Root end surgery does not solve the problem
When a dead tooth is recognized as the focus of a problem, we know from experience that the end of the root is the main culprit because it is mainly in the side root canals that colonies of putrefactive bacteria nestle. Often the surrounding jaw bone has also already been affected and only a spongy, putrid smelling mass remains.
An attempt is made to solve the problem using root end surgery, an operation the dentist opens the jaw from the side, removes the end of the root and clears away the soft, decomposed tissue. However that does not solve the problem of the focal infection; at best it simply alleviates the problem temporarily.
The source may, for the time being, no longer cause any acute problems, but the putrefactive bacteria reclaim the breeding ground bit by bit and resume their destructive activity. Soon they have regained their former destructive capacity and the inflammation of the jaw bone, which emanated from the dead tooth, has spread. When the dead tooth is finally pulled, the operation scars hinder the body's healing process, and it takes a long time before the inflammation of the jaw bone subsides.
With root end surgery, the patient pays a high price for being allowed to keep the dead, disease-causing tooth for a while. Antibiotics don't help either. The cause of the problem remains, i.e. the dead organic mass which continues to offer a breeding ground for putrefactive bacteria (you cannot solve the problem of a rusty nail in the foot, either, by simply administering antibiotics; you remove the nail).
Antibiotics make demands on the detoxication mechanisms of a patient who is already weakened anyway, and putrefactive bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. The body has to cope with bacteria that are constantly being released from the source, even if the majority of the bacteria die off. It is difficult to reach the source with antibiotics anyway – for example by injecting them into the jaw bone. Injections cannot get at the bacteria in the side root canals or in the dentine channels; they continue to produce toxins unhindered or, at best, to a lesser extent. Treatment with antibiotics can lead to damage of the intestinal flora and the resulting digestive disorders also obstruct the body's detoxication efforts, with the result that the total negative effect of the bacterial breeding grounds is more likely to be increased by the use of antibiotics.
"My own tooth is my own tooth," say many patients and dentists; but we should add to that; "... only as long as the tooth does not become a source of infection and ruins our health." A mountaineer whose toes and fingers are frostbitten has to have them amputated so that he doesn't die from the results of gangrene. Survival is only rarely possible without amputation.
Why then is it a common belief that dead teeth are an exception to this rule as long as the root canal is filled up? Cause and effect are not quite so obvious. When comparing the sheer mass involved in each case, frostbitten toes are quite a different problem from a tooth in which only half a gramme of organic substance is rotting. If the frostbitten toes remain on the body, the patient will soon die. Cause and effect are obvious. In the case of dead teeth with a root canal filling, the poisoning of the body is less dramatic and goes on behind the scenes; the pains and the suffering increase gradually. Only a very good observer connects the dots.
References and sources:
„ROOT CANAL Cover-up“ by George E. Meinig 2004
to purchase at: Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation
Prof. Boyd Haley und Dr. Curt Pendergrass www.altcorp.com
