: dentists recommended by dr. cheney

[Guest guest]

Hi :

I'd like to know the name of the dentists recommedned by Dr Cheney

for cavitation surgery.

thanks,

>

> > 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.

> >

> >

> >

> >