Gerson Institute claim root canal tx should never be done 
Author Message
 Gerson Institute claim root canal tx should never be done

I've read in this newsgroup about a gentleman who opted to have his molar
removed instead of having a root c{*filter*}treatment after reading Gerson
Institute (an alternative medicine co.) web page (www.gerson.org).  Being a
dentist I decided to e-mail  Gerson, as the web page I had read referred to a
study done by Dr.Meinig & Dr.Price.  Apparently, the study had been done on
rabbits, as they were implanted with human root c{*filter*}treated teeth under the
skin, and eventually they all fell ill. There was a control group of rabbits
that were implanted with teeth that were not root c{*filter*}treated, and of course
they were fine! The study sounded so convincing in its description that I
decided to ask for a copy of the study, as I perform the procedure almost
daily.

Well, they were kind enough to reply to my request.  However, initially they
recommended that I buy the book, that should include the summary of the study
for $19.95.  When I expressed that a scientific study should be available to
all members of the profession in form of a portion of a scientific journal,
they admitted that there are no available records of the date, data, or the
journal that the study was printed on.

To the general public, in interest of your health and well-being, including
the gentleman who had his tooth pulled on recommendation of this group, my
point is this;
Any valid scientific studies should be printed on a reputable scientific
journal or paper, which then should be scrutinized and the study be repeated
by an independent group.  Without such, anybody can claim anything that they
believe is true not what is factually true.  Any starving professional with a
degree could claim whatever in order to make some money which I believe is the
intentions of Dr. Meinig.  

So, please don't go out and get your teeth ripped out on recommendation of
this group.  It scares me to think that some members of general public could
be so gullible.



Wed, 14 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Gerson Institute claim root canal tx should never be done

I wouldn't say never, but I definately would use Biocalex, otherwise I
would have the tooth pulled too. I've met and talked with too many people
who have recovered their health after having their root canalled teeth
pulled to put it off as hokum. Price and Meinig knew exactly what they
were talking about. However, at the time, Biocalex wasn't yet approved or
in widespread use so there is an alternative to yanking the tooth
outright.

Quote:

>I've read in this newsgroup about a gentleman who opted to have his molar
>removed instead of having a root c{*filter*}treatment after reading Gerson
>Institute (an alternative medicine co.) web page (www.gerson.org).  Being a
>dentist I decided to e-mail  Gerson, as the web page I had read referred to a
>study done by Dr.Meinig & Dr.Price.  Apparently, the study had been done on
>rabbits, as they were implanted with human root c{*filter*}treated teeth under the
>skin, and eventually they all fell ill. There was a control group of rabbits
>that were implanted with teeth that were not root c{*filter*}treated, and of course
>they were fine! The study sounded so convincing in its description that I
>decided to ask for a copy of the study, as I perform the procedure almost
>daily.
..

>So, please don't go out and get your teeth ripped out on recommendation of
>this group.  It scares me to think that some members of general public could
>be so gullible.

And it scares me to think that as a professional, you wouldn't even try
to look up Price's research to see if there may be a grain of truth to
it. He was way back then, an ADA researcher if I remember correctly.

--

http://www.***.com/ ~goodman/f/fluoride.htm
http://www.***.com/



Wed, 21 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Gerson Institute claim root canal tx should never be done

<<<
I wouldn't say never, but I definately would use Biocalex, otherwise I
would have the tooth pulled too. I've met and talked with too many people
who have recovered their health after having their root canalled teeth
pulled to put it off as hokum. Price and Meinig knew exactly what they
were talking about. However, at the time, Biocalex wasn't yet approved or
in widespread use so there is an alternative to yanking the tooth
outright.>>>

Elke,
I neither expect, nor want an answer from you. I'm just writing to say
that you really need another obsession besides dentistry. I actually had a
modicum of respect for your opinions, as I thought, even though admittedly
you have no formal background in science, you believed in the science of
your dissertations. The above post puts that all to rest. You have no idea
what a disservice you are doing to the anti-fluoridation camp, if this is
how you perceive your science.
I'm sure, if you search, you will also find a substantial number of people
who have been abducted by aliens. Enough said.



Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Gerson Institute claim root canal tx should never be done


Quote:
>I wouldn't say never, but I definately would use Biocalex, otherwise I
>would have the tooth pulled too. I've met and talked with too many people
>who have recovered their health after having their root canalled teeth
>pulled to put it off as hokum. Price and Meinig knew exactly what they
>were talking about. However, at the time, Biocalex wasn't yet approved or
>in widespread use so there is an alternative to yanking the tooth
>outright.

..
Quote:

>I have since the posting, been in touch with an endodontist who has read the research done by Dr. Price around the year 1917, as a =

part of his graduate study research.  Few things I want you to be aware of before you start knocking my intentions as I am as open m=
inded as any dentist about any subject provided there are proper scientific, repeatable study backed by sound data and research meth=
ods.>

If you are as open-minded as you say, why consult with another dentist
instead of looking at Price's research yourself, or why didn't you ask me
about biocalex instead of being side-tracked?

Quote:
>1) there were no control groups in the study, which immediately discards it from being considered a scientifical study]>

Gee, I guess some fluoride studies would have to be thrown out.

Quote:
>2) the techniques and materials used for root c{*filter*}treatments have evolved significantly since 1917 to claim the study would be a =

valid one today. It may have been "good science" at the time but hey, even my parents weren't born yet in 1917>

With this I agree with you but that doesn't necessarily mean that the
earlier research is without foundation. It just has to be approached
cautiously. Ironically, the entire premise for fluoridation, like an
inverted triangle, rests on the early crude epidemiological evidence of a
few selected studies. When newer more sophisticated and larger studies
show little or no statistically significant differences in DMFT, many
fluoridation proponents still bring up these crude studies as proof it
does really work and find all sorts of excuses for the new findings. This
was recently done in a government-sponsored Canadian review.  The one
thing I have noticed through all of this is that when it suits some
members of the dental profession to use science, that's what happens.
When it suits some members of the dental profession to use rhetoric and
ignore science, again that's what happens. It's no wonder the public is
confused sometimes.

Quote:
>3) I perform the procedure almost daily and I have not seen them fall to

illness. Furthermore, I see patients who had root c{*filter*}tx decades ago
who all seem to be doing fine and in good health>
     ^^^^ Seem to be?

Quote:
>You refer to patients who had gotten so much better since they had gotten their root c{*filter*}treated teeth removed.  Have you heard o=

f placebo effect? >

Yes as a matter of fact I have. Isn't it interesting that when science
doesn't have any explanations, it reverts to explanations of placebo,
hysteria, mass hysteria, etc. etc. to try to explain that which it can't.
Since you put so much importance on science, what is the scientific basis
for the placebo effect?

Quote:
>It can be a very powerful thing.  There are people who have been given placebo in many studies that claim to "feel better" from the=

ir illnesses.  This is the  reason why control groups are necessary in all scientific studies. >

Quote:
>Finally, what may I ask are your credentials?  

My credentials are irrelevant here.

Quote:
>Are you criticizing me for what

you know is a fact or is what you merely "believe" from "talking to other
people"?  >
If you note my original statements, you will notice that I used "I"
several times. Shouldn't that answer your question? My original criticism
was directed at your "belief" since it was pretty clear that you have not
read either Price's earlier work or Meinig's book before you ventured
forth with your criticism of the Gerson Institute (which is very well
respected in holistic circles BTW) and your criticism of some of the
general public as "guillable". Most are not as stupid as some believe
them to be.

Quote:
>When you can perform a proper scientific study and send me the

facts, I'll certainly examine it and advise my patients accordingly.  In
the mean time, do the general public a favour.  You can do whatever you'd
like with your own teeth, but don't be recommending your beliefs to
anyone else. >

I have thank you very much. I tend to give the public a little more
credit, so anyone reading my paragraph is probably intelligent enough to
figure out that before an informed decision can be made, information has
to be gathered.

Some dentists sure do get defensive. Read my paragraph again. Root canals
can be safely done with Biocalex. There is an old adage and it applies
here (especially since electronic communication can be so easily
misunderstood):
     "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I
am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

Hope this clears up some misconceptions.

Regards, Elke

--
"Dental fluorosis, no matter how slight, is an irreversible
pathological condition recognized by authorities around
the world as the first detectable clinical symptom of previous
fluoride poisoning." G. Smith, Dental Surgeon, 1983

http://www.***.com/ ~goodman/f/fluoride.htm
http://www.***.com/



Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Gerson Institute claim root canal tx should never be done

Quote:

>I neither expect, nor want an answer from you. I'm just writing to say
>that you really need another obsession besides dentistry.

Ah, but dentistry is so much fun.

Quote:
>I actually had a modicum of respect for your opinions, as I thought,
>even though admittedly you have no formal background in science,
>you believed in the science of your dissertations. The above post puts
>that all to rest. You have no idea what a disservice you are doing to
>the anti-fluoridation camp, if this is how you perceive your science.

The one has nothing to do with the other. If you can't distinguish
between opinion and science, then it's your problem not mine.

Quote:
>I'm sure, if you search, you will also find a substantial number
>of people who have been abducted by aliens. Enough said.

Shades of the X-files! I never thought of that. Thanks for the career
tip.

Regards,Elke

--
"Dental fluorosis, no matter how slight, is an irreversible
pathological condition recognized by authorities around
the world as the first detectable clinical symptom of previous
fluoride poisoning." G. Smith, Dental Surgeon, 1983

http://www.sonic.net/~goodman/f/fluoride.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/PDHA/health.htm



Thu, 22 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Gerson Institute claim root canal tx should never be done


Quote:
>So, please don't go out and get your teeth ripped out on
recommendation of
>this group.  It scares me to think that some members of general public
could
>be so gullible.

Dr. Lee,

What scares you...the fact that some members of the public are so
gullible...or that some of them are actually able to log-on and read
and type?

R. Markoff, DDS



Fri, 23 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Gerson Institute claim root canal tx should never be done


Quote:


>>I wouldn't say never, but I definately would use Biocalex, otherwise I
>>would have the tooth pulled too. I've met and talked with too many people
>>who have recovered their health after having their root canalled teeth
>>pulled to put it off as hokum. Price and Meinig knew exactly what they
>>were talking about. However, at the time, Biocalex wasn't yet approved or
>>in widespread use so there is an alternative to yanking the tooth
>>outright.

>..

>>I have since the posting, been in touch with an endodontist who has read the

research done by Dr. Price around the year 1917, as a =
Quote:
>part of his graduate study research.  Few things I want you to be aware of

before you start knocking my intentions as I am as open m=
Quote:
>inded as any dentist about any subject provided there are proper scientific,

repeatable study backed by sound data and research meth=
Quote:
>ods.>

>If you are as open-minded as you say, why consult with another dentist
>instead of looking at Price's research yourself, or why didn't you ask me
>about biocalex instead of being side-tracked?

>>1) there were no control groups in the study, which immediately discards it

from being considered a scientifical study]>
Quote:

>Gee, I guess some fluoride studies would have to be thrown out.

>>2) the techniques and materials used for root c{*filter*}treatments have evolved

significantly since 1917 to claim the study would be a =
Quote:
>valid one today. It may have been "good science" at the time but hey, even my

parents weren't born yet in 1917>
Quote:

>With this I agree with you but that doesn't necessarily mean that the
>earlier research is without foundation. It just has to be approached
>cautiously. Ironically, the entire premise for fluoridation, like an
>inverted triangle, rests on the early crude epidemiological evidence of a
>few selected studies. When newer more sophisticated and larger studies
>show little or no statistically significant differences in DMFT, many
>fluoridation proponents still bring up these crude studies as proof it
>does really work and find all sorts of excuses for the new findings. This
>was recently done in a government-sponsored Canadian review.  The one
>thing I have noticed through all of this is that when it suits some
>members of the dental profession to use science, that's what happens.
>When it suits some members of the dental profession to use rhetoric and
>ignore science, again that's what happens. It's no wonder the public is
>confused sometimes.

>>3) I perform the procedure almost daily and I have not seen them fall to
>illness. Furthermore, I see patients who had root c{*filter*}tx decades ago
>who all seem to be doing fine and in good health>
>     ^^^^ Seem to be?

>>You refer to patients who had gotten so much better since they had gotten

their root c{*filter*}treated teeth removed.  Have you heard o=
Quote:
>f placebo effect? >

>Yes as a matter of fact I have. Isn't it interesting that when science
>doesn't have any explanations, it reverts to explanations of placebo,
>hysteria, mass hysteria, etc. etc. to try to explain that which it can't.
>Since you put so much importance on science, what is the scientific basis
>for the placebo effect?

>>It can be a very powerful thing.  There are people who have been given

placebo in many studies that claim to "feel better" from the=
Quote:
>ir illnesses.  This is the  reason why control groups are necessary in all

scientific studies. >

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>>Finally, what may I ask are your credentials?  
>My credentials are irrelevant here.

>>Are you criticizing me for what
>you know is a fact or is what you merely "believe" from "talking to other
>people"?  >
>If you note my original statements, you will notice that I used "I"
>several times. Shouldn't that answer your question? My original criticism
>was directed at your "belief" since it was pretty clear that you have not
>read either Price's earlier work or Meinig's book before you ventured
>forth with your criticism of the Gerson Institute (which is very well
>respected in holistic circles BTW) and your criticism of some of the
>general public as "guillable". Most are not as stupid as some believe
>them to be.

>>When you can perform a proper scientific study and send me the
>facts, I'll certainly examine it and advise my patients accordingly.  In
>the mean time, do the general public a favour.  You can do whatever you'd
>like with your own teeth, but don't be recommending your beliefs to
>anyone else. >

>I have thank you very much. I tend to give the public a little more
>credit, so anyone reading my paragraph is probably intelligent enough to
>figure out that before an informed decision can be made, information has
>to be gathered.

>Some dentists sure do get defensive. Read my paragraph again. Root canals
>can be safely done with Biocalex. There is an old adage and it applies
>here (especially since electronic communication can be so easily
>misunderstood):
>     "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I
>am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

>Hope this clears up some misconceptions.

>Regards, Elke

>--
>"Dental fluorosis, no matter how slight, is an irreversible
>pathological condition recognized by authorities around
>the world as the first detectable clinical symptom of previous
>fluoride poisoning." G. Smith, Dental Surgeon, 1983

> http://www.***.com/ ~goodman/f/fluoride.htm
> http://www.***.com/

>Dear Elke;

I am interested in knowing about biocalex. However you said yourself it's not
approved for use yet so what's the point? Would you like me to use it for my
patients even though I may be doing so illegally?  It was my perception since
you said "I would use Biocalex for root c{*filter*}tx."  that you are a dental
professional.
On the other hand you are telling me you've never heard of studies in which
placebo pills in form of sugar, have been shown to relieve anything from
hypertension to dental pain in certain individuals?
As well, what's fluoridation got to do with what I was discussing?  I am
merely trying to prevent some individuals who may choose to have their teeth
removed without finding out the scientific basis for the safety of root c{*filter*}
treatments.  
Oh, the reason I can't study the paper by Dr. Price for myself is that it
seems our local dental library doesn't seem to have it! It does go back to
1917.  From the sounds of it, you certainly seem to have read it, so will you
give me the name of the science journal and the volume so I may be able to see
it for myself?  It seems the endodontist I have talked to over the net may
have hard time locating it.  He did say he read it for historical interest's
sake, not of scientific interest.      
I am very interested in knowing your occupation. If you are not a dentist, do
you have ANY scientific background?  This may be sidetracking a little bit
but, the other day I had problems with my computer which is not my expertise.
 By trying to fix it, I got into bigger problems than what I started with.  Of
course, the computer guy fixed it for me in ten minutes.  The m{*filter*}of the
story?  You may be smarter than I am, but you certainly don't know as much as
I do when it comes to teeth and the {*filter*}cavity.  Your postings are quite
amusing and actually, I am sure the computer guy was thinking the same thing
having seen what I had tried.  I am sure other dentists think the same.
Write back and amuse me some more.

Regards,
Dr. W. Lee DDS



Sat, 24 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 Gerson Institute claim root canal tx should never be done


says...

Quote:


>>So, please don't go out and get your teeth ripped out on
>recommendation of
>>this group.  It scares me to think that some members of general public
>could
>>be so gullible.

>Dr. Lee,

>What scares you...the fact that some members of the public are so
>gullible...or that some of them are actually able to log-on and read
>and type?

>R. Markoff, DDS

>Dr. Markoff

The former.  By the way are you recommending extraction for your patients
whenever the pulp becomes necrotic?  I believe that falls under malpractice
according to our governing body.

Dr. W. Lee DDS



Mon, 26 Jul 1999 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 8 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Gerson Institute claim root canal tx should never be done

2. Pain after Crown/Root Canal was done

3. Root Canal Therapy Done Twice Please Help

4. Root Canal work done when not needed?

5. Looking for info on Gerson Institute.

6. Need info about Gerson Institute

7. Gerson Institutes or therapy in Europe?

8. Root Canal,/Calicified Roots

9. Root Canal - Possible Root Remaining

10. HELP - Root Canal - Instrument broke off in canal

11. excess filling found in the root area after root canal


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software