Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 It makes sense to improve your health back up as much as possible before commencing this. Regards CS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Hi, Wallace. This article makes sense to me. Rich > > Any thoughts about this? > > Sunny thoughts, > Wallace > Amalgam Removal or Cavitation Surgery – Which Should Come First? > ©2004 Suzin Stockton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 In 2003, Dr Cheney told me he knows of only 2 Dr.'s in the country he would let in his mouth to do this kind of work- cavitation surgery. The idea being - it's dangerous out there and there are lots of dentists that think they know what is right for you. I had cavitation surgery by one of those who claimed to be in the know, I got very sick, I take responsibility for my gullibility and naivete. My second surgery was by a Dr that Dr Cheney recommended and it was successful. I can't think of either of their names ( my usual brain befuddlement ) but would try to find them for you if you want them. My heart and health took such a nose dive from doing it wrong, including the fact I did have severe osteonecrosis and cavitations, full of infection. I can't deny the fact that it felt good to get one of those teeth out as the infection was so pervasive. I have no other opinion than please be careful and get wise counsel. I finally did with Dr Cheney. L On Feb 4, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Wallace Kingston wrote: > Any thoughts about this? > > Sunny thoughts, > Wallace > Amalgam Removal or Cavitation Surgery – Which Should Come First? > ©2004 Suzin Stockton > This is a question I'm often asked, and about which I've only > recently begun to have a solid point of view. I would say that the > majority of dentists today, influenced by the ADA party line, would > respond that neither amalgam removal nor cavitation surgery is > necessary! And I would guess that the majority of `holistic' > dentists — even those familiar with cavitations (and not all are) — > would answer that amalgam removal should be the top priority. I > believe this perspective is born more out of greater familiarity with > the amalgam issue than anything else. If we take a close look at the > facts, several good reasons emerge for addressing the cavitation > issue first, at least diagnostically. > > First, let me emphasize that a cavitation is a hollow area of dead > (necrotic) or dying bone in the jaw. While bacteria may exist at > cavitation sites, more often than not, few, if any, are found there, > according to oral pathologist Jerry Bouquot. Bacterial trauma may > certainly initiate the cavitation process, but by the time a > cavitation is fully formed, infection is usually not a dominant > clinical feature. A jawbone cavitation is predominantly an ischemic > condition, one involving compromised blood flow to the area. The > presence of dead bone interferes with blood supply, and any tooth > remaining at the site slowly dies from lack of nourishment, lack of > oxygen and inability to rid itself of toxins. This being the case, > the treatment of choice is thorough surgical removal of any dead or > dying bone in the jaw, along with extraction of any teeth at such > sites. This will remove the conditions that may give rise to > infection and prevent the spreading of jawbone necrosis (cavitations). > > Because jawbone cavitations are largely a result of trauma to the > jawbone, and the majority of that trauma for most of us comes from > standard dental treatment (drilling of teeth, extractions, root canal > therapy, etc.), it stands to reason that the condition can be > aggravated in the course of amalgam replacement, which involves more > drilling, more trauma to tooth and bone. These lesions (cavitations) > tend to spread, and their spreading may be a causative factor when > the patient with newly placed mercury-free restorations complains of > jaw pain or toothache where none had been before. > > Because many people have widespread necrosis in the jawbone (as > evidenced through bone sonography Cavitat scans), the reality is that > some degree of tooth loss is often necessary in order to get at dead > bone to remove it and stop the bone loss process. This (cavitational) > process has been referred to as gangrene of the jawbone by Colorado > Springs cardiologist Levy. I like that description because it > conveys the gravity of the situation, as well as an image of > spreading tissue rot – exactly what we have with cavitations. Now, > come into my common sense corner for a minute: From what you already > know about cavitations, can you tell me which teeth are likely > candidates for extraction? Those that have been filled, root canal > treated or capped! And, if those restorations happen to contain > mercury, how much sense does it make to further traumatize the tooth > (and bone) by removing the amalgam-containing restoration and placing > a biocompatible material without first checking the condition of the > jawbone?? If the patient first gets a Cavitat scan, s/he may well > find that some (or possibly all) of the teeth that would otherwise > have undergone amalgam replacement will have to be extracted to get > at the underlying bone necrosis. Now, who wants to undergo the trauma > and expense of amalgam replacement, just to have it followed by loss > of the very teeth that were just restored? And this is what may well > happen if the person has a chronic cavitation problem. Since > cavitations are often silent (i.e., cause no local symptoms), the > patient (and dentist) may be totally unaware of the presence of this > serious condition, and so not take it into consideration when > planning amalgam replacement. This oversight may set the patient up > for more dental problems down the road, even though all concerned had > the best of intentions. > > Another consideration in amalgam removal with someone who may have > cavitations is the effect it could have on the microbial population > of the oral cavity. Mercury, with all its associated problems, was > once used extensively in medicine (and still is to a limited degree — > some hemorrhoid preparations contain it). In the 1300s, it was used > in the form of ore cinnabar to treat syphilis. It was also once used > to treat tuberculosis and rheumatism. The metal has been used > medicinally because of its antiseptic qualities, a result of the > denaturing of the enzymes of microorganisms. The anti-fungal effects > of mercury are well known today. That's why it's used in some paints > to retard mold. Could it be that mercury plays a similar role when > placed in the teeth, that its presence controls the microbial > population in the mouth to some degree? While I'm all for amalgam > removal because of the well-documented insidious effects of mercury > on the body, IF that amalgam lives in a mouth where there is oral > infection, and then that mercury-containing amalgam is suddenly > removed, it would seem possible that a result could be a > proliferation of microbes in the mouth, causing a worsening of the > infection. Given this possibility, it would seem wise to remove the > conditions giving rise to " focal infection " (a walled off area of > concentrated toxins and necrotic and/or infected tissue — a > cavitation!) prior to removing the mercury. Please understand clearly > that I'm not arguing against amalgam removal, simply speculating that > it may be in the body's best interest to first treat cavitation sites > (by removing necrotic bone). Far from protecting the body from > microbes, over the long haul, mercury will do just the opposite by > weakening the immune system. Mercury contaminated neutrophils (immune > macrophages that consume microorganisms) lose their ability to ingest > yeast, allowing Candida and other yeast and fungi to overtake the > body. > > Finally, let's look at what can happen if amalgams are removed, > cavitations go untreated, and the patient embarks upon an oral > chelation program using a formula that contains the sulfur-containing > amino acids methionine and cysteine. It is known that gram-negative > anaerobic bacteria (the kind that may be found at cavitation sites) > desulfurate these amino acids, resulting in the formation of volatile > sulfur compounds – hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan. These > compounds, in turn, form complexes with mercury that greatly increase > its toxicity. While the anaerobic bacteria will also take sulfur from > the amino acids in the protein food we eat, and we can't do without > protein to starve out the microbes, we can avoid giving them extra > sulfur through our ingestion of it in oral chelation products. So if > you're undergoing oral chelation following amalgam replacement and > think you may have cavitations, it may be wise to use a chelating > agent that does not contain methionine or cysteine. If you haven't > yet replaced your amalgams, you may wish to treat cavitations first > to eliminate any gram-negative anaerobic bacteria. Then there should > be no problem in using a chelation formula that contains sulfur- > bearing amino acids. > > With regard to all of the above considerations, I would conclude that > it is imperative to assess the condition of the jawbone (through use > of bone sonography) before embarking upon amalgam replacement – or > any type of restorative dental work. If the jawbone is shown to be in > good condition, I see no contraindications to proceeding with amalgam > replacement. If some of the amalgam-restored teeth are living in > necrotic bone, then the patient may wish to have those teeth > extracted in conjunction with cavitation surgery and then proceed to > have the remaining mercury-containing restorations replaced. OR the > order may be reversed. I don't have a strong point of view about > this, though I do tend to favor handling cavitations first. What > matters most is that amalgam replacement is not initiated without > regard to condition of the jawbone, so that money isn't wasted > restoring essentially dead teeth. Whichever order of treatment the > patient chooses, I do believe there should be as little time as > possible put between the two events. Left untreated, cavitations will > spread, and so should be promptly addressed following amalgam > replacement. If the cavitation surgery is done first, and mercury > remains in the mouth, then a significant source of toxicity has gone > unaddressed, and this will impede the healing process. > > Another point that many miss is that oftentimes, after proper amalgam > removal, some teeth subsequently die, contributing to cavitation > formation. So it's important to have the jaws re-examined with > sonography after amalgam removal, especially if one or more teeth > become or remain sensitive. > > I believe it is very important that both patients and dentists become > more acutely aware of the importance of assessing the condition of > the jawbone prior to initiating any treatment that will traumatize it > and possibly cause the spreading of cavitations. Since bone > sonography is the most reliable and detailed method of doing such as > assessment, it is imperative that the technology be made available on > a larger scale than it is now. There is also a clear and pressing > need for more dentists who are trained in diagnosis and treatment of > cavitations. Dentists may contact Cavitat Medical Technologies (303- > 755-2688) for information on bone sonography equipment and Dr. Wesley > Shankland (614-794-0033) for information on an in-depth surgical > training course that offers instruction in clinical application of > bone sonography and gives continuing education credits. > > Home > > > suzin@... > POWER OF ONE PUBLISHING, c/o Renew Life, 2076 Sunnydale Blvd., > Clearwater, FL 33765, USA > 727-539-1700 > > > > > > > This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences with > each other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any > treatment discussed here, please consult your doctor. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 ---Hi Glad you found a good dentist eventually. Did your health improve after, or didn't it make much impact on your overall health? Sunny thoughts, Wallace In , Lucey <susan.lucey@...> wrote: > > In 2003, Dr Cheney told me he knows of only 2 Dr.'s in the country he > would let in his mouth to do this kind of work- cavitation surgery. The > idea being - it's dangerous out there and there are lots of dentists > that think they know what is right for you. > > I had cavitation surgery by one of those who claimed to be in the know, > I got very sick, I take responsibility for my gullibility and naivete. > My second surgery was by a Dr that Dr Cheney recommended and it was > successful. I can't think of either of their names ( my usual brain > befuddlement ) but would try to find them for you if you want them. > > My heart and health took such a nose dive from doing it wrong, > including the fact I did have severe osteonecrosis and cavitations, > full of infection. I can't deny the fact that it felt good to get one > of those teeth out as the infection was so pervasive. > > I have no other opinion than please be careful and get wise counsel. I > finally did with Dr Cheney. > > L > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Wallace Kingston wrote: > > > Any thoughts about this? > > > > Sunny thoughts, > > Wallace > > Amalgam Removal or Cavitation Surgery †" Which Should Come First? > > ©2004 Suzin Stockton > > This is a question I'm often asked, and about which I've only > > recently begun to have a solid point of view. I would say that the > > majority of dentists today, influenced by the ADA party line, would > > respond that neither amalgam removal nor cavitation surgery is > > necessary! And I would guess that the majority of `holistic' > > dentists †" even those familiar with cavitations (and not all are) †" > > would answer that amalgam removal should be the top priority. I > > believe this perspective is born more out of greater familiarity with > > the amalgam issue than anything else. If we take a close look at the > > facts, several good reasons emerge for addressing the cavitation > > issue first, at least diagnostically. > > > > First, let me emphasize that a cavitation is a hollow area of dead > > (necrotic) or dying bone in the jaw. While bacteria may exist at > > cavitation sites, more often than not, few, if any, are found there, > > according to oral pathologist Jerry Bouquot. Bacterial trauma may > > certainly initiate the cavitation process, but by the time a > > cavitation is fully formed, infection is usually not a dominant > > clinical feature. A jawbone cavitation is predominantly an ischemic > > condition, one involving compromised blood flow to the area. The > > presence of dead bone interferes with blood supply, and any tooth > > remaining at the site slowly dies from lack of nourishment, lack of > > oxygen and inability to rid itself of toxins. This being the case, > > the treatment of choice is thorough surgical removal of any dead or > > dying bone in the jaw, along with extraction of any teeth at such > > sites. This will remove the conditions that may give rise to > > infection and prevent the spreading of jawbone necrosis (cavitations). > > > > Because jawbone cavitations are largely a result of trauma to the > > jawbone, and the majority of that trauma for most of us comes from > > standard dental treatment (drilling of teeth, extractions, root canal > > therapy, etc.), it stands to reason that the condition can be > > aggravated in the course of amalgam replacement, which involves more > > drilling, more trauma to tooth and bone. These lesions (cavitations) > > tend to spread, and their spreading may be a causative factor when > > the patient with newly placed mercury-free restorations complains of > > jaw pain or toothache where none had been before. > > > > Because many people have widespread necrosis in the jawbone (as > > evidenced through bone sonography Cavitat scans), the reality is that > > some degree of tooth loss is often necessary in order to get at dead > > bone to remove it and stop the bone loss process. This (cavitational) > > process has been referred to as gangrene of the jawbone by Colorado > > Springs cardiologist Levy. I like that description because it > > conveys the gravity of the situation, as well as an image of > > spreading tissue rot †" exactly what we have with cavitations. Now, > > come into my common sense corner for a minute: From what you already > > know about cavitations, can you tell me which teeth are likely > > candidates for extraction? Those that have been filled, root canal > > treated or capped! And, if those restorations happen to contain > > mercury, how much sense does it make to further traumatize the tooth > > (and bone) by removing the amalgam-containing restoration and placing > > a biocompatible material without first checking the condition of the > > jawbone?? If the patient first gets a Cavitat scan, s/he may well > > find that some (or possibly all) of the teeth that would otherwise > > have undergone amalgam replacement will have to be extracted to get > > at the underlying bone necrosis. Now, who wants to undergo the trauma > > and expense of amalgam replacement, just to have it followed by loss > > of the very teeth that were just restored? And this is what may well > > happen if the person has a chronic cavitation problem. Since > > cavitations are often silent (i.e., cause no local symptoms), the > > patient (and dentist) may be totally unaware of the presence of this > > serious condition, and so not take it into consideration when > > planning amalgam replacement. This oversight may set the patient up > > for more dental problems down the road, even though all concerned had > > the best of intentions. > > > > Another consideration in amalgam removal with someone who may have > > cavitations is the effect it could have on the microbial population > > of the oral cavity. Mercury, with all its associated problems, was > > once used extensively in medicine (and still is to a limited degree †" > > some hemorrhoid preparations contain it). In the 1300s, it was used > > in the form of ore cinnabar to treat syphilis. It was also once used > > to treat tuberculosis and rheumatism. The metal has been used > > medicinally because of its antiseptic qualities, a result of the > > denaturing of the enzymes of microorganisms. The anti-fungal effects > > of mercury are well known today. That's why it's used in some paints > > to retard mold. Could it be that mercury plays a similar role when > > placed in the teeth, that its presence controls the microbial > > population in the mouth to some degree? While I'm all for amalgam > > removal because of the well-documented insidious effects of mercury > > on the body, IF that amalgam lives in a mouth where there is oral > > infection, and then that mercury-containing amalgam is suddenly > > removed, it would seem possible that a result could be a > > proliferation of microbes in the mouth, causing a worsening of the > > infection. Given this possibility, it would seem wise to remove the > > conditions giving rise to " focal infection " (a walled off area of > > concentrated toxins and necrotic and/or infected tissue †" a > > cavitation!) prior to removing the mercury. Please understand clearly > > that I'm not arguing against amalgam removal, simply speculating that > > it may be in the body's best interest to first treat cavitation sites > > (by removing necrotic bone). Far from protecting the body from > > microbes, over the long haul, mercury will do just the opposite by > > weakening the immune system. Mercury contaminated neutrophils (immune > > macrophages that consume microorganisms) lose their ability to ingest > > yeast, allowing Candida and other yeast and fungi to overtake the > > body. > > > > Finally, let's look at what can happen if amalgams are removed, > > cavitations go untreated, and the patient embarks upon an oral > > chelation program using a formula that contains the sulfur- containing > > amino acids methionine and cysteine. It is known that gram- negative > > anaerobic bacteria (the kind that may be found at cavitation sites) > > desulfurate these amino acids, resulting in the formation of volatile > > sulfur compounds †" hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan. These > > compounds, in turn, form complexes with mercury that greatly increase > > its toxicity. While the anaerobic bacteria will also take sulfur from > > the amino acids in the protein food we eat, and we can't do without > > protein to starve out the microbes, we can avoid giving them extra > > sulfur through our ingestion of it in oral chelation products. So if > > you're undergoing oral chelation following amalgam replacement and > > think you may have cavitations, it may be wise to use a chelating > > agent that does not contain methionine or cysteine. If you haven't > > yet replaced your amalgams, you may wish to treat cavitations first > > to eliminate any gram-negative anaerobic bacteria. Then there should > > be no problem in using a chelation formula that contains sulfur- > > bearing amino acids. > > > > With regard to all of the above considerations, I would conclude that > > it is imperative to assess the condition of the jawbone (through use > > of bone sonography) before embarking upon amalgam replacement †" or > > any type of restorative dental work. If the jawbone is shown to be in > > good condition, I see no contraindications to proceeding with amalgam > > replacement. If some of the amalgam-restored teeth are living in > > necrotic bone, then the patient may wish to have those teeth > > extracted in conjunction with cavitation surgery and then proceed to > > have the remaining mercury-containing restorations replaced. OR the > > order may be reversed. I don't have a strong point of view about > > this, though I do tend to favor handling cavitations first. What > > matters most is that amalgam replacement is not initiated without > > regard to condition of the jawbone, so that money isn't wasted > > restoring essentially dead teeth. Whichever order of treatment the > > patient chooses, I do believe there should be as little time as > > possible put between the two events. Left untreated, cavitations will > > spread, and so should be promptly addressed following amalgam > > replacement. If the cavitation surgery is done first, and mercury > > remains in the mouth, then a significant source of toxicity has gone > > unaddressed, and this will impede the healing process. > > > > Another point that many miss is that oftentimes, after proper amalgam > > removal, some teeth subsequently die, contributing to cavitation > > formation. So it's important to have the jaws re-examined with > > sonography after amalgam removal, especially if one or more teeth > > become or remain sensitive. > > > > I believe it is very important that both patients and dentists become > > more acutely aware of the importance of assessing the condition of > > the jawbone prior to initiating any treatment that will traumatize it > > and possibly cause the spreading of cavitations. Since bone > > sonography is the most reliable and detailed method of doing such as > > assessment, it is imperative that the technology be made available on > > a larger scale than it is now. There is also a clear and pressing > > need for more dentists who are trained in diagnosis and treatment of > > cavitations. Dentists may contact Cavitat Medical Technologies (303- > > 755-2688) for information on bone sonography equipment and Dr. Wesley > > Shankland (614-794-0033) for information on an in-depth surgical > > training course that offers instruction in clinical application of > > bone sonography and gives continuing education credits. > > > > Home > > > > > > suzin@... > > POWER OF ONE PUBLISHING, c/o Renew Life, 2076 Sunnydale Blvd., > > Clearwater, FL 33765, USA > > 727-539-1700 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences with > > each other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any > > treatment discussed here, please consult your doctor. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Wow, that is an interesting paper. I did amalgam removal first. On the whole, I didn't improve in the short term. Plus, I got some symptoms I didn't have before I had a root canal done through an amalgam filling. By the time I looked into cavitations, I was truly struggling. And I needed the surgery, though the dentist(Dr. Shankland, mentioned in the paper below), told me I might not improve from cavitation surgery for various reasons. I didn't have the money at the time,(and wasn't sure I should spend it there given the equivocal outcome). So my Doc and I went about trying to solve hypercoagulation symptoms in hopes of having a more favorable surgical outcome when I could afford the surgery. Time passed, we tried various things and I started with IV GSH and the oral liposomal form of GSH as well last year. This worked wonders in me. I continued chelating too. Last fall, when I was doing well, I went back to Dr. Shankland to see how the cavitations were doing and if we could schedule the surgery. We thought my body could finally handle it. First off, Dr. Shankland didn't recognize me as the same sick woman he remembered. Secondly, we were all astounded when the Cavitat scan showed the cavitations had healed! He said there is no way to make that scan go from red to green except that it is truly better. That was a happy visit. In retrospect then, I'm glad I removed the amalgams first. My jaw is okay now, and we didn't spend thousands of dollars unecessarily. I still do have two teeth with root canals. I find this both a good and bad thing: it's nice to have my own teeth, and they are still bacterial breeding grounds. Just my two cents worth... > > > Any thoughts about this? > > > > Sunny thoughts, > > Wallace > > Amalgam Removal or Cavitation Surgery †" Which Should Come First? > > ©2004 Suzin Stockton > > This is a question I'm often asked, and about which I've only > > recently begun to have a solid point of view. I would say that the > > majority of dentists today, influenced by the ADA party line, would > > respond that neither amalgam removal nor cavitation surgery is > > necessary! And I would guess that the majority of `holistic' > > dentists †" even those familiar with cavitations (and not all are) †" > > would answer that amalgam removal should be the top priority. I > > believe this perspective is born more out of greater familiarity with > > the amalgam issue than anything else. If we take a close look at the > > facts, several good reasons emerge for addressing the cavitation > > issue first, at least diagnostically. > > > > First, let me emphasize that a cavitation is a hollow area of dead > > (necrotic) or dying bone in the jaw. While bacteria may exist at > > cavitation sites, more often than not, few, if any, are found there, > > according to oral pathologist Jerry Bouquot. Bacterial trauma may > > certainly initiate the cavitation process, but by the time a > > cavitation is fully formed, infection is usually not a dominant > > clinical feature. A jawbone cavitation is predominantly an ischemic > > condition, one involving compromised blood flow to the area. The > > presence of dead bone interferes with blood supply, and any tooth > > remaining at the site slowly dies from lack of nourishment, lack of > > oxygen and inability to rid itself of toxins. This being the case, > > the treatment of choice is thorough surgical removal of any dead or > > dying bone in the jaw, along with extraction of any teeth at such > > sites. This will remove the conditions that may give rise to > > infection and prevent the spreading of jawbone necrosis (cavitations). > > > > Because jawbone cavitations are largely a result of trauma to the > > jawbone, and the majority of that trauma for most of us comes from > > standard dental treatment (drilling of teeth, extractions, root canal > > therapy, etc.), it stands to reason that the condition can be > > aggravated in the course of amalgam replacement, which involves more > > drilling, more trauma to tooth and bone. These lesions (cavitations) > > tend to spread, and their spreading may be a causative factor when > > the patient with newly placed mercury-free restorations complains of > > jaw pain or toothache where none had been before. > > > > Because many people have widespread necrosis in the jawbone (as > > evidenced through bone sonography Cavitat scans), the reality is that > > some degree of tooth loss is often necessary in order to get at dead > > bone to remove it and stop the bone loss process. This (cavitational) > > process has been referred to as gangrene of the jawbone by Colorado > > Springs cardiologist Levy. I like that description because it > > conveys the gravity of the situation, as well as an image of > > spreading tissue rot †" exactly what we have with cavitations. Now, > > come into my common sense corner for a minute: From what you already > > know about cavitations, can you tell me which teeth are likely > > candidates for extraction? Those that have been filled, root canal > > treated or capped! And, if those restorations happen to contain > > mercury, how much sense does it make to further traumatize the tooth > > (and bone) by removing the amalgam-containing restoration and placing > > a biocompatible material without first checking the condition of the > > jawbone?? If the patient first gets a Cavitat scan, s/he may well > > find that some (or possibly all) of the teeth that would otherwise > > have undergone amalgam replacement will have to be extracted to get > > at the underlying bone necrosis. Now, who wants to undergo the trauma > > and expense of amalgam replacement, just to have it followed by loss > > of the very teeth that were just restored? And this is what may well > > happen if the person has a chronic cavitation problem. Since > > cavitations are often silent (i.e., cause no local symptoms), the > > patient (and dentist) may be totally unaware of the presence of this > > serious condition, and so not take it into consideration when > > planning amalgam replacement. This oversight may set the patient up > > for more dental problems down the road, even though all concerned had > > the best of intentions. > > > > Another consideration in amalgam removal with someone who may have > > cavitations is the effect it could have on the microbial population > > of the oral cavity. Mercury, with all its associated problems, was > > once used extensively in medicine (and still is to a limited degree †" > > some hemorrhoid preparations contain it). In the 1300s, it was used > > in the form of ore cinnabar to treat syphilis. It was also once used > > to treat tuberculosis and rheumatism. The metal has been used > > medicinally because of its antiseptic qualities, a result of the > > denaturing of the enzymes of microorganisms. The anti-fungal effects > > of mercury are well known today. That's why it's used in some paints > > to retard mold. Could it be that mercury plays a similar role when > > placed in the teeth, that its presence controls the microbial > > population in the mouth to some degree? While I'm all for amalgam > > removal because of the well-documented insidious effects of mercury > > on the body, IF that amalgam lives in a mouth where there is oral > > infection, and then that mercury-containing amalgam is suddenly > > removed, it would seem possible that a result could be a > > proliferation of microbes in the mouth, causing a worsening of the > > infection. Given this possibility, it would seem wise to remove the > > conditions giving rise to " focal infection " (a walled off area of > > concentrated toxins and necrotic and/or infected tissue †" a > > cavitation!) prior to removing the mercury. Please understand clearly > > that I'm not arguing against amalgam removal, simply speculating that > > it may be in the body's best interest to first treat cavitation sites > > (by removing necrotic bone). Far from protecting the body from > > microbes, over the long haul, mercury will do just the opposite by > > weakening the immune system. Mercury contaminated neutrophils (immune > > macrophages that consume microorganisms) lose their ability to ingest > > yeast, allowing Candida and other yeast and fungi to overtake the > > body. > > > > Finally, let's look at what can happen if amalgams are removed, > > cavitations go untreated, and the patient embarks upon an oral > > chelation program using a formula that contains the sulfur- containing > > amino acids methionine and cysteine. It is known that gram- negative > > anaerobic bacteria (the kind that may be found at cavitation sites) > > desulfurate these amino acids, resulting in the formation of volatile > > sulfur compounds †" hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan. These > > compounds, in turn, form complexes with mercury that greatly increase > > its toxicity. While the anaerobic bacteria will also take sulfur from > > the amino acids in the protein food we eat, and we can't do without > > protein to starve out the microbes, we can avoid giving them extra > > sulfur through our ingestion of it in oral chelation products. So if > > you're undergoing oral chelation following amalgam replacement and > > think you may have cavitations, it may be wise to use a chelating > > agent that does not contain methionine or cysteine. If you haven't > > yet replaced your amalgams, you may wish to treat cavitations first > > to eliminate any gram-negative anaerobic bacteria. Then there should > > be no problem in using a chelation formula that contains sulfur- > > bearing amino acids. > > > > With regard to all of the above considerations, I would conclude that > > it is imperative to assess the condition of the jawbone (through use > > of bone sonography) before embarking upon amalgam replacement †" or > > any type of restorative dental work. If the jawbone is shown to be in > > good condition, I see no contraindications to proceeding with amalgam > > replacement. If some of the amalgam-restored teeth are living in > > necrotic bone, then the patient may wish to have those teeth > > extracted in conjunction with cavitation surgery and then proceed to > > have the remaining mercury-containing restorations replaced. OR the > > order may be reversed. I don't have a strong point of view about > > this, though I do tend to favor handling cavitations first. What > > matters most is that amalgam replacement is not initiated without > > regard to condition of the jawbone, so that money isn't wasted > > restoring essentially dead teeth. Whichever order of treatment the > > patient chooses, I do believe there should be as little time as > > possible put between the two events. Left untreated, cavitations will > > spread, and so should be promptly addressed following amalgam > > replacement. If the cavitation surgery is done first, and mercury > > remains in the mouth, then a significant source of toxicity has gone > > unaddressed, and this will impede the healing process. > > > > Another point that many miss is that oftentimes, after proper amalgam > > removal, some teeth subsequently die, contributing to cavitation > > formation. So it's important to have the jaws re-examined with > > sonography after amalgam removal, especially if one or more teeth > > become or remain sensitive. > > > > I believe it is very important that both patients and dentists become > > more acutely aware of the importance of assessing the condition of > > the jawbone prior to initiating any treatment that will traumatize it > > and possibly cause the spreading of cavitations. Since bone > > sonography is the most reliable and detailed method of doing such as > > assessment, it is imperative that the technology be made available on > > a larger scale than it is now. There is also a clear and pressing > > need for more dentists who are trained in diagnosis and treatment of > > cavitations. Dentists may contact Cavitat Medical Technologies (303- > > 755-2688) for information on bone sonography equipment and Dr. Wesley > > Shankland (614-794-0033) for information on an in-depth surgical > > training course that offers instruction in clinical application of > > bone sonography and gives continuing education credits. > > > > Home > > > > > > suzin@... > > POWER OF ONE PUBLISHING, c/o Renew Life, 2076 Sunnydale Blvd., > > Clearwater, FL 33765, USA > > 727-539-1700 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences with > > each other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any > > treatment discussed here, please consult your doctor. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 Wallace, It made me very ill and my heart is very damaged. Prior to getting Amalgams out and Cavitation, I was on an upward trajectory, able to travel alone and walk for 45 minutes at a time with no crash. After cavitation surgery/amalgam removal progressively confined to bed. Last 2 years, bed-bound 29/30 to 30/30 days per month. Very debilitated - that is why I want to offer this warning. If only I could go back in time.... What ever made me so, so sick - just don't let it happen to you. Lot's of people succeed - just be careful, please! L On Feb 4, 2006, at 12:48 PM, Wallace Kingston wrote: > ---Hi > > Glad you found a good dentist eventually. > > Did your health improve after, or didn't it make much impact on your > overall health? > > Sunny thoughts, > Wallace > In , Lucey <susan.lucey@...> > wrote: > > > > In 2003, Dr Cheney told me he knows of only 2 Dr.'s in the country > he > > would let in his mouth to do this kind of work- cavitation > surgery. The > > idea being - it's dangerous out there and there are lots of > dentists > > that think they know what is right for you. > > > > I had cavitation surgery by one of those who claimed to be in the > know, > > I got very sick, I take responsibility for my gullibility and > naivete. > > My second surgery was by a Dr that Dr Cheney recommended and it > was > > successful. I can't think of either of their names ( my usual > brain > > befuddlement ) but would try to find them for you if you want them. > > > > My heart and health took such a nose dive from doing it wrong, > > including the fact I did have severe osteonecrosis and > cavitations, > > full of infection. I can't deny the fact that it felt good to get > one > > of those teeth out as the infection was so pervasive. > > > > I have no other opinion than please be careful and get wise > counsel. I > > finally did with Dr Cheney. > > > > L > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Wallace Kingston wrote: > > > > > Any thoughts about this? > > > > > > Sunny thoughts, > > > Wallace > > > Amalgam Removal or Cavitation Surgery †" Which Should Come > First? > > > Â©2004 Suzin Stockton > > > This is a question I'm often asked, and about which I've only > > > recently begun to have a solid point of view. I would say that > the > > > majority of dentists today, influenced by the ADA party line, > would > > > respond that neither amalgam removal nor cavitation surgery is > > > necessary! And I would guess that the majority of `holistic' > > > dentists †" even those familiar with cavitations (and not all > are) †" > > > would answer that amalgam removal should be the top priority. I > > > believe this perspective is born more out of greater > familiarity with > > > the amalgam issue than anything else. If we take a close look > at the > > > facts, several good reasons emerge for addressing the cavitation > > > issue first, at least diagnostically. > > > > > > First, let me emphasize that a cavitation is a hollow area of > dead > > > (necrotic) or dying bone in the jaw. While bacteria may exist at > > > cavitation sites, more often than not, few, if any, are found > there, > > > according to oral pathologist Jerry Bouquot. Bacterial trauma > may > > > certainly initiate the cavitation process, but by the time a > > > cavitation is fully formed, infection is usually not a dominant > > > clinical feature. A jawbone cavitation is predominantly an > ischemic > > > condition, one involving compromised blood flow to the area. The > > > presence of dead bone interferes with blood supply, and any > tooth > > > remaining at the site slowly dies from lack of nourishment, > lack of > > > oxygen and inability to rid itself of toxins. This being the > case, > > > the treatment of choice is thorough surgical removal of any > dead or > > > dying bone in the jaw, along with extraction of any teeth at > such > > > sites. This will remove the conditions that may give rise to > > > infection and prevent the spreading of jawbone necrosis > (cavitations). > > > > > > Because jawbone cavitations are largely a result of trauma to > the > > > jawbone, and the majority of that trauma for most of us comes > from > > > standard dental treatment (drilling of teeth, extractions, root > canal > > > therapy, etc.), it stands to reason that the condition can be > > > aggravated in the course of amalgam replacement, which involves > more > > > drilling, more trauma to tooth and bone. These lesions > (cavitations) > > > tend to spread, and their spreading may be a causative factor > when > > > the patient with newly placed mercury-free restorations > complains of > > > jaw pain or toothache where none had been before. > > > > > > Because many people have widespread necrosis in the jawbone (as > > > evidenced through bone sonography Cavitat scans), the reality > is that > > > some degree of tooth loss is often necessary in order to get at > dead > > > bone to remove it and stop the bone loss process. This > (cavitational) > > > process has been referred to as gangrene of the jawbone by > Colorado > > > Springs cardiologist Levy. I like that description > because it > > > conveys the gravity of the situation, as well as an image of > > > spreading tissue rot †" exactly what we have with cavitations. > Now, > > > come into my common sense corner for a minute: From what you > already > > > know about cavitations, can you tell me which teeth are likely > > > candidates for extraction? Those that have been filled, root > canal > > > treated or capped! And, if those restorations happen to contain > > > mercury, how much sense does it make to further traumatize the > tooth > > > (and bone) by removing the amalgam-containing restoration and > placing > > > a biocompatible material without first checking the condition > of the > > > jawbone?? If the patient first gets a Cavitat scan, s/he may > well > > > find that some (or possibly all) of the teeth that would > otherwise > > > have undergone amalgam replacement will have to be extracted to > get > > > at the underlying bone necrosis. Now, who wants to undergo the > trauma > > > and expense of amalgam replacement, just to have it followed by > loss > > > of the very teeth that were just restored? And this is what may > well > > > happen if the person has a chronic cavitation problem. Since > > > cavitations are often silent (i.e., cause no local symptoms), > the > > > patient (and dentist) may be totally unaware of the presence of > this > > > serious condition, and so not take it into consideration when > > > planning amalgam replacement. This oversight may set the > patient up > > > for more dental problems down the road, even though all > concerned had > > > the best of intentions. > > > > > > Another consideration in amalgam removal with someone who may > have > > > cavitations is the effect it could have on the microbial > population > > > of the oral cavity. Mercury, with all its associated problems, > was > > > once used extensively in medicine (and still is to a limited > degree †" > > > some hemorrhoid preparations contain it). In the 1300s, it was > used > > > in the form of ore cinnabar to treat syphilis. It was also once > used > > > to treat tuberculosis and rheumatism. The metal has been used > > > medicinally because of its antiseptic qualities, a result of the > > > denaturing of the enzymes of microorganisms. The anti-fungal > effects > > > of mercury are well known today. That's why it's used in some > paints > > > to retard mold. Could it be that mercury plays a similar role > when > > > placed in the teeth, that its presence controls the microbial > > > population in the mouth to some degree? While I'm all for > amalgam > > > removal because of the well-documented insidious effects of > mercury > > > on the body, IF that amalgam lives in a mouth where there is > oral > > > infection, and then that mercury-containing amalgam is suddenly > > > removed, it would seem possible that a result could be a > > > proliferation of microbes in the mouth, causing a worsening of > the > > > infection. Given this possibility, it would seem wise to remove > the > > > conditions giving rise to " focal infection " (a walled off area > of > > > concentrated toxins and necrotic and/or infected tissue †" a > > > cavitation!) prior to removing the mercury. Please understand > clearly > > > that I'm not arguing against amalgam removal, simply > speculating that > > > it may be in the body's best interest to first treat cavitation > sites > > > (by removing necrotic bone). Far from protecting the body from > > > microbes, over the long haul, mercury will do just the opposite > by > > > weakening the immune system. Mercury contaminated neutrophils > (immune > > > macrophages that consume microorganisms) lose their ability to > ingest > > > yeast, allowing Candida and other yeast and fungi to overtake > the > > > body. > > > > > > Finally, let's look at what can happen if amalgams are removed, > > > cavitations go untreated, and the patient embarks upon an oral > > > chelation program using a formula that contains the sulfur- > containing > > > amino acids methionine and cysteine. It is known that gram- > negative > > > anaerobic bacteria (the kind that may be found at cavitation > sites) > > > desulfurate these amino acids, resulting in the formation of > volatile > > > sulfur compounds †" hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan. > These > > > compounds, in turn, form complexes with mercury that greatly > increase > > > its toxicity. While the anaerobic bacteria will also take > sulfur from > > > the amino acids in the protein food we eat, and we can't do > without > > > protein to starve out the microbes, we can avoid giving them > extra > > > sulfur through our ingestion of it in oral chelation products. > So if > > > you're undergoing oral chelation following amalgam replacement > and > > > think you may have cavitations, it may be wise to use a > chelating > > > agent that does not contain methionine or cysteine. If you > haven't > > > yet replaced your amalgams, you may wish to treat cavitations > first > > > to eliminate any gram-negative anaerobic bacteria. Then there > should > > > be no problem in using a chelation formula that contains sulfur- > > > bearing amino acids. > > > > > > With regard to all of the above considerations, I would > conclude that > > > it is imperative to assess the condition of the jawbone > (through use > > > of bone sonography) before embarking upon amalgam replacement > †" or > > > any type of restorative dental work. If the jawbone is shown to > be in > > > good condition, I see no contraindications to proceeding with > amalgam > > > replacement. If some of the amalgam-restored teeth are living in > > > necrotic bone, then the patient may wish to have those teeth > > > extracted in conjunction with cavitation surgery and then > proceed to > > > have the remaining mercury-containing restorations replaced. OR > the > > > order may be reversed. I don't have a strong point of view about > > > this, though I do tend to favor handling cavitations first. What > > > matters most is that amalgam replacement is not initiated > without > > > regard to condition of the jawbone, so that money isn't wasted > > > restoring essentially dead teeth. Whichever order of treatment > the > > > patient chooses, I do believe there should be as little time as > > > possible put between the two events. Left untreated, > cavitations will > > > spread, and so should be promptly addressed following amalgam > > > replacement. If the cavitation surgery is done first, and > mercury > > > remains in the mouth, then a significant source of toxicity has > gone > > > unaddressed, and this will impede the healing process. > > > > > > Another point that many miss is that oftentimes, after proper > amalgam > > > removal, some teeth subsequently die, contributing to cavitation > > > formation. So it's important to have the jaws re-examined with > > > sonography after amalgam removal, especially if one or more > teeth > > > become or remain sensitive. > > > > > > I believe it is very important that both patients and dentists > become > > > more acutely aware of the importance of assessing the condition > of > > > the jawbone prior to initiating any treatment that will > traumatize it > > > and possibly cause the spreading of cavitations. Since bone > > > sonography is the most reliable and detailed method of doing > such as > > > assessment, it is imperative that the technology be made > available on > > > a larger scale than it is now. There is also a clear and > pressing > > > need for more dentists who are trained in diagnosis and > treatment of > > > cavitations. Dentists may contact Cavitat Medical Technologies > (303- > > > 755-2688) for information on bone sonography equipment and Dr. > Wesley > > > Shankland (614-794-0033) for information on an in-depth surgical > > > training course that offers instruction in clinical application > of > > > bone sonography and gives continuing education credits. > > > > > > Home > > > > > > > > > suzin@... > > > POWER OF ONE PUBLISHING, c/o Renew Life, 2076 Sunnydale Blvd., > > > Clearwater, FL 33765, USA > > > 727-539-1700 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences > with > > > each other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested > in any > > > treatment discussed here, please consult your doctor. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 , That's very interesting and hopeful to see that your cavitation problem had been solved without the surgery. Can you see any particular supplement protocol or medication that helped you with solving this without surgery? Du Pre Website: http://www.angelfire.com/poetry/soareagle/index.html " By words the mind is winged. " Aristophanes " <mommysisland@...> Subject: Re: Amalgam removal? Wow, that is an interesting paper. I did amalgam removal first. On the whole, I didn't improve in the short term. Plus, I got some symptoms I didn't have before I had a root canal done through an amalgam filling. By the time I looked into cavitations, I was truly struggling. And I needed the surgery, though the dentist(Dr. Shankland, mentioned in the paper below), told me I might not improve from cavitation surgery for various reasons. I didn't have the money at the time,(and wasn't sure I should spend it there given the equivocal outcome). So my Doc and I went about trying to solve hypercoagulation symptoms in hopes of having a more favorable surgical outcome when I could afford the surgery. Time passed, we tried various things and I started with IV GSH and the oral liposomal form of GSH as well last year. This worked wonders in me. I continued chelating too. Last fall, when I was doing well, I went back to Dr. Shankland to see how the cavitations were doing and if we could schedule the surgery. We thought my body could finally handle it. First off, Dr. Shankland didn't recognize me as the same sick woman he remembered. Secondly, we were all astounded when the Cavitat scan showed the cavitations had healed! He said there is no way to make that scan go from red to green except that it is truly better. That was a happy visit. In retrospect then, I'm glad I removed the amalgams first. My jaw is okay now, and we didn't spend thousands of dollars unecessarily. I still do have two teeth with root canals. I find this both a good and bad thing: it's nice to have my own teeth, and they are still bacterial breeding grounds. Just my two cents worth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 > > > Subject: Re: Amalgam removal? Full marks to Dr Enlander , I had a dentist sell me a bill of goods, one of the suggested dentists. I wished I would have thought of going to the Dental School. Amalgam removed made me worse, then a suggestion that cavitation fixup would cure everything at another $6,000, called Dr Cheney for advice was told the phone call would cost $75. My mercury level after removal was worse than if I left it alone If 's cavitation can heal why are we being pushed into unneccessary surgery? Do I have to spend $75 to get an answer? Hilda , > That's very interesting and hopeful to see that your cavitation problem had been solved without the surgery. > Can you see any particular supplement protocol or medication that helped you with solving this without surgery? > Du Pre > > > " <mommysisland@...> > from > Wow, that is an interesting paper. > > I did amalgam removal first. On the whole, I didn't improve in the > short term. Plus, I got some symptoms I didn't have before I had a > root canal done through an amalgam filling. By the time I looked into cavitations, I was truly struggling. > > And I needed the surgery, though the dentist mentioned , told me I might not improve from cavitation > surgery for various reasons. I didn't have the money at the time, (and > wasn't sure I should spend it there given the equivocal outcome). > ............. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.