Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Sodium Fluoride

  1. Default

    It's probably best not take sodium fluoride as it can be toxic if over done. I think you will find that sodium fluoride is associated with tooth emamel and is usually in the tap water you drink.

    - - - Updated - - -

    It's probably best not take sodium fluoride as it can be toxic if over done. I think you will find that sodium fluoride is associated with tooth emamel and is usually in the tap water you drink.


    http://www.chessrivals.net/
    Last edited by abbas ali; 01-07-2016 at 04:54 AM.

  2. #12

    Default

    Choosing to take medication is always a balancing act between risks and rewards. While "a select few" are recommending fluoride treatment to slow the "ALWAYS" progressive changes otosclerosis brings, very little evidence exists to support the benefits.

    There is however stacks and stacks of science that says taking fluoride is very bad, on a holistic level for our bodies. Perhaps you should be asking your health professionals for a list of RISKS involved in taking fluoride treatments instead of the benefits.

    Otosclerosis creates one of the better types of hearing loss, as it's completing conductive in nature. When your thresholds at 250, 500 and 1000 Hz are below 50 dB I recommend either RIC or Open-Fit Hearing Aids. When your thresholds are 55dB or greater, I recommend CIC hearing aids with very large venting.

    Think twice before you start taking explorative medications, especially for treating otosclerosis. You will not reverse otosclerosis with medication, nor will you change the treatment you SHOULD be seeking; which is hearing aids and/or surgery.

    Thanks,
    Jeffrey David
    Quote Originally Posted by ebayFANhearing View Post
    I have read it before and read it here, that Sodium fluoride can be a treatment for Otosclerosis. Could someone explain how is this treatment done? Is it a prescription drug? How much did it help you?

    Thanks

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey David View Post
    Choosing to take medication is always a balancing act between risks and rewards. While "a select few" are recommending fluoride treatment to slow the "ALWAYS" progressive changes otosclerosis brings, very little evidence exists to support the benefits.

    There is however stacks and stacks of science that says taking fluoride is very bad, on a holistic level for our bodies. Perhaps you should be asking your health professionals for a list of RISKS involved in taking fluoride treatments instead of the benefits.

    Otosclerosis creates one of the better types of hearing loss, as it's completing conductive in nature. When your thresholds at 250, 500 and 1000 Hz are below 50 dB I recommend either RIC or Open-Fit Hearing Aids. When your thresholds are 55dB or greater, I recommend CIC hearing aids with very large venting.

    Think twice before you start taking explorative medications, especially for treating otosclerosis. You will not reverse otosclerosis with medication, nor will you change the treatment you SHOULD be seeking; which is hearing aids and/or surgery.

    Thanks,
    Jeffrey David
    Jeffrey;

    I'm wondering where you are obtaining your information from? From everything I've read and heard, otosclerosis is not ALWAYS conductive in nature. It usually starts out with a low frequency conductive loss with a progressive conductive loss that eventually extends into the higher frequencies. However, in many people, it also progresses to the inner ear causing damage to the cochlea itself, which then creates sensorineural hearing loss, which isn't surgically correctable. All 3 ENTs I've seen, including two neurotologists, have confirmed this, as have countless peer-reviewed journal articles. In fact, since being diagnosed with it, I've personally met one person who now has a severe-to-profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss due to otosclerosis, so to say it's only conductive hearing loss that occurs in this disease isn't accurate. Granted, I'm not an ENT, otologist, or medical doctor so I'm certainly not an expert, but I am a medical professional who is very well versed in reading and interpreting journal articles.

    In my opinion, fluoride does seem to be a bit risky... It does seem like the literature out there is 50/50 in terms of the pros and cons of its effectiveness for otosclerosis. However, there have been some people who seem to have benefited from taking it. Still, no medication is without risks. Most cancer medications have more risks than benefits, but people still take them with the hopes of a cure, and my understanding is they are generally much more caustic than fluoride. On a side note, I wonder if fluoride sometimes gets recommended just so that specialists can say in good conscience that they tried to help... We've all had patients for whom placebos or minimalist treatments have been effective.

    Kerry
    November, 2016

    250 500 1K 2K 4K 6K 8K
    R 50
    55
    55
    50
    45
    50
    65
    L
    30 30
    35
    30
    30
    30
    25
    SRT: R-50, L-35
    WR: R-92% at 80 dB, L-100% at 75 dB

    Wearing Oticon Alta 2 Mini RITEs since July 8/15.

  4. #14

    Default Otosclerosis the SNHL Controversy

    Hi Kerry,

    It's true, some people with otosclerosis also have SNHL. Researchers now put otosclerosis in two categories, otosclerosis and cochlear otosclerosis. Some ENT's feel that otosclerosis, or cochlear otosclerosis causes SNHL. They may be correct, however to date I have not personally reviewed anything that changes the treatment of people living with otosclerosis.

    The vast majority of people living with otosclerosis will experience a conductive hearing loss at 250Hz, 500Hz and 1000Hz, making otosclerosis very easy to identify through a simple AC BC hearing test.

    You mentioned cancer drugs. Cancer drugs may save a life, often making the risks of taking the drugs far less important to the patient than the benefits. Most cancer drugs are very ototoxic in nature, which simply means they cause hearing loss. (Many drugs are ototoxic in nature and it's important that people properly research medications prior to starting a prescription). In the VERY limited studies of sodium fluoride, often combined with vitamin D and calcium, claims of success have been made, however those claims should be closely examined. How did the patients treatment options change? Did the patient still require hearing aids? Did the disease still progress? Was surgery still required?

    I am of the opinion that otosclerosis has a clear path, one of progression. Whether one is of the belief that otosclerosis causes SNHL, as well as, conductive loss doesn't change the treatment. While I am hopeful, and confident, in the future patients will have new options for treating otosclerosis, at present wearing hearing aids and/or having surgery are the only widely accepted treatments.

    Quote Originally Posted by KerBear View Post
    Jeffrey;

    I'm wondering where you are obtaining your information from? From everything I've read and heard, otosclerosis is not ALWAYS conductive in nature. It usually starts out with a low frequency conductive loss with a progressive conductive loss that eventually extends into the higher frequencies. However, in many people, it also progresses to the inner ear causing damage to the cochlea itself, which then creates sensorineural hearing loss, which isn't surgically correctable. All 3 ENTs I've seen, including two neurotologists, have confirmed this, as have countless peer-reviewed journal articles. In fact, since being diagnosed with it, I've personally met one person who now has a severe-to-profound bilateral sensorineural hearing loss due to otosclerosis, so to say it's only conductive hearing loss that occurs in this disease isn't accurate. Granted, I'm not an ENT, otologist, or medical doctor so I'm certainly not an expert, but I am a medical professional who is very well versed in reading and interpreting journal articles.

    In my opinion, fluoride does seem to be a bit risky... It does seem like the literature out there is 50/50 in terms of the pros and cons of its effectiveness for otosclerosis. However, there have been some people who seem to have benefited from taking it. Still, no medication is without risks. Most cancer medications have more risks than benefits, but people still take them with the hopes of a cure, and my understanding is they are generally much more caustic than fluoride. On a side note, I wonder if fluoride sometimes gets recommended just so that specialists can say in good conscience that they tried to help... We've all had patients for whom placebos or minimalist treatments have been effective.

    Kerry

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •