on amalgam and the NICO issue (I do not have nico) which NOW the AAE admits exists! You just don't give a crap about anything but your profits or doing what is right. State boards are just compositions of many WB's and Dartos's and should all be fired tommorrow as far as me and MANY other patients are concerned. At this point it is also appropriate to point out that though your true personality comes out when you think you are anynomous you are accountable for all statements anynomous or not. Stating that someone is facing a "load of malpractice lawsuits" when that is not true (as far as I know) and you certainly would have no knowledge of that even if it were true, IS slander, even for you sick self centered form of entertainment. I just thought I'd point that out since neither of you seem to have enough brains to figure that out for yourself. Clinton, My library finally got me the doctor's book. A couple of quick things noticed right away...it is a self-published book, the doctor calls himself a "dental surgeon", so I suspect he is a GP, not an oral surgeon. The book also has a lot of pictures of very ordinary dental situations with captions that portray them as some unusual pathology. There are also several claims of things that are "unknown" to the dental profession where this is clearly untrue. I will read on, but these first impressions are a disappointment. T My view would be that it is simply a confirmation of what was to be expected. Delusional crackpot scribbling. Dartos > I will read on, but these first impressions are a disappointment. > > T > Clinton, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > oral surgeon. The book also has a lot of pictures of very ordinary dental > situations with captions that portray them as some unusual pathology. I don't recall my version having any pictures, maybe it did on a few pages I forgot about. At any rate I'm not sure what you are looking for. Pathology slides? I definitly do not recall any. However I'll take a second look at the book if I can find it and look for the pictures. There > are also several claims of things that are "unknown" to the dental > profession where this is clearly untrue. The pictures or other statements? > I will read on, but these first impressions are a disappointment. fair enough > > Clinton, > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Pathology slides? I definitly do not recall any. However I'll take a > second look at the book if I can find it and look for the pictures. They are some clinical photos at the back of the book...sort of in an appendix. > There > > are also several claims of things that are "unknown" to the dental > > profession where this is clearly untrue. > > The pictures or other statements? Some of the statements. I don't have the book in front of me now, but just paging through there was a story about someone dying from bacterial endodcarditis, and how the connection between this and dentistry or a dental source of infection is not considered. This is false. Of all possible systemic complications associated with dental care, few are covered in the detail this is. There were also comments about how dental education does not include coursework that makes references to general medicine. I can only speak for my education, but again, this is not true. I will read more over the weekend and try to get to the core message. > > I will read on, but these first impressions are a disappointment. > > fair enough T >> > Clinton, >> > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >> > I will read on, but these first impressions are a disappointment. Surprise, surprise. >> fair enough > > T > >> > I will read on, but these first impressions are a disappointment. > > Surprise, surprise. Have you read the book Jan? If so, share your thoughts as Clinton has, then we can actually discuss something intelligently. I don't agree with Clinton on this topic, but I respect him for taking the time to learn about it. I am trying to do the same. My disappointment thus far is not about the subject matter, but rather how the subject is approached. T > > >> > I will read on, but these first impressions are a disappointment. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > T Best is to go to Medline. Type in for a search whatever you want to look for. For example: 1. bacteria in root canal teet 2. root canal and osteomyelitis, infection and systemic disease 3. focal, infection dental Or type whatever you want and look at the literature. Put in a start date of the year 2000 or whenever date that you want. These are just the tip of the iceberg as far as literature is concerned. Do your own search so that nobody censors anything that you look at. I can supply article after article but you all will say that i just chose articles to support my statements. Here, all sides of the issue can be looked at. RK start date if you want. There is enough data there to make you start to think. > > > >> > I will read on, but these first impressions are a disappointment. > > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > start date if you want. There is enough data there to make you start to > think. I replied to your question about the abscessed teeth in the thread "The Dr. K Book". I'm wondering the reply post answered your questions. Webby > > > > >> > I will read on, but these first impressions are a disappointment. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Webby It gave me some insight. I do not know the full extent of your medical/dental problems but that is a good start. I meant to post my last post regarding medline on the "book" thread but I accidentally put it here insterad. RK > > > >> > I will read on, but these first impressions are a disappointment. > > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > start date if you want. There is enough data there to make you start to > think. This is not the reply that I typed in. I type it in. Wait. See it posted out of order and missing words. Interesting. RK > Do your own search so that nobody censors anything that you look at. I > can supply article after article but you all will say that I just chose > articles to support my statements. Here, all sides of the issue can be > looked at. Nope ! I think you should provide the first reference, then we can provide the second one. Otherwise someone is going to accuse you of not being capable of doing a search and not being able to afford to buy the complete article rather than just the abstract. I don't want to see this become more accusatory. Besides, you are the one who is coming in and saying that everything we have read in the past is wrong. It is your duty to begin the discussion with a reference which lends credibility to your point of view. You can email the entire article as a pdf or jpg file to one of us who can, in turn, send it along to everyone else. That way no one gets in trouble for publishing copyrighted work. Signature/ Amatus / > >> > >> > I will read on, but these first impressions are a disappointment. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > start date if you want. There is enough data there to make you start to > think. >I will read on, but these first impressions are a disappointment. But, certainly not surprising. Amatus >Clinton, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >T .. Amatus . |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message