Health feature: my thoughts on fluoride vs non-flouride toothpaste
By: Alexa Williamson
As you may have gathered from this journal – or not – I try and be as health conscious in my life as possible. I know that organic food, for example, costs a lot but I buy it for a reason. I, personally, believe there is a link between things like heavy metals, chemicals and other toxic substances causing a lot of the health problems that one suffers today.
If you ever meet a person before and after amalgam filling removal and successful chelation, you will understand what I mean. Or, parents, who have found that their child’s autism is caused by say, mercury from vaccine injections, and the child is a different person before and after following a regime to remove the metals and correct any dietary deficiencies or vitamin/mineral imbalances.
So, this got me thinking about toothpaste. Usually, I use a natural toothpaste called Kingfisher that has fennel in it and is chalk based – doing this to avoid the chemicals and fluoride of toothpastes such as Colgate, Aquafresh, etc.
However, the sad thing I have noticed since doing this as Kingfisher doesn’t remove plaque and tartar as well as the more synthetic toothpastes. Also, I have a couple of sensitive back top molars and have realised that the best way to keep the sensitivity away (and also not have to have a root canal) is to use a toothpaste with flouride and, sadly, sodium saccharin, to relieve the sensitivity.
Thus, my thoughts on fluoride toothpaste are… it sucks but seems to be a necessary evil at least twice a wee as this is better than having a root canal or the teeth removed. Just some thoughts and if anyone has a better idea on how to reduce sensitivity, plaque and tartar without using a flouride toothpaste… post a comment, I’m all ears!
Further information:
Kingfisher Natural Toothpaste – Fennel review (The London Reviewer)
