What Is Fluoride?

Fluoride is defined as a salt of hydrofluoric acid consisting of two elements. The first element is fluorine, which, in its elemental form, is part of the Earth’s crust. This doesn’t mean much to a parent unless they understand that Dr. Robert Carton, a former EPA toxicologist, considers fluoride “somewhat less toxic than arsenic and more toxic than lead.” Now that they understand!

What doesn’t make sense about this is that fluoridated water contains an average of 1 mg/liter of fluoride, but the EPA considers any water containing more than .015 mg/liter of either lead or arsenic to be in excess of what is considered “its maximum contaminant level.” In other words, fluoridated water would be considered poisonous if it weren’t for all the hype around “fluoride.” Dr. Carton believes, “Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.”

Fluoride Sources

Many city and county governments have added fluoride to their water because it’s supposed to be good for us; but this isn’t the only source. Several items you purchase for your home contain fluoride including toothpaste, grape juice (pesticides), chicken (bone dust released during the separation process), bottled spring water, tea and wine (natural byproducts from the earth).

The Problem With Fluoride

We’ve all heard that the American Dental Association says fluoride is good for our teeth; the problem is this is a fallacy. Fluoride is not good for our teeth. In fact, it’s quite the opposite.

In order for fluoride to bond to teeth, it must remove calcium. That process is called fluorosis. Fluorosis is defined as an abnormal condition caused by excessive intake of fluorides, characterized in children by discoloration and pitting of the teeth, and in adults by pathological bone changes. Not only is fluoride not good for our teeth, but some authorities also believe it’s possible many adults suffering from “arthritis” are, in reality, battling fluorosis.

Fluoride Research

In 1988, the National Institute of Dental Research and the United States Public Health Service completed a massive $3.6 million nationwide survey to determine the efficacy of fluoridation. The data, which was released only after a Freedom of Information Act filing, revealed there was no difference in the amount of tooth decay between fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities. Public health officials in New Zealand and Canada have made similar findings.

In 1999, the New York State Department of Health completed an unprecedented 45-year study comparing children in Newburgh, N.Y., which had fluoridated water for 45 years, with Kingston, N.Y., which never had fluoridated water. It was determined there were no significant differences in the amount of cavities between the two cities. Unfortunately, there was more dental fluorosis in Newburgh.

In 2000, a systematic review of more than 200 water-fluoridation safety and efficacy studies found they were lacking in any real scientific data. One researcher was quoted as saying, “The most serious defect of the studies of possible beneficial effects of water fluoridation was the lack of appropriate design and analysis.”

A similar study taken on by the University of California, Davis Department of Mathematics said, “The announced opinions and published papers favoring mechanical fluoridation of public drinking water are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddle-headedness and hebetude.” In other words, they basically were making it up as they went along.

Finally, according to a 1998 U.S. patent by the pharmaceutical company Sepracor, fluoride activates the very oral “G proteins” that have been determined to lead to chronic gingivitis, periodontal disease and, ultimately, tooth loss.

Fluoride Dangers

The first obvious danger is that fluoride is a poison, but it also is a proven carcinogen. Studies performed by the National Cancer Institute’s former Chief Chemist Emeritus, Dr. Dean Burke, show fluoride is responsible for about 10,000 deaths annually. “In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer deaths, and causes it faster, than any other chemical.”

Similar studies from St. Louis University, Japan’s Nippon Dental College and the University of Texas showed fluoride actually increases tumor growth rate, and the New Jersey Department of Health found the risk of osteosarcoma among males under 20 was up to seven times higher in fluoridated areas.

Equally surprising is the fact fluoride has been shown to cause brain damage. In 1999, 1,500 EPA scientists, lawyers and engineers signed a joint resolution to oppose fluoridation because they found fluoride causes “gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology, and … decreases (of) about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.”

What Can Parents Do?

There are several things that can be done to lessen the amount of fluoride children and parents ingest besides simply switching to a nonfluoride toothpaste. The first is to quit drinking from the tap if your community is one of the many with fluoridated water. In addition, be careful when purchasing bottled water, since water-bottling companies are not required to list the amount of fluoride in their water. It’s best to purchase only water that says it’s purified, distilled, deionized, demineralized or produced through reverse osmosis, as this always will be low in fluoride. It goes without saying to avoid any water that says, “Fortified with fluoride.”

It’s also important to note the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finally have admitted fluoridated water should never be mixed into concentrated formula or foods intended for babies.

As family wellness chiropractors, we are here to provide wellness lifestyle information to parents so they can make the best decisions for their families. When given the opportunity, provide them with resources – Web sites, research papers and books – to come to their own conclusion as to what is best for their children.

Resources

1. www.icpa4kids.org/research/children/flouride.htm.
2. www.nofish.org/new_page_17.htm.
3. www.icpa4kids.org/research/articles/childhood/Fluoride_More_to_Swallow.htm.
4. www.mercola.com/article/links/fluoride_links.htm.
5. www.fluoridealert.org.

Dr. Joel Alcantara is the director of research for the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association (ICPA). In this capacity, he directs all research activities and oversees the largest and most successful practice-based research networks in chiropractic. Recently, Dr. Alcantara and colleagues published a landmark study in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine on chiropractic care for children. In addition to characterizing pediatric chiropractic, they estimated that approximately 80 million pediatric visits are made to chiropractors each year. The authors acknowledge that this may be an overestimation, but it does support the study by Barnes and colleagues from the National Institutes of Health that chiropractic is the most popular CAM-based therapy for children. In this interview with Dr. Alcantara, I asked him to share his thoughts on the thematic series in Chiropractic & Osteopathy.

Before I ask your opinion regarding the articles published in Chiropractic & Osteopathy, can you give us a synopsis of the thematic series? Chiropractic & Osteopathy commissioned a thematic series on the chiropractic care of children and invited their key people in the field of pediatric chiropractic to provide an up-to-date review on the chiropractic care of children. You have Sharon Vallone and her colleagues providing their opinion on the chiropractic approach to the management of children; Ferrance and Miller addressing the diagnosis and chiropractic management of musculoskeletal conditions in children and adolescents; Kim Humphreys discussing the safety of pediatric chiropractic; Fay Karpousiz and her colleagues exploring care of the child with ADHD; and finally, Leboeuf-Yde and Hestbaek addressing the question: “Is research enough?”

Overall, the articles addressed aspects of pediatric chiropractic we should all be aware of. I didn’t necessarily agree with all the opinions made, but the editorial commentary by Simon French, Bruce Walker and Stephen Perle was especially disturbing from my point of view as a researcher and a practitioner.

In their article, they posed the question: “Should we be treating children at all?” and based this on the limited amount of research currently available. Please explain why you disagree with the position they took in their editorial commentary? Everyone would agree that the chiropractic profession needs more research. In terms of pediatric chiropractic, this is painfully true. French and colleagues questioned, given the sparse research evidence available on the chiropractic care of children, whether we should be treating children at all. They caution clinicians who accept without question the suggestion that a trial of chiropractic care is warranted, particularly with children presenting with non-musculoskeletal conditions.

I don’t disagree with this cautionary statement. I think it prudent for every clinician to critically appraise the literature in the context of their clinical experience and expertise and the request of the patient or parent. This is essentially evidence-based practice. However, they go a bit further and, using the chiropractic care of children with colic as an example, quote the Bronfort Report by stating, “There is no evidence that chiropractic care for infant colic is more effective than sham therapy.” They then propose: “It may also be reasonable to suggest that a short trial of ‘placebo treatment’ is warranted.” Their comment was not only unjustified, but irresponsible. French and colleagues acknowledge the principles of evidence-based medicine, but they throw it out the window if it doesn’t support their point of view.

The decision to pursue or recommend a trial of chiropractic care is based on many factors, with safety and effectiveness at the core of this decision and the principles of evidence-based medicine providing the overall guiding principle. So, what is a clinician to do when the research is not available? Evidence-based medicine allows you to rely on your clinical expertise and the needs and wants of the patient or the parent (in the case of pediatric chiropractic).

Sackett and colleagues, in defining evidence-based medicine, stated: “Evidence-based medicine is not restricted to randomized trials and meta-analyses. It involves tracking down the best external evidence with which to answer our clinical questions.” When RCTs are not available, they recommend to “follow the trail to the next best external evidence and work from there.” Sackett and colleagues said it best: “External clinical evidence can inform, but can never replace, individual clinical expertise, and it is this expertise that decides whether the external evidence applies to the individual patient at all and, if so, how it should be integrated into a clinical decision.” This is true not only in chiropractic, but also for orthodox medicine.

Going back to the colic issue, French and colleagues based their comment on the recent review by Bronfort, et al., on the effectiveness of manual therapies for various conditions. First of all, I believe Bronfort and colleagues are wrong in their conclusion regarding the evidence for colic. If one closely examines the clinical trials on chiropractic SMT and infantile colic, you will find that no study exists comparing chiropractic SMT versus sham therapy.

Now, sham therapy has been defined as a procedure that closely mimics the active procedure, but remains inert with respect to the specific effects of the active treatment. Wiberg and colleagues compared the effects of chiropractic SMT versus simethicone, a common medication for infantile colic. Browning and colleagues compared the effects of chiropractic SMT and occipito-decompression in infantile colic. Finally, Olafsdottir and colleagues compared an unproven chiropractic technique versus “no treatment.”

Wiberg and colleagues found chiropractic superior to simethicone; Browning and colleagues found both techniques decreased the hours of crying compared to baseline; and Olafsdottir and colleagues found their chiropractic technique as ineffective. So, the bottom line is, there is some evidence in support of chiropractic care for infantile colic.

If you look at safety, the two major studies examining the safety of pediatric SMT are the systematic review of the literature by Vohra and colleagues and our publication on the safety and effectiveness of pediatric chiropractic, the latter of which is based on our findings from the ICPA practice-based research network. Vohra essentially found (in more than 100 years of literature) only a handful of cases documenting adverse events with chiropractic SMT in children. When you closely examine the literature, these involve mostly minor adverse events like soreness and stiffness at the site of the adjustment. It was difficult to find fault with the chiropractor since the patients described had a pre-existing condition and/or suffered from trauma with symptoms corresponding to their supposed adverse event.

Our ICPA study surveyed chiropractors and parents of children receiving chiropractic care. The chiropractors indicated three adverse events in 5,438 office visits involving the care of 577 children. The parents indicated two adverse events in 1,735 office visits involving the care of 239 children.

Compare this to the medical care of children with infantile colic. The literature essentially indicates that medications like simethicone are no more effective than placebo and are associated with severe adverse events. Add to this the research that indicates parents may have thoughts of infanticide due to their crying baby. As a researcher and clinician, I think a trial of chiropractic care is warranted, in line with the principles of evidence-based medicine and the principles of biomedical ethics. That is, respecting a patient’s autonomy, avoiding harm, placing their interests and well-being first and allowing them access to essential care like chiropractic.

As a clinician, you’ve essentially explained the principles of evidence-based medicine and affirmed what thousands of chiropractors are doing in practice. What about the other articles in the thematic series? Do you have any comments about them? When it comes to safety, we need to keep doing the research. As Dr. Humphreys pointed out in his article, severe adverse events are rare in pediatric chiropractic, but that may also be underreported. We need to find out what these adverse events are, what’s causing them and develop a means of preventing them. We need to continue our research on the safety of pediatric chiropractic. The ICPA PBRN has been established to continue the research on pediatric safety. It’s our ethical and professional responsibility.

Of course, as a researcher, I agree with Drs. Leboeuf-Yde and Hestbaek that we need more research, not only in quantity but also in quality. We differ in our direction and focus for research, but this is understandable given our different interests and methodologies.

What about the article on the management approach to children? Dr. Vallone and colleagues are respected members of the chiropractic community and key in education, research and clinical practice in the field of pediatric chiropractic. Given their expertise, I was quite surprised that they would recommend “hypermobility” as an absolute contraindication for manual therapy for children. They are essentially recommending that chiropractic SMT should not be performed on children. If you look at the unique biomechanical features of the pediatric spine, hypermobility is one, in addition to malleability, changing spinal contours, an immature neuromusculoskeletal system, etc. Essentially, this would eliminate the practice of pediatric chiropractic as we know it, since the chiropractic adjustment is the primary approach to the care of children.

On another point: Vallone, et al., recommend that the inversion maneuver for infants and young children is a relative contraindication. My question is: On what basis do these authors make this recommendation? The scientific literature does not support them in terms of adverse events due to the procedure. Furthermore, their stated reasons for not performing the procedure (possible undiagnosed clinical entities) just does not make clinical sense. It takes clinical uncertainty to a different level and how it affects one’s decision to perform a diagnostic test or treatment procedure.

Finally, they qualified that, based on their experience, mechanical lesions are “expected to respond within approximately three to six treatments, depending on the duration of the problem.” We need to look at this and accept that this is based on their clinical experience and not necessarily the experience of all chiropractors. Additionally, comments like this are unfounded given the heterogeneity of the clinical presentations that chiropractors address in the care of children. If there’s one thing certain about clinical practice, it is clinical uncertainty.

Besides making you feel better during pregnancy, getting regular chiropractic adjustments can also help control nausea, prevent a potential C-section, and has even been linked to reducing the amount of time some women spend in labor.

Doctors of chiropractic can alleviate the uncomfortable symptoms arising from the muscular, ligamentous, and biomechanical stresses encountered during pregnancy. We accomplish this through the use of a number of highly specialized procedures and techniques:

• GENTLE SPINAL ADJUSTIVE PROCEDURES – specifically designed for use in the pregnant female
  • assist in maintaining a spine free from vertebral misalignments and fixations – optimizing spinal biomechanics
  • keep pelvis and spine in correct position/posture
  • assist in pain relief by (1) reflexively reducing pain levels, and (2) reducing spinal and pelvic stresses which produce soft tissue pain
  • keep tissues and biomechanics functioning optimally to minimize complications during birth
• THERAPEUTIC EXERCISES AND STRETCHES – safe for use during pregnancy
  • keep spinal musculature strong, balanced, and pain-free
  • enable spinal muscles to maintain the spine and body in a neutral, correct posture
  • keep mom active and mobile
• SOFT TISSUE WORK – massage, trigger point work, soft tissue mobilization, etc.
  • keep muscles relaxed and flexible
  • reduces bouts of muscle aches and pains
  • reduces spinal stress
• DIETARY AND NUTRITIONAL COUNSELING – unique to the pregnant mother
  • prevent neural tube and other birth defects
  • increase the chances for a healthy baby
  • assist the mother in maintaining optimal energy levels
  • keep mother happy and healthy during stressful periods
• GENERAL PREGNANCY INFORMATION – general info on pregnancy
  • answer mother’s questions
  • improve mother’s health
  • optimize birthing process
  • enhance baby’s health

According to Dr. Jeffrey Robitaille of Robitaille Family Chiropractic in Rhode Island, 1 in 6 Americans suffers from chronic headaches. But like Cimino, many people overlook seeing a chiropractor for headache pain. “I waited more than a year before I made an appointment with a chiropractor. I guess I had some misconceptions about what a chiropractor does,” says Cimino. “But after seeing the results, I don’t know why I waited so long.”

Every day, chiropractors hear similar stories from hundreds of people like Cimino who have been suffering for years with pain and are at their wits end because the only thing offered to them by their physicians and specialists are more drugs. As Dr. Robitaille explains, many people think headaches are normal and take over-the-counter or prescription drugs to relieve the pain. “But these drugs only dull the pain,” he says, “they don’t treat the cause, which is why the headache returns.”

In addition to chronic headaches, chiropractic care is also effective in treating tension headaches. A recent study released by the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research finds that individuals undergoing chiropractic therapy showed sustained reduction in headache frequency and severity compared with patients who took the drug amitriptyline, a commonly prescribed medication for tension headaches.

“The conclusion of the study shows that chiropractic is not actually a therapy or treatment, but rather gets to the cause of the problem, thus allowing the body to effect a correction that lasts beyond actual care,” says Dr. Robitaille.

While many people associate chiropractic care as a treatment for bad backs, there is growing documentation that chiropractic is also effective in the treatment of cervicogenic headaches, migraines and cluster headaches. In fact, the American Chiropractic Association reports that 14 percent of the public who see chiropractors presently go for headaches.

However, much of the general public continues to use the traditional medical practitioner route for headache treatment, with little success. The problem, says Dr. Robitaille, rests in the six misconceptions about headache relief. They are listed below, followed by his explanation:

1. Over-The-Counter Medication Treat The Cause Of Your Headache.
“Drugs only numb the pain. If these drugs treated the real cause, your headaches would go away permanently. None of us were born with too few Advil in our blood. A lack of drugs is not the cause.”

2. Headache Medication Can’t Harm You.
“On the contrary, drugs can cause side effects that can be far worse than the headache pain you’re trying to relieve.”

3. Stress Causes Headaches.
“Although stress is a part of life, it is not the cause of headaches. Rather, it’s how your body adapts to stress that affects your health. Chiropractic care can provide ways to help you increase your body’s ability to adapt to stress of any kind.”

4. Headaches Go Away On Their Own.
“Without treating the cause, or root of the problem, they won’t.”

5. All Doctors Know How To Treat Headaches.
“If this were true, no one would suffer from headaches. Chiropractors offer natural alternatives that do not involve drugs or invasive treatments.”

6. Your Problem Is Always Where Your Pain Is.
“In fact, not all headaches originate in the head. For instance, a person who suffered a neck injury at some point in their life, whether from a car accident, playing sports, or a fall as a child, could suffer head pain later on. These are called cervicogenic headaches because they result from tension of the neck and head muscles.”

The vertebral column is a complex structure made up of bones, ligaments, muscles and nerves. The spine provides many functions crucial to the body:

Support Framework

Muscle Attachment

Protection of the Central Nervous System

Protection of the Internal Organs

The bones of the spinal column (backbone) are known as vertebra. The vertebral column houses the part of the nervous system called the spinal cord. Nerves branch off the spinal cord and exit between two vertebra to travel to every muscle, organ and gland in the body. In other words, the entire body communicates with the brain through this important structure, the spinal column. Ligaments connect the vertebra together into a jointed column.

Animals have a spinal column just as humans do. There are some major anatomical differences, though. Dogs have 13 thoracic vertebrae (rib pairs) while humans have 12. And of course, dogs and cats are quadrapeds (walk on four legs) while humans walk on only two legs.

There are approximately 200 joints in the spinal column of the dog or cat. Muscles are attached to the vertebra enabling the spinal column to flex and bend. With all of these joints, the possibility of specific problems or disease of the spinal column exists.

What is a Vertebral “Fixation”?

You may have heard the term subluxation used in the past by a human chiropractor. Subluxations are now commonly described as fixations. These fixations can be palpated as lack of motion of a joint, resulting in potential impingement on every structure in the vicinity of that joint including nerves, lumphatics, vessels, and joint capsules.

Nerves communicate messages from cell to cell. For example, a cell in the foot can talk to the brain and to the entire body through nerves. Fixations may be pictured as pinching off or changing the flow of information through nerves. Fro instance, think of the nerves as our telephone connections. If you are talking on the phone to New York, and a fixation occurs, you may end up talking to Florida. Or you may experience extreme pain from strange sounds coming from the telephone receiver. Or communication may totally cease.

Fixation and Excess Motion

Every movement of the body requires a constant synchronization of muscles in contraction and relaxation. If proper nerve messages to muscles are obstructed, this coordination will falter. Ner ve obstruction can occur from either fixations or excess motion of the vertebral segment. Minor interferences may only result in slight changes. Excess nerve pressure can also produce pain – acute or chronic.

Fixations and excess motion in the spine may cause compensations in movement or posture. When your back hurts does your gait change? Weight may be slightly shifted to one leg or certain activities may be avoided. When the spine is not functioning correctly in one area, stress is placed on other vertebral joints. Secondary fixations or excessive motion can then occur in other areas of the column and/or extremities further complicating the problems. These are described as compensations.

Symptoms of Fixations & Excess Motion

PAIN: THE MOST COMMON SYMPTOM

CHANGES IN MUSCLE COORDINATION

CHANGES IN FLEXIBILITY

With even slight compression of nerves, many other problems can occur due to influences on the glands, the skin, the blood vessels and lymphatics.

UNUSUAL BODY OR TAIL RUBBING

INCREASED SENSITIVITY TO HEAT OR COLD

CHANGES IN INTERNAL ORGAN FUNCTIONS

CHANGES IN SIGHT OR HEARING

ABDOMINAL PAIN

CHANGES IN COMPETITION ABILITY

Causes of Fixations & Excess Motion

TRAUMA

STRESS

CONFORMATION/GENETICS

BIRTH

CONFINEMENT

PERFORMANCE

CHOKE COLLARS/ LEASHES

AGE

OTHER MEDICAL OR SURGICAL CONDITIONS

Some believe that are immune systems have become more sensitive because we are less likely to be exposed to infection than our ancestors were. We also spend much more time indoors now, where we are exposed to more dust and mold and the air that we breath (both inside and outside) is much more polluted than it was last century.  Our move from the country to the city has also led to a more sedentary lifestyle leading to obesity as we move less and sit more.

The lack of exercise has been fingered as the main culprit in rise in asthma in our country and an exercise regime has been proven to be beneficial for today’s young asthmatics.  Obesity and asthma seem to walk hand in hand together. As many 75% of the people admitted to the ER for treatment of asthma are reported to be overweight. The lungs have less room to expand, fat also releases a hormone called leptin, which is thought to stimulate cells in your airway, leading to increased sensitivity to allergens.
Besides eating more food, the types of foods that we now eat might also be fanning the flames of this new epidemic. Some research indicates that our shift from grain to corn based nutrition may have helped increase our system sensitivity. Our massive intake of vitamins in minerals via fortified foods is also to be looked into. Sugar, soda and milk are also major culprits in stimulating an attack.

Asthma sufferers fall into two different categories: allergic and non-allergic.

Allergic, or extrinsic asthma is the most common type and is triggered by an allergic reaction by something you inhale. Immunoglobulin E is an antibody that the body produces in order to protect itself from foreigners. It resides it the lungs, skin and mucous membranes and it is responsible for most types of allergic reactions including eczema, hay fever and asthma.
Non-allergic, or intrinsic, asthma is caused by any other factors that do not happen to be allergens. These include upper respiratory infections, “stress”, anxiety, hyperventilation, smoke, viruses, a misalignment in your spine and even exercise.

• Loss or decrease in level of performance.
• Problems or difficulty executing desired movements.
• Behavioral changes (i.e. refusals, cinchy, bucking).
• Short striding.
• Diagnosed conditions, such as degenerative arthritis.
• Muscle imbalance, spasms, or atrophy.
• Gait problems, such as cross-canter, loss of collection, refusal to pick-up lead.
• Injuries resulting from falls, training, or other activities.

Stressful situations, such as conformation of the horse, various riding and training equipment, performance level and ability of the rider, shoeing.

There are numerous, common stressful or traumatic situations, such as the birth process, conformation of the horse, training and riding equipment, ability of the rider, shoeing trailers, or direct trauma, that can cause abnormal or restricted movement to occur in the spine. This change in proper movement of the spine is what chiropractors call a “subluxation”. When a subluxation occurs, the horse’s spine loses it’s normal flexibility. This results in stiffness which further leads to resistance and decreased performance. The most common symptom associated with spinal subluxations is pain, which can manifest changes itself in a variety of ways. Horses in pain will show compensatory changes in posture and gait. These changes can cause stress in other joints and muscles.

Symptoms such as lameness, stiffness, lack of impulsion or power, difficulty in obtaining or maintaining collection, poor attitude, gait abnormalities, being cold-backed or cinchy, or the presence of muscle atrophy are commonly associated with spinal misalignments.

Subluxations may also cause changes in muscle coordination and flexibility that affects the performance ability of the horse. These symptoms may be lack of coordination in gaits, unusual, perhaps indefinable gait abnormalities which vary from limb to limb and change depending on gait, stiffness in lateral movements of neck or back, rope walking, shortened stride in one or two limbs, inability to engage rear quarters, difficulty flexing at the poll, or on line or pulling on one rein.

Common complaints from horse owners include resistance or stiffness when moving to one direction, irritability, decreased performance, and sensitivity to touch, such as when being groomed.

To read more click here

One bottle is usually enough for 2 to 3 months for most people. You only take it when you need it.