• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Fluoride removal protocol

fluoride arthritis

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 shifter

  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 14 August 2014 - 01:13 AM


Is there were a good and proven (or at least the best known) protocol for removing accumulated fluoride within the body.

 

I'm starting to wonder if the arthritis in my hip (from my early 20's) is really a congenital defect considering prior to then I was very active without a hint of pain. I believe fluorosis is often misdiagnosed lazily as other conditions such as arthritis.

 

I have heard that Vitamin C, calcium and boron are good to help get rid of fluoride, but at what dosages and anything else? Taken together or one at a time?

 

How long does it take to remove the fluoride from the body in this way?

 

Is the damage done reversible?

 

 

This year my drinking water at home is remineralised RO water and I only use a fluoride free toothpaste so my intake of fluoride should be very minimal.

 

 

 


Edited by shifter, 14 August 2014 - 01:14 AM.

  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#2 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 14 August 2014 - 01:21 AM

Were you exposed to a very large dose of fluoride?  I really doubt that your hip problem is fluorosis.  It's probably osteoarthritis.  Has it been x-rayed?


  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#3 shifter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 14 August 2014 - 03:56 AM

I did like water (tap) a lot back in my teens. Can some people just be more sensitive? It is a toxin afterall. It's been xrayed and said there was osteoarthritis and it was 'subluxed'. But how does a perfectly good feeling hip one moment, go to having this much damage later.

 

I do have a twin who certainly did have subluxation but he had pains and was misdiagnosed with 'growing pains' the whole time until his late teens

 

It was recommended I have an opeation but given his operations failed and failed and failed again, I just figured I'll stop being active and minimise the wear and tear. 10 years later, no operations, no artificial hips but bothersome.

 

When his problem was finally revealed. I had xrays that showed perfect hips though. So it went from perfect to osteoarthritis and subluxed in a few short years. If that's possible then fine, but seems like an easy answer. Is fluorosis damage easy to detect on an xray?

 

If the public drinking water was accidently dosed with high levels of fluoride by mistake at some point, I doubt the government would be forthcoming anyway. Honestly I think the quality control is very poor and the additive amounts are pretty random. Sometimes days I turn on the tap and no smell. Other times, it's stronger than a swimming pool smell.

 

Even if my hip was not damaged by fluoride I'd be interested none the less in getting rid of 32 years of cumulative fluoride exposure from my body. Removing it cant make my arthritis any worse.

 

fluorideVsLeadArsenicToxicity.gif

 

In the pursuit of a healthy long life, this cant be good to have inside us at the levels they say are safe... If the graph is to be believed they could sell us lead supplements (as opposed to fluoride) and they would be safer for our health. So If I can remove any in my body where it shouldn't be then good.

 

 

 

 

 

 


  • dislike x 1
  • Disagree x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 gt35r

  • Guest
  • 186 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Los Angeles
  • NO

Posted 14 August 2014 - 04:24 AM

Well for one thing you can not do a simple LD50 comparison and make your assumption based off that. Take a look at the LD50 of arsenic and the LD50 of caffeine.

 

Caffeine has an LD50 of around 90 - 120 mg/kg (rat)

Arsenic has an LD50  ~760 mg/kg (rat)

 

Using LD50 to compare two things is terms of short or long term safety is a bad idea. LD50 is used to determine the median lethal dose; it has not baring on how poisonous something is over an extended period of time at much lower doses. Unless you have come in contact with large amounts of fluoride, it is unlikely you have bone or joint issues due to fluorosis. 

 

"In the pursuit of a healthy long life, this cant be good to have inside us at the levels they say are safe... If the graph is to be believed they could sell us lead supplements (as opposed to fluoride) and they would be safer for our health. So If I can remove any in my body where it shouldn't be then good." 

 

The graph can be believed, but the assessments you are making based off of raw data are incorrect. 

 

"It's been xrayed and said there was osteoarthritis and it was 'subluxed'. But how does a perfectly good feeling hip one moment, go to having this much damage later"

 

You argument is that you had a joint problem out of nowhere  but I am not sure how fluoride or fluorosis fits into this. 

 

Just out of curiosity, what anti-fluoride site did you get those graphs from? It is amateur shit because the source discusses the substance in terms of LD50 doses but the graph they extrapolated from the source all of a sudden discusses the substance in a genera "toxic" and "very toxic" 1 - 6 scale. 


Edited by gt35r, 14 August 2014 - 04:36 AM.

  • Well Written x 1
  • Agree x 1

#5 shifter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 14 August 2014 - 07:22 AM

From some Canadian site (I am in Australia anyway)

 

http://ffo-olf.org/

 

 

The page with graphs

http://ffo-olf.org/u...eUseCharts.html

 

 

Arguments for/against any case will always cherry pick whatever suits them. I do try to read fluoride propaganda but to me it doesn't stack up. If someone takes the time and care for proper oral hygene, then fluoride supplementation is pointless. It assumes without water supplementation we will not ingest it anywhere else (green tea anyone?) If someone never brushes their teeth and likes to drink a can or bottle of coke before bed (where you dont produce saliva in sleep), the amount of damage the sugar/acid mix will do is not something that fluoride can prevent. I also fail to see why babies who dont even have teeth yet need fluoride.

 

My first xray (when my brother had his problems identified) showed that I was perfect and nothing to worry about. My hip felt as good as the xray diagnosis. A few years later another xray (after I felt arthritis pains on even short walks) said I had a subluxed hip with osteoarthritis. Doctors said it was congenital. I can understand my brother who had pain and problems his whole life and calling that congential but I was very fit, energetic and active. Nothing in my routine changed and then I started getting pain in my early 20s. Just seems odd to me and more like environmental damage then genetic damage. I think the fact I have a brother who had the same hip problem just made for a quick and easy answer. I dont think there was any research into what caused my problem. I could be wrong though, I'm not a doctor :)
 

 

 


  • dislike x 1

#6 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 14 August 2014 - 12:15 PM

Shifter, I think the doctors are right in this case.  You and your brother could have had slightly different levels of congenital subluxation, or yours just manifested later for some reason.  In all sorts of biological situations, you can be essentially "hanging on by a thread" and everything still feels fine, until the thread breaks.  The "thread" might take the form of a falling metabolite level, or as in your case, an orthopedic problem.  There is a cult of fluoride paranoia on the internet, akin to the anti-vaccine paranoia and the "have all your amalgam fillings removed" school of thought.  You just don't get good quality information from those sites, and they are very good at instilling fear.


  • Agree x 2
  • like x 1

#7 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 159

Posted 15 August 2014 - 02:02 PM

Many dentists made their fortune replacing risk-free fillings. Talked to a few myself. Fluoride is loved by people who want simple explanations for their problems, and loathe to have to hold complex multifactorial explanations in their minds.

I strongly suspect far more damage is wrought to people from the innate inflammatory response in the body when their teeth are corrupted to the pulp by caries, than by fluoride.


  • Agree x 3
  • Needs references x 1

#8 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 159

Posted 16 August 2014 - 07:59 AM

Here is a radiograph showing what happens inside the skeleton when caries reaches the pulp and the body replies by rejecting the tooth. I have met patients who walk around with teeth that look like this for months and years on an end. Sometimes it's pain-free, you only ever realize it when you get that salty taste from pus leaking into the mouth. Not an excuse to drink a bottle of fluoride, I always spit thoroughly after rinsing and I would rather buy bottled water than drink from a bad well. Anyway, as I said, this powerful process likely causes more damage (atherosclerosis, inflammation) than fluoride does, yet it's almost never mentioned by the fluoride-crowd.

Tooth_decay_and_abscess_xray.jpg


  • Informative x 1
  • Agree x 1

#9 shifter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:41 PM

Okay, so If I start to use a fluoridated toothpaste on at least 1 of the brushes in the day that should give my teeth a decent contact with fluoride without much ingestion (as long as I rinse very well after brushing - shower makes that easy). I still question what good does fluoride do when ingested such as in drinking water. The amount in water is very small (compared with toothpaste) and the contact time with teeth is minimal. Does the fluoride we ingest do anything good for our teeth once it's past our throat or does any benefit stop there.

 

If someone kept up a very good and smart oral hygene and brushing program, would any fluoride be necessary at all? (at least in our water). I would think the level of fluoride in toothpaste along with the contact time on even just one 2 minute brush would do a lot more for our teeth than the small amount in water and the contact time during drinking. That is why when people (like me) like to brush their teeth and keep them healthy, that I hate it in my drinking water supply just to cater for some people too lazy to give a damn about their own teeth and health.

 

 

 



#10 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 August 2014 - 01:30 AM

Oral fluoride works systemically.  It doesn't have to be in contact with teeth.  They make fluoride pills for people who live in areas without enough fluoride in the water.


  • Agree x 1

#11 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 159

Posted 18 August 2014 - 04:57 AM

If you don't eat too often, use floss to remove food and bacteria approximally and avoid sugary drinks a small level of fluoride is usually enough to maintain enamel integrity.

Some part of the population (1-6 %) can avoid caries without fluoride since they lack the streptococcus mutans bacteria in their mouth that causes the decay (i.e not exposed to it age 1-3).

These people work as a confusing factor for all other, people since some of them brag about their dietary habits and lack of caries.

A perfect oral hygiene will also save you from periodontitis which is the other big killer of teeth (and systemic health). In the future we will likely have therapy that kills of S.mutans and stem cell injections for new teeth, but so far thats not here.


Edited by Cosmicalstorm, 18 August 2014 - 04:58 AM.


#12 Dolph

  • Guest
  • 512 posts
  • 122
  • Location:Germany

Posted 18 August 2014 - 06:05 AM

It's still beyond me why some people really seem to embracy literally every bullshit hypothesis that is out there. I see some people's avatar and know some other kind of BS is lurking in the post...
  • Unfriendly x 2
  • Enjoying the show x 1

#13 LawrenceHarasim

  • Guest
  • 7 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Portage Indiana

Posted 19 August 2014 - 11:19 PM

I really dont understand why so many people are angry anyways ...I think this is what OP asked for

 

http://www.health-sc...t.com/borax.htm

 


  • Disagree x 2
  • like x 1

#14 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 August 2014 - 01:22 AM

I really dont understand why so many people are angry anyways ...I think this is what OP asked for

 

http://www.health-sc...t.com/borax.htm

 

I can only hope that for the sake of his health, he ignores it.  Sometimes people ask for one thing, when they really need a different thing.  In the case of health issues, people need to know information that is true and isn't going to hurt them.  I don't think the borax-eating advice falls into that category.


  • Agree x 3
  • dislike x 1

#15 Dolph

  • Guest
  • 512 posts
  • 122
  • Location:Germany

Posted 20 August 2014 - 05:41 AM

In the case of health issues, people need to know information that is true and isn't going to hurt them.  I don't think the borax-eating advice falls into that category.


:-D

Edited by Dolph, 20 August 2014 - 05:41 AM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2

#16 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,840 posts
  • 721
  • Location:Austria

Posted 20 August 2014 - 10:59 AM

 

I really dont understand why so many people are angry anyways ...I think this is what OP asked for

 

http://www.health-sc...t.com/borax.htm

 

... In the case of health issues, people need to know information that is true and isn't going to hurt them.  I don't think the borax-eating advice falls into that category.

 

 

A little boron definitely wont hurt, and if you thereby find out it benefits your health the better (it showed for me with low androgens): http://examine.com/supplements/Boron/

 

A note from above article:

 

Note:

This article is not about curing arthritis. Boron is essential for healthy bones and joints, and supplements may be able to help with arthritis, but chronic conditions often are associated with additional other deficiencies, allergies, microbial infestations and inflammation. All of these factors may need to be addressed.

Edited by pamojja, 20 August 2014 - 11:00 AM.

  • Disagree x 1

#17 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 August 2014 - 01:35 PM

A note from above article:
 

Note:
This article is not about curing arthritis. Boron is essential for healthy bones and joints, and supplements may be able to help with arthritis, but chronic conditions often are associated with additional other deficiencies, allergies, microbial infestations and inflammation. All of these factors may need to be addressed.

 

Oh, I missed the fine print way down at the end.  The first thing I saw was this headline, in bold:  The Arthritis Cure of Rex Newnham
 
Then I saw the part about curing candida and flushing fluoride, both popular "Internet Diagnoses". There's nothing wrong with supplementing a few milligrams of boron for bone health- I used to do that myself. I'd rather see someone get it from a legitimate supplement or multi instead of a box from the cleaning products or ant killer aisle at the hardware store, which may be of questionable purity and not intended for human consumption in any quantity. I'm suspicious of internet tracts promising "cures" for common diseases (even if the fine print says "not really"), or offering treatments for imaginary problems.
  • Enjoying the show x 1

#18 LawrenceHarasim

  • Guest
  • 7 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Portage Indiana

Posted 20 August 2014 - 04:23 PM

http://www.earthclin...ies/borax4.html

 


  • dislike x 2
  • like x 1

#19 shifter

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 27 August 2014 - 04:02 AM

I'd rather see someone get it from a legitimate supplement or multi instead of a box from the cleaning products or ant killer aisle at the hardware store, which may be of questionable purity and not intended for human consumption in any quantity. I'm suspicious of internet tracts promising "cures" for common diseases (even if the fine print says "not really"), or offering treatments for imaginary problems.

 

 

This was my feeling. I'd rather pay more and get less from a natural food or supplement then pay less and get lots through something that was produced with the intension it would never be ingested. The dose each time would also be random.

 

I'm a fan of almonds which are high in Boron and other fruits like apples and bananas too. I'm guessing my boron intake is already good. Raisins seem to be another good source

 

http://www.algaecal..../boron-sources/

 

 

Apart from boron, larger doses of vitamin C apparantly help as does calcium. I think my current diet already takes care of all this already really.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: fluoride, arthritis

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users