Don't forget that you are more likely to live longer with teeth than
without.

Incorrect.

http://drkulacz.net/contents/info/article/article_04.htm

Root Canals and Cancer
Josef M Issels, MD was an oncologist (cancer specialist) who viewed cancer
as a general disease rather than an isolated circumscribed ailment.

Dr. Issels based his conclusions on the knowledge gathered from holistic
physicians, including those of prior generations, and on his own knowledge
that the general health of the whole person is equally important as the
tumor itself. He reasoned that the previous damage of the defense mechanism
of the person first enabled the development of the tumor.

Most of the cells in our body are constantly dividing creating new cells.
The rate of cell proliferation and cell death is carefully controlled by our
DNA. However, sometimes cells divide at a faster rate than is desirable and
may become malignant (cancer). This daily random generation of malignant
cells represents a chronic challenge to our body. Fortunately our immune
system usually recognizes these malignant cells and destroys them before
they develop into a cancerous tumor.

But what if our immune system has been compromised with a chronic infection
such as a root canal? The immune system may not be up to the task of
protecting the body from the constantly produced cancer cells. Genetic
susceptibility, toxin exposure and immune system exhaustion set the stage
for cancer development is susceptible tissues.

But aren't root canals harmless? NO! (see Rosenows work). Almost all root
canal teeth are infected. The mouth contains over 350 different bacteria.
These bacteria remain in the porous tubules of the root and continue to
grow. They can survive quite nicely in the warm, dark moist environment of
even the best treated root canal tooth. They now become a focus of
infection, free to disseminate bacteria and bacterial toxins to the rest of
the body for as long as the infected tooth is left in the mouth.

Dr. Issels found that 98% of all his adult cancer patients had two or more
root canal teeth!

Root canal teeth contain bacteria, These bacteria produce highly potent
toxins that can disseminate throughout the body.
What are these toxins? (see altcorp.com for current research on root canal
toxins)
One of the most dangerous are the thio-ethers (ex. Di-methyl sulfate). These
thio-ethers are not only structurally, but also in terms of effect, closely
related with nitrogen-lost and other "yellow cross" combat poison gases
which were employed during world war 1.

Why are the thio-ethers so toxic?
They are fat soluble and therefore concentrate in the lipid (fat) framework
of the cell, especially the mitochondria. (Mitochondria are the energy
producers of the cell. If the mitochondria are destroyed than the cell can
no longer make energy. This may also be a contributing factor in chronic
fatigue syndrome
They are very resistant to oxidation and can only gradually be detoxified
and may remain in the tissues for a long time. Therefore the continual
release of toxins can cause a an accumulation of toxins.
These toxins can block aerobic metabolism and force the cells to rely on
fermentation as a means of energy production (see altcorp.com. for a
detailed report on the inhibition of important body enzymes used in aerobic
metabolism). Cancer cell use fermentation their means of energy production.

This fermentation (anaerobic metabolism) causes the body to become more
acidic. Since the body strives to maintain a specific pH (acid-base balance)
any increase in acidity will precipitate a release of phosphate buffer from
the bone. Along with the phosphate comes calcium. This leads to too much
free excess calcium in the blood. One place the excess calcium is deposited
is tarter on the teeth. It can also be deposited inside the arteries
accelerating hardening of the arteries and it can be deposited in cancer
cells. You see the reason cancer shows up on an x-ray is due to
calcification in the cells. Normal soft tissue cells are not clearly visible
on x-ray because they do not contain calcium.

The root canal issue is both complex and simple at the same time. It is
complex because there are many biochemical processes that can be disrupted
by root canal teeth. It is simple because they should not be a treatment
option

I hope I have given you a brief insight to the complexity and interaction of
the human body. Please explore the information in the website links and
THINK! Don't rely on your dentist or physician for information on this
subject because most refuse to even look at the scientific evidence.

Remember, everything in the body is connected. Educate your self with
scientific evidence and good old fashioned common sense. Your health depends
upon it.

http://rheumatic.org/teeth.htm

http://www.hallvtox.dircon.co.uk/hallvt.html

Root Canals. A tooth has miles of tiny canals running through the root. A
dead or root filled tooth will have bacteria in these canals. There is no
way of
removing the bacteria once they are in there.

On Jan 21, 5:11 pm, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

I do not know what is the latest with law suits against amalgam
manufacturers,
they have been sued several times (at least). I heard but don't know
for sure that one major amalgam manufacturer was successfully sued in
Europe. One problem with suing amalgam manufacturers in the US is that
it is incredibly expensive for an individual patient, wheras I think
that doctors who report adverse drug reactions make class action suits
easier. Imagine if the AMA claimed that "Vioxx could not cause serious
injury" even though many doctors felt it could, and the typical doctor
for no reason at all called a patient claiming injury from Vioxx a
"nut case".
It is also very hard to prove that Hg which is inhaled and absorbed
*beyond all doubt" caused a patients injuries to a jury of people with
normal scientific background. This is very similar to tobacco lawsuits
when companies  used money and seeming reasonable doubt about how
inhaled smoke could cause injury, along with highly paid "opposition
witnesses" who basiclly lied their a.ses off, just like the ADA
"experts" from the "research divisions" of the dental schools (in my
opinion),  to compile a winning record in court. Doesn't mean
cigarettes were safe.

What I say is if you know you are implanitng a device which may posion
a kid 10 years down the road, and you know, or organized dentistry
knows that due to the nature or how Hg is absorbed, it is very
difficult to track , does that make it right, because such a case is
harder to prove to a 12 person jury with an average sixth grade
education, many of whom may have failed basic chemistry but believe
"what the ADA says"? Your accountablility and disclosure should be in
direct proportion to the difficiulty in tracking the release of toxins
from you product to begin with, and your stature and trust in the
community should dictate the scruplousness with which you apply the
scientific method!, not used as a rational for further use, and lack
of disclosure! It is afterall dentists and manufacturers who created
the level of difficulty in determining the health impact of the
devices they use.

 Dentists themselves have also sued amalgam manufacturers, one case
was close in North Carolina a couple years ago, but the company argued
that it was impossible to tell whether Hg from their product or
another companies product caused the actual injury to the dentist
during office use. I heard the dentist was in pretty bad shape during
the trial. A lot of dental assistants have also claimed to have been
posioned. This shows you how twisted the case law is when it comes to
amalgam. and I have  to say judges in these cases, have acted pretty
spinless, perhaps feeling that they will not be reappointed to their
post if they are the ones who caused the publics favorite implant to
be banned from the market.

Remember how slavery was upheld again and again by case law and by
promient judges in the US courts? And as I pointed out it took decades
to get a win against the cigarette manufacturers. The bottom line is
that the court system itself is mainly a political, not a scientific
entity.

Actually the FDA division which regulates dentistry is run by
dentists.
It is called dental devices.
Imagine if the drug division of FDA had a separate approval section
for drugs
from Merck and that section was run by staff from Merck, that is how
much
politicial influence dentistry does have. Dentists also run NIDCR, the
government agency that does dental research. the political
influence of dentistry dwarfs that of the drug companies, largely
because
the public "trusts" dentists to regulate dentistry but won't tolerate
drug companies direct control of drug approval.

Legally dentists themselves have an incredible amount of legal and
political
protection compared to drug companies, mandatory arbitration laws
which
require other dentists approval for a lawsuit to go forward ,
precidents for "standard of care" and other legal protections make it
virtually impossible
to successfully sue dentists for the use of amalgam.

That was the year they switched to a newer version of the copper
fillings which
are 50 times leaker, 1981