What supplements do you take?

[Gumby]

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

No, not yet.

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?

No. Anti-fluoride proponents say...

Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride's effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities.[16]. The latest publication [17] on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.

16. Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from the 1986-1987 national survey of U.S. school children. Yiamouyannis, J. Fluoride 23 55-67 (1990).

17. Recommendations for fluoride use in children. Kumar, J.V. and Green, E.L. New York State Dent. J. (1998) 40-47.

Source: WHY EPA HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS OPPOSES FLUORIDATION

This is corroborated by Dr. J. William Hirzy's (National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280) testimony before the US Senate Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries and Drinking Water.

Dr. Hirzy's testimony before the Senate Subcommittee — on behalf of a union of EPA-employed scientists — is a must-read:
http://epw.senate.gov/107th/hir_0629.htm

After reading Dr. Hirzy's testimony, it seems that fluoridation has much more to do with politics and bureaucracy than science. The fluoride that is put into our water supply is not the same calcium fluoride that is found naturally in springs and rivers. The fluoride added to the water supply is actually hexafluorosilicic acid — a highly toxic substance that is a byproduct of aluminum production and fertilizer production.

"In the U.S., about 40,000 tons of fluorosilic acid is recovered from phosphoric acid plants, and then used primarily in water fluoridation, sometimes after being processed into sodium silicofluoride"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluoro ... _acid#Uses

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.

Same here. The data to support systemic fluoridation seems to be dubious, especially for the very young — but that was the very target of systemic fluoridation. From what I can tell, the scientific research community seems to have moved away from systemic fluoridation and moved more towards examining topical fluoridation.

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.

The anti-fluoride proponents argue that non-fluoridated countries have seen a decline in tooth decay at the same rate as fluoridated countries...

[align=center][/align]

Now, many of these non-fluoridating countries use topical fluoride. And many people in European countries use fluoridated salt (which is a form of systemic fluoride). However, people have the ability to voluntarily control their salt intake — or use sea salt — and most people do not serve a lot of salt to infants and toddlers.

[Gumby]

For those interested. Here is a 9-minute video of Dr. J. William Hirzy's testimony on fluoridated water before the Senate Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries and Drinking Water on June 29, 2000:

[align=center][/align]

Dr. Hirzy — who, at the time, was the Senior Vice President of the EPA Headquarters Union — was speaking on behalf of a union of 1,600 concerned EPA-employed toxicologists, biologists, chemists, engineers, lawyers and consultants. The video also includes questions from Senators.

This all eventually led to the EPA and HHS recommending lower levels of Fluoridation. Were it not for these scientists who challenged the ADA and CDC, we would still all being drinking excessive/toxic amounts of Fluoride.

"Proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation"
— Dr. J. William Hirzy's testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries and Drinking Water on June 29, 2000

Source: http://epw.senate.gov/107th/hir_0629.htm

It's pretty clear that the ADA and CDC have no intention of investigating Fluoride toxicity concerns.

[WiseOne]

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?

No.  The fluoridation program started at the "grass-roots" level after some observational studies, comparing tooth decay rates in communities with naturally high fluoride levels in the water supply, compared to communities with low-fluoride water.

Here's a link to some NIH sites with more info:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... ated-water
http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/OralHealth/Topics/Fluoride/

Ironically, the National Cancer Institute had the most informative site, with minimal reliance on the old "proof by eminent authority" technique.

You might check the list of current fluoride-related clinical trials at the NIDCR site, but you won't find that double blind study there.  Some questions are never investigated because they're not considered sufficiently important or controversial to warrant the time and effort.  I have to say that I kind of agree that out of all the burning medical questions that need to be investigated with the ever-shrinking supply of research dollars, this one just isn't that high on the list.

[Gumby]

The fluoridation program started at the "grass-roots" level after some observational studies, comparing tooth decay rates in communities with naturally high fluoride levels in the water supply, compared to communities with low-fluoride water.

Except that communities with naturally high fluoride levels in their water supply get it from naturally occurring Calcium Fluoride:

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride

"Fluorides are toxic to humans, however CaF2 is considered relatively harmless due to its extreme insolubility"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_fluoride

However, when water is artificially fluoridated, they recover toxic fluorosilic acid waste from phosphoric acid plants — using wet scrubbers before it enters a smokestack — and process it (sometimes into sodium silicofluoride) and then sell it to communities to dump it into the water. Fluorosilic acid is literally a waste product of the fertilizer and aluminum processing industry.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid

It's not the same compound as what is found in naturally occurring fluoride. And anyone with basic chemistry and biology knowledge would have to consider that it's the "Calcium" in Calcium Fluoride that probably plays a key role in preventing tooth decay.

In order to determine any possible harmful effects of artificial fluoridation, researchers would need to specifically single out silicofluorides and fluorosilic acid.

I have to say that I kind of agree that out of all the burning medical questions that need to be investigated with the ever-shrinking supply of research dollars, this one just isn't that high on the list.

The issue really boils down to the ethics of pumping broad medication into the water supply. Do you really believe it's ethical to dose a population with a medicine or supplement that hasn't been fully investigated? I say no. I say you don't give a broad dosage of medicine to every citizen in a community based on loose observational/anecdotal evidence. If you were to prescribe fluoride to an individual, you would need to write a prescription. From an ethical standpoint, medicine and/or supplements should not be in the water supply.

[MachineGhost]

The issue really boils down to the ethics of pumping broad medication into the water supply. Do you really believe it's ethical to dose a population with a medicine or supplement that hasn't been fully investigated? I say no. I say you don't give a broad dosage of medicine to every citizen in a community based on loose observational/anecdotal evidence. If you were to prescribe fluoride to an individual, you would need to write a prescription. From an ethical standpoint, medicine and/or supplements should not be in the water supply.

I used to be against flouridization, whether in the water supply or in toothpaste because there was too much negative claims against it.  That was long before I discovered the joys of PubMed and saw study and study proving the efficacy of topical flouride in toothpaste to prevent/reduce caries.  So I started using a flouridated toothpaste again, albeit natural versions without all the harsh and potentially allergenic or carcinogenic chemicals in commercial toothpastes.

I am still against flouridization of the water supply.  It is a poor public policy to allow private corporations to profit from a waste disposal byproduct, but that is the usual modus operandi in the good ol' US of A.  Why shouldn't we put birth control in the water supply and force potential parents to opt-in when the they can pass licensing and prove they are actually competent?  More importantly, flouride crosses the blood-brain barrier and is a neurotoxin like MSG.  It is alleged the Nazi's flouridated Germany's water supply to make for a more pliable citizenry.  Eliminating the toxic flouride waste out of drinking water is darn difficult without relying on specialized filters, so I opted to go for a Reverse Osmosis (RO) filter.

For decades, the ADA claimed that sugar and sweets caused caries.  Only in the past decade or so has that tune been changing to recognize that it is bacteria and lack of remineralization that are the real problems.  Brushing and topical flouride does very little to deal with the bacteria.

An interesting technology originally developed to regenerate bone has been applied to retail toothpaste by Burt's Bees for remineralization.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NovaMin

[Gumby]

MG, is there a particular RO filter (type or brand) you'd recommend?

[MachineGhost]

MG, is there a particular RO filter (type or brand) you'd recommend?

I recommend the "Economy RO Unit" from Pure Water Products (very helpful and nice people): http://www.purewaterproducts.com/economyro.htm

I believe it is the flouride that actually destroys the RO membrane over time!

BTW, thanks for posting that link about treating uranium toxicity.  A uranium mobilizer was just what I needed.  So I will be taking a cilantro extract along with sodium alginate at bedtime to hopefully get it all out.  After six months or so, I'll do another hair test and see if it worked.

[Gumby]

MG, is there a particular RO filter (type or brand) you'd recommend?

I recommend the "Economy RO Unit" from Pure Water Products (very helpful and nice people): http://www.purewaterproducts.com/economyro.htm

I believe it is the flouride that actually destroys the RO membrane over time!

Thanks!

BTW, thanks for posting that link about treating uranium toxicity.  A uranium mobilizer was just what I needed.  So I will be taking a cilantro extract along with sodium alginate at bedtime to hopefully get it all out.  After six months or so, I'll do another hair test and see if it worked.

Cool. Did I read that article wrong, but it seemed to imply that the fact that uranium level in the hair increased is a good thing, since that meant that it was a sign that the uranium was actually leaving the body tissues. I may have misread that though. Good luck on the chelation!

[MachineGhost]

Cool. Did I read that article wrong, but it seemed to imply that the fact that uranium level in the hair increased is a good thing, since that meant that it was a sign that the uranium was actually leaving the body tissues. I may have misread that though. Good luck on the chelation!

It did say that.  I may have been taking potassium bicarbonate around that time, so it could have influenced the results.

[MediumTex]

Cool. Did I read that article wrong, but it seemed to imply that the fact that uranium level in the hair increased is a good thing, since that meant that it was a sign that the uranium was actually leaving the body tissues. I may have misread that though. Good luck on the chelation!

It did say that.  I may have been taking potassium bicarbonate around that time, so it could have influenced the results.

Do you have a theory about how the uranium got in your body in the first place?

Do you think it was related to that top secret work you used to do for the government?

[AdamA]

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.

What made you decide to test your body's uranium level to begin with?

If the average person took the same test, do you think it would be positive?

Does the test tell you if your uranium level is high enough to cause problems?

[MediumTex]

MG,

Can you tell us a little more about your experience with infrared saunas?

[MachineGhost]

Guys, I pretty much covered all of your questions earlier in the thread.  But I'll rehash.

Hair Test: Was primarily to test for mineral defenciencies because a multivitamin & mineral hardly contains optimal amounts of minerals and everyone has different absorption abilities or biological needs; any toxics of note were of secondary consideration (I was hoping I had high mercury levels to explain my brain fog).  I do think the average person would be surprised at the lifelong bioaccumulative exposure they may have, especially if they have mercury-amalgam fillings or haven't followed healthy lifestyle practices.  The environment is flooded with toxins, gasoline pollution being the worst source and it is far, far worse outside the West.  I would not expect someone to have a toxic exposure in the 3rd standard deviation above the mean like my uranium unless they had specific environmental or job reasons.  An short interpretative report with the results is included for any mineral levels that are flagged high or low.  I think anything outside 1 standard deviation is considered high or low.  Here are 600 or so posted Doctor's Data hair test results from people around the world: http://livingnetwork.co.za/chelationnet ... test/ 

Uranium: I suspect smoking or military exposure.  As smokers are hardly those that care a whit about their health or toxics exposure, it is hard to say if uranium bioaccumulation is a normal byproduct of doing that.  There's just not a large body of known evidence to compare to as testing for toxic heavy metal exposure is not exactly a mainstream practice and result variability between different labs is a huge problem.  I mean, this would open up a huge can of worms that most "gatekeepers" in society simply do not want to deal with, but I'm sure some day the trial lawyers will get onboard.

Germanium: Allegedly oxygenates the blood.  Controversial, lack of evidence.  Nonorganic seems to be toxic which the FDA banned vs organic which may or may not be.  I am still on the fence and have not supplemented.  This is another of those topics for Gumby to do his infamous truth-pulling magic on! 
Original discovery (Japan): http://www.organicgermanium.net/images/dr_asai_book.pdf
American introduction: http://tinyurl.com/d69ryz7

Infrared Saunas: Believe it or not, L. Ron Hubbard popularized the use of regular saunas for drug detoxification.  It is called the "Hubbard Detoxification Protocol" and is marketed as "NarConon" as mainstream drug rehab treatment by a subsidiary of Scientologym Inc..  It is documented and seems to be effective, especially for the World Trade Center responders (but of course, we all know their real agenda is public respectability...).  An infrared sauna works by heating the body drectly with infrared radiation as opposed to indirectly heating the surrounding air via water vapor and hot rocks.  The difference is a lower temperature required (140-160 F) vs (250+ F) so its more comfortable.  The theory is that the heat will induce you to sweat carrying toxins along with it as well as "melt body fat" where toxins are stored.  I would also disregard the hyperbole claims from sellers about "burning 1200 calories in half an hour" as thats clearly B.S..  From an naturopathic perspective, the goal of sauna therapy is to cause an induced fever (which will cause your lympocytes to double in potency for each 1 F degree increase above normal), but I don't think an infrared sauna is that successful at elevating core body temperature (I don't know about regular).  Also of interest, cancer is highly sensitive to high temperatures and cannot survive above 105 F.  As usual, there is Cheap Chinese Shit when it comes to infrared saunas.  While I do have pure ceramic heating rods in my sauna, there's much better technology now and this is what I recommend: http://www.infraredsauna.com/heaters.html  I recommend a 2-person sauna only as a last resort unless you are a muchkin or don't have a problem sitting up straight and having your back get a full on assault for 40 minutes.  140 F is unbearable.  160 F is unthinkable.  As an infrared sauna relaxes your para-sympathetic nervous system like meditation or yoga, being able to comfortably lay back and extend your legs sideways on a large enough seat can make all the difference between enjoyment and annoyment.

[Gumby]

Guys, I pretty much covered all of your questions earlier in the thread.  But I'll rehash.

MG. I for one really appreciate hearing your expertise on supplementation and nutrition. I believe your previous posts dealt with many different anti-aging supplements. But, I'm just a little curious how you get basic minerals, such as zinc. I'm a little nervous to just gulp down some powder or drops that say "zinc" on it without really knowing if it's a good bioavailable source/product or not. Am I over-thinking it? Part of me thinks it should just be ground up rocks, but another part of me thinks there has to be more to minerals than that.

[MediumTex]

Guys, I pretty much covered all of your questions earlier in the thread.  But I'll rehash.

MG. I for one really appreciate hearing your expertise on supplementation and nutrition. I believe your previous posts dealt with many different anti-aging supplements. But, I'm just a little curious how you get basic minerals, such as zinc. I'm a little nervous to just gulp down some powder or drops that say "zinc" on it without really knowing if it's a good bioavailable source/product or not. Am I over-thinking it? Part of me thinks it should just be ground up rocks, but another part of me thinks there has to be more to minerals than that.

I, too, really enjoy reading MG's thoughts on nutrition and related topics.

His rehashes are better than most people's hashes.

[MachineGhost]

MG. I for one really appreciate hearing your expertise on supplementation and nutrition. I believe your previous posts dealt with many different anti-aging supplements. But, I'm just a little curious how you get basic minerals, such as zinc. I'm a little nervous to just gulp down some powder or drops that say "zinc" on it without really knowing if it's a good bioavailable source/product or not. Am I over-thinking it? Part of me thinks it should just be ground up rocks, but another part of me thinks there has to be more to minerals than that.

You're not overthinking it, but its really not all that difficult to figure out.  Like anything else in life it seems, 99% of supplements are going to be low quality garbage for the sake of making somebody a profit and only 1% is high quality and worth spending your money on.  The situation is a lot better nowadays as there's economies of scale to make those 1% more widely available and affordable than expensive, small production, niche products of the past.  A good example would be MegaFoods which has long specialized in food-based vitamins and minerals.  Sounds great in theory, right?  Well, the reality is they are expensive and they are incredibly bulky which imposes impracticalities on getting even the bare RDA.  Plus, you've got to question why wouldn't you just be better off getting what you need from real food?  After all, just a couple of tasty Brazil Nuts every day provides 200mcg of selenium.  So there's a certain science along the pharmacuetical direction in formulating and retailing a high quality supplement to be a more practical alternative to food.  I do believe "supplement" should be viewed as a literal term; it should supplement food when it comes to the RDA for vitamins and minerals as far as practical (i.e. I'm lazy and don't want to eat several Brazil nuts everyday, besides being expensive).  Beyond the RDA, things rapidly go in an "optimal health" and "anti-aging" direction where much larger doses of bioagents become less consequential to be viewed as a "supplement" as food simply cannot provide the quantities necessary (usually).
 
Anyway, when it comes to minerals and bioavailability, I think the best thing you can do is read Albion's research on the subject and even e-mail them questions if necessary.  They are the undisputed leaders in true chelation of minerals, exactly as plants do in nature.  The other companies that sell so-called mineral chelates aren't selling true chelates; they're just a mixture of the free-form inorganic minerals along with some kind of free-form acid buffering.  There's also probiotic-yeast-bioaccumulated minerals (they feed inorganic minerals into huge vats of yeast that naturally chelate it and concentrate it) such as from Garden of Life, New Chapter, or the PhytAvail tech from Triarco.  The body can chelate inorganic minerals for absorption, but it has a very limited capacity and it is very, very slow and obviously its not a good idea to take non-chelated, inorganic minerals if toxic mineral elements can be so easily bioaccumulated.

It goes without saying that everything is a shot in the dark without some kind of diagnostic testing.  For minerals, blood tests are just not useful enough to show chronic defenciencies or excess.  My hair test results reflects several years of using food-based multivitamin and minerals that met the RDA, yet I had severe lithium and germanium defenciencies and moderate defencies of several other minerals.  My goal is to get everything into the green to the plus side.

[Gumby]

Thanks, MG. Interesting stuff.

After all, just a couple of tasty Brazil Nuts every day provides 200mcg of selenium.

Too bad Brazil Nuts have one of the highest concentrations of Phytic Acid of any food! Brazil nuts have 1719 mg of Phytic acid per 100 grams of dry weight.

Great article on phytic acid in nuts can be found here:
http://chriskresser.com/another-reason- ... ts-on-nuts

Raw chocolate and cocoa powder has a lot too.

I think really plants don't like us very much — they seem to be playing a cruel joke on vegetarians.

[MediumTex]

I think really plants don't like us very much — they seem to be playing a cruel joke on vegetarians.

They don't like being eaten any more than anything else does (unless they are able to move through the digestive tract intact, in which case they aren't of much nutritional value anyway).

If you look at the inflammation response that many foods trigger, it's like they have taken a page from the skunk's playbook.

We're not the only clever ones in the biological world.

[Gumby]

I'm sure much of the "science" backing or debunking the supplements in this infographic is pretty worthless, but thought I would post it anyway, for discussion sake...

http://informationisbeautiful.net/play/ ... pplements/

[MachineGhost]

I'm sure much of the "science" backing or debunking the supplements in this infographic is pretty worthless, but thought I would post it anyway, for discussion sake...

http://informationisbeautiful.net/play/ ... pplements/

It's both interesting and sort of silly that many of the same bioagents are both above and below the "worth it line".

Here's something I just read that I found interesting considering it is coming from a medical doctor:

But as she sees it, the power of big pharma is still influencing doctors. "Pfizer, who owns Wyeth, has such a huge hold over the academic institutions, NIH, and the whole pharmaceutical environment in which we function," says Schwartz. "As a result, medical knowledge is often dictated by the pharmaceutical companies, not by science. Around 2009, I was invited by the head of the department of OB/GYN at Harvard University to lecture on hormones because I had published an article in the Medical Clinic of North America. When I asked the OB/GYNs why is it that I, who am a clinician, have to do their research, they gave me a very disturbing answer," recalls Schwartz. "Their answer was that there was a whole generation of physicians that's been trained to prescribe Premarin® and Provera® and don't know any other way. These indoctrinated physicians will have to die out before a new generation of physicians can start prescribing to women what they truly need. I find that criminal."

[MachineGhost]

New ultrasound toothbrush could revolutionize oral hygiene

Published May 31, 2012

| FoxNews.com

More than 75 percent of American adults have some form of gum disease – but the condition is completely preventable.

Peer Blumenschein, CEO of Emmi-Tech, Inc., recently spoke with Fox News Health about a new technology that is changing the way we brush our teeth – the Emmi-Dent Ultrasonic Toothbrush.

“[It’s] a new device in the United States,”? Blumenschein said, “…and it’s the first toothbrush which runs 100 percent on ultrasound, so the ultrasound cleans.  You do not have to brush – so it’s a ‘no brushing’ toothbrush.”?

The toothbrush – modeled after the average dental teeth cleaning - uses devices with ultrasonic power to break down tartar.  But unlike conventional cleanings, the Emmi-Dent brush utilizes microwaves with significantly less power.

“[It’s] just enough to kill the bacteria in your mouth – in your gums, on the teeth – so that you don’t destroy the teeth or the enamel and basically don’t harm your oral system,”? Blumenschein said.

According to Blumenschein, the Emmi-Dent brush is superior to other run-of-the-mill toothbrushes, because it is much more thorough.  He said that brushes with bristles are only scraping away bacteria, but some of the bacteria resides on the brush and aren’t completely gone.

“With the ultrasound, you have so much energy that is basically destroying the membranes of the bacteria,”? Blumenschein, “and therefore they are completely destroyed and disappear…into thousands of small pieces.”?

The brush’s technique has been confirmed by numerous European studies, and Blumenschein said the company has received nothing but positive feedback from dentists. Patients with other more extreme oral hygiene problems have also shown to benefit from using the brush, by reducing inflammation, bad breath and teeth stains.

Blumenschein maintains that no adverse side effects to using the Emmi-Dent brush have been found.

To learn more about Emmi-Dent, visit http://www.emmi-dent.com/.

[MediumTex]

New ultrasound toothbrush could revolutionize oral hygiene

Published May 31, 2012

| FoxNews.com

More than 75 percent of American adults have some form of gum disease – but the condition is completely preventable.

Peer Blumenschein, CEO of Emmi-Tech, Inc., recently spoke with Fox News Health about a new technology that is changing the way we brush our teeth – the Emmi-Dent Ultrasonic Toothbrush.

“[It’s] a new device in the United States,”? Blumenschein said, “…and it’s the first toothbrush which runs 100 percent on ultrasound, so the ultrasound cleans.  You do not have to brush – so it’s a ‘no brushing’ toothbrush.”?

The toothbrush – modeled after the average dental teeth cleaning - uses devices with ultrasonic power to break down tartar.  But unlike conventional cleanings, the Emmi-Dent brush utilizes microwaves with significantly less power.

“[It’s] just enough to kill the bacteria in your mouth – in your gums, on the teeth – so that you don’t destroy the teeth or the enamel and basically don’t harm your oral system,”? Blumenschein said.

According to Blumenschein, the Emmi-Dent brush is superior to other run-of-the-mill toothbrushes, because it is much more thorough.  He said that brushes with bristles are only scraping away bacteria, but some of the bacteria resides on the brush and aren’t completely gone.

“With the ultrasound, you have so much energy that is basically destroying the membranes of the bacteria,”? Blumenschein, “and therefore they are completely destroyed and disappear…into thousands of small pieces.”?

The brush’s technique has been confirmed by numerous European studies, and Blumenschein said the company has received nothing but positive feedback from dentists. Patients with other more extreme oral hygiene problems have also shown to benefit from using the brush, by reducing inflammation, bad breath and teeth stains.

Blumenschein maintains that no adverse side effects to using the Emmi-Dent brush have been found.

To learn more about Emmi-Dent, visit http://www.emmi-dent.com/.

I have used a Sonicare for many years and really like it.

I tell my carpet cleaning customers that I do to their carpet what a Sonicare toothbrush does to their teeth.  This is normally met with "ahs" of approval.

[MachineGhost]

New ultrasound toothbrush could revolutionize oral hygiene

Published May 31, 2012

| FoxNews.com

More than 75 percent of American adults have some form of gum disease – but the condition is completely preventable.

Peer Blumenschein, CEO of Emmi-Tech, Inc., recently spoke with Fox News Health about a new technology that is changing the way we brush our teeth – the Emmi-Dent Ultrasonic Toothbrush.

“[It’s] a new device in the United States,”? Blumenschein said, “…and it’s the first toothbrush which runs 100 percent on ultrasound, so the ultrasound cleans.  You do not have to brush – so it’s a ‘no brushing’ toothbrush.”?

The toothbrush – modeled after the average dental teeth cleaning - uses devices with ultrasonic power to break down tartar.  But unlike conventional cleanings, the Emmi-Dent brush utilizes microwaves with significantly less power.

“[It’s] just enough to kill the bacteria in your mouth – in your gums, on the teeth – so that you don’t destroy the teeth or the enamel and basically don’t harm your oral system,”? Blumenschein said.

According to Blumenschein, the Emmi-Dent brush is superior to other run-of-the-mill toothbrushes, because it is much more thorough.  He said that brushes with bristles are only scraping away bacteria, but some of the bacteria resides on the brush and aren’t completely gone.

“With the ultrasound, you have so much energy that is basically destroying the membranes of the bacteria,”? Blumenschein, “and therefore they are completely destroyed and disappear…into thousands of small pieces.”?

The brush’s technique has been confirmed by numerous European studies, and Blumenschein said the company has received nothing but positive feedback from dentists. Patients with other more extreme oral hygiene problems have also shown to benefit from using the brush, by reducing inflammation, bad breath and teeth stains.

Blumenschein maintains that no adverse side effects to using the Emmi-Dent brush have been found.

To learn more about Emmi-Dent, visit http://www.emmi-dent.com/.

I have used a Sonicare for many years and really like it.

I tell my carpet cleaning customers that I do to their carpet what a Sonicare toothbrush does to their teeth.  This is normally met with "ahs" of approval.

Somhow that news got cut off.  But the Sonicare (which I also use) or the others are not true ultrasonic brushes.  Go here: http://www.emmi-dent.com/compare/  It cleans 12mm deep which is pretty impressive.  I think I could deal with having a root canal if I had a toothbrush like that.

[MediumTex]

I picked up some Liquimins ConcenTrace Trace Mineral Drops today.

Anyone have an opinion about this product or products like it?

[Gumby]

I picked up some Liquimins ConcenTrace Trace Mineral Drops today.

Anyone have an opinion about this product or products like it?

I'm currently using them as well. I like the idea of these drops, but I came across some wacky doctor's website that made me wonder about using them long term...

DO NOT ADD MINERALS TO REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER (OR TO ANY DRINKING WATER).  The reasons for this are:

· Very few people know which minerals they need to add.  Commercial preparations such as electrolyte solutions often do not contain optimal mineral levels for each person.
· Adding salt or sea salt to water may detoxify the body a little, but is a dangerous practice, long term, because the high sodium content can unbalance the minerals in the body by competing with other mineral absorption.
· Most mineral preparations are not pure enough and many, such as coral calcium, can contain some toxic minerals as well.
· Reverse osmosis  water, in particular, is extremely “hungry”? and adding minerals to it will cause them to be absorbed into the water easily, and then cause them to be absorbed into the body cells quickly and thoroughly.  This is good if the minerals are pure, but most are not pure enough, no matter what they say on the bottle.  As a result, the person is slowly but surely poisoned by the toxic minerals.
Source: http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/water.htm

Now, I really don't know what to believe. The liquimins mineral drops should be pure. They appear to be tested for purity and I don't see why they wouldn't be pure. But, I have no way of being able to verify their purity independently. But, the wacky doctor may have a point. I just don't know. But, I've been using the trace mineral drops for the past few weeks, since I don't really know how else to get a good amount of minerals into my body — other than using a high quality sea salt. Would love to hear others opinions on this as well.

On the other hand, the wacky doctor claims that even RO water is too processed, and the RO filter can degrade plastic into your water. Again, no idea if he's right or not. He recommends that short of finding a pure spring near your house, you have spring water delivered. Never mind that the bottles that the local company delivers to your house are either PET or BPA — which also has its risks. Kinda sucks that premium quality water is so hard to find or achieve.

I recently came across http://findaspring.com, but alas, no springs near me!