Sodium Fluoride

Search for some of the older threads where this subject has been discussed extensively.

I have severe otosclerosis (3 stapedotomys). My internationally recognized ear doctor/surgon recommended Monocal Ca+Fl supplement to slow progression, and I’ve been taking 1 tablet per day for many years.

My own research indicates: potential benefit for those with otosclerosis far outweighs potential ill effects.

Not being funny, but if Monocal Ca + Fl is so good, how come you’ve needed 3 stapedotomys?
otosclerosis is a calcium build up, so why introduce more of the stuff?
Have a look at this link: Otosclerosis45

Another caution: All situations are not the same. My ENT had me on Sodium Fluoride. When my Cardiologist became aware of this, the two of them talked and decided that to NOT take Sodium Fluoride would be in my best interest.

@cheap_hearing_aids said:

Not being funny, but if Monocal Ca + Fl is so good, how come you’ve needed 3 stapedotomys?
otosclerosis is a calcium build up, so why introduce more of the stuff?
Have a look at this link: Otosclerosis

I seriously doubt he knew about Monocal Ca + Fl before his stapedectomies, The disease is a long time progression before stapedectomy.

My international recognized surgeon prescribed Florical + 400 iu Vitamin D after my two stapedectomies last year. He gave me up to 50 DB in one ear and up to 55 DB in the other, I am following his directions…

@JW_in_VA said:

I seriously doubt he knew about Monocal Ca + Fl before his stapedectomies, The disease is a long time progression before stapedectomy.

That is correct.

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

@ebayFANhearing said:

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

@Jeffrey_David said:

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

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.

@KerBear said:

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