Curious about who I am? Posts about health and natural birth Resources and posts regarding vaccines and informed consent Posts about Parenting and Relationships Spirituality and Life Lessons Email me Home

Your Toothpaste is JUNK

If you are employing a conventional toothpaste as part of your oral care routine then I’m here to advise you that you are doing yourself (and your family) a disservice in using it.

Frankly, the stuff is made of cheap chemicals utilizing expensive marketing in hopes that you believe brushing your teeth with it will provide great benefits to your oral health.

You are being duped – the stuff is junk. There are many other options out there for you and your family to use, please consider exploring them. But first, let’s understand what this junk is.
(Oh, wait – Before anyone attempts to use the ol’ “I used it all my life and I turned out fine” excuse – pa-leeeeease. Know better. Do better. Live Better. That’s what this life is about or didn’t anyone fill you in yet?)

Now let’s get on with it.

Ingredients in Conventional (Cheap) Toothpaste

If you ever happened to find yourself curious as to what those “inactive ingredients” are in the stuff you are putting in your (and your children’s) mouth (at least) twice a day, then read on.

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS)

If you think you’ve seen this stuff before you are probably right. SLS is nearly incorporated in all bath and body products on the market today. It’s cheap and it provides that sudsy feeling we all have learned to equate with feeling so fresh and so clean; from baby shampoo to shower gel to lotion to toothpaste. However, SLS is known to be quite corrosive and harmful to skin (I’m not just saying that either – this is according to the American College of Toxicity).

sometimes, no matter howmany suds you have you're still
dirty as hell.

Think about it, the mouth is a very sensitive part of the human body. Take in to consideration that SLS has been shown to cause damage to oral tissue and reactions to SLS include gingivitis, receding gums and canker sores. [1][2][3][4]

In fact, using SLS-Free toothpaste has been clinically shown to reduce canker sores by 60%.[3] 

Who the heck thought of adding this junk in an item we use in our mouths many times throughout a given day?? Ugh.


Oh, you thought SLS was bad – it gets better.

This particular chemical pesticide is utilized for its antibacterial properties. You see, our mouths are full of bacteria, mostly harmless – when we eat, especially sugary drinks or food, the bacteria levels in our mouths skyrocket. The by-product of bacteria in the mouth is acid, which any dentist will tell ya isn’t good. 

However, using triclosan in our mouth is overkill – it’s like using a lawn mower to open a piece of mail. (I heart metaphors)

lawnmower accidents are serious

In fact, triclosan has been scrutinized in regard to human health for years. Currently, the EPA has accelerated the schedule assessing the toxicity of this pesticide – pushing up the review process to start next year, that’s 10 years earlier then it was originally scheduled. This was done intentionally and specifically due to concerns on endocrine-related effects.[5]

Oh, and because the US EPA admits that it is not sure what level of human exposure is safe. [5]

Hello?! Some days the more I read, the more discouraged I get.

Hydrated Silica

This ingredient is used in toothpaste as an abrasive and whitener.

If you are curious what hydrated silica is, consider that if you dried it out you would be left with the common silica gel found in those tiny packets found in electronics and such – you know those little packets that coincidentally read “Do not eat”.

Putting silica in toothpaste makes sense, not.

You might also find silica under furry butts in the basement used to absorb urine. Fun times – definitely something I would enjoy in my mouth. Not.

But seriously, to understand why hydrated silica is not an ideal choice for good oral health you have to learn a bit about tooth enamel.

Oh, bare with me here. You see, your enamel re-mineralizes daily from calcium and
phosphorus in your saliva. Neat, huh? Scratching the surface of a tooth with such an abrasive measure causes severe wear and limits this re-mineralization. In fact, it causes sensitivity and receding gums.

I think I know someone who looks similar to this guy

While hydrated silica may do an excellent job at removing tartar and making teeth whiter (in appearance only) it also does an amazing job at damaging your teeth and gums, making them super sensitive – which also makes it hard to eat ice cream. No thanks.


When I bought my daughter her first toothpaste, I thought I did a good job by opting for fluoride-free. But then I read what the main ingredient was.

Why is sorbitol a main ingredient in children’s toothpaste (and adult’s as well)? That’s easy – it’s because sorbitol is sugar and makes toothpaste taste like candy. (a simile this time, not a metaphor… in case you were counting)

Sorbitol actually was the sole ingredient that encouraged me to look into toothpaste a bit further. When I read that ingredient in my daughter’s toothpaste I was a bit disappointed and confused. I remember seeing sorbitol in the ingredients of soft drinks and junk food. Why was I having my child brush her teeth with sugar? 

cupcake toothpaste, seriously?

That doesn’t make much sense. Of course, toothpaste manufacturers aren’t in the business of making sense, they are in the business of making cheap toothpaste, duh Amanda.

Sodium Flouride

Ahh, the big question – should you use fluoride throughout the day in your teeth cleaning regime?

If you do, that’s fine – if you don’t, then that tells me that you may have read a thing or two about fluoride. I’m not going to go into the specifics of highly toxic fluoride is to the human body, but in short it’s not good. In fact, every toothpaste container is required by the FDA to post instructions on how to contact poison control if you happen to be so unlucky as to ingest the stuff. [6]

“If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed,
get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.”

How much is a pea size-, you ask, well it comes out to be approximately 0.3 mg of fluoride.[6]
pea size

  • Early symptoms of acute fluoride toxicity (e.g. gastrointestinal pain, nausea, vomiting, headaches) can be produced at doses as low as 0.1 to 0.3 mg/kg. [7]
  • Swallowing fluoride at the amount 5 mg can be fatal.[7]
  • Ingestion of as little as 1 percent of a tube of flavored children's toothpaste can produce acute fluoride toxicity in a young child. [7]

Not to mention if you lather your toothbrush up with  too much fluorinated toothpaste – then you increase you risk of getting flourosis. Why use it all? Oh wait, I know - because studies have illustrated topical use of fluoride to aid in the prevention of cavities.

I have two issues with this statement.

Firstly, I have a problem with the word topical when used in terms of brushing teeth. When you brush your teeth, the toothpaste is not placed on the teeth alone (think of those funky fluoride treatments dentist do when you’re a kid) – it’s everywhere in the mouth – the gums, tongue (hopefully you’re brushing your tongue), the roof of your mouth, maybe some on your lips too.

who the heck thought of this?!

What I don’t get is how scientists don’t consider oral mucosa absorption – which interestingly enough is greater then an intra-muscular injection.[8]


People act like the only way to prevent cavities is to use fluoride. There are many, many, many ways to prevent cavities and promote oral care…which are even more efficient and safer then fluoride!

In brief – maintaining a proper diet ranks in at number one at affecting the health of your teeth (and its roots), gums and tongue. Interestingly, getting enough sleep ranks up there as well – also choosing not to smoke. Who knew staying healthy could be so easy?[9] 

I think it would be wise to begin to question the long standing use of fluoride in toothpaste (not to mention in our water as well).


This is not an exhaustive list in any case, there are many other weird ingredients that are questionable and cheap in your average toothpaste. There are many other options available. For me and my family – I’ve been using Dessert Essence Toothpaste for about a year now.

love this stuff

I just recently let myself run out by accident and had to use to regular stuff until my package arrives from Amazon. This is what prompted me to write this post – it tastes soo sweet and cheap, I can’t believe the majority of people depend on this stuff for their oral health their entire lifetime.

Consider an alternative.


[1]Herlosfson BB, Barkvoll P. Sodium lauryl sulfate and recurrent aphthous ulcers. A preliminary trial. Acta Odontol Scand 1994;52:257-59.

[2]Herlosfson BB, Barkvoll P. The effect of two toothpaste detergents on the frequency of recurrent aphthous ulcers. Acta Odontol Scand 1996;54:150-53.

[3]Chahine L Sempson N, Wagoner C. The effect of sodium lauryl sulfate on recurrent aphthous ulcers: a clinical study. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1997;18:1238-40.

[4]Healy CM, Paterson M, Joyston-Bechal S, Williams DM, Thornhill MH. The effect of a sodium lauryl sulfate-free dentifrice on patients with recurrent oral ulceration. Oral Dis. 1999 Jan;5(1):39-43.

[5]Pesticides: Reregistration – Triclosan Fact. US EPA Website. Current as of Mar 2010 
[6]“How much toothpaste is too much?” The Chicago Dental Society
[7] Dying from toothpaste ingestion. SoftDental: The Houston Laser, Cosmetic and Family Dentist.
[8]Physician's Desk Reference
    (You should totally read more oral mucosa absorption.)

[9]Miyuki Kibayashi, Muneo Tanaka, Nobuko Nishida, Masae Kuboniwa, Kosuke Kataoka, Hideki Nagata, Kunio Nakayama, Kanehisa Morimoto, Satoshi Shizukuishi. Longitudinal Study of the Association Between Smoking as a Periodontitis Risk and Salivary Biomarkers Related to Periodontitis. Journal of Periodontology. Vol 78, No 5; 859-867. May 2007


This post has been included on The Pistachio Project's Simple Saturdays Blog-hop. Check it more out here:

F-You Back AAP

This year we were lucky enough to witness many nations around the world (even an attempt by the beautiful State of California) to advise a ban on forced genital cutting of healthy baby boys while the US (as usual) decides to, in so many words, say f - ‘em.

f-you back AAP

 Just three days ago, the AAP released their newest statement regarding circumcision which is a complete embarrassment. Devoid of grounded, sound medical evidence, the AAP suggests that the benefits of amputating a part of a newborns penis is more beneficial then not.

“I’m sorry son, but your penis is completely wack.”

wiggity-wiggity wack
By wack, the AAP means the way you were born is too prone to HIV and an occasional UTI to be left alone. They determined this by 3 shoddy clinical trials carried out in Africa which supposedly prove that cutting babies in infancy will provide a 60 percent reduction in female to male heterosexual transmission of HIV.

Never mind the substantial amount of peer-reviewed published papers published since then (2007) that debunk these claims. Argh.

Don’t believe me – check them out yourself:

Dowsett GW, Couch M. Male circumcision and HIV prevention: is there really enough of the right kind of evidence? Reprod Health Matters 2007; 15(29):33-44.

Green LW, McAllister RG, Peterson KW, Travis JW. Male circumcision is not the HIV vaccine we have been waiting for! Future HIV Therapy 2008; 2(3):193-199.

Sidler D, Smith J, Rode H. Neonatal circumcision does not reduce HIV/AIDS infection rates. S Afr Med J 2008; 98(10): 762-766.

Myers A, Myers J. Rolling out male circumcision as a mass HIV/AIDS intervention seems neither justified nor practicable. South Afr Med J 2008:98(10):781-782.

Van Howe, Storms MS. How the circumcision solution in Africa will increase HIV infections. Jounral of Public Health in Africa 2011; 2:e4 doi:10.4081/jphia.2011.e4

Boyle GJ, Hill G. Sub-Saharan African randomized clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns. J Law Med (Melbourne) 2011; 19: 316-334.

In fact, recent evidence illustrates high rates of HIV infection among circumcised men in numerous populations as compared to men who are lucky enough to have kept their penises un-botched.

Even if the research was valid, that boys are born inherently dysfunctional AND must be corrected at birth – the AAP conveniently dismisses any ethical questions regarding circumcision.

Hmm, ethics - I know I've heard of that before

There is absolutely no mention to a child’s right to bodily integrity which is established in both domestic and international human rights law. Newborn babies are seen as possession of the parents.

Hello people!! Circumcision is a non-therapeutic surgical operation on healthy babies that does not diagnosis nor is a treatment of any respect of the word – how are we still allowing parental consent for a procedure that involuntary amputates a part of the male body?!

Ok, enough pissing and moaning about it -

Luckily, the internet is a useful tool for social transformation. I urge you to spread the word and learn more!

Here is the email addresses of the 2012 AAP Task Force on Circumcision and AAP Board of Directors* – contact them!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

“A rational and moral person, not entrenched in this cultural practice or clouded by religion, can very easily see that cutting genitals of children, especially when children die or are permanently and irreparably damaged, isn’t acceptable no matter how valued the tradition and history.”

Here is a list of other sites to learn more about the issue surrounding circumcision in the United States and around the world:

More AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Reading and Responses:
*Thanks Dr Momma - 

AAP 2012 Policy Statement Excerpt:

AAP Circumcision Policy Statement: A Critique:

's Health & Human Rights Partnership Condemns New AAP Policy Statement:

Doctors Opposing Circumcision Commentary on AAP Policy Statement:
Circumcision Resource Center Response to AAP Policy Statement:

's Annotated AAP Policy Statement:

ARC Law Response:

America Response:

The Bias of the AAP:

My thoughts on the AAP Circumcision Policy Statement and What I
've Learned from a Decade of Intactivism:

Money Over Oath: Today We Grieve:

Around the Bush and Closer to Nowhere:

AAP: Breastfeeding Advocates or Pro-Circumcision Profiteers?

I don
't need the AAP to know:

Where logic and ethics go to die:

To the AAP Task Force on Circumcision

AAP / Circumcision Graphics:

AAP Protest Planning:

Join in the conversation:
Commentary on American Academy of Pediatrics 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement.

Buying into the Hype of This Year's Flu Shot?

Now is the time we start seeing signs littered out front of our local Walgreens and CVS informing us that this year’s flu vaccine is available and it’s imperative to your health to get one.


Just how essential is the shot in protecting you from getting sick though?


On average, about 12 percent of unlucky Americans will get the flu this year forcing some of them to stay home from work or school, eat soup and feel miserable for about a week. [1]

People that are bulldozed the most to get the vaccine are pregnant mothers, old timers (65 and over), and those of you carrying an inhaler (asthmatics). Also on the list are healthcare workers – many of which have no choice in the matter for threat of losing their job.[2]

a quick throw-back

This season’s influenza vaccine manufacturers have projected on producing about 150 million doses. Wowzers.[2]

According to the CDC’s literature, the most powerful tool we have against preventing influenza is to get vaccinated.[3]

Our second choice should be antiviral medication.

Thirdly, covering our mouth and washing our hands.

Whatthefrig?! Hand washing is ranked third even though the safety and efficacy has been proven higher at reducing hospitalization due to the flu versus the vaccine. Plus,  it’s the only one that carries no risk of funky side effects except for, maybe… CLEAN HANDS?!?! [4]

why does a justin beiber pic come up
when i google dirty hands ?

Ya’think the flu vaccine must be pretty effective if it is recommended as the best possible way to prevent us from getting sick.

I’m sure we all know someone that claims that getting the flu shot annually has protected them for years against the ills that come with fearful virus.

Could this be right? Should we seriously consider getting our flu shot?

The majority of research conducted must validate the need not only recommend it, but testify that it is our absolute best way to stay healthy…right?

Couldn’t be further from the truth.

What if you found out that a review of all studies available concerning the influenza vaccine reflected a 1% reduction rate of influenza symptoms?

Hmm – that smells fishy.

I eat you.

Cochrane Review Study of 2010

Goal: The authors of the review attempt to identify, retrieve and asses all studies evaluating the effects of vaccines against influenza in adults 18-65 from 1966 to June 2010.

They also included vaccines of all types – such as attenuated and live vaccines. That’s pretty neat.

92 reports were dismissed for the following reasons: significant errors, inconsistent data, not being randomly controlled, and lack of using a placebo.

Findings: Influenza vaccines administered parenterally (i.e. via injection) have the potential “to reduce the risk of developing influenza symptoms by around 4% (IF the WHO recommendations are adhered to and the match is right”) [5 Pg 11]

Further more, the authors state that symptoms are only part of the total clinical effectiveness and the flu vaccine “reduces the risk of total ‘clinical’ seasonal influenza symptoms by around 1%”. [5 Pg11] 

Should also mention that no evidence was presented in any studies reviewed confirming that getting the flu vaccine will prevent of transmission of the flu virus.

They also report no evidence that the vaccine prevents complications from the flu, such as pneumonia or hospital visits. 

This confirms data reported 5 years ago by the Cochrane Review in which 274 studies were evaluated.
Why is the CDC still continuing to maintain that this vaccine is the best, superiorly effective measure against staying healthy against influenza?!

I don’t get it.

Shoddy Info

Not only that, but the review goes on to say that there are some real shady things going when it comes to reporting data.

Studies that were funded by vaccine manufacturers were more likely to be cited by the media and the CDC while publicly funded studies were much less likely to show positive results when using the vaccine.

"...industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies..."
"...there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions..."

But what about children and the elderly?

The Cochrane review of influenza vaccine in children under 2 years of age illustrated no protective effect when compared to a placebo. And when addressing those over 65, those who are more susceptible to complications of the flu, they were unable to demonstrate any effectiveness.
In fact, the authors openly address the CDC in their conclusion, stating:

"The CDC authors clearly do not weight interpretation by
quality of the evidence, but quote anything that supports their theory."

Yikes. That’s ruthless.

I like it.

I urge you to read the 2010 Cochrane Review which is available via PDF to learn more.

Until then, rest easy knowing there are much effective ways to prevent the flu  while also preventing a host of other illnesses and disease, such as: Nutrition, exercise, stress relief, good sleeping habits, avoid smoking and considering adding vitamin D3 supplements to your daily routine.

Here’s to you and your health – without the flu shot!


[1]CBS News Staff. FDA approves new flu vaccine for 2012-2013 season. CBS News. Aug 2012

[2]What You Should Know for the 2012-2013 Influenza Season. CDC Website.  Last Updated Jun 2012

[3]Selecting the Viruses in the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine. CDC Website. Last Updated Mar 2011

[4]Pere Godoy. Jesus Castilla, Miguel Delgado-Rodriguez, Vicente Martin, Nuria Soldevila, Jordi Alonso, Jenaro Astray, Maretva Baricot, Rafael Canton, Ady Castro, Fernando Gonzalez-Candelas, Jose Maria Mayoral, Jose Maria Quintana, Tomas Pumarola, Sonia Tamames, Angela Doninquez. Effectiveness of hand hygiene and provision of information in preventing influenza cases requiring hospitalization. Preventive Medicine. Vol 54. Issue 6; 434-439. June 2012

[5] Jefferson,T O, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 (7): CD001269.

Neustaedter R. FLU: Alternative Treatments and Prevention. 2005. North Atlantic Books,
Berkeley, CA.

Rivetti D, Jefferson T, Thomas R, Rudin M, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C, and Demicheli V.. Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 (3): CD004876.

Jefferson T O, Rivetti D, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, and Demicheli V. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 (2): CD001269.

Jefferson,T O, Rivetti A, Harnden A, Di Pietrantonj C, and Demicheli V. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 (2): CD004879.