October 27, 2011
By Andrew W. Saul, PhD
Cavities and gum diseases are not often regarded as serious diseases, yet they are epidemic throughout our society, from the youngest of children to the oldest of senior citizens. Research more than suggests that the same good nutrition that prevents cavities and gum diseases may also prevent other illnesses.
Dental caries and gum pathology are frequently associated with serious chronic health problems. Multiple independent studies published after 1990 document this. Cavities are associated with poor mental health [1-4]. Elderly individuals with dementia or Alzheimer’s disease had an average of 7.8 teeth with fillings vs. an average of only 2.7 fillings for elderly individuals without dementia . It is likely that the toxic heavy metal mercury, which makes up half of every amalgam filling, is a contributing factor.
A recent authoritative review showed a clear association between cavities and heart diseases . More importantly, this same study showed that people with poor oral health, on average, lead shorter lives. The association between cavities and diabetes is also a subject of active, ongoing research [6-8]. Connections between heart disease, diabetes, and dental decay have been suspected for decades. Many of the scientists who called attention to this have proposed that diets high in sugar and refined carbohydrates were the common cause of these diseases [9-15].
Dental diseases, mental diseases, heart disease, infectious respiratory diseases, and heart disease are all at least partially caused by common failures in metabolism. Such failures are inevitable when there is a deficiency of essential nutrients, particularly vitamins D, C, and niacin.
There is especially strong evidence for a relationship between vitamin D deficiency and cavities. Dozens of studies were conducted in the 1930′s and 1940′s [16-27]. More than 90% of the studies concluded that supplementing children with vitamin D prevents cavities. Particularly impressive was a study published in 1941 demonstrated the preventative affect of “massive” doses of vitamin D . And yet no subsequent studies in the scientific literature suggested a need to follow up and repeat this work.
October 20, 2011
By Selena Keegan
Top baby formula brands sold in stores contain alarmingly high levels of corn syrup and sugar. In light of rising rates of childhood obesity and diabetes, parents need to read labels carefully to protect their children’s health.
Consumption of large quantities of sugar and high fructose corn syrup have been linked to behavioral disorders such as ADD as well as other issues such as anxiety, daytime drowsiness and nighttime insomnia.
Feeding your baby sugar and corn syrup also increases your child’s risk for a wide spectrum of other health problems ranging from dental cavities to high triglyceride levels to nutritional deficiencies. Even the mainstream medical establishment warns of the dangers of added sugars.
Warnings issued about sugar consumption for children
The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued warnings about the health dangers of children drinking sugar-sweetened beverages such as sodas, sweetened fruit drinks and sports drinks (http://www.aap.org/obesity/SSB.html).
Unfortunately, many parents do not realize that the most store-bought formulas they feed their infants and toddlers may pose the same health risks as a can of soda.
Most baby formula product lines offer options for cow’s milk-based formula as well as soy milk for infants with lactose intolerance. Many formulas come in ready-to-feed, liquid concentrate and powdered forms. All the major baby formula brands offer options for all age groups from premature infants through toddlers, choices for children with special medical conditions, and organic product lines.
The top five ingredients listed for Similac Sensitive Formula for Fussiness and Gas are: Corn Syrup Solids, Sugar (Sucrose), Milk Protein Isolate, High Oleic Safflower Oil, Soy Oil.
Enfamil is a product of Abbott Nutrition, a division of Abbott Laboratories. Enfamil’s Soy Toddler formula also lists Corn Syrup Solids as the initial ingredient, followed by Vegetable Oil (Palm Olein, Coconut, Soy and High Oleic Sunflower Oils), Soy Protein Isolate and Calcium Phosphate. Enfamil is produced by Mead Johnson Nutrition, a subsidiary of Mead Johnson & Company, LLC which was spun off from Bristol-Myers Squibb in 2009.
Gerber is owned by Nestle, the candy company which makes Kit Kat bars, and which also owns Jenny Craig. The list of ingredients for Gerber’s Good Start Protect Formula: Whey Protein Concentrate (From Cow’s Milk, Enzymatically Hydrolyzed, Reduced In Minerals), Vegetable Oils (Palm Olein, Soy, Coconut, And High-Oleic Safflower Or High-Oleic Sunflower), Lactose, Corn Maltodextrin.
Parent’s Choice is the Wal-Mart store-brand of baby products. Their Organic Infant Formula contains Organic Reduced Minerals Whey, Organic Non-Fat Milk, Organic Lactose, Organic Corn Syrup Solids, Organic Palm Oil or Palm Olein.
Earth’s Best Organic Infant Formula with DHA and ARA has a similar ingredient list (Organic Reduced Minerals Whey, Organic Non-Fat Milk, Organic Lactose, Organic Glucose Syrup Solids, Organic Palm Oil Or Organic Palm Olein).
Nature’s One lists the following ingredients in its Dairy Formula: Organic Brown Rice Syrup, Organic Non-Fat Dry Milk, Organic High Oleic Sunflower Oil, Organic Soybean Oil. Nature’s One is a privately held company based in Columbus, Ohio.
June 8th, 2011
By: Mary Sparrowdancer
German and Austrian scientists knew in the early 1930s that an overactive thyroid (hyperthyroidism) could be successfully treated by bathing patients in water containing minute amounts of fluoride. They had discovered nearly a century ago that fluoride blocked thyroid function. For the US government, long partnered with the pharmaceutical industry, to then force this same treatment on a nation of people with healthy thyroids under the lie that fluoride “prevents cavities in children,” is unconscionable. The Nuremberg Code of ethics pertaining to human experimentation labels it an act of crime, stating, “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” Today, 70% of the US is being forced to receive this thyroid-blocking chemical via their water without consent or medical monitoring for overdose, allergic reaction or blocked thyroid function. The benefits are being reaped by the largest of US industries: The pharmaceutical industry. Fluoride has created a nation of sufferi ng people seeking more drugs to treat blocked thyroids and fluoride toxicity. We might drink bottled water, but most of us cannot avoid the bathwater.
Deliberately damaging the thyroid will produce a plethora of symptoms affecting the entire human body from head to toe. Symptoms of thyroid damage and fluoride poisoning include weight gain, edema, kidney disease, kidney failure, hair loss, depression, aggression, aches, pains, skin problems, bone deformities (likely including “arthritis” and spontaneous fractures), sexual/erectile dysfunction, memory loss, weakness, fatigue, heart disease, irritability, cancer, digestive disorders including severe GERD as a result of swallowing fluoride, nausea, vomiting, visual problems, gum disease, “high cholesterol,” connective tissue damage, brittle teeth, wrinkles, premature aging, dehydration, and long, long after the whole body has been damaged, “cosmetic fluorosis” might finally show up in a tooth or two. “Cosmetic fluorosis” is usually the only sign of fluoride poisoning mentioned by fluoride promoters, while downplaying the rest of the signs as though their livelihoods depended upon it.
Lethal fluoride doses cause death to occur by “natural causes” such as cardiac arrest, or acute renal failure or (for those who believe that cancer is a “natural cause” of death), by cancer. Fluoride binds to and possibly mimics calcium, but fluoride is a liar. The heart cells utilize a perfect balance of calcium and magnesium and other natural substances in the body’s matrix to cause the heart to beat and then rest. Fluoride, bound to the calcium, confuses the normal functioning and cellular communication within the body, and causes arrhythmias.
The fluoride that is purchased by municipal waterworks and added into public drinking water is not even a “pharmaceutical grade” fluoride. It is primarily discarded waste, a slurry of toxins not wanted by the phosphate fertilizer mining corporations that sell it to waterworks. From there, it is then disposed of (sometimes by unskilled workers) into our drinking water. For those who have swallowed the propaganda that fluoride is “completely safe,” and is some kind of a “nutrient” that is good for us, there is news footage available of a recent fluoride spill that took place in Illinois. A Hazmat team in protective gear was called in to clean up the mess, but not before the fluoride began eating through the concrete driveway it had spilled upon.
This should leave little question as to why a 2005 study by the American Gastroenterological Association showed that there was a sharp increase in Barrett’s esophagus and GERD, and other reports show that adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, once rare, has now become one of the most frequently occurring cancers. Fluoride can eat its way through a titanium container. Fluoride is converted in the stomach into hydrofluoric acid, an acid so strong that it cannot be stored in a glass container because it will eat the glass. Fluoride, proven to block thyroid function, is not a substance we should be forced to drink, breathe, eat, and bathe in without our consent.
Fluoride promoters have utilized all seven propaganda techniques identified by the “Institute for Propaganda Analysis,” (est. 1937 and brought to an early end in the 1940s), including “Name-Calling, Glittering Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon” in order to keep the fluoride flowing here and creating medical problems. Mention an aversion to fluoride, and the promoters will more than likely make comments about “tinfoil hats,” or make a reference to the strange movie, “Dr. Strangelove.” They also refer to people opposed to being dosed with fluoride against their wills as “anties” as though attempting to paint a picture of opponents as confused old ladies. The one thing that fluoride promoters are incapable of doing, however, is engaging in a logical debate about fluoride. They cannot debate fluoride because they have no real facts or clinical evidence showing that fluoride “prevents cavities.” They merely repeat, as they have been repeating for over 60 years, the following mantra: “It is well-known that fluoride prevents cavities.”
If fluoride “prevented cavities” as the CDC and other government pharmaceutical branches imply, they would be shining a light on the Commonwealth of Kentucky. According to the NIH “Community Water Fluoridation Status by State” 2002 report (reportedly updated in March of 2010), the state of Kentucky ranks #1 in having the highest percentage of fluoridated water of all states in the US. According to Kentucky Oral/Dental Health, the state has received awards for achieving this feat. “The American Dental Association, the Centers for Disease Control and the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors have recognized Kentucky’s efforts.” If we were going to see water fluoridation in action and working as promised by the fluoride salesmen, we would have seen its miracles clearly happening on any given day in the gleaming smiles of our Kentucky neighbors. Instead we see something unexpected.
When the ADA’s and CDC’s exaggerated hoopla dies down, a check of the facts reveals that Kentucky is also ranked #1 in other areas not mentioned during the praising ceremonies. Kentucky ranks #1 in incidence of cancer in the USA, and it ranks at the top for having one of the worst dental health scores in the US. Despite all of its award-winning fluoridation, it has one of the worst rates of cavities in children, as well as complete toothlessness in adults. One must also wonder if the spontaneous fractures and tendon problems in the racehorses might be due to the fluoride in their drinking water. Horses drink many times more water than humans do.
Even more disturbing than the lie about the “benefits” of having “optimally fluoridated water,” is that the majority of physicians do not know how to treat fluoride poisoning, nor do they even know how to look for it or diagnose it. Due to the media, many people simply conclude that Americans are just fat and lethargic, everyone has heartburn so what else is new, arthritis is just bone aches and crippling deformities, fibromyalgia is a sign of malingering, and degenerative disk disease raises no eyebrows or questions as spines spontaneously collapse and disks bulge from sea to shining, oil-slicked sea. We are not adequately studying cause and effect at this time. Instead of treating symptoms with even more pharmaceuticals, we need to start looking for the cause of the symptoms.
Many physicians are unaware that in addition to the daily doses of fluoride their patients are receiving via water, air, dental products, and our fluoride-contaminated food, a growing number of prescription drugs are now fluorinated as well. Lipitor, for instance, is fluorinated and has been known to cause aches and pains, and according to the Lipitor website, can cause serious muscle problems resulting in kidney failure, as well as liver problems, edema, tendon problems, jaundice, nausea and GI problems. A number of patients are reporting memory loss, as well; however, this complaint has not yet become an “accepted” side effect. All of these complaints are, however , “accepted” symptoms of fluoride poisoning. High concentrations of fluoride can also be found in other unexpected items, such as tea, grapes and raisins, and some American wines contain too much fluoride to be sold in European markets.
The amount of fluoride constituting a “lethal dose” is not even known at this time due to disinformation and lack of appropriate study, nor is it known how long a lethal dose will take to finally kill the victim via organ failure or cancer. Most of the deliberate fluoride dosing is sub-lethal, thus allowing people to live out their lives without frank evidence that they are being chronically poisoned by a daily dose of fluoride. They will, however, live out their lives while suffering from the resulting, unexplained but now “commonly found” symptoms that their grandparents never had. They will desire lifelong medications for relief of these symptoms, and no one knows how many years the fluoride will shave off the life of each person being forced to take it.
April 19, 2010
The Globe and Mail
By Martin Mittelstaedt
When it comes to fluoridating drinking water, Ontario and Quebec couldn’t be further apart. Ontario has the country’s highest rate of adding the tooth-enamel-strengthening chemical into municipal supplies, while Quebec has one of the lowest, with practically no one drinking fluoridated water.
But surprisingly, the two provinces have very little difference in tooth-decay rates, a finding that is likely to intensify the ongoing controversy over the practice of adding fluoride to water as a public health measure.
Quebeckers have more cavities than people in Ontario, but the difference is slight. Among children 6 to 19, considered the most decay-prone part of the population, the rate in Ontario was lower by less than half a cavity per child.
In the 6-11 age group, Ontario kids have 3.5 per cent fewer cavities than those in Quebec: 1.7 cavities compared to 1.76 in Quebec.
In the 12-19 age group, Ontario youths have 15.8 per cent fewer cavities than those in Quebec: 2.35 cavities compared to 2.79.
Details of the cavity rates in the two provinces have been compiled by Statistics Canada in a study it conducted recently into the health status of Canadians. Experts peered into the mouths of more than 5,000 Canadians from 2007 to 2009, tallying the number of cavities and teeth with filings, to try to get an idea of the state of oral health of the nation.
After a request from The Globe and Mail for a breakdown of the cavity rates by province, Statistics Canada tabulated the figures for Ontario and Quebec, where it said it had a sufficient number of people to be a representative sample.
Statscan said it couldn’t compile meaningful data for British Columbia and Alberta, which are in a similar situation. British Columbia has practically no one drinking fluoridated water, while nearly three-quarters of Albertans rely on municipal supplies where the chemical is added.
The paper sought the information to see what light it would shed on the effectiveness of fluoridation, which has been touted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the top 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century, and is endorsed by all dental associations in the country and by Health Canada.
But the results showed that if fluoridation is the only major difference between the two provinces, the chemical is preventing fewer than half a cavity per child in Ontario.
Health Canada down played the significance of the findings.
“While accurate,” the data on the children are “an incomplete picture of the tooth decay situation…. [and] cannot be used to form conclusions regarding the efficacy of fluoride use in water,” Health Canada said.
The federal department said firm conclusions can’t be drawn from the Statscan survey because it didn’t collect assessments on individual intakes of the chemical. To make a proper assessment, Health Canada said it would need detailed information on whether people in the two provinces differ in their intake fluoride supplements, drink tap water or bottled water, and use fluoridated toothpaste.
But fluoridation is one major and obvious difference between the provinces. More than three-quarters of Ontario residents live in areas where municipal water supplies contain the chemical. In Quebec, 94 per cent have water free of the additive, according to figures published by Health Canada in 2007.
Since then, Quebec City has voted to stop fluoridating, indicating that the difference between the two provinces is currently even more pronounced.
Some critics of fluoridation say the survey does raise questions about the practice.
“Fluoridation is no longer effective,” contends Hardy Limeback, head of the preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto, who says adding the chemical to water is “more harmful than beneficial.”
Although fluoridation is touted as an unalloyed benefit by public health agencies, which estimate it cuts cavity rates by 20 per cent to 40 per cent, many community groups have sprung up across Canada lobbying to stop the practice, which is subject to repeal by local referendums. Some health professionals are worried fluoridation may have under-appreciated risks.
February 9, 2010
By James Tozer
It’s the main reason so many of us feel such trepidation when faced with a trip to the dentist.
But the dreaded drill could soon be a thing of the past thanks to a new technique in which teeth are treated with acid gel squirted from a syringe.
Although acid in food and drink is one of the biggest causes of decay, scientists say its corrosive properties become an advantage when it comes to removing rotting parts of teeth.
And while a drill can destroy healthy parts of the tooth, the makers of the pencil-sized ‘Icon’ syringe say their treatment is far more efficient at removing only the diseased area – and less traumatic.
First, a rubber ‘collar’ is placed around the target tooth to protect its neighbours. The four-inch syringe then applies a spot of the gel to the discoloured and decaying part.
Within a couple of minutes the acid etches through the enamel into the cavity below, which is then cleaned then dried using ethanol. FInally, the dentist injects a quick-drying resin into the hole which hardens quickly under a high-energy blue light.
The finished filling looks like normal tooth enamel and the whole process takes just 15 minutes.
Icon’s developers say small areas of decay, or ‘caries’, can be treated early before they develop into large cavities, sparing patients more invasive treatment and discomfort.
The treatment has been developed by German company DMG Dental Products in conjunction with the University of Kiel and the Charite medical school in Berlin.
It is on sale in several European countries and due for release in Britain in ‘the near future’, the company says.
Nigel Carter, chief executive of the British Dental Health Foundation, said: ‘This new technique looks like it has got potential but I would like to see more published studies first and see how it works in the longer term.’
He added that several non-invasive techniques are being developed. A plasma jet beamed into tooth cavities to thoroughly disinfect them, allowing the dentist to put in fillings, could replace the drill in three years, scientists say.
November 9, 2009
By Lindsey Tanner
Advice about soft drinks and health from one of the nation’s largest doctors groups will soon be brought to you by Coke.
The American Academy of Family Physicians has prompted outcry and lost members over its new six-figure alliance with the Coca-Cola Co. The deal will fund educational materials about soft drinks for the academy’s consumer health and wellness Web site, http://www.FamilyDoctor.org.
Academy CEO Dr. Douglas Henley said Wednesday that the deal won’t influence the group’s public health messages, and that the company will have no control over editorial content. He said the new online information will include research linking soft drinks with obesity and will focus on sugar-free alternatives.
But critics say the Coke deal will water down the advice.
“Coca-Cola, like other sodas, causes enormous suffering and premature death by increasing the risks of obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, gout, and cavities,” Harvard University nutrition expert Dr. Walter Willett said in an e-mail.
He said the academy “should be a loud critic of these products and practices, but by signing with Coke their voice has almost surely been muzzled.”
Dr. Henry Blackburn, a University of Minnesota public health specialist, said the deal “will inevitably have a chilling effect on the focus of their message in regards to sweet drinks.”
Coca-Cola spokeswoman Diana Garza Ciarlante said that kind of criticism “misses the point of the partnership which is to provide education based on sound science.”
Dr. William Walker, public health officer for Contra Costa County near San Francisco, likened the alliance with ads decades ago in which physicians said mild cigarettes are safe,
Walker has been a member of the academy for 25 years but quit last week. He said 20 other doctors who work with his local medical practice also quit because of the Coke deal.
In an announcement last month, the academy, based in suburban Kansas City, Kan., said the new Coca-Cola-funded educational material will be posted online in January.
The idea is “to develop educational materials to help consumers make informed decisions so they can include the products they love in a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle,” the academy’s president-elect, Dr. Lori Heim, said at the time.
The American Academy of Pediatrics received similar criticism seven years ago when it allowed an infant formula maker’s logo to appear on copies of that group’s breast-feeding guide.
And the American Medical Association faced harsh reaction more than a decade ago with a plan to endorse Sunbeam appliances without testing them. Criticism forced the AMA to abandon that deal.
The Coke deal is not the only corporate alliance for the family physicians group. In 2005 it received funding from McDonalds for a fitness program. And its consumer Web site includes advertising for a variety of products, including deli meats and air freshener.
Henley said the Coke deal is worth six figures but he and a Coca-Cola spokeswoman declined to elaborate.
In a protest letter to Henley, 22 health specialists and activists questioned the safety of artificial sweeteners and urged the academy to abandon the deal and speak out against sugary drinks “in the strongest language.”
Henley said the academy regrets the resignations and hopes other members will not “rush to judgment” before seeing the new content.
Coca-Cola is among several corporate contributors to the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, a separate philanthropic group. These contributors include many drug companies, McDonalds, PepsiCo and a beef industry group. Henley said the academy is in talks with other foundation contributors to fund other materials for the group, but he declined to say which ones.
July 28, 2009
By Susan Heavey
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said on Tuesday silver-colored dental fillings that contain mercury are safe for patients, reversing an earlier caution against their use in certain patients, including pregnant women and children.
“While elemental mercury has been associated with adverse health effects at high exposures, the levels released by dental amalgam fillings are not high enough to cause harm in patients,” the FDA said, citing an agency review of roughly 200 scientific studies.
Still, in final regulations issued on Tuesday as part of an earlier legal settlement, it said the fillings were now considered “moderate risk” devices and will include details about the risks and benefits of the products. They will also carry warnings against their use in patients with mercury allergies or in poorly ventilated areas.
Millions of Americans have such fillings to patch cavities in their teeth and the FDA said it does not recommend patients have them removed. The fillings, also known as amalgams, are a combination of other metals and mercury, which at certain levels has been linked to brain and kidney damage.
In 2006, Moms Against Mercury and three other groups sued the FDA to have mercury fillings removed from the U.S. market. Later that year, an FDA panel of outside experts said most people would not be harmed but that more information was needed.
Mercury — whether in dental, vaccines, fish or other products — has generated much controversy. Some consumer groups contend the fillings can trigger a range of health problems such as multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease.
Part of the problem is that while much is known about high exposures to heavy metals, questions remain about “what is happening at chronic low-level exposure over a lifetime,” said Urvashi Rangan, the director of technical policy for Consumer Reports, whose group was not part of the initial lawsuit.
But Susan Runner, acting director for the FDA division that oversees dental devices, said there was no “causal link” between amalgam fillings and health problems.
“The best available scientific evidence supports the conclusion that patients with dental amalgam fillings are not at risk,” she told reporters on a conference call.
Over the past 20 years, the agency has received just 141 reports of problems in patients with the fillings, she added.
That conclusion counters a statement the agency made last June that the fillings may cause health problems in pregnant women, children and fetuses.
The FDA’s decision could impact makers of metal fillings, which include Dentsply International Inc and Danaher Corp’s unit Kerr, as well as distributors such as Henry Schein Inc and Patterson Cos Inc.
Shares of Dentsply closed up than 21 cents at $30.80 on the Nasdaq while shares of Danaher closed down $1.18 at a $60.66 on the New York Stock Exchange. Shares of Henry Schein closed down 18 cents at $50.24 and Patterson closed up 4 cents at $24.41.
According to the American Dental Association (ADA), about 30 percent of fillings given to patients are mercury-filled, with a growing number of patients instead opting for lighter, tooth-colored options such as resin composites.
Alternative products include glass cement and porcelain as well as other metals such as gold, but they are more expensive. and considered less durable.
The ADA, which represents the dental industry, backed the FDA’s decision not to restrict mercury fillings, saying alternatives are also considered “moderate risk” by the FDA.
“The FDA has left the decision about dental treatment right where it needs to be — between the dentist and the patient,” ADA President Dr. John Findley said in a statement.
But Charlie Brown, a lawyer for Consumers for Dental Choice, said poorer people or those who receive their health care through large institutions such as the U.S. military are more likely to receive the cheaper, silver-colored fillings and are at greater risk for harm.
“Most consumers, and most dentists, have already switched to the main alternative, resin composite,” said Brown, whose group was part of the lawsuit settlement last June that called on the agency to issue more specific rules. His group is now weighing its legal options, he said.
Moms Against Mercury President Amy Carson said she was disappointed in the FDA’s reversal. Her group, along with several others, filed a new petition with the FDA on Tuesday, again calling for a ban on mercury fillings, she added.