so what are you suggesting instead of the root canal if you disagree with it so much? an extraction followed by a partial denture?

If so, that has its drawbacks too. I am concerned that the extraction itself may not be a simply job. What if it tears the bone and makes a hole through my nose? The apex of that tooth is painful when i press right next to my nose on my face. How do I know whether the extraction will not cause such kinds of problems?

also I wanted you to tell me which tooth you are referring to on the image i uploaded. I know which tooth is the canine, in my mouth. I wanted to know which one it is on the image.

why cant they simply drill through the tooth if its calcified? The main thing is to drill until you get to the tip of the root.Then you can clean out that area and seal it. Also you can seal off any remaining bacteria so its not necessary to remove all of the bacteria. I agree it is not a perfect procedure but you make it sound like it is no better than leaving the tooth alone. Which is better? If you had a choice between leaving the tooth as it is and chronically infected, OR removing upto 99% of the bacteria with a root canal, which is better?

Where is the evidence that root canal, if done properly does not cure the infection?
Just because it fails after 20 years does not mean it was not effective up to that point does it?

I have heard some people say root canals have lasted them over 20 years or more. There are also some which fail very quickly. But you are dismissing the whole procedure. Why would they do it all over the US and the whole world, if it didnt fix the infection? That is the purpose of a root canal. If it didnt work, people would not pay hundreds of dollars to have it done. If it was no better than leaving it alone, then they would leave the tooth as it is.
Root canal treatment has been known to instantly provide relief from the unmistakeable pain of an abscess.