Wow! Thank you. You might find this anecdote interesting:
A couple of years ago I had a sinus infection that I just couldn't shake. Aside from very mild seasonal hay fever, I had never had sinus issues. I went to an ear, nose and throat specialist for an unrelated problem and during my examination I mentioned my sinus problem. He scoped my nostrils and said everything looks normal. He then said the problem was most likely being caused by one of my upper molars that had been root canalled decades ago. He said "You won't feel it like a toothache, but it's very likely infected." I had the tooth properly extracted, and in two or three weeks the sinus issues were gone.
Also, at this same time I had been having a strange issue with my vision. I did not relate this to the sinus problem. When I would get up during the night to use the bathroom, everything appeared to be tinted red. This would last about thirty seconds and then clear up. This problem also cleared up along with the sinus problem.
PLEASE DON'T EVER apologize for publishing too much! Your stacks are so necessary and incredibly important.
You wrote:
"You will notice I am publishing more than usual. I am on holidays now for a couple of weeks, and my wife is overseas, and I have a backlog of writing to catch up on. Don’t worry, once I’m back at work it will quieten down again."
Having had many root canals ;-(, you got me concerned a minute, but then I used the framework of Bolus Theory. And evidently, bacterial infection there is cause for concern, but I have a few issues with some the statements above.
1) it looks to me as scapegoating of the dentists by the medical profession. Frankly. Quite the typical, and they'll add one or 2 deadly sins to it...."glutonny" to make it more convincing in the collective psyche.
2) it doesn't fit at all with the bolus Theory. If toxins can indeed trigger cancer via stem cell poisoning, it is very doubtful that (A) any significant concentration ever reaches the breast bc the vascular system does its poison disseminating job, and that no bolus would be ever get created (bc toxins are slowly released), (B) it is also very improbable that the toxins would reach the endothelial niches whereby the stem cells are hidden away.
3) The link to the breast appears sketchy at best. The lymph nodes aren't the same. If that were true, it would trigger lung cancer via vein contamination more likely. The idea that concentrated poison occurs via the lymph is unreasonable. But may be I am missing something.
4) And more importantly, then men should be have cancers too. They too have root canals.
Thanks for the hard work. Very interesting. I think we've evolved to avoid these kind of events.
Nevertheless having constant infection can't be good.
I’m researching cancer after reading this. I suspect cancer is a reaction to chronic dehydration or hyponatremia/low salt.
The researchers say cancer tumours are acidic and have irregular blood perfusion with torturous vascularity. A lot of tumours present with hyponatremia concurrently.
Tumours are hard to treat because they are dehydrated so they like to fix that first so their drugs can penetrate.
I’ve read some similar articles in the past, and I have a question, especially as this piece specifically mentioned the differences found in healthy teeth removed for orthodontic purposes, and that is not something I’ve seen others draw attention to, only saying that extracted teeth often leave behind infection that is not noticed at the site.
I want to know what is the likelihood of developing a symptomless infection in the jaw after the removal of a healthy tooth.
I don't think it can. One, or both, of them is wrong. I think that the root canal thesis is closer to the truth than BC being triggered by a "mother-child worry-conflict" or a "nest-worry conflict."
They both can be true actually, at different levels. Chemical and energetic. Unprocessed emotions (trauma) is the foundation for many healing modalities. Keep it in the back of your mind, ar some point ot will make sense.
An informative contribution to the subject comes from https://boobsdoc.com/ - and integrates closely with an excellent book by Peter Gøtzsche, “Mammography Screening, truth, lies and controversy”, a 446-page long report which could have a subtitle like “Things you should have been taught in high school, but they considered it unimportant”.
Interestingly enough, nobody seems to touch (pun intended) on the obvious question: why breasts? We have so many parts of the body, some of them are even more exposed to potential hazards (e.g. hair - why no hair cancer?). The face is under constant, 24/7 attack from literally everything - why no face cancer?
A hint for the answer may be hidden in plain sight. Check what areas of the body are targeted most by the cosmetic industry. Hair, face, lips, eyelids, hands, feet, neck, back. That’s it. You apply tons of chemicals on these parts, mix these completely artificial substances with each other. You change them at will, mixing products from different manufacturers. Yet, no cancer. Why? No allergies, why? Why no lips cancer? Why no eyelid cancer?
The answer may be hidden in the method used to apply these chemicals. You do it by pressure. The chemical has to be placed on the desired part of the body by direct physical contact. Except lips and eyelids, the preferred manner is by using hands. Massage. Touching the body and devoting a lot of attention to its selected parts.
Loving attention, single-focus attention. Pure attention, with no stupid thoughts, idiotic comments or discomforting pressure. No undercurrents. No implied anything. You touch your hair for the sake of the touch alone. Your face skin is nourished with touch, from hands, from masks, from plants applied, all through the grace of the touch. You have to spread these chemicals by gentle, loving movements of your hands. Or of hands of other persons. The nourishing touch gives life to your skin in these selected parts of your body. And it probably gives them a different form of immunity - because you use your hands to touch everything around, including hundreds of hands, each with different armies of germs. Yet, no hand cancer. Is it the touch?
But breasts, no. You must not touch them. If you have to, do it quick, as if by accident. And forget. Don’t even think about other people touching your breasts. We have been programmed to associate breasts with undesired interactions. How can you avoid them? By forgetting the breasts. Not visually, obviously, because this is the strongest tool for the power and control game. But touching, no. Because the touch is the only basic sense that is forbidden in the “civilized” society.
Except… plastic surgery. There you finally can allow a stranger to touch your breast, and you will even pay for it. You will pay twice. First, when you spend a fortune to destroy your beautiful, natural body and be re-formed to assume a shape that is the product of the anonymous imagination. And the second time, when a cascade of complications will arrive. The civilized, approved method of touching the breast is by paid maiming. Intimacy, being nourished by the physical presence of another person, skin-to-skin acceptance - no.
And then this inner imprinted hatred directed against your own breasts grows and spreads.
Of course the more toxins you put on your body, in your home and breath in all around you (think toxic fragrances everywhere!) the liver cannot keep up its job of keeping you detoxing these out quick enough. Anthony Williams the medical medium is helping people detox and advice is lower your toxins, we are being bombarded daily. In 80 years over 100,000 chemicals have been introduced and mostly without proper safety tests. I am so over fragrances, hand sanitisers are everywhere now, even on my shopping when I order online argh!
I’d hesitate with a totalitarian summary, so to say. Some chemicals are needed, and not necessarily toxic, think of certain lotions for skin problems, for example. Even bio products may be harmful just because they are foreign to the body. Or may be very beneficial due to the same reason.
So it’s all a matter of serious product development work and checking interactions. We may theoretically assume that both these procedures are done insufficiently, partly for limited finances and time, partly because they are impossible tasks even with 20-30 substances, what to say about thousands, and partly for financial reasons in the “net profit” line of the balance sheet.
Maybe the problem with the overflow of chemicals is that too many people have never really worked and are not interested in working? They are educated in chemistry and finances or their only “work” is about opening, owning or managing businesses. If we managed to offer them guided tours in Chinese workplaces (one-way tickets), the bio-chemical industries would be more inclined to do their due diligence as they should. Just an idea. Nobody tested it, why not try?
I am not sure about your reply, I still feel our bodies cannot naturally cope with the amount of manmade chemicals, please name me one that has been tested correctly and safe? There testing is like anything else, more important for profits than passing a 100% safe product without side effects which they cannot test long enough to find out because of the pressure to get it on the market asap and cost of testing, no profit in testing.
I have put it a bit awkwardly, let me try to correct it.
The balance of good and bad effects of chemicals on the body is potentially harmful and should be assessed before using any of them, that’s obvious. However, making a statement on the total sum of anything may be harmful in a different way. We seem to be prone to adopting generalizations more easily than balanced, case-by-case opinions. Thus, after reading something like “all cosmetics are bad”, we may willingly (although subconsciously or unconsciously) discard what may be helpful.
It’s the same as saying “allopathic medicine is wrong”. Well, it isn’t, and it may even save life, depending on circumstances. Yes, it errs occasionally (or even mostly), but it should not be an excuse to discredit it.
Aside from the more abstract concept that “things” are never good or bad, it’s the user who chooses what to make out of them.
My comment was not against yours, I meant it as an elaboration.
I have been using only filtered water for about 30 years. It would be interesting to have a clinical study of those who drink whatever is given and the filtered water “cult members”, and compare what happens to their biochemistry after 2, 5 or 10 years. I have no idea about it. The only thing I can observe is that I get a cold only when I want it (bad weather, wrong clothes or cleaning up the house where there is plenty of old stuff, dust, etc.). It is so rare that I cannot draw and conclusions on patterns. But the last one was gone after three days, with no breaks in my job or daily routines. Who knows, maybe it is somehow related.
Great read and all a bit scary, but breast cancer does occur in many people who do not have any teeth issues too. Anthony Williams the medical medium talks a lot about toxic overload causing all sorts of issues and we need to keep our bodies healthy by removing as many toxins as possible: https://www.medicalmedium.com/blog/oral-health-essentials
Wow! Thank you. You might find this anecdote interesting:
A couple of years ago I had a sinus infection that I just couldn't shake. Aside from very mild seasonal hay fever, I had never had sinus issues. I went to an ear, nose and throat specialist for an unrelated problem and during my examination I mentioned my sinus problem. He scoped my nostrils and said everything looks normal. He then said the problem was most likely being caused by one of my upper molars that had been root canalled decades ago. He said "You won't feel it like a toothache, but it's very likely infected." I had the tooth properly extracted, and in two or three weeks the sinus issues were gone.
Also, at this same time I had been having a strange issue with my vision. I did not relate this to the sinus problem. When I would get up during the night to use the bathroom, everything appeared to be tinted red. This would last about thirty seconds and then clear up. This problem also cleared up along with the sinus problem.
Thank you for every word that you write.
Thank you for a most interesting comment. I put far more stock in anecdotes that in peer reviewed "official stories". Merry Christmas!
Thank you. Merry Christmas to you too.
Very much appreciated! Dr.Robert Yoho does a substantial Substack on All things dental as well. What a eye opener! Thank you!
Thanks, indeed Yoho is doing great work revealing the corruption of Dentistry. he has a new book solely focused on the subject.
PLEASE DON'T EVER apologize for publishing too much! Your stacks are so necessary and incredibly important.
You wrote:
"You will notice I am publishing more than usual. I am on holidays now for a couple of weeks, and my wife is overseas, and I have a backlog of writing to catch up on. Don’t worry, once I’m back at work it will quieten down again."
Mon ami,
Merry Xmas.
Having had many root canals ;-(, you got me concerned a minute, but then I used the framework of Bolus Theory. And evidently, bacterial infection there is cause for concern, but I have a few issues with some the statements above.
1) it looks to me as scapegoating of the dentists by the medical profession. Frankly. Quite the typical, and they'll add one or 2 deadly sins to it...."glutonny" to make it more convincing in the collective psyche.
2) it doesn't fit at all with the bolus Theory. If toxins can indeed trigger cancer via stem cell poisoning, it is very doubtful that (A) any significant concentration ever reaches the breast bc the vascular system does its poison disseminating job, and that no bolus would be ever get created (bc toxins are slowly released), (B) it is also very improbable that the toxins would reach the endothelial niches whereby the stem cells are hidden away.
3) The link to the breast appears sketchy at best. The lymph nodes aren't the same. If that were true, it would trigger lung cancer via vein contamination more likely. The idea that concentrated poison occurs via the lymph is unreasonable. But may be I am missing something.
4) And more importantly, then men should be have cancers too. They too have root canals.
Thanks for the hard work. Very interesting. I think we've evolved to avoid these kind of events.
Nevertheless having constant infection can't be good.
Best,
Marc
Thanks Marc!
As I was writing and putting the stack together, I was thinking "what will Marc think..."
I really wanted to know how you would think about it...you've added a useful and helpful addition to the conversation.
Merry Christmas Marc, to you and your family!
Please don't tell me about what they put in dental anaesthetics...
So it's back to the ol' fishing line and slam the door?
Just lost a loved one to an infection I believe started in root canals.
I am passing this on to others.
I’m researching cancer after reading this. I suspect cancer is a reaction to chronic dehydration or hyponatremia/low salt.
The researchers say cancer tumours are acidic and have irregular blood perfusion with torturous vascularity. A lot of tumours present with hyponatremia concurrently.
Tumours are hard to treat because they are dehydrated so they like to fix that first so their drugs can penetrate.
I’ve read some similar articles in the past, and I have a question, especially as this piece specifically mentioned the differences found in healthy teeth removed for orthodontic purposes, and that is not something I’ve seen others draw attention to, only saying that extracted teeth often leave behind infection that is not noticed at the site.
I want to know what is the likelihood of developing a symptomless infection in the jaw after the removal of a healthy tooth.
Thanks.
The odds and reasonable to quite high.
The documentary Root Cause spends quite a bit of time on "cavitations" and their infections.
Wow our bodies were so smart until we decided we knew better. Thank you a very interesting topic and definitely one to follow up on - merry Christmas
Merry Christmas!
How can the tooth infection root cause by reconciled with an emotional root cause as proposed by German New Medicine:
https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/i_breastcancerarticle.html
I don't think it can. One, or both, of them is wrong. I think that the root canal thesis is closer to the truth than BC being triggered by a "mother-child worry-conflict" or a "nest-worry conflict."
They both can be true actually, at different levels. Chemical and energetic. Unprocessed emotions (trauma) is the foundation for many healing modalities. Keep it in the back of your mind, ar some point ot will make sense.
An informative contribution to the subject comes from https://boobsdoc.com/ - and integrates closely with an excellent book by Peter Gøtzsche, “Mammography Screening, truth, lies and controversy”, a 446-page long report which could have a subtitle like “Things you should have been taught in high school, but they considered it unimportant”.
Interestingly enough, nobody seems to touch (pun intended) on the obvious question: why breasts? We have so many parts of the body, some of them are even more exposed to potential hazards (e.g. hair - why no hair cancer?). The face is under constant, 24/7 attack from literally everything - why no face cancer?
A hint for the answer may be hidden in plain sight. Check what areas of the body are targeted most by the cosmetic industry. Hair, face, lips, eyelids, hands, feet, neck, back. That’s it. You apply tons of chemicals on these parts, mix these completely artificial substances with each other. You change them at will, mixing products from different manufacturers. Yet, no cancer. Why? No allergies, why? Why no lips cancer? Why no eyelid cancer?
The answer may be hidden in the method used to apply these chemicals. You do it by pressure. The chemical has to be placed on the desired part of the body by direct physical contact. Except lips and eyelids, the preferred manner is by using hands. Massage. Touching the body and devoting a lot of attention to its selected parts.
Loving attention, single-focus attention. Pure attention, with no stupid thoughts, idiotic comments or discomforting pressure. No undercurrents. No implied anything. You touch your hair for the sake of the touch alone. Your face skin is nourished with touch, from hands, from masks, from plants applied, all through the grace of the touch. You have to spread these chemicals by gentle, loving movements of your hands. Or of hands of other persons. The nourishing touch gives life to your skin in these selected parts of your body. And it probably gives them a different form of immunity - because you use your hands to touch everything around, including hundreds of hands, each with different armies of germs. Yet, no hand cancer. Is it the touch?
But breasts, no. You must not touch them. If you have to, do it quick, as if by accident. And forget. Don’t even think about other people touching your breasts. We have been programmed to associate breasts with undesired interactions. How can you avoid them? By forgetting the breasts. Not visually, obviously, because this is the strongest tool for the power and control game. But touching, no. Because the touch is the only basic sense that is forbidden in the “civilized” society.
Except… plastic surgery. There you finally can allow a stranger to touch your breast, and you will even pay for it. You will pay twice. First, when you spend a fortune to destroy your beautiful, natural body and be re-formed to assume a shape that is the product of the anonymous imagination. And the second time, when a cascade of complications will arrive. The civilized, approved method of touching the breast is by paid maiming. Intimacy, being nourished by the physical presence of another person, skin-to-skin acceptance - no.
And then this inner imprinted hatred directed against your own breasts grows and spreads.
Of course the more toxins you put on your body, in your home and breath in all around you (think toxic fragrances everywhere!) the liver cannot keep up its job of keeping you detoxing these out quick enough. Anthony Williams the medical medium is helping people detox and advice is lower your toxins, we are being bombarded daily. In 80 years over 100,000 chemicals have been introduced and mostly without proper safety tests. I am so over fragrances, hand sanitisers are everywhere now, even on my shopping when I order online argh!
I’d hesitate with a totalitarian summary, so to say. Some chemicals are needed, and not necessarily toxic, think of certain lotions for skin problems, for example. Even bio products may be harmful just because they are foreign to the body. Or may be very beneficial due to the same reason.
So it’s all a matter of serious product development work and checking interactions. We may theoretically assume that both these procedures are done insufficiently, partly for limited finances and time, partly because they are impossible tasks even with 20-30 substances, what to say about thousands, and partly for financial reasons in the “net profit” line of the balance sheet.
Maybe the problem with the overflow of chemicals is that too many people have never really worked and are not interested in working? They are educated in chemistry and finances or their only “work” is about opening, owning or managing businesses. If we managed to offer them guided tours in Chinese workplaces (one-way tickets), the bio-chemical industries would be more inclined to do their due diligence as they should. Just an idea. Nobody tested it, why not try?
I am not sure about your reply, I still feel our bodies cannot naturally cope with the amount of manmade chemicals, please name me one that has been tested correctly and safe? There testing is like anything else, more important for profits than passing a 100% safe product without side effects which they cannot test long enough to find out because of the pressure to get it on the market asap and cost of testing, no profit in testing.
I have put it a bit awkwardly, let me try to correct it.
The balance of good and bad effects of chemicals on the body is potentially harmful and should be assessed before using any of them, that’s obvious. However, making a statement on the total sum of anything may be harmful in a different way. We seem to be prone to adopting generalizations more easily than balanced, case-by-case opinions. Thus, after reading something like “all cosmetics are bad”, we may willingly (although subconsciously or unconsciously) discard what may be helpful.
It’s the same as saying “allopathic medicine is wrong”. Well, it isn’t, and it may even save life, depending on circumstances. Yes, it errs occasionally (or even mostly), but it should not be an excuse to discredit it.
Aside from the more abstract concept that “things” are never good or bad, it’s the user who chooses what to make out of them.
My comment was not against yours, I meant it as an elaboration.
No worries, I get it. Personally, I still prefer using natural as much as possibe, how nature intended.
Same here.
I have been using only filtered water for about 30 years. It would be interesting to have a clinical study of those who drink whatever is given and the filtered water “cult members”, and compare what happens to their biochemistry after 2, 5 or 10 years. I have no idea about it. The only thing I can observe is that I get a cold only when I want it (bad weather, wrong clothes or cleaning up the house where there is plenty of old stuff, dust, etc.). It is so rare that I cannot draw and conclusions on patterns. But the last one was gone after three days, with no breaks in my job or daily routines. Who knows, maybe it is somehow related.
Great read and all a bit scary, but breast cancer does occur in many people who do not have any teeth issues too. Anthony Williams the medical medium talks a lot about toxic overload causing all sorts of issues and we need to keep our bodies healthy by removing as many toxins as possible: https://www.medicalmedium.com/blog/oral-health-essentials