[Information4U] offiicial Dentistry

[Guest guest]

At 08:44 AM 10/12/06, you wrote:

> Official Dentistry

>Posted by: " VoiceAnalysis " VoiceAnalysis soundstonedchick

>Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:28 am (PST)

>Monday, May 22nd, 2006 The US Health Care System, rated 72nd in quality, but

>number one in cost - worldwide, is known, by government reports, to be the

>NUMBER ONE KILLER of Americans - ahead of heart disease, cancer, and strokes.

>There is no argument against facts. But what is up for speculation are the

>REASONS why this is so. No one I know of (government agencies, think

>tanks, etc.)

>has taken the time to describe, and rate, the reasons why US citizens are

>being

>so short-changed.

>

>The Self-Serving Dental Bureaucracy - " Official dentistry " is not now, and

>has not been for some time, about Dentists or dentistry. It is about the

>Dental

>Bureaucracy protecting the IMMENSE CASH FLOW FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES, into that

>bureaucratic system. That huge amount of cash sets " Official dentistry's "

>priorities, and THOSE PRIORITIES do not serve the needs of America's

>Dentists, and

>certainly not the needs of the American public. Dentists, within the system,

>have little, or no, control over what happens in American Dentistry.

>

>Simply, " Official dentistry " is controlled by those that write the checks to

>that bureaucracy. For instance, forty-two percent of the ADA's annual income

>is from " Product Endorsement. " And, to my knowledge, that 42% DOES NOT

>INCLUDE

>the money " Official dentistry " gets from the US fertilizer industry. The

>fertilizer industry? Did I say " The fertilizer industry? " Yup, that's

>exactly what

>I said. So why would the fertilizer industry give money to the dental

>bureaucracy? Keep reading, and you'll find out. And, you won't like what

>I'm going to

>tell you.

>

>It appears to me that the sheer volume of dollars pouring into " Official

>dentistry " from outside sources has corrupted the dental bureaucracy's

>thinking.

>Instead of looking out for the interests of Dentists in the field, and the

>American public, they look out for providers, suppliers and any entities

>willing

>to write big checks to that bureaucracy.

>

>Want some examples? I'll give you FOUR of them here.

>(1) The " Fluoride " in the Water Problem - The number one promoter of fluoride

>in our water supply is " official dentistry. " And, it is extremely profitable

>for them to do this - even though they know the horrible consequences. The

>amount of money that changes hands is astronomical. They " forget " to tell the

>public, and their member Dentists, where all that promotional money they

>get, and

>throw around, comes from. It comes from the US fertilizer industry. The

>so-called " fluoride " they use, fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) , according to

>George C.

>Glasser, writing for the Earth Island Institute, the fertilizer industries

>have to PAY TO GET RID OF, because it's a deadly, toxic, hazardous, waste of

>those industries. In fact Glasser says of its production in Central Florida:

>Phosphate fertilizer manufacturing and mining are not environment friendly

>operations. Fluorides and radionuclides are the primary toxic pollutants from

>the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer in Central Florida. People living

>near

>the fertilizer plants and mines, experience lung cancer and leukemia rates

>that

>are double the state average. Much of West Central Florida has become a toxic

>waste dump for phosphate fertilizer manufacturers. Federal and state

>pollution regulations have been modified to accommodate phosphate fertilizer

>production and use: These regulations have included using recovered

>pollution for water

>fluoridation. Radium wastes from filtration systems at phosphate fertilizer

>facilities are among the most radioactive types of naturally occurring

>radioactive material (NORM) wastes. The radium wastes are so concentrated,

>they cannot

>be disposed of at the one US landfill licensed to accept NORM wastes, so

>manufacturers dump the radioactive wastes in acidic ponds atop 200-foot-high

>gypsum stacks. The federal government has no rules for its disposal.

>During the

>late 1960s, fluorine emissions were damaging crops, killing fish and causing

>crippling skeletal fluorosis in livestock. The EPA became concerned and

>enforced

>regulations requiring manufacturers to install pollution scrubbers. At that

>time, the facilities were dumping the concentrated pollution directly into

>waterways leading into Tampa Bay.

>

>Feel good that " Official dentistry " is making truckloads of money telling

>YOUR community that this stuff belongs in your water? If you are not

>convinced

>yet - read this below:

>

>In the late 1960s, EPA chemist Ervin Bellack worked out the ideal solution to

>a monumental pollution problem. Because recovered phosphate fertilizer

>manufacturing waste contain about 19% fluorine, Bellack concluded that the

>concentrated " scrubber liquor " could be a perfect water fluoridation

>agent. It was a

>liquid and easily soluble in water, unlike sodium fluoride - a waste product

>from aluminum manufacturing. It was also inexpensive. Fate also

>intervened. The

>aluminum industry, which previously supplied sodium fluoride for water

>fluoridation, was facing a shortage of fluorspar used in smelting aluminum.

>Consequently, there was a shortage of sodium fluoride to fluoridate

>drinking water. For

>the phosphate fertilizer industry, the shortage of sodium fluoride was the

>key

>to turning red ink into black and an environmental liability into a perceived

>asset. With the help of the EPA, fluorosilicic acid was transformed from a

>concentrated toxic waste and a liability into a " proven cavity fighter. "

>The EPA

>and the US Public Health Service waived all testing procedures and - with the

>help of the American Dental Association (ADA) - encouraged cities to add the

>radioactive concentrate into America's drinking water as an " improved "

>form of

>fluoride. The product is not " fluorine " or " fluoride " as proponents state: It

>is a pollution concentrate. Fluorine is only one captured pollutant

>comprising about 19% of the total product.

>

>And, then read this: In promoting the use of the pollution concentrate as a

>fluoridation agent, the ADA, Federal agencies and manufacturers failed to

>mention that it was radioactive . Whenever uranium is found in nature as a

>component of a mineral, a host of other radionuclides are always found in

>the mineral

>in various stages of decay. Uranium and all of its decay-rate products are

>found in phosphate rock, fluorosilicic acid and phosphate fertilizer. During

>wet-process manufacturing, trace amounts of radium and uranium are

>captured in the

>pollution scrubber. This process was the subject of an article by H.F.

>Denzinger, H. J. König and G.E. Krüger in the fertilizer industry journal,

>Phosphorus & Potassium (No. 103, Sept./Oct. 1979) discussed how

>radionuclides are

>carried into the fluorosilicic acid. While the uranium and radium in

>fluorosilicic

>acid are known carcinogens, two decay products of uranium are even more

>carcinogenic: radon-222 and polonium-210. During the acidulation process

>that creates

>phosphoric acid, radon gas contained in the phosphate pebble can be released

>in greater proportions than other decay-rate products (radionuclides) and

>carried over into the fluorosilicic acid. Polonium may also be captured in

>greater

>quantities during scrubbing operations because, like radon, it can readily

>combine with fluoride. In written communications to the author, EPA Office of

>Drinking Water official Joseph A. Cotruvo and Public Health Service

>fluoridation

>engineer Thomas Reeves have acknowledged the presence of radionuclides in

>fluorosilicic acid.

>

> " Official dentistry " has known, all along, the source of this so-called

> " fluoride, " and is knowingly, and intentionally, and for a lot of money,

>primarily

>responsible for the insertion of a deadly toxic waste into our water supply.

>

>Last year, in Bellingham, Washington a pro-fluoride group (made up of TWO

>people) spent $258,493.03 trying to promote fluoridation. Anti-fluoride

>people

>ate them up, defeating the issue with a huge majority vote. Where'd the

> " pro-fluoride " money come from?

>

>(2) The Mercury Amalgam Problem - For years, " official dentistry " has told

>the public that those shiny fillings in your mouth were " silver fillings, "

>when

>in fact there is little, or no silver in them. They are, in fact 52 to 54%

>mercury, the deadliest of toxins, and over your lifetime, they leak that

>mercury

>into your body system, every time you swallow, or breathe in those mercury

>vapors - in essence, continuously. And you suffer for it. " Official

>dentistry " is

>hammering your immune system - for money.<FONT COLOR= " #000000 "

>BACK= " #ffffff " style= " BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff " SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FA

>

>(3) The Industry Control Problem - Almost half of the annual income for the

>American Dental Association (ADA) is from so-called " product endorsement. " In

>other words, the ADA bureaucracy has a financial interest in maintaining the

>status quo. In short, I think if you have a new dental product you want to

>put

>on the market, you are going to give the ADA bureaucracy a piece of the

>action

>- or else... And, I believe, if your new product conflicts with the sales,

>and

>the viability of one of the dental " good ole boy's " products, or services,

>you're in for a hard ride.

>

>(4) The " Pretty Teeth " versus " Healthy Mouth " controversy.

>

>American Dentistry doesn't compare well worldwide. In Europe, to become a

>Dentist, you must first become an MD. Dentistry, in Europe, is a medical

>specialty, like Pediatrics, Internal Medicine, Oncology, Psychiatry.

>There, Dentistry

>has a much different focus - body health.

>

>In the US, " official dentistry, " through national marketing programs, has

>turned " teeth " into a sexual conquest tool (whiter, brighter, sexier smile).

>There is in the US, virtually NO INTEREST in the health problems surrounding

>teeth. In fact, Dentists who cross the line into " health " problems

>(Biological

>Dentists) are openly attacked by " Official dentistry. "

>

>For a quick summary of the problems with US Dentistry, try reading the short

>article by Robert & Kerrie Broe, authors of " Truth Decay " (article

>following in

>next email). As Robert & Kerrie Broe say:

>

>The renowned German physician Dr. Reinhard Voll estimated that nearly 80% of

>all illness is related entirely or partially to problems in the mouth. The

>reason the teeth are such a threat to health is that, in addition to their

>connection to every organ and gland in the body, they can harbor

>infections without

>symptoms. There's no pain or discomfort. Yet, there may be chronic infection

>eroding the body's immune response-wearing out the immune system. This

>infection is very difficult to detect. Few people today have escaped the

>problems of

>dental cavities and gum infection. About 98% of Americans have some areas of

>diseased gum tissue in their mouths, over half of these are also

>experiencing a

>progressive " bone loss. " Fortunately, cavities and pyorrhea (gum disease and

>bone loss) are both 100% preventable and reversible.

>

>One of the most important legal challenges in the US on this subject,

>recently, was the " Cavitat v. Aetna " Federal Case. There we learned that

> " Official

>dentistry " was in a sheer panic about the Cavitat Medical device and its

>effect

>on Dentistry - and they were trying to use Aetna to do what they were unable,

>and had been unable, to accomplish.

>

>And, what was " Official dentistry " trying to accomplish? - the destruction of

>the emerging idea that the long ignored " cavitations in the jawbone " problem

>is a serious dental, and health, issue that cannot be ignored.

>

>What was so frightening, to " Official dentistry " , about the Cavitat device ?

>There's an easy answer. It detects the presence of cavitations in the jawbone

>using an ultrasound principal. It sees those cavitations LONG BEFORE

>they'd be

>picked up on x-ray. As a tool that does that, cutting-edge dentists have been

>using it to justify dental procedures surrounding damage to the jawbone - in

>severe cases using expensive jawbone surgery techniques. In short, the attack

>against Cavitat, and proponents of the cavitational issue is because it is

>believed that ALL cavitational issues are caused by POOR DENTISTRY,

>meaning poor

>work performed by US Dentists - a scandal " Official dentistry " is not willing

>to face. One example is the whole idea of " root canals. "

>

>As Robert & Kerrie Broe say:

>The philosophy underlying the teaching of dentistry limits its practice to

>mechanics, pain control and aesthetics. The systemic effects of dental

>treatment

>are rarely considered.

>

>The root canal procedure is a fatally flawed procedure. The very nature of

>the procedure itself prevents it from achieving its supposed primary goal: a

>non-infected, sterile tooth. There is a high risk of keeping in the mouth

>a dead

>tooth that can harbor anaerobic bacteria, viruses and fungi, where neither

>the

>body's immune system nor antibiotics can fight them off. Sooner or later the

>root canaled tooth's bacteria and their toxins can invade the body, weakening

>the immune system, the nervous system, the heart, etc. yet often without the

>medical doctor even thinking to suspect the role that is being played by an

>infected, toxic tooth.

>

>Of equal interest is the relationship of root filled teeth to traditional

>Chinese medicine and body energies. All teeth are linked to the body via

>acupuncture meridians and having a root filled tooth, a large amalgam

>filling, a

>crown, or anything that is not compatible with the body, on a meridian may

>set up

>an interference field, blocking or altering the energy flow ( the chi ')

>passing through this meridian and cause a disease in an organ or body

>function

>remote from the tooth. For example a front upper incisor is on the Kidney/

>Bladder

>meridians and having a root treated tooth here may cause gynecological

>problems, kidney problems, impotence, and sterility if you follow a

>Chinese medicine

>theme. These teeth also relate to spinal segments and joints, the front

>incisor relates to the coccyx and posterior knee and to L2, L3, S3, and 6.

>

>If the tooth is removed, the energy does tend to pass through it; however,

>without the tooth in the bone, it is still altered. Without stimulation

>from a

>tooth, blood circulation and lymphatic drainage will be impaired, and the

>bone

>and tissue surrounding the extraction site can become diseased (cavitations )

>and die. Infections in the teeth and toxins have no place to go but down;

>down

>into the jawbone and into the rest of the body, creating systemic

>pathologies. Some dentists are trained to look for these areas on X-rays

>and Cavitat

>procedures and when these areas are treated they can also bring considerable

>improvements in patients health. This energetic relationship between teeth

>and the

>rest of the body is opening whole new avenues of dental care and the chance

>for dentists to work with other complementary health workers.

>

>It is assumed in dentistry that the extent of bone loss is a direct

>indication of the amount of infection present. This is a false assumption

>because the

>bone loss may take time to develop. The extent of the bone loss about the end

>of the root is also a function of the body's immune system being able to

>isolate the infection process. It has little to do with the degree of

>infection.

>Sometimes there is no bone loss, but instead, a condensation of bone about

>the

>end of a dead tooth. Dentists are taught that this indicates a lack of

>infection. The reality is that teeth showing a <i style= " " >Condensing

>Osteitis are

>demonstrating that the body's immune system is incapable of quarantining the

>infection locally. These are often the teeth which cause the greatest

>systemic

>effects.

>

>On the side of the " cavitation problem " were, and are, Dentists and Dental

>schools, and textbook writers - some of the foremost people in Dentistry

>in the

>United States. On the opposite is " Official dentistry " and their flotilla of

>interested people - using Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD as their

>standard-bearer and chief spokesperson. Baratz, we know, has been

>terminated from virtually

>every job he's ever had - the last because he sexually harassed his female

>employee.

>

>In summary...

>

>Think about what I just wrote. Besides promoting, for money, two separate

>sources of deadly toxins (fluoride and mercury amalgam), and locking up

>innovation in Dental care, " Official dentistry " is attacking those that

>point out

>health related problems, especially those that dare to point out that

> " what happens

>in your mouth affects your whole body. " - heavily.

>

>And that's insane...

>

>In short - It is up to the other health professions, and the general public

>at large, to fill in that gap. MDs, DOs, Chiropractors, Naturopaths,

>Nutritionists, Nurses, etc., need to avail themselves of information about

>health

>problems in the mouth - and act. For US Dentists are, for the most part,

>unable, or

>afraid to act. I recommend that MD, DO, Chiropractors, etc., groups make

> " health problems starting in the mouth " part of their annual training, and

>give CME

>credits for that training. Americans would gain greatly from this. Once a

>problem is found, a recommendation to a " Holistic " or a " Biological " Dentist

>could be made.

>

>Stay tuned...

>HSI Alert

 

******

Kraig and Shirley Carroll ... in the woods of SE Kentucky

http://www.thehavens.com/

thehavens

606-376-3363

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release 2/14/05