What supplements do you take?

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

gizmo_rat
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 303
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:25 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by gizmo_rat »

Coffee wrote: Off topic: What do you think of amalgam fillings?  I'm considering getting mine removed and replaced with composite/resin fillings.  Can't figure out if the hub-bub about mercury in fillings is real or not, though.  Could just be another one of those things people on the fringe get worked up about?
My amalgam fillings started crumbling after 25 years, necessitating removal and replacement. An unpleasant experience, with a little bit of discomfort even a couple of years on.

I'd want some pretty good evidence of benefit before I'd consider early replacement.
User avatar
Benko
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:40 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Benko »

MachineGhost wrote: The problem with urine/blood tests is they only tell you what is currently acute rather than chronic and accumulating in the tissues, which toxic elements do.  It is akin to blood glucose vs HbA1c. 
Blood glucose varies throughtout the day (thus difference between random blood glucose vs A1c).  Why would the mercury blood level vary throughout the day or from one day to another aside from e.g. seafood consumption in someone who's had amalgams in their body for many years?
.
MachineGhost wrote: Gold-platinum composite filings are definitely top notch (avoid silver or nickel composites, etc.) and last decades compared to amalgam or composites. 
So what commonly used material do you recommend for people who need fillings?  Are there non-harmful composites (without gold) that are available?
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Gumby »

MachineGhost wrote:
Coffee wrote: Machine Ghost: Why is your uranium so high?
I have no freaking idea!  I can only speculate it may have been due to smoking when I was younger or unknown exposure while living in the military.
Some interesting information about Uranium exposure...
Common Military Uses of Uranium:
 High Density Bullets
 Missile Ballasts
 Aircraft Control Counterweights
 Gyroscopic Compasses
 Armored Plates on Tanks & Combat Vehicles
 Fashioned into containers for transport of radioactive materials

Common Civilan Uses of Uranium:
 Pottery Glazes
 Glassworks
 Photographic Chemicals
 High-Energy X-Rays
 Fuel for Commercial Power Plants (nuclear)

How am I Exposed to Uranium?
Because of the natural occurrence of uranium in the environment, the general population is exposed. However, that level of exposure is quite small. The most common reasons for individuals who do not work with uranium to be exposed to higher than normal levels include:

 Living near a uranium mine
 Living near a coal-fired power plant
 Drinking water that has a high degree of uranium
 Breathing air that has a high degree of uranium
 Eating foods grown in soil that has a high degree of uranium

Of course, individuals who work in uranium mines, coal-fired power plants or in a uranium processing plant are more at risk for higher exposure to uranium. Individuals who work with phosphate fertilizers can also be exposed to higher than normal levels of uranium.

What are the Symptoms of Uranium Exposure?
Human beings can come into contact with three different types of uranium - natural, depleted and enriched. It doesn't matter which type you come into contact with, if the levels are extreme enough, the uranium exposure could cause tissue damage in your body, specifically in the kidneys. Although the element is only mildly radioactive, it is toxic to the human body if ingested or inhaled (above normal levels).

During the military operation Desert Storm in 1991, many soldiers were diagnosed with extensive uranium exposure. Those soldiers experienced rashes, kidney problems, respiratory difficulties and cataracts.

Unfortunately, those with kidney problems typically do not exhibit any symptoms until the late stages of kidney disease. At that point, there may be blood evident in the urine or you may notice a decrease in urine production. There may also be a high level of proteins noticeable in the urine.

Source: http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/heav ... of-uranium
Do you drink well water? Some wells have high levels of naturally occurring Uranium. Some counties actually have high levels of Uranium in the water supply. For instance, Orange County in California has had high levels of Uranium...

http://www.lifeionizers.com/blog/newsle ... ing-water/
http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/uranium801.pdf

Perhaps you live downwind from a coal-burning power plant? (Many people do).

Were you in Desert Storm? I assume you'd be well aware of all this if you were. Military personnel in Desert Storm were exposed to Depleted Uranium (DU) which has a relatively low level radiation, but an extremely long half-life (about 4.5 billion years).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium
The major application of uranium in the military sector is in high-density penetrators. This ammunition consists of depleted uranium (DU) alloyed with 1–2% other elements. At high impact speed, the density, hardness, and pyrophoricity of the projectile enable destruction of heavily armored targets. Tank armor and other removable vehicle armor are also hardened with depleted uranium plates. The use of DU became politically and environmentally contentious after the use of DU munitions by the US, UK and other countries during wars in the Persian Gulf and the Balkans raised questions of uranium compounds left in the soil (see Gulf War Syndrome).[11]

Depleted uranium is also used as a shielding material in some containers used to store and transport radioactive materials. While the metal itself is radioactive, its high density makes it more effective than lead in halting radiation from strong sources such as radium.[8] Other uses of DU include counterweights for aircraft control surfaces, as ballast for missile re-entry vehicles and as a shielding material.[9] Due to its high density, this material is found in inertial guidance systems and in gyroscopic compasses.[9] DU is preferred over similarly dense metals due to its ability to be easily machined and cast as well as its relatively low cost.[13] Counter to popular belief[citation needed], the main risk of exposure to DU is chemical poisoning by uranium oxide rather than radioactivity (uranium being only a weak alpha emitter).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
This is of course different from Enriched Uranium, which is often far more intense and deadly.

It seems that acute skin rashes are a symptom of Uranium exposure, so that might explain some of your inflammation sensitivity.
Last edited by Gumby on Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
FarmerD
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:37 pm

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by FarmerD »

MachineGhost wrote:
Coffee wrote: Machine Ghost: Why is your uranium so high?
I have no freaking idea!  I can only speculate it may have been due to smoking when I was younger or unknown exposure while living in the military.  I could not find anything about chelating uranium out of the body at the time, so eventually I just took solace in the fact that uranium levels tend to be high as compensation for when iron intake is low.  But if you look at my iron, its not exactly at lows that would be suggestive of that...  so now I'm concerned again.

Fortunately, over the past month or two I did come across a chelator of radiation that was used in Japan after WW2, but I had totally forgot about my high uranium levels until now.  I do wonder if that could be the causative agent behind my food/chemicals sensitives which I've been trying for 15+ years to figure out.  Like you, I can't tolerate MSG or nitrates, among many other ridiculous things.  As I've taken more tests over time to rule out certain factors, I've been leaning more and more in the direction of a "sluggish liver" for lack of a better term.

Also, I took that hair test after about 5+ years or so of using an infrared sauna each day, so the results sans uranium may look alot better than it could have been.  Especially compared to the average Western citizen.
MG,
Here's an off the cuff observation so take it for what it's worth.

I did a fair amount of toxicology in the USAF.  One case involved an airplane machinist with highly elevated levels of cadmium in their blood.  I investigated their work area for sources of cadmium paint/metal etc, but couldn't find any source of cadmium.  The machinist told me he had been eating a lot of corn on the cob from their farm lately.  Turns out corn plants have an affinity for high uptake of cadmium from the soil.  Likewise tobacco plants have a high affinity for uranium uptake from the soil.  If you light a cigarrette then hold it next to a sensitive radiac meter you can actually pick up rad levels several times higher than backgtround.  I'm not necessarily saying that's where your uranium exposure came from but it's something to think about.  Perhaps some other foods you eat might be high in uranium.
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by MachineGhost »

Benko wrote: So what commonly used material do you recommend for people who need fillings?  Are there non-harmful composites (without gold) that are available?
Well, I went with the common composites before I realized there was BPA in them.  I think there is much bigger fish to fry than worrying about little dabs of plastic in your teeth or the stressful effort finding a holistic dentist with biocompatible, non-harmful, BPA-free composites.  But, when I need replacements after a decade or so, I will certainly give it much more serious attention.  You gotta pick your battles.  I think mercury amalgams and root canals are way up there in terms of much more serious health consequences than BPA-containing composites.  I reserve the right to be proven wrong, however!
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
User avatar
MachineGhost
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 10054
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:31 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by MachineGhost »

What I find ironical about this is that even the 200mg level study showing saturation was flawed, because it was tested in depleted individuals, rather than those with normal intake that have a better normative ability to sustain higher saturation levels.

The recommended dietary allowance, or RDA, of vitamin C is less than half what it should be, scientists argue in a recent report, because medical experts insist on evaluating this natural, but critical nutrient in the same way they do pharmaceutical drugs and reach faulty conclusions as a result.

The researchers say there’s compelling evidence that the RDA of vitamin C should be raised to 200 milligrams per day for adults, up from its current levels in the United States of 75 milligrams for women and 90 for men.

Rather than just prevent the vitamin C deficiency disease of scurvy, they say, it’s appropriate to seek optimum levels that will saturate cells and tissues, pose no risk, and may have significant effects on public health at almost no expense — about a penny a day if taken as a dietary supplement.

“It’s time to bring some common sense to this issue, look at the totality of the scientific evidence, and go beyond some clinical trials that are inherently flawed,”? said Balz Frei, professor and director of the Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University, and one of the world’s leading experts on the role of vitamin C in optimum health.

“Significant numbers of people in the U.S. and around the world are deficient in vitamin C, and there’s growing evidence that more of this vitamin could help prevent chronic disease,”? Frei said. “The way clinical researchers study micronutrients right now, with the same type of so-called ‘phase three randomized placebo-controlled trials’ used to test pharmaceutical drugs, almost ensures they will find no beneficial effect. We need to get past that.”?

Unlike testing the safety or function of a prescription drug, the researchers said, such trials are ill suited to demonstrate the disease prevention capabilities of substances that are already present in the human body and required for normal metabolism. Some benefits of micronutrients in lowering chronic disease risk also show up only after many years or even decades of optimal consumption of vitamin C — a factor often not captured in shorter-term clinical studies.

A wider body of metabolic, pharmacokinetic, laboratory and demographic studies suggests just the opposite, that higher levels of vitamin C could help reduce the chronic diseases that today kill most people in the developed world — heart disease, stroke, cancer, and the underlying issues that lead to them, such as high blood pressure, chronic inflammation, poor immune response and atherosclerosis.

“We believe solid research shows the RDA should be increased,”? Frei said. “And the benefit-to-risk ratio is very high. A 200 milligram intake of vitamin C on a daily basis poses absolutely no risk, but there is strong evidence it would provide multiple, substantial health benefits.”?

Even at the current low RDAs, various studies in the U.S. and Canada have found that about a quarter to a third of people are marginally deficient in vitamin C, and up to 20 percent in some populations are severely deficient — including college students, who often have less-than-perfect diets. Smokers and older adults are also at significant risk.

Even marginal deficiency can lead to malaise, fatigue, and lethargy, researchers note. Healthier levels of vitamin C can enhance immune function, reduce inflammatory conditions such as atherosclerosis, and significantly lower blood pressure.

   A recent analysis of 29 human studies concluded that daily supplements of 500 milligrams of vitamin C significantly reduced blood pressure, both systolic and diastolic. High blood pressure is a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke, and directly attributes to an estimated 400,000 deaths annually in the U.S.

   A study in Europe of almost 20,000 men and women found that mortality from cardiovascular disease was 60 percent lower when comparing the blood plasma concentration of vitamin C in the highest 20 percent of people to the lowest 20 percent.

   Another research effort found that men with the lowest serum vitamin C levels had a 62 percent higher risk of cancer-related death after a 12-16 year period, compared to those with the highest vitamin C levels.

Laboratory studies with animals — which may be more accurate than human studies because they can be done in controlled conditions and with animals of identical genetic makeup – can document reasons that could explain all of these findings, Frei said.

Critics have suggested that some of these differences are simply due to better overall diet, not vitamin C levels, but the scientists noted in this report that some health benefits correlate even more strongly to vitamin C plasma levels than fruit and vegetable consumption.

Scientists in France and Denmark collaborated on this report. Research at OSU on these issues has been supported by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a division of the National Institutes of Health.
Last edited by MachineGhost on Tue Jul 17, 2012 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
"All generous minds have a horror of what are commonly called 'Facts'. They are the brute beasts of the intellectual domain." -- Thomas Hobbes

Disclaimer: I am not a broker, dealer, investment advisor, physician, theologian or prophet.  I should not be considered as legally permitted to render such advice!
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Gumby »

MachineGhost wrote: What I find ironical about this is that even the 200mg level study showing saturation was flawed, because it was tested in depleted individuals, rather than those with normal intake that have a better normative ability to sustain higher saturation levels.
Don't you get the feeling that almost every study we hear about about is flawed?

See: The Atlantic: Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science. Read More >>
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Gumby »

MachineGhost wrote:Fortunately, over the past month or two I did come across a chelator of radiation that was used in Japan after WW2, but I had totally forgot about my high uranium levels until now.
Interesting article on relatively simple Uranium chelation options...

http://blog.imva.info/medicine/treatmen ... tamination
Last edited by Gumby on Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Pres
Full Member
Full Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Eurozone

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Pres »

MangoMan wrote:I have been a dentist for 28 years and have amalgam, composite resin and gold in my mouth. I can tell you that without question, if you are concerned about the mercury in silver amalgam or the BPA in composite [and imho, there is no need to be], have your fillings replaced with gold. It is the longest lasting, most hypoallegenic filling material we have, and it is the most similar in physical properties to natural tooth. However, be prepared for a HUGE bill from your dentist, as it is also the most expensive material we have. Maybe you could take some of your physical gold out of your PP to use for the fillings  ;D
Thanks for the suggestion. I have actually been considering that, as most alternatives for amalgam seem to be rather suspect too. But I read somewhere that gold used by dentist is not pure and contains things like copper. Which made me hesitate again.

I have several very old amalgam fillings that probably should be replaced. I've been holding off for years, unable to find any material that I trusted enough. Don't want any bisphenol A etc in my mouth.

I would love a solution like this: (in 2011 they said "in 2 or 3 years"...)
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... ooth-paste
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Gumby »

MangoMan wrote:
I would love a solution like this: (in 2011 they said "in 2 or 3 years"...)
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/201 ... ooth-paste
Don't hold your breath. I haven't heard much about this, and I keep very current.
Remineralizing teeth is nothing new. Anyone can remineralize teeth and heal cavities with proper nutrition and a little basic knowledge.

Pick up a copy of Cure Tooth Decay: Heal and Prevent Cavities with Nutrition, 2nd Edition by Ramiel Nagel
http://amzn.com/1434810607

You can find many testimonials on Amazon (see the reviews of the book), as well as on YouTube of people who have healed cavities with nothing more than nutrition:
http://youtube.com/results?search_query ... +naturally

You can usually heal cavities in about a month with the proper protocol — it's really not that hard. Holistic dentists have been doing it for a long time.
Last edited by Gumby on Sun Jul 22, 2012 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Gumby »

MangoMan wrote:There are thousands of investing books on Amazon [remember "Dow 36,000" ?]. Just because it is published does not make it good advice. Caveat emptor.
Healing cavities with nutrition alone is by far the easiest and least-invasive way to preserve your teeth and reverse tooth decay. The remineralization process happens naturally with your own saliva and comes from a simple and very sensible diet of basic nutrient-dense foods that most people should be eating anyway. There is nothing risky about it. And it's infinitely better than having teeth drilled and filled with foreign material.
Last edited by Gumby on Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Gumby »

MangoMan wrote:I agree with this statement 90%. Diabetes can be virtually cured with diet and exercise as well. But look at all the overweight people on meds for their blood sugar. How easy is it to get people to comply with what is good for them?
Healing teeth is not nearly as hard as living as a diabetic. The people who followed the advice in that book were able to make simple changes to their children's diet without much difficulty — which says something about how easy it is.
MangoMan wrote:I do not agree with the concept that major dental problems can be magically cured simply by changing your diet. Not every pathological process is reversible. But good luck trying.
Uh... No one said anything about "major dental problems". We were talking about general cavities — of which many are reversible with simple dietary changes. Much like your skin and nails, your teeth have the ability to heal. Obviously extremely large cavities are not reversible.
Last edited by Gumby on Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Gumby »

MangoMan wrote:Actually, we are talking about large cavities, in part. The first testimonial in the youtube video referenced in an earlier post was from some guy that had such extensive decay and pain he was referred to an endodontist [root canal specialist] for treatment, but instead, bought the book and cured himself. I was so disgusted by this malarkey, I closed the you tube tab in my browser. I tried to keep an open mind....
Not sure what to tell you... many people have cured their tooth decay this way and avoided root canals. It's not a lie.

http://www.curetoothdecay.com/root_canal.htm

You ought to research it more before you dismiss it.
Last edited by Gumby on Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Gumby »

Well, first off, let me say that I have an enormous respect for the art of dentistry. I use a regular dentist. But, if I ever noticed a dental problem, I might try some non-invasive alternative approaches before opting for surgery. Dentists and medical doctors receive relatively little training in nutrition. Much of their exposure to nutrition comes from studies funded by corporate interests that attempt to downplay nutrition — which cannot be patented. Even educational institutions and their professors are often heavily influenced by corporate funding.

The nutritional approach is based on research from the 1930s. The research from the 30s has been out of print for decades — made accessible again only through recent republishing by Internet-based archivists. Here is an excerpt from Nutrition and Disease (1934), by Sir Edward Mellanby GBE, KCB, MD, FRCP, FRS — a renowned medical doctor who was with the University of Sheffield, England. He's the doctor who discovered Vitamin D, which he was later knighted for, in 1937. Mellanby was no snake oil salesman.

[align=center]Image[/align]

Notice the title at the top of the page... "Healing" of Dental Caries in Human Teeth by Diet.

And the accompanying text to the figure reads:
The hardening of carious areas that takes place in the teeth of children fed on diets of high calcifying value indicates the arrest of the active process and may result in “healing”? of the infected area. As might be surmised, this phenomenon is accompanied by a laying down of a thick barrier of well-formed secondary denture. Illustrations of this healing process can be seen in Figs. 21 (b), (c) and (d). Summing up these results it will be clear that the clinical deductions made on the basis of the animal experiments have been justified, and that it is now known how to diminish the spread of caries and even to stop the active carious process in many affected teeth.
Source: http://www.thedentalessentials.com/v/Do ... 201934.pdf
You can download a summary of the research here:

http://www.thedentalessentials.com/v/Do ... 201934.pdf


Sir Mellanby, spoke before the 81st annual session of the American Medical Association, saying...

[align=center]Image[/align]

Of course, that wasn't going to fly with dentists who depend on surgical procedures for income and corporations who want to sell tooth decay prevention products. So, corporations came along and funded major studies on how fluoride toothpaste, surgical devices and manufactured products can prevent tooth decay. Dentists and corporations lined up to support revenue-producing surgical solutions and did everything in their power to disprove simple, unprofitable dietary solutions.

Despite the fact that the well-respected Mellanby discovered perhaps the most important nutrient on the face of the planet, most of his research has been buried to save the dental industry. Understandably, the science that backs today's dental procedures is designed to generate revenue. This is why nutrition is barely taught in medical school and dental school — it's unprofitable.

As the years went on, some dentists rediscovered nutrition as having some effect on tooth decay. For instance, here's a reprinted article from Prevention Magazine (October, 1978).

http://mizar5.com/heal.htm

Not surprisingly, the dentist in the Prevention article seems completely unaware of Mellanby's successful nutritional recommendations.

..But of course, nutritional approaches don't pay the bills for dentists, so Sir Mellanby's work was shunned and nutrition was ignored.

Again... I have a huge respect for dentists and their surgical skills. I just think that not everyone needs surgery to solve their dental issues...and dentists can't afford to explore unprofitable nutritional solutions.
Last edited by Gumby on Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Gumby »

MangoMan wrote:Would people [I don't mean you, I mean the general public] be willing to pay for nutritional counseling, particularly when insurance companies refuse to contribute to the cost? The answer is no for the vast majority. And would people be willing to make what, at this point in society, would be absolutely huge behavioral / diet changes to reverse a few incipient cavities? Again, probably not. I can't even get the majority of my patients to floss.

Please do not put Mellanby's research in the same category as the book by Ramiel Nagel. Many of Nagel's claims are outlandish and the testimonials border on ridiculous. Also, please note that, like Nagel, thedentalessentials.com is trying to sell you something.
I agree 100%. We all have to make a living. And I totally get that dentists don't want to be in the business of nutritional counseling. Nor would people pay for it. I suppose it's up to each person to take care of themselves and their health. Dentists are basically mechanics of the mouth — when teeth break down, dentists fix 'em.
Last edited by Gumby on Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Gumby »

MangoMan,

While I have your ear... Can you give us your opinion about supplementing Fluoride in public drinking water? It's difficult to get reliable information about it, but my limited understanding of Fluoride is that it seems to do nothing, if ingested, other than probably cause some health problems. It's technically listed as a toxin, which I suppose is why you're not supposed to swallow toothpaste (the label on toothpaste says to call Poison Control if ingested).

From what I understand, most Western developed nations don't Fluoridate their drinking water. Proponents of Fluoride suggest that Fluoride in the drinking water has successfully lowered tooth decay in America. But, supposedly when you compare that data to those non-Fluoridating countries (using World Health Organization data), it's said that all countries have lowered tooth decay at the same rate — regardless of whether they Fluoridated the water supply or not.

I believe a few years ago, HHS realized that there was too much Fluoride in the drinking water and recommended that all municipalities lower their Fluoridating to the lowest end of the recommended spectrum. To me, this sounds like a cop out. Either the evidence that ingesting Fluoride is sound, or it isn't.

Some people argue that Fluoride is toxic waste product of aluminum processing and fertilizer industry that was sold to municipalities for legal disposal into the drinking water. I can't verify if that's true or not, but there appear to be legitimate doctors who argue that side of the story. Dr. Joseph Mercola is outspoken about it, for instance: http://bit.ly/8oZdie

It sounds like Fluoride may work only topically, but it's still difficult to tell if it's actually been proven to work against a control group — or if it's just riding the coattails of worldwide downward trending tooth decay. The doubt cast on ingesting Fluoride suggests that it might be worth filtering it out of one's own drinking water.

Can you shed some light on the issue for us? Thanks.
Last edited by Gumby on Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by MediumTex »

Gumby wrote: MangoMan,

While I have your ear... Can you give us your opinion about supplementing Fluoride in public drinking water? It's difficult to get reliable information about it, but my limited understanding of Fluoride is that it seems to do nothing, if ingested, other than probably cause some health problems. It's technically listed as a toxin, which I suppose is why you're not supposed to swallow toothpaste (the label on toothpaste says to call Poison Control if ingested).

From what I understand, most Western developed nations don't Fluoridate their drinking water. Proponents of Fluoride suggest that Fluoride in the drinking water has successfully lowered tooth decay in America. But, supposedly when you compare that data to those non-Fluoridating countries (using World Health Organization data), it's said that all countries have lowered tooth decay at the same rate — regardless of whether they Fluoridated the water supply or not.

I believe a few years ago, HHS realized that there was too much Fluoride in the drinking water and recommended that all municipalities lower their Fluoridating to the lowest end of the recommended spectrum. To me, this sounds like a cop out. Either the evidence that ingesting Fluoride is sound, or it isn't.

Some people argue that Fluoride is toxic waste product of aluminum processing and fertilizer industry that was sold to municipalities for legal disposal into the drinking water. I can't verify if that's true or not, but there appear to be legitimate doctors who argue that side of the story. Dr. Joseph Mercola is outspoken about it, for instance: http://bit.ly/8oZdie

It sounds like Fluoride may work only topically, but it's still difficult to tell if it's actually been proven to work against a control group — or if it's just riding the coattails of worldwide downward trending tooth decay. The doubt cast on ingesting Fluoride suggests that it might be worth filtering it out of one's own drinking water.

Can you shed some light on the issue for us? Thanks.
I also wonder about green tea and its high fluoride content.

People assume green tea is "good for you", but with such a high amount of fluoride, is this really true?
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Gumby »

I had no idea that green tea had Fluoride in it. I suppose if you use Fluoridated water to brew the tea the level is even higher  :-\

It certainly seems odd (and scary) that municipalities would engage in the mass-medication of a population through the drinking water — ignoring the fact that even if it does work, people respond differently to different dosages of medications/supplements. And now overturning those laws to Fluoridate water would not only be a huge challenge — requiring a majority of Americans to change their opinions about ingesting Fluoride — but even merely admitting that the science to Fluoridate might be wrong could start opening up all sorts of liabilities on those municipalities who had decided to Fluoridate their water supply.
Last edited by Gumby on Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by MediumTex »

Gumby wrote: I had no idea that green tea had Fluoride in it. I suppose if you use Fluoridated water to brew the tea the level is even higher  :-\

It certainly seems odd (and scary) that municipalities would engage in the mass-medication of a population through the drinking water — ignoring the fact that even if it does work, people respond differently to different dosages of medications/supplements. And now overturning those laws to Fluoridate water would not only be a huge challenge — requiring a majority of Americans to change their opinions about ingesting Fluoride — but even merely admitting that the science to Fluoridate might be wrong could start opening up all sorts of liabilities on those municipalities who had decided to Fluoridate their water supply.
General Jack D. Ripper was also concerned about these issues, as manifested in general bodily fluid-related matters.

It's worth your time to watch his concerns in light of the discussion above, even though you are probably familiar with them from prior viewings (2:52):

http://youtu.be/N1KvgtEnABY

And here he addresses fluoride in particular (3:27):

http://youtu.be/Qr2bSL5VQgM

Maybe it wasn't as big a joke as it seemed at the time.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Gumby »

MangoMan wrote:Gumby, flouride's effects are much more valuable systemically than topically. Seriously, where do you find these websites you read?
So much for the thoughtful discussion I was expecting. There are plenty of dentists and doctors who disagree with fluoridating the water supply — at least those who are willing to question blanket recommendations from the CDC. I'm getting the sense that you've never questioned the wisdom of fluoridating the water supply.

See some conflicting studies linked from here: http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm

Perhaps that site is full of misinformation, but even if one of the allegations is true, it would be pretty unsettling.

But, it's hard to believe you would ridicule anyone for asking you about the science that backs up ingesting fluoride (as opposed to topical applications). As if we should all just swallow government recommendations from the 1950s without question.
MangoMan wrote:The official CDC position on this
Simply copying and pasting a 2001 CDC opinion isn't exactly sound science in my book.

I think most people would prefer a little more evidence than an outdated 2001 opinion that actually provides little evidence of how ingesting fluoridated water actually helps teeth. Since then, the EPA and HHS have backpedaled on the CDC's recommendation by lowering its recommendation for optimal fluoridation dosage and the ADA no longer recommends giving fluoridated water to infants.

So, I'll ask again. Do you happen to know of any hard evidence that ingesting fluoride actually does humans any good? (Not talking about topical applications). Do people on Long Island — which does not have fluoridated water — really have more tooth decay than people in New York City, which does have fluoridated water? My guess is no.

Do communities that stop fluoridating their water see an increase in tooth decay? The data seems to say no...

Do countries that don't fluoridate their water really have more tooth decay than those who do? My guess is no.

Where is the evidence that ingesting fluoride is a good idea? My (limited) understanding is that Fluoride's effect is only topical. Was hoping you would be able to prove that ingesting fluoridated water is a good thing. Oddly most dentists seem to offer no hard proof on this subject. Somehow asking for proof of the efficacy of fluoridating water is seen as quackery.
MangoMan wrote:As far as the green tea issue, an excellent explanation can be found here: http://www.heavenoftea.com/typesoftea/g ... -fluoride/
Yes, I saw that too when I Googled "fluoride in green tea".  It was the first result.
Last edited by Gumby on Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Gumby »

FYI... Here is Nobel Laureate Dr. Arvid Carlsson's opinion on Fluoride in the drinking water:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/videos/carlsson2a.mov

Dr. Carlsson is a Pharmacologist and Nobel Laureate in Medicine at Goteborg University, Sweden. He believes the practice of fluoridation is obsolete
CONNETT: Do you think that your background in pharmacology sort of informed your view of fluoridation as a medical practice?

CARLSSON: Of course. I mean, as I said before, this is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete. No doubt about that. I mean, I think those nations that are using it should feel ashamed of themselves. It's against science.

###

CARLSSON: Fluorine has a protecting action against caries, but this is a local effect... If you drink it, you are running the risk of all kinds of toxic actions. And, of course, there are such actions. We have the mottled teeth, which is not a small thing... There is no need, really, to go any further into all these other toxicity problems because I think the mottled teeth is enough. This is something you shouldn't expose citizens to.

CONNETT: In the United States, the dental community says that dental fluorosis is just a cosmetic effect, it's just spots on the teeth. Do you see mottled teeth as a toxic effect of fluoride, or as simply a cosmetic effect?

CALRSSON: Well, it is a toxic effect and a cosmetic effect. These are not mutually exclusive. It's toxic and it's cosmetic.

Source: See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/carlsson-interview.html

And here is even more evidence that Fluoride is only effective topically (not systemically):

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/tee ... temic.aspx
Last edited by Gumby on Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
User avatar
Pointedstick
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8883
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Pointedstick »

I am somewhat of a fence-sitter on this issue in that I don't know much about it, but I'm afraid, MangoMan, that you're damaging your position with those snide remarks and dismissive handwaving. Gumby's requests seem very reasonable to me, as is not trusting the CDC's data as gospel truth. Government agencies are frequently wrong in their recommendations, often dramatically so. As an example, for decades the FDA published the Food Pyramid, only to revise it a few years ago to completely redo everything. They were wrong for decades, and not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. They recommended loading up on carbs and were mum on the subject of the crucial differences between the different types of fats, carbs, and oils. The Food Pyramid they replaced it with was a nonsensical mess that didn't even make any sense as a pyramid, and the new MyPlate guide offers even less detail than the previous media, and still lumps all grains together.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Gumby »

MangoMan wrote:Let me get this straight: You don't trust the American Dental Association nor the CDC, but you consider an anti-fluoride site to be gospel-fact?
Thank you for putting words in my mouth. Never once in this conversation did I even remotely suggest that anti-fluoride sites are gospel or fact. In fact, I politely asked you to help me determine if any of their "evidence" or allegations were accurate. Seems like a worthy discussion considering that many developed nations have chosen not to Fluoridate their water supply and have come to conclusions that are in conflict with that of the CDC. All you had to do was explain how systemic fluoride works in the human body or provide hard evidence that it actually works the way doctors theorize that it does. Considering that Fluoride is pumped into the drinking water, I don't think it's an unreasonable (or difficult) request. Not sure how you decided that asking for your expert opinion was an invitation to ridicule, but I'll pass next time.
MangoMan wrote:This is the best I can do for now: http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEven ... _facts.pdf
read question #9 on page 17
Thank you. (Was that so hard?)
Last edited by Gumby on Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Gumby
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4012
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 8:54 am

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by Gumby »

So, as I read through the ADA report, it makes Fluoride sound like the world's greatest systemic wonder drug. Yet, in 2011, the EPA and HHS revised those wonder drug recommendations by lowering systemic Fluoride recommendations for everyone.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/ ... 0107a.html

And in November 2006, the ADA (and later the CDC) reversed its opinion on systemic Fluoride for infants — recommending that parents consider avoiding Fluoridated water for baby formula:

http://jada.ada.org/content/142/1/79.full
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/ ... ormula.htm

So much for systemic fluoride being so valuable for tooth formation. That recent CDC safety overview directly conflicts with the 2005 ADA report you linked to, which said:
"The maximum reduction in dental decay is achieved when fluoride is available preeruptively (systemically) for incorporation during all stages of tooth formation and posteruptively (topically) at the tooth surface."
Source: http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEven ... _facts.pdf
So, if the ADA got that wrong, then it all makes me wonder if the CDC and ADA might be mistaken on their position of fluoridated water if they are still discovering issues with systemic Fluoride. That's all I'm wondering. And truth be told, it's not difficult to find legitimate scientific studies that doubt the effectiveness of systemic Fluoride...

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15153698
Caries Res. 2004 May-Jun;38(3):258-62.
Systemic versus topical fluoride.
Hellwig E, Lennon AM.
Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Dental Clinic and Dental School, Albert Ludwigs University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.


Abstract
The actual mechanism of fluoride action is still a subject of debate. A dogma has existed for many decades, that fluoride has to be ingested and acts mainly pre-eruptively. However, recent studies concerning the systemic effect of fluoride supplementation concluded that the caries-preventive effect of fluoride is almost exclusively posteruptive. Moreover, epidemiologists have cast doubt on the validity of the 'old' studies dealing with fluoride use. The concept of the posteruptive fluoride effect is supported by in vitro and in situ investigations demonstrating that the mode of action of fluoride can be attributed mainly to its influence on de- and remineralization kinetics of dental hard tissues. Therefore, topical fluoride application (e.g. in the form of fluoridated dentifrices) should be encouraged. There are still important questions open that need to be answered despite existing knowledge about the caries-preventive effect of fluoride.

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15153698
I'm not going to pretend that I understand anything in that NIH study, beyond the abstract, but it seems to me (from a layman's perspective) that the ADA's rosy opinion is a bit too confident when researchers seem to suggest that "the actual mechanism of fluoride action is still a subject of debate". And if "the actual mechanism of fluoride action is still a subject of debate" then it makes me wonder why governments should be in the business of forcing systemic Fluoridation on the population. That's all I'm saying.
Last edited by Gumby on Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
User avatar
MediumTex
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 9096
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:47 pm
Contact:

Re: What supplements do you take?

Post by MediumTex »

So did we ever find any evidence that systemic fluoride has any beneficial effects?

Was a double blind study ever done to confirm the hypothesis that systemic fluoridated water was better at preventing tooth decay than other additives or no additives, or do we just fluoridate the water because that's what we've been doing for decades?

All I am seeing is that we put fluoride in the water because we believe that it prevents tooth decay, but that's like saying we put leeches on sick people because we believe it helps them recover from illness.

Perhaps a good approach would be to look at parts of the U.S. and developed world that don't fluoridate the water and correct for income disparities, availability of dental care, diet, etc. and see what the difference is in rates of tooth decay.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Post Reply