Can Root Canals Cause Breast Cancer?

For over 100 years, dentists have been performing root canal therapy: the practice of drilling out the canals of a dead tooth to remove bacteria and “save” the tooth.

But by attempting to save a dead tooth, have dentists been causing breast cancer?

Click to Download the complete report!

Some scientific research says yes.

“Dr. Thomas Rau, who runs the Paracelsus Clinic (cancer clinic since 1958) in Switzerland recently checked the records of the last 150 breast cancer patients treated in his clinic. He found that 147 of them (98%) had one or more root canal teeth on the same meridian as the original breast cancer tumor. His clinic has a biological dentist section where all cancer patients, on reporting in, have their mouth cleaned up first — especially all root canal teeth removed.?There are about 24 million root canals done in the U.S. alone every year. They were proven deadly disease agents in 1925 in a study by Dr. Weston Price and 60 prominent researchers. That study has been suppressed ever since by the ADA and the American Association of Endodontists (AAE).”

(The Independent Cancer Research Foundation,
http://www.new-cancer-treatments.org/Articles/RootCanals.html)

100% of the breast cancer patients involved in the study had root canals, or other infections, on the same acupuncture meridian. (Click Here to Discover the Meridian Tooth Chart.)

When a root canal is performed, the dentist attempts to remove all bacteria and fill the canal with foreign substance to stop bacteria from re-entering the tooth. However, due to the shape of your tooth canal, it is 100% impossible to remove all bacteria and completely fill the canal. What you end up with is a partially filled tooth canal that is actively growing and hiding bacteria.
Root canals are a safe haven for microbes and bacteria. When the canal is filled, it eliminates blood flow to the tooth, prohibiting your immune system from killing off the microbes and bacteria that remain in the tooth canal.

These microbes originate in the same biological locations that cancer cells form.

Microbes, bacteria, and other toxins from inside the tooth can leak from inside the tooth and into your body, causing infections and other health problems, including cancer.

Despite the fact that root canals have been directly linked to cancer through multiple research studies, the results have never been published by the ADA.

For more information about the dangers of Root Canals and the link between root canal therapy and breast cancer, please download our breast cancer and root canal information flier: Breast Cancer and Root Canals.

US State Department Endorses Amalgam Phase-Down at UNEP Conference

U.S. government calls for the phase-out of amalgam!

In an extraordinary development that will change the global debate about amalgam, the United States government has announced that it supports a “phase down, with the goal of eventual phase out by all Parties, of mercury amalgam.”  This statement – a radical reversal of its former position that “any change toward the use of dental amalgam is likely to result in positive public health outcomes” –  is part of the U.S. government’s submission for the upcoming third round of negotiations for the world mercury treaty.*

 While couched in diplomatic hedging – remember it is still early in the negotiations – this new U.S. position makes three significant breakthroughs for the mercury-free dentistry movement:

1.       The U.S. calls for the phase-out of amalgam ultimately and recommends actions to “phase down” its use immediately.  Incredibly, the government adopted three actions that the World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry and Consumers for Dental Choice 
          proposed at the negotiating session in Chiba, Japan.  Our key ally, The Mercury Policy Project, laid the groundwork for this success at a World Health Organization meeting in 2009!

 2.       The U.S. speaks up for protecting children and the unborn from amalgam, recommending that the nations “educate patients and parents in order to protect children and fetuses.”

 3.       The U.S. stands up for the human right of every patient and parent to make educated decisions about amalgam.

What does this mean?  Our position – advocating the phase-out of amalgam – is now the mainstream because the U.S. government supports it.  Who is the outlier now?  It’s the pro-mercury faction, represented by the World Dental Federation and the American Dental Association.  With the U.S. continuing its leadership role in this treaty, we will broadcast the U.S. position to other governments around the world, encouraging them to support amalgam “phase downs” leading to phase-outs not only globally, but within each of their countries.

We applaud the U.S. government.  But tough work lies ahead.  For example, we must demonstrate to the world that the available alternatives – such as composites and the adhesive materials used in atraumatic restorative treatment (“ART”) – can cost less than amalgam and will increase access to dental care particularly in developing countries.

 For now though, let’s mark this watershed in the mercury-free dentistry movement: the debate has shifted from “whether to end amalgam” to “how to end amalgam.”

Charles G. Brown
National Counsel, Consumers for Dental Choice
President, World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry
5 April 2011

FAN-Australia Drops a Bombshell on Fluoridation

Media Release: Brisbane, Australia 4 April  2011

 Merilyn Haines, the director of the newly formed group FAN-Australia (Fluoride Action Network Australia), has found some startling statistics buried deep in official research material by ARCPOH (The Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health at the Adelaide Dental School) that could scuttle the water fluoridation program once and for all.

 Haines has found in the ARCPOH statistics that the permanent teeth of children in largely unfluoridated  (<5% before 2009) Queensland were erupting on average two years earlier than the children in the rest of Australia, which is largely fluoridated (see the figure below). A two-year delay would negate all the small reductions in tooth decay claimed by dental researchers since 1990. In other words fluoridation doesn’t work. Any difference in tooth decay claimed to be due to fluoride is simply an artifact of the delayed eruption caused by fluoride.

According to Professor Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network, who is currently on a fluoride-tour of New Zealand, “Critics of fluoridation, like Dr. Hardy Limeback in Toronto, have long pointed out that any reduced tooth decay touted by promoters could easily be accounted for by the delayed eruption of the teeth. Even when this argument received strong experimental support from Komarek et al. in 2005, this has still has been ignored by those promoting fluoridation. But they cannot ignore it any longer: the figures of the dental department research team most associated with the promotion of fluoridation in Australia (and beyond) demonstrate that this delay is real.”

Less teeth erupted for any given age would mean less surfaces available for tooth decay to have taken place. A delayed eruption of one – two years would account for the small reductions claimed in ALL the US and Australian studies published since 1990 (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Slade et al., 1996; Spencer et al., 1996; Armfield et al., 2009; Armfield, 2010). These studies have found reductions ranging from 0.12 of one permanent tooth surfaces saved in Western Australia (Spencer et al., 1996) to 0.6 permanent tooth surface saved in the largest survey ever conducted in the US (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This is not very much when you consider that there are five surfaces to the chewing teeth and four to the cutting teeth, and by the time all the child’s teeth have erupted there are a total of 128 tooth surfaces. One tooth surface saved amounts to less than 1% of all the surfaces in a child’s mouth. Now even this small benefit has evaporated.

 More on the history

In 1999, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia’s peak Medical Research body, stated that, “evidence exists that tooth eruption is delayed in fluoridated areas. It has been suggested that a proper comparison of caries rates should involve children one year older in fluoridated areas than in non- fluoridated areas.”

 In 2000, the York Review pointed out that none of the studies that they had reviewed had controlled for “the number of erupted teeth per child” (McDonagh et al., 2000, p.24).

 In 2005, Komarek et al.  did control for eruption of teeth and reported no difference in decay between children living in Belgium receiving fluoride supplements (and those who weren’t) that was relatable to fluoride exposure (as measured by the severity of dental fluorosis).

 In 2009, Peiris et al. reported that children in largely fluoridated Australia had a delay in “dental age” of 0.82 years compared to children in largely unfluoridated UK. However, the authors did not discuss the possible reasons for this delay and the number of children involved in the study (about 80 in each country) was not very large.

 2011. Now the bombshell – the delay has been found and it is in the official statistics.   ARCPOH has failed to respond to several inquiries on this matter.  According to Haines, “Surely, this must end water fluoridation. If it doesn’t work what’s the point of putting this toxic substance into the drinking water and what reason can they possibly have for forcing it on people who don’t want it?”

 However, this isn’t just about teeth. The finding could be even more significant than that. If fluoride causes a delayed eruption of the teeth then the most likely mechanism for doing so is fluoride’s ability to lower thyroid function (see chapter 8 in the 2006 National Research Council review, “Fluoride in Drinking Water.” According to Connett,   “Lowered thyroid function in infants would mean slower growth of their tissues and could explain the 24 studies that have found an association between lowered IQ in children and exposure to moderate levels of fluoride in China, India, Iran and Mexico.”

 It also raises the possibility that millions of people in fluoridated countries suffering from hypothyroidism have had this condition caused, or exacerbated, by exposure to fluoridated water.  Haines’ asks “If ingesting fluoride delays tooth eruption for 1 to 2 years what other effects is it having on our bodies?”

 Meanwhile, if swallowing fluoride does not reduce tooth decay, why would any reasonable person, decision maker or regulatory official continue to sanction adding fluoride to the public water supply? 

  Source – Published and unpublished data from 2003- 2004 Australian Child Dental Health Surveys
Media Release sent by Queenslanders For Safe Water on behalf of Fluoride Action Network Australia Inc.

FAN-Australia Drops a Bombshell on Fluoridation

Media Release: Brisbane, Australia 4 April  2011

Merilyn Haines, the director of the newly formed group FAN-Australia (Fluoride Action Network Australia), has found some startling statistics buried deep in official research material by ARCPOH (The Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health at the Adelaide Dental School) that could scuttle the water fluoridation program once and for all.

Haines has found in the ARCPOH statistics that the permanent teeth of children in largely unfluoridated  (<5% before 2009) Queensland were erupting on average two years earlier than the children in the rest of Australia, which is largely fluoridated (see the figure below). A two-year delay would negate all the small reductions in tooth decay claimed by dental researchers since 1990. In other words fluoridation doesn’t work. Any difference in tooth decay claimed to be due to fluoride is simply an artifact of the delayed eruption caused by fluoride.

According to Professor Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network, who is currently on a fluoride-tour of New Zealand, “Critics of fluoridation, like Dr. Hardy Limeback in Toronto, have long pointed out that any reduced tooth decay touted by promoters could easily be accounted for by the delayed eruption of the teeth. Even when this argument received strong experimental support from Komarek et al. in 2005, this has still has been ignored by those promoting fluoridation. But they cannot ignore it any longer: the figures of the dental department research team most associated with the promotion of fluoridation in Australia (and beyond) demonstrate that this delay is real.”

Less teeth erupted for any given age would mean less surfaces available for tooth decay to have taken place. A delayed eruption of one – two years would account for the small reductions claimed in ALL the US and Australian studies published since 1990 (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Slade et al., 1996; Spencer et al., 1996; Armfield et al., 2009; Armfield, 2010). These studies have found reductions ranging from 0.12 of one permanent tooth surfaces saved in Western Australia (Spencer et al., 1996) to 0.6 permanent tooth surface saved in the largest survey ever conducted in the US (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This is not very much when you consider that there are five surfaces to the chewing teeth and four to the cutting teeth, and by the time all the child’s teeth have erupted there are a total of 128 tooth surfaces. One tooth surface saved amounts to less than 1% of all the surfaces in a child’s mouth. Now even this small benefit has evaporated.

More on the history

In 1999, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia’s peak Medical Research body, stated that, “evidence exists that tooth eruption is delayed in fluoridated areas. It has been suggested that a proper comparison of caries rates should involve children one year older in fluoridated areas than in non- fluoridated areas.”

In 2000, the York Review pointed out that none of the studies that they had reviewed had controlled for “the number of erupted teeth per child” (McDonagh et al., 2000, p.24).  

In 2005, Komarek et al.  did control for eruption of teeth and reported no difference in decay between children living in Belgium receiving fluoride supplements (and those who weren’t) that was relatable to fluoride exposure (as measured by the severity of dental fluorosis).  

In 2009, Peiris et al. reported that children in largely fluoridated Australia had a delay in “dental age” of 0.82 years compared to children in largely unfluoridated UK. However, the authors did not discuss the possible reasons for this delay and the number of children involved in the study (about 80 in each country) was not very large. 

2011. Now the bombshell – the delay has been found and it is in the official statistics.   ARCPOH has failed to respond to several inquiries on this matter.  According to Haines, “Surely, this must end water fluoridation. If it doesn’t work what’s the point of putting this toxic substance into the drinking water and what reason can they possibly have for forcing it on people who don’t want it?”

However, this isn’t just about teeth. The finding could be even more significant than that. If fluoride causes a delayed eruption of the teeth then the most likely mechanism for doing so is fluoride’s ability to lower thyroid function (see chapter 8 in the 2006 National Research Council review, “Fluoride in Drinking Water.” According to Connett,   “Lowered thyroid function in infants would mean slower growth of their tissues and could explain the 24 studies that have found an association between lowered IQ in children and exposure to moderate levels of fluoride in China, India, Iran and Mexico.”

It also raises the possibility that millions of people in fluoridated countries suffering from hypothyroidism have had this condition caused, or exacerbated, by exposure to fluoridated water.  Haines’ asks “If ingesting fluoride delays tooth eruption for 1 to 2 years what other effects is it having on our bodies?”

Meanwhile, if swallowing fluoride does not reduce tooth decay, why would any reasonable person, decision maker or regulatory official continue to sanction adding fluoride to the public water supply? 

 Source – Published and unpublished data from 2003- 2004 Australian Child Dental Health Surveys

Media Release sent by Queenslanders For Safe Water on behalf of Fluoride Action Network Australia Inc.

Fox News Expert: Fluoride Has Been a Big Experiment

Interesting video from a Fox News segment recently. They had their guest expert on who was a dentist to discuss fluoride. This dentist calls fluoride a “big experiment” and talks about how many unfluoridated communities have LESS decay than fluoridated communities.

Take it for what it’s worth, but it’s yet another sign that dentistry is slowly (and begrudgingly) coming to realize that much of what the industry has supported for the past 50 to 100 years has simply been flat out wrong.

It’s time to stand up and admit to mistakes in order to protect the population — instead of protecting the special interest groups.