I'm reposting this question and directing it to the non-professionals who
frequent this list. The previous thread made it clear that most of the
professionals have no interest in this subject. In fact, the lack of
scientific and intellectual curiosity was a bit scary. One or two of the
pros responded in a scientific way (e.g., George), but most were just
dismissive of my even asking the question.

If you know any 80 and 90 year-olds (even centenarians) in your circle of
friends and family who are in good health, and you feel comfortable with
this, ask them if they currently have teeth that have been treated with root
canal, and please respond in this thread.

If you want to browbeat me for asking the question, please respond in the
original thread.

Robert wrote:

> If you know any 80 and 90 year-olds (even centenarians) in your circle of
> friends and family who are in good health, and you feel comfortable with
> this, ask them if they currently have teeth that have been treated with root
> canal, and please respond in this thread.

My dad is 86 and had a root canaled lower cuspid for over 20 years.
It fractured at the gumline a while ago and I had to extract it.
He is doing quite well. He mows the family cemetery in the summer
and raises a big garden with his wife.

My uncle (my mother's older brother) is over ninety. I did a root
canal for him about 15 years ago (he had worn his lower teeth down
so badly that one abcessed). He is also ambulatory and has a pretty
sharp mind for his age (and still has that tooth).

If I went to the office and searched the records I think I could find
a couple hundred more.

My mom died at the age of 67 from alzhiemers. No root canals though.

In 28 years of dentistry, I have seen no connection between root canals
and failing health.

Have a good day,
Steve

"Steven Fawks" <> wrote in message
news:...

> Robert wrote:
>

>
> My dad is 86 and had a root canaled lower cuspid for over 20 years.
> It fractured at the gumline a while ago and I had to extract it.
> He is doing quite well. He mows the family cemetery in the summer
> and raises a big garden with his wife.
>
> My uncle (my mother's older brother) is over ninety. I did a root
> canal for him about 15 years ago (he had worn his lower teeth down
> so badly that one abcessed). He is also ambulatory and has a pretty
> sharp mind for his age (and still has that tooth).
>
> If I went to the office and searched the records I think I could find
> a couple hundred more.
>
> My mom died at the age of 67 from alzhiemers. No root canals though.
>
> In 28 years of dentistry, I have seen no connection between root canals
> and failing health.
>
> Have a good day,
> Steve

Contrary to what others were saying, I wasn't making any premise. I was
simply asking questions.

Thanks for the response. That is the kind of thing I was looking for and not
abuse for asking the question.

"Steven Fawks" wrote in message
news:...

> Robert wrote:
>
> In 28 years of dentistry, I have seen no connection between root canals
> and failing health.
>

Thanks again for the reply, and I'm sure you mean well, but I think there is
simply not enough data to make that kind of claim. How would you possibly
know that? I think more reasearch needs to be done. Considering that I was
kneecapped by others here for even asking the question, that research is
unlikely to come out of the dental profession or the ADA.

I'm guessing that no official stats are kept on people receiving root
canals? Probably the only people who could amass the necessary data are
forensic patholgists.

NC

--
/

Amatus

/
"Robert" <> wrote in message
news:4794b1a6$0$6347$...

> "Steven Fawks" wrote in message
> news:...

>
> Thanks again for the reply, and I'm sure you mean well, but I think there
> is
> simply not enough data to make that kind of claim. How would you possibly
> know that? I think more reasearch needs to be done. Considering that I was
> kneecapped by others here for even asking the question, that research is
> unlikely to come out of the dental profession or the ADA.
>
> I'm guessing that no official stats are kept on people receiving root
> canals? Probably the only people who could amass the necessary data are
> forensic patholgists.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

If you reread my comment, you might want to rephrase yours. I didn't
say that it was *impossible* for root canals to have any impact upon
patient health. I simply stated that I haven't seen any connection
between endo and poor health in my experience.

That statement is a summation of *my* 28 years of dental practice.
It is entirely accurate to the best of my knowledge. In the area of
statistical analysis, it would still only classify as 'anecdotal'.

Other areas that I observed have been pretty accurate. Like smoking and
gum disease. Didn't take a genius to figure that out, but it was a
long time becoming a documented connection between the two.

If there were a significant link between endo and health problems, I
think it would have been pretty easy to figure out by now.

Problems with root canals can happen, but rarely on a systemic scale.
Retreat the endo or extract the tooth, and everything is fine.

If you aren't a fan of root canals, it's okay by me. Don't get one.
Have the tooth extracted and get an implant or some other prosthesis.
Same options that I give all of my patients.

D

>
>
> Thanks again for the reply, and I'm sure you mean well, but I think there is
> simply not enough data to make that kind of claim. How would you possibly
> know that? I think more reasearch needs to be done. Considering that I was
> kneecapped by others here for even asking the question, that research is
> unlikely to come out of the dental profession or the ADA.
>
> I'm guessing that no official stats are kept on people receiving root
> canals? Probably the only people who could amass the necessary data are
> forensic patholgists.
>

On Jan 21, 3:18*pm, Dartos <tuthjoc...@myturbonet.com> wrote:

> If you reread my comment, you might want to rephrase yours. *I didn't
> say that it was *impossible* for root canals to have any impact upon
> patient health. *I simply stated that I haven't seen any connection
> between endo and poor health in my experience.

That's about as believable as your claims that you've never seen your
patients
effected by micromercurialism. The EPA showed that many people are
exposed
to Hg from non-dental sources (1 in 8), yet that hasn't prevented you
from making the blanket statement over and over, that none of your
patients are effected by Hg from amalgam. Do you have some method of
distinguishing between the two sources? The truth is you don't care.

Than you claimed you'd never seen a filling leak a significant amount
of Hg when
there are ton's of pictures and data showing fillings losing large
amounts of Hg.

Given that history I'd expect your "self" observations about root
canals to
be just as accurate. And it's just as ridiculous, since it would be
impossible for
you to distinguish systemic health effects from other causes, such as
diabeties.
Especially in older patients. If the patient got obviously ill, you
would claim that this was an acute reoccurance of the infection in the
root canaled tooth, or that the older patient was "weakened" by
another health condition. I'll ask again, do you, or any "dental
organization" ever screen your patients with specific medical
questionarres for systemiv effects from root canals or fillings, you
are after all a doctor, or are your "great and wise" observations
sufficent?

On Jan 21, 9:51*am, "Robert" <guyinc...@yahooy.com> wrote:

> "Steven Fawks" *wrote in message
>
> news:...
>

>

>
> Thanks again for the reply, and I'm sure you mean well, but I think there is
> simply not enough data to make that kind of claim. How would you possibly
> know that? I think more reasearch needs to be done. Considering that I was
> kneecapped by others here for even asking the question,

typical group behavior, used by cults, the majority of posters are
dentists, when
you question the dental cult, it's members attempt to make you feel
guilty, by questioning your questions! This would work on a weaker
mind, but so far you
don't seem to fall in that category.

On Jan 21, 10:41*am, Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinm...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Robert wrote:

> * * * * I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not
> aware that dentistry is continually under assault from some parts of the
> alternative health crowd in several areas. *In no particular order, they
> are: *use of amalgam, use of x-rays, use of root canals, failure to
> acknowledge putative conditions such as NICO, etc. etc.

Dr. Bornfeld, I'm going to give you a severe scolding here. You know
darn well
that the concern is that "organized dentistry" does not even publish
the possible
dangers to the public. It's not even a question of the safety of
dental procedures/materials on a statistical level. Also you have
falsely implied that it is the "alternative health crowd", who is
concernced with this. I am not from the alternative health crowd.
Where do you get that? If you hold yourself out the public as dental
professional and do these procedures, especailly on young kids and
teenagers you should, either thoroughly research the safety and or
existence of these dental conditions/procedures, or, alternatively
provide patients with a piece of paper giving them some warning or
idea of the controversy.

> * * * * It is totally understandable that a new procedure should be held up to
> scrutiny. *But after many years of having to defend against charges of
> conspiracy to hide facts that much of what we do is harmful, we get a
> bit defensive.

And in all that time has any dental organization done any real
research in these
areas or provided patients with a simple piece of paper advising them
of adverse
health effects. The only example I can think of is the NIH study on
NICO, and that was done well outside of the normal funding channel
controlled essentially
by the ADA and dentists or organized dentistry, and undoubtedly done
by a few
researcher hungry for grant money. (By the way that study concluded
that NICO does exist). To date in my estimation, there has been no
quality large scale study i.e 1000+,5000+,10,0000 on the safety of
fillings or root canals attempt by the dental agency or the government
institutions they control. Fortunately this is not the case in Europe

> * * * * No procedure involving the human body is completely risk-free.

Neither is any drug, but notice that drugs do, by law carry warning
labels. This
is a simple precaution that dentistry has avoided. And what's worse
the adverse
effect of a drug is unaviodable once the dose is taken. Imagine
leaving fillings
and rootcanals in patient for years without any indication of adverse
effects.
If I hadn't pulled my filling I'd be dead instead of writing highly
cogent posts
on the internet. But because giving me warning would "put my dentist
on
the defensive" a badly corroding Hg filling or root canal should be
left in the
patient indefinitely. Shame on the dental profession!
*

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

> Simplicio wrote:
>

>
> * * * * Happy new year Clinton. *You give dentistry more credit than it's do by
> calling it "organized".
> * * * * I understand where you're coming from. *I am not an expert in tort law,
> but I do know that requiring drugs to pass muster with the FDA has not
> prevented drugs with unacceptable side effects to slip through. *When
> they're found (Phen-fen, Vioxx) the pharmaceutical companies are
> liable--both civil liability and occasionally criminal liability.

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 asses 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.

> * * * * Dentistry is not immune to the legal process. *I see thedental
> profession as being several magnitudes weaker in terms of political
> influence than the pharmaceutical companies.

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.

>*If someone can prove bad
> intent on the part of the dental profession, I'm sure we'll all be rode
> out of town on a rail.
>
> Best,
> Steve