Question:
Reliable evidence comes when you’re the person whose health returns once you’ve rid yourself of amalgams. And the converse is true, all the stats in the world don’t make a difference if it doesn’t work for you. That’s fine if it’s something that isn’t recommended to others.
Really? I spend two years running from MD to MD spending $20,000 not to mentioned that I begged God to let me die, then I find an answer and am recovering. But I don’t tell anyone who has the same sympthoms as I However, the placebo effect is alive and well
AND so am I and it had nothing to do with the placebo effect. nd I hate to think of how many people have been led down the garden path because of someone’s personal testimony and find themselves no better but certainly poorer wallet wise.
And I hate to think of the people who are still suffering without an answer. The wallet doesn’t help those who are too sick to enjoy life or money. At least if something has been scientifically tested, I can judge the probabilities and risks involved.
That’s true, however I would still be looking if I had that attitude. You would be surprised at what you would do if you were near death. I can’t help but think of how much more productively the billions that people spend on untested treatments could be put to if channeled in the right direction.
Right direction? I took a U turn at the grave yard, but I promised NOT to tell anyone what saved my life. Sorry but that isn’t human nature. What is it were *you* who could be saved from my testimony??? Still think I should not tell you <<GASP because it hasn’t been proven?? We are seeing more and more people finding the same answer that I have. THANK GOD!! Support the anti-Spam amendment. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/
No thanks, I am far too busy helping *real* people not causes. Jan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Before you buy.
Response:
Mercury is the second most toxic substance for ANY human body. I don’t think peanuts carry that distinction. Neither does mercury, not even remotely. Somebody has been pulling your leg. — Chris Malcolm
Chris, You need to do some research. This will get you started. When you get done with these, I have many more. Jan http://vest.gu.se/!bosseMercury/Listings/mercburden.html#sources Mercury in dental amalgam is the source for exposure of dental patients and an occupational hazard in dentistry. For the general population dental amalgam is the main source for exposure to mercury. http://www.asomat.com/Frame/Main.htm http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pcsol/ IS DENTAL AMALGAM SAFE? The "silver" fillings in your teeth – Dental Amalgams – are still widely used by the dental profession in most parts of the world. The "Amalgam" consists of a mix of metals – Generally 50% Mercury, 35% Silver, 15% Tin & other metals. But is it safe to put so much Mercury, the most toxic non-radioactive metal known to man, into the mouth of a person? There is now a growing mountain of evidence that it is NOT safe to do so. Some countries, like Sweden, Canada and Germany, have either banned or imposed serious limitations on Amalgam usage. There is now compelling evidence from reputable scientific bodies such as the World Health Organisation that, despite claims from pro-amalgam bodies such as the American and British Dental Associations (ADA/BDA), mercury is NOT "locked" safely in the metal bonds in the teeth, but can leak slowly into the body, often causing severe illnesses. These are reckoned to possibly include ME/CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome), Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimers, and a whole range of "auto-immune" illnesses. In fact, just by damaging the immune system, Amalgam could be contributing to an even broader range of illnesses. Want to find out more? http://www.teleport.com/~ctseng/cfs.html http://www.cfsn.com/dental.html Mercury exposure from mercury dental fillings, also known as "silver" fillings and "amalgams", is a life long threat. When a person chews, drinks, swallows and breathes, mercury released from dental fillings is absorbed by the lungs and the linings of the digestive system into the bloodstream. As they corrode, mercury fillings release ionized mercury into the saliva, tooth pulp, and gum tissues leading to the digestive system and bloodstream. Measurements of momentary mercury levels in breath have been scientifically collected in multiple studies. There has been much debate about the potential safety hazard because mercury vapor levels measured in the mouth are not always above the standards set for exposure in the workplace. Overlooked has been the amount of mercury in feces, which demonstrates both exposure and excretion from the blood and tissues by the liver. The levels measured by Osterblad et. al. in the article "Antimicrobial and mercury resistance in aerobic gram-negative bacilli in fecal flora among persons with and without dental amalgam fillings" published in Antimicrobial Agents & Chemotherapy, 39(11):2499-502 1995 Nov; are disturbing, and clearly demonstrate that human mercury exposure is dominated by the presence of mercury dental fillings. Osterblad found that on average people with mercury dental fillings had 17 times more mercury in their feces than did people who had never had mercury dental fillings, and had 11 times more mercury in feces than did people who had all of their mercury dental fillings removed. The group with mercury dental fillings had more than 1 part per million mercury in their feces. At the first standard deviation, the difference between these populations becomes more dramatic. People with mercury dental fillings had nearly 4 parts per million mercury in feces, 39 times more mercury than did people who never had the fillings. Osterblad’s data indicates that 1 person in 1000 with mercury dental fillings will have 10 parts per million mercury in their daily feces, 170 times more mercury than the average person who has never had such a filling. http://www.holisticmed.com/dental/amalgam/
Response:
Mercury is the second most toxic substance for ANY human body. I don’t think peanuts carry that distinction.
Response:
Mercury is the second most toxic substance for ANY human body. I don’t think peanuts carry that distinction.
OK, so what’s the most toxic substance? — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct. "What would Brian Boitano do?" – Kyle, Stan, and Cartman
Response:
There certainly is more science in the world than a search on Medline. I am fascinated how if people can’t find something on med-line then they assume it does not exist.
<Bunches of stuff snipped to save bandwidth Good Golly, was there anything in there like, "So many % of people with so many % of amalgam fillings have been shown to have these conditions as compared to this % of the population who didn’t have amalgam fillings." You’ll find almost any substance can be toxic to a certain percentage of the population. My husband can die from eating one peanut as can bunches of other people but I don’t run around telling people to stay away from nuts because they are dangerous. Give some meaningful stats. That’s all I’m asking for. All that other stuff reads like that phony Nancy Merkel aspartame scare garbage that’s been floating around for ages. Before you buy.
Response:
Really? I spend two years running from MD to MD spending $20,000 Been there, done that. The current medical system is far from perfect. I just don’t believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Me either. Good conventional doctors are worth their weight in gold. AND so am I and it had nothing to do with the placebo effect. Acutally, there is very little that can be done to determine that.
Then why is it so over used? People who espouse "alternative" therapies rely in part on the natural rates of spontaneous recovery.
They just sit around and wait for the spontaneous recovery to take over? Sure sounds easy. Fold your hands and hope for the best? Once you learn your immune system is weakened, you best find the *cause* ASAP!! That’s true, however I would still be looking if I had that attitude. You would be surprised at what you would do if you were near death. Been there, done that, witnessed plenty of it in other patients. It’s one of the reasons I am so passionate about scientific methodology rather than haphazard trying this and trying that by individual patients.
I guess it is all in what experiences one has in life. I am passionate about anyone who I see suffering. It tears me up to see anyone settle for a morphine pump. As for me, I have never done anything haphazerly. Too much of the general. Most of the people at Diamond Headache Clinic were type A personality. What if it were *you* who could be saved from my testimony??? Still think I should not tell you <<GASP because it hasn’t been proven?? Actually, don’t think I ever suggested keeping possible treatments secret. Just advocate presenting a balanced view with as much scientific data and objective information as possible.
No? You stated that what worked for you shouldn’t be recommended? This whole thread started with a man who went to Mayo’s, spent $100,000, and then was told by a N.D. to check out the teeth. He did and recovered. He then told others and knew of 12 people who did the same and they are recovering. Until he spoke up *I* was the only one here who had lost my mind. As I had predicted, we will see more and more people who have had the metal out of the mouth and regained their health. I just spoke with a lady last night who has also been to has mercury poisoning. And of all things, her son is a dentist and knows NOTHING of the dangers to some people!! If the ADA would get off their duffs and admit what they already know, we could save much suffering. Jan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Support the anti-Spam amendment. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/ Before you buy.
Response:
There have been a few survey-type studies (methodologically of limited value) by R. L. Siblerud which are on Medline. They support the contention that lots of people enjoy health improvements following amalgam removal. There is also evidence that amalgam removal doesn’t do diddly.
And much of this is because the dentist didn’t get ALL the mercury out. It is a real art to do the job right. The jury is still out on that one.
And probably will be for some time. Too many toes being stepped on. In the meantime, some (who have done a little research and talked with others who are recovering) prefer NOT to wait. Again I must ask, what would you do? For lack of strong scientific evidence against amalgam removal, and given the rational arguments and non-clinical scientific evidence (continual release of inhalable mercury vapour from amalgams, its extreme neurotoxicity, significantly higher mercury levels in organs of people with amalgams, etc.), desparate people – notably those who *aren’t* being helped by mainstream methods – are just being pragmatic by trying the amalgam- removal option, especially when a good anecdotal case comes along to inspire them. Possibly, possibly not.
Hmmm. Could be said about anything, any where any time. Have you any stats that indicate the number of people helped by amalgam removal verses patients who have tried it with not effect?
Good question. Many things to be considered. Like did the dentist know *how* to remove the metal? Would he admit it if he didn’t? Would he be threathened with jerking his license? When will The ADA get real? When will mainstream admit there is a problem? Not in my life time! Sure thankful I DIDN’T wait. And very THANKFUL for the people like Hulda Clark, who told me about checking out the teeth. And THANKFUL that my parents always taught me to stand up for what I knew was Jan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Support the anti-Spam amendment. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/ Before you buy.
Response:
Once again when they can not defend themselves they try ad hoc and ad hominem statements and try the old smoke screen. If you can’t address the issue then attack the poster. If you can’t validate anything you say, why say it at all. One wonders what a person like you does when Medline is down.
Response:
There have been a few survey-type studies (methodologically of limited value) by R. L. Siblerud which are on Medline. They support the contention that lots of people enjoy health improvements
following amalgam removal. There is also evidence that amalgam removal doesn’t do diddly. The jury is still out on that one. For lack of strong scientific evidence against amalgam removal, and given the rational arguments and non-clinical scientific evidence (continual release of inhalable mercury vapour from amalgams, its extreme neurotoxicity, significantly higher mercury levels in organs of people with amalgams, etc.), desparate people – notably those who *aren’t* being helped by mainstream methods – are just being pragmatic by trying the amalgam- removal option, especially when a good anecdotal case comes along to inspire them.
Possibly, possibly not. Have you any stats that indicate the number of people helped by amalgam removal verses patients who have tried it with not effect? — Support the anti-Spam amendment. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/ Before you buy.
Response:
Really? I spend two years running from MD to MD spending $20,000
Been there, done that. The current medical system is far from perfect. I just don’t believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water. AND so am I and it had nothing to do with the placebo effect.
Acutally, there is very little that can be done to determine that. People who espouse "alternative" therapies rely in part on the natural rates of spontaneous recovery. That’s true, however I would still be looking if I had that attitude. You would be surprised at what you would do if you were near death.
Been there, done that, witnessed plenty of it in other patients. It’s one of the reasons I am so passionate about scientific methodology rather than haphazard trying this and trying that by individual patients. What if it were *you* who could be saved from my testimony??? Still think I should not tell you <<GASP because it hasn’t been proven??
Actually, don’t think I ever suggested keeping possible treatments secret. Just advocate presenting a balanced view with as much scientific data and objective information as possible. — Support the anti-Spam amendment. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/ Before you buy.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Reliable evidence comes when you’re the person whose health returns once you’ve rid yourself of amalgams. And the converse is true, all the stats in the world don’t make a difference if it doesn’t work for you. That’s fine if it’s something that isn’t recommended to others. However, the placebo effect is alive and well and I hate to think of how many people have been led down the garden path because of someone’s personal testimony and find themselves no better but certainly poorer wallet wise. At least if something has been scientifically tested, I can judge the probabilities and risks involved. I can’t help but think of how much more productively the billions that people spend on untested treatments could be put to if channeled in the right direction.
Dear Whomever you are: Unfortunately, scientific validation seems to diminish individuality because it looks at the average or maybe one or two std deviations. I must come into contact with many of those outside the norm. The point I’m trying to make is: if nothing else has helped, find an M.D. willing to do a urine analysis or you can get a hair analysis kit by Body Balance to check mercury elimination, might as well check for nickel too. You can find in a good health food store. This is a life. If you wish to put a $ on it, you can. C. Bond.
Response:
You’re obviously quoting this from something. Couldn’t you just post a URL instead of 300 lines of text? — David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone These are my opinions only, but they’re almost always correct. "What would Brian Boitano do?" – Kyle, Stan, and Cartman
Response:
There certainly is more science in the world than a search on Medline. I am fascinated how if people can’t find something on med-line then they assume it does not exist. Med-line very deliberately does not have many published articles in its data base. For a bit of the science over the controversy read this reprint courtesy of G. Null Associates. Over the past few decades, Americans have been besieged by a series of health epidemics with one common denominator: all were man-made. With each of these epidemics, the government and its watchdog agencies routinely assured us that a danger did not exist. Since they would not allow harmful foods, chemicals or drugs on the market, the reasoning went, the very fact that the products were in use assured us of their safety. When overwhelming evidence proved the contrary, government and industry only begrudgingly removed these products from the shelves. The epidemics in question? Diethylstilbesterol, which harmed millions of Americans; Oraflex, the anti-arthritic drug, DDT, the pesticide; and the Dalkon shield, to name just a few of more than 200 such items that got an official stamp of approval over the years. Now the battle line has been drawn over yet another "safe" substance, the mercury silver amalgam used in dental fillings. On one side of the battle are the scientists, holistic dentists and health activists who believe mercury amalgams are a biological time bomb ticking away in our mouths. They point to scientific evidence showing that chronic mercury exposure from dental fillings puts most people at risk for serious health disorders. On the other side stands the dental establishment, led by the American Dental Association, which claims that mercury amalgam has adverse effects only on people who are hypersensitive to it. The ADA pegs this group at 1% of the population. For the rest of us, it says, amalgams pose absolutely no harm. But the ADA has yet to offer scientific proof of mercury’s safety, leading health advocates to call for a ban on its use. The Toxic Element Research Foundation (TERF) claims that the cumulative effects of mercury amalgam poisoning make it one of the most insidious health hazards facing Americans today. "The true impact of amalgam poisoning is similar to that of the Chernobyl tragedy," states the organization. "The magnitude of the crisis is not the few who have died from massive exposure, but rather it is the millions whose health will be eroded by the ongoing, small-dose poisoning."1 Considering that 19 out of 20 Americans suffer from dental cavities, the stakes are indeed high. More than 200 million people – some 85% of the population – already have at least one cavity filled with mercury amalgam.2 Little wonder, then, that Americans are demanding a much more persuasive answer to the fundamental question: Are mercury amalgams safe? A History of Ill Effects Mercury has a long history of extreme toxicity, which makes its deliberate use in people’s mouths all the harder to comprehend. Consider the bare facts: One of the oldest of all recognized poisons – a metal more toxic than lead and even arsenic – is the main ingredient in today’s most common dental amalgam, which American dentists place in about 1 million fillings per day.3,4 Disinfectants, antiseptics, pesticides and insecticides contain this same ingredient because it is hostile to life.5 Tales of mercury’s damaging effects date to ancient Roman and Spanish history, when imprisoned slaves who worked in mercury mines suffered from acute symptoms of fatigue, dyspnea and epigastric pain on their first day. As time passed, they developed other highly common symptoms of mercury poisoning. These included lesions of the nervous system such as erethismus mercurialis (moodiness and other mental disturbances) and tremor mercurialis (involuntary, choreatic shaking movements). These slaves were condemned to death in the mines, and they eventually wasted away in the terminal stages of mercury poisoning. By contrast, the small doses of mercury released by dental amalgam cause a chronic mercury poisoning that manifests, for the most part, as mental symptoms. That makes it especially difficult to diagnose.6 A more recent example of mercury’s dangers comes from the British hatmaking industry of the late 19th century. At the time, the expression "mad as a hatter" characterized workers who used mercury compounds in the shaping of felt hats. The workers exhibited unusual shyness, mood swings and a dwindling intellect, all symptoms of severe mental retardation.7 But these dangers were recognized for three-quarters of a century before the use of mercury in the U.S. hatmaking industry was banned in 1941.8 Mercury got its start in the dental industry in 1826, when a Paris dentist combined it with silver, copper and other metals to create a paste. Seven years later, two brothers in New York City with no dental training began to promote mercury as a cheap alternative to gold fillings.9 By the end of the 1830s, mercury amalgam’s use was commonplace in the U.S.10 Not only was the material cheap and durable, but it also required less time and skill to place than the trickier gold fillings.1l, l2 Still, traditional dentists were appalled by the very idea of using a known poison in the body.13 In the 1940s, the American Society of Dental Surgeons required its members to sign a pledge not to use the substance in their practices. But many members refused to sign because they believed mercury’s low cost would benefit the poor. The debate caused such a schism in dentistry that the Society eventually folded. When the American Dental Association formed in 1859, it took a very different stance on the mercury issue. The ADA defended the use of mercury amalgam, helping to establish it as a popular dental filling by the end of the 1800s.14 The organization’s staunch defense of mercury continues to this day. The Dangers of Mercury Increasingly, however, the ADA’s pro-mercury position flies in the face of scientific evidence proving amalgam’s dangers. As far back as 1980, the World Health Organization identified elemental mercury vapor (the form leached by amalgam) as one of the two most hazardous types of mercury to human health.15 And research has shown that chronic exposure to small amounts of mercury can lead to a long list of ailments, affecting everything from the nervous and immune systems to brain and kidney functioning. The symptoms linked to habitual mercury exposure include the following: anemia, anorexia, colitis, depression, dizziness, drowsiness, headaches, hormonal disturbances, hypertension, impaired coordination, impaired hearing/ vision, insomnia, intestinal problems, irritability, joint pains, kidney damage, memory impairment, metallic taste, numbness, peripheral neuritis, psychoses, tremors and weakness.16, 17 One recent study of 1,320 mercury-toxic patients shows just how prevalent these symptoms can be: 73% suffered from chronic irritability; 72% had chronic depression, with about one-third of these demonstrating suicidal tendencies; and 67% had numbness and tingling in the hands and feet.18 Even small amounts of the potent mercury can trigger adverse effects. At exposure levels of only 10 to 30 micrograms per day, researchers have reported changes in body functions such as thyroid uptake, liver function, heart EKG, adrenal gland activity and immunologic responses. One study noted changes in conditioned reflexes at mercury concentrations as low as 2 to 5 micrograms per day.19 Meanwhile, a newly placed, multi-surface filling in a molar can contain 750 to 1,000 milligrams of mercury.20 In essence, mercury is one of multiple stressors that can build up in the body and contribute to disease, says Dr. Robert Rowen, a member of the Academy of Environmental Medicine and the American College for the Advancement of Medicine. Along with malnutrition, allergens, electromagnetic fields and environmental pollutants, mercury will take its toll on the body systems.21 But despite the severity of its effects, mercury toxicity can be extremely difficult to diagnose with a simple blood test. The mercury leaches into the bloodstream in very small amounts, but it only stays there for a short time before depositing in the body tissues, says Dr. Sandra Denton, a board member of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. "Instead of looking at the symptoms of mercury (poisoning), the doctors are looking for the mercury and therefore are missing the diagnosis," she says.22 In addition, the symptoms themselves can be so diverse that a diagnosis of mercury poisoning remains quite difficult, says Dr. Hal Huggins, a dentist in Colorado Springs, Colorado and the director of the Huggins Diagnostic Center. The lack of an easy and accurate diagnosis lulls the public into underestimating the dangers of mercury amalgams. "If we knew that (mercury) went to the same place every time, it would be easy to get a verdict against it," says Huggins. "But in one person (it can cause) mental problems, another person may have neurological problems and another may have problems with the heart beating fast. There are so many things that can happen, that it’s very difficult to tell what is the diagnosis of mercury toxicity.23 The Evidence Against Mercury Still, the scientific research proving mercury’s toxicity has been piling up for years. And while a diagnosis itself may be elusive, the realities of mercury poisoning are hard to ignore when study after study shows that the mercury released from dental amalgams can wreak havoc on the body. What follows is a description of various studies and reports that have explored the link between mercury amalgams and health disorders. As a body of work, these reports offer a comprehensive view of mercury’s ability to enter the body and cause serious damage to physical and mental functioning: The mechanism of mercury leaching. According to organized dentistry, amalgams … read more »
Response:
Miscellaneous findings. In 1991, two new studies identified other damaging effects of mercury amalgam. Medical researchers at the University of Kentucky established a probable relationship between mercury amalgam exposure and Alzheimer’s disease and cardiovascular disease. Meanwhile, microbiologists at the University of Georgia found that mercury from fillings inhibits the effectiveness of antibiotics.61 The ADA Controversy How great is the danger from mercury amalgam? That question stirs hot debate between those who question its use and those who promote amalgam as a safe and effective compound. By conservative estimates, the average adult American has 10 fillings of three surfaces each piece. If each of these surfaces leaches one microgram of mercury per day (the generally accepted figure), then the average adult faces potential exposure to 30 micrograms of mercury a day from amalgams alone.62 The Food and Drug Administration cautions against any increase in the daily mercury exposure rate from food of 2.89 micrograms.63 The Toxic Element Research Foundation estimates that people with 13 or more amalgams exceed the World Health Organization’s daily mercury limit of 42.9 micrograms. Says TERF: "The compelling fact about this data is that it does not include the mercury exposure received from all possible sources, such as the altogether different categories of food, air and saliva".64 Other experts agree that even low doses of mercury exposure deserve careful investigation. "It is tempting to summarily conclude that such exposures result in no adverse effects since there is no readily identifiable, general affliction associated with the use of amalgam and stainless steel in dentistry," states Dr. Swartzendruber of the University of Colorado. "However, low-dose, chronic exposure to any substance tends to have insidious and often highly complex sequelae which may be multifactorial and interactive," he explains. "Also, recent innovative experiments demonstrate that low-dose mutagenesis is significantly greater than previously purported."65 Despite these concerns, the American Dental Association claims that amalgam is unsafe only for the 1% of Americans that it estimates to be hypersensitive to mercury. While offering no proof of amalgam’s safety, the ADA insists that "the continuous use of dental amalgam as a restorative material does not pose a health hazard to the nonallergic patient."66 The results of other research, however, call the ADA’s estimate of mercury hypersensitivity into question. Studies cited by the Journal of the Massachusetts Dental Society indicate that the level of hypersensitivity is 10 times higher. One study of 1,538 people found 9.6% to be hypersensitive; another study of 1,000 subjects put the number at 11.3%.67 And what if the ADA’s estimate were accurate, asks TERF. Even that 1% is 1,000 times greater than the level of exposure considered adequate grounds for a recall in the auto industry. In one instance, says TERF, more than 100,000 vehicles were recalled because of a single non-fatal injury caused by a hazardous automobile material.68 In its staunch support of amalgam, the ADA claims that "when mercury is combined with the metals used in dental amalgam, its toxic properties are made harmless." As a result, it says, "For most patients…dental amalgam remains a safe and effective material for filling cavities."69 But when it comes to the cold, hard facts, the ADA’s defense of mercury stands on shaky ground. The ADA no longer maintains that amalgam’s safety has been scientifically proven, says the Academy, and it offers no certification of the safe and effective use of mixed amalgam. In fact, the ADA says amalgam cannot be certified because it is mixed by individual dentists who must take responsibility for the material’s safety.70, 71 The ADA relies heavily on amalgam’s widespread use over the past 150 years as evidence of its safety. The organization suggests that "the most convincing support we have for the safety of dental amalgam is the fact that each year more than 100 million amalgam fillings are placed in the U.S." This rationale offers little comfort to those who question amalgam’s use. "This is a chilling thought,. says the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Calgary. "It should be a cause for concern that approximately 72 million tons of mercury are used annually in dentistry, much of it being placed into the teeth of Americans."72 The ADA also has claimed that people are exposed to more mercury from fish than from dental amalgams, a statement the Academy challenges because the scientific evidence proves otherwise. Says the Academy: "Autopsies of people with fillings confirm that the amount of exposure to dietary mercury is apparently much less than that from dental amalgam mercury. Authorities in the field of metal toxicology have concluded that this chronic exposure from dental fillings makes the predominant contribution of human exposure to mercury."73 The ADA’s position may be best illustrated by its response in 1983 to a study that measured mercury in the expired air of humans. The ADA stated: "We wish the public to be as certain as we are that dental amalgam is safe, and we will pursue this matter until that certainty is assured."74 Note the wording, "until that certainty is assured." A scientific study does not set out to "assure" any one viewpoint, but to conduct an open inquiry that not only recognizes new information but follows that evidence wherever it may lead. In 1984, the ADA did alter its position slightly to admit that mercury does indeed escape from amalgam. But it still maintained that the amounts in question were too small to cause any damage to the body.75 But the ADA continues to deliver its flawed argument through the popular press. One recent Reader’s Digest editorial, which was adapted from the ADA News, reports that "about 0.7 nanograms of mercury were in each gram of blood in people with silver fillings, compared to 0.3 nanograms in those without fillings." Since the FDA considers 20 nanograms per gram of blood to be safe, says the editorial, "researchers calculate that it would take 100 fillings to reach this level – to reach the lowest toxic level of mercury, a person would require 1,000 fillings." The article ends with the standard ADA conclusion: "Silver fillings do not pose a health hazard to the nonallergic patient."76 But again, this argument conveniently overlooks some basic facts about how mercury is stored in the body. As Dr. Huggins explains: "The logic is based on the erroneous assumption that blood mercury levels for subacute exposures are indicative of actual mercury contamination. The fact that the blood mercury levels are not good indicators of total body burden is well-established in literature." Thirty years ago, a study reported that mercury is rapidly cleared out of the blood after an intravenous injection, says Dr. Huggins. In 1972, researchers Friberg and Vostals found that mercury concentrations in blood were "hardly suitable" in evaluating retention.77 And in 1980, Phelps and Clarkson found that "a low mercury level in blood may falsely imply that significant mercury exposure has not occurred when, in fact, a dangerously high target tissue exposure may have existed."78 While the ADA defends the use of mercury amalgam, the Environmental Protection Agency has defined it as a hazardous substance. On behalf of the EPA, the U.S. Justice Department brought a lawsuit in 1988 against a group of New England dentists and dental companies for damages caused by the faulty disposal of scrap amalgam. All parties involved eventually signed consent decrees that required them to reimburse the EPA a total of roughly $350,000 for its clean-up costs.79 According to a 1989 issue of the ADA News, when the EPA was asked whether it considered dental amalgam to be a hazardous substance, it replied that "any substance that contains a listed hazardous substance is itself a hazardous substance," provided that there is "a release, or threatened release, of a hazardous substance into the environment and where the government has incurred response costs." In addition, the EPA sent a letter to one of the dental supply firms in 1988 that specifically refers to amalgam as a hazardous substance: "The term ‘hazardous substance’ shell have the same definition as that contained in Section 101(14) of CERCLA and includes scrap or waste dental amalgam and any mixture of such hazardous substances with any other substances."80 The Food & Drug Administration, for its part, has neatly skirted the issue of amalgam safety over the years. When 1976 legislation required the FDA to classify all medical and dental devices, the agency "grandfathered" its approval of the long used amalgam fillings under the GRAS (generally recognized as safe) category, according to Joyal W. Taylor, DDS, who founded the Environmental Dental Association to spearhead a movement for informed consent legislation concerning amalgam’s use.81 One decade later, in 1987, the FDA’s Classification of Dental Devices was published in the Federal Registry. Dental amalgam, it turned out, was not even listed as a dental device, based on the rationale that amalgam is a reaction product. Instead, the FDA classified the components of amalgam, which means that amalgam itself has never been approved as a dental device, says the Environmental Dental Association. "Thus, amalgam has never been subjected to the rigorous biocompatibility testing required of all other medical implant devices."82 In early 1991 the FDA clarified its position on mercury amalgam. After "reviewing" the subject, the agency announced that the use of amalgam could not be condemned based on current evidence. It recommended that more studies on the subject be conducted. At the same time, the FDA’s Dental Products Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee held a public meeting and, again, declared … read more »
Response:
Huh? I thought reliable evidence was produced by scientifically conducted studies. I can’t tell you the number of positive "anecdotes" I’ve heard over the years from patients who have tried all sorts of treatments for whatever ailment. They’ve all pretty much played out to be the placebo effect. Can you provide statistical evidence that amalgam removal is helpful for anything? That would be a lot more helpful than an anecdote here and there.
There have been a few survey-type studies (methodologically of limited value) by R. L. Siblerud which are on Medline. They support the contention that lots of people enjoy health improvements following amalgam removal. For lack of strong scientific evidence against amalgam removal, and given the rational arguments and non-clinical scientific evidence (continual release of inhalable mercury vapour from amalgams, its extreme neurotoxicity, significantly higher mercury levels in organs of people with amalgams, etc.), desparate people – notably those who *aren’t* being helped by mainstream methods – are just being pragmatic by trying the amalgam- removal option, especially when a good anecdotal case comes along to inspire them. Syd — Support the anti-Spam amendment. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/ Before you buy.
http://www.escape.ca/~sgb Dealing with Depression Naturally and other books by Syd Baumel. …and cool record reviews!
Response:
Dr. Sam Ziff, an author and researcher who has studied this topic for years, believes that a political power play is at work, with the issue of legal liability lurking in the background. "I think what they’re really hoping for is that the problem will just slowly fade away as more and more of the alternative materials are used and the use of amalgam is stopped" says Ziff. He points to a similar situation that took place in Sweden several years ago. A special commission declared amalgam to be an unsuitable dental filling, says Ziff, but the medical and dental establishment applied political pressure until the commission recanted its statement publicly. When scientists took the commission to task on national television, says Ziff, the Swedish Social Welfare and Health Administration made an historic about-face and supported the original statement against the use of amalgam. As this case illustrates, says Ziff, "There is a lot of political pressure being brought to bear. They’ve been using it for 150 years, and nobody likes to admit they’ve been wrong for that long."96 That’s exactly what the Swedish agency did, however, when it declared amalgam to be "an unsuitable and toxic dental filling material which shall be discontinued as soon as suitable replacement materials are produced," according to a Swedish newspaper. An official said: We now realize that we have made a mistake. This has caused people to suffer unnecessarily."97 In 1991, Sweden announced that the use of amalgam will be banned. And in early 1992, Germany’s Department of Health followed suit by prohibiting the sale of "conventional" (gamma-2) amalgam. (The agency maintained that non-gamma-2 amalgams are safer than the banned variety, a position the Environmental Dental Association questions.) Much like the ADA, the German Dental Association had claimed all along that mercury cannot escape from amalgams. This position, of course, was in direct contrast to the scientific evidence on the subject."98 Amalgam Removal Fortunately, the many problems created by amalgam respond to a simple solution: removal of the offending fillings. Indeed, the symptoms that abate with the removal of amalgam parallel those created by its use. These include seizures, muscle tremors, chronic fatigue, memory loss, depression, headaches, menstrual disorders, joint pains, intestinal problems and irregular heartbeat.99 All of these disorders, and more, have been cured by amalgam removal. And to date, approximately 1,500 dentists in the United States advocate the removal of amalgam and replacement of the filling with alternative materials.100 At the Huggins Diagnostic Center, 85% of patients who have their amalgams removed respond positively. Over the years, Dr. Huggins has used several dozen tests to monitor the effects of removal. "A frightening observation is that we (are) able to find affirmative changes in all of those tests after amalgam removal in the majority of patients observed," he says.101 What follows are a few examples of disorders that improved following amalgam removal: Decreased white cell count. When amalgams were removed from three patients, their number of T-lymphocytes (white cells) increased, according to a 1984 report by Dr. David Eggleston in the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. These cells, which combat invaders such as viruses, bacteria and parasites, decreased again when the amalgams were put back in the patients’ mouths.102 Seizures. In his book, It’s All In Your Head, Dr. Huggins tells of an 11 year-old girl who was having seizures every 15 minutes, which prevented her from walking, standing or talking. Neurologists had failed to diagnose or treat her problem. The girl had three fillings removed, and her seizures stopped five days later. Two years later they still had not returned.l03 Lupus erythematosis. A 48 year-old woman with 38 amalgams was suffering not only from lupus but also from vision disorders, gastrointestinal problems and skin rashes, says Dr. Sam Ziff. The fillings were removed over a three-month period, and a follow-up examination five months later found her to be symptom-free.104 Multiple sclerosis. When a commercial pilot began to have trouble seeing and walking, he was diagnosed as having multiple sclerosis. His level of functioning became so poor that his pilot’s license was in jeopardy. At the Huggins Diagnostic Center, he had 15 amalgams removed The man experienced rapid improvement in his vision, balance and ability to walk. Today, he is still a fully competent pilot.l05 But here’s the interesting part: According to the ADA’s Code of Ethics, any dentist who removes a serviceable amalgam filling from a nonallergic patient for the purpose of removing toxic substances (such as mercury) from the body is acting unethically. The ADA’s 1987 edict specifies that the treatment is improper when it is "performed solely at the recommendation or suggestion of the dentist."106 In an accompanying statement, the ADA said, "There is no scientifically documented evidence of a cure or improvement of a specific disease or malady due to removal of amalgam restorations from a nonallergic patient." While some dentists may have a "good faith disagreement with the established scientific position on the issue," said the statement, that belief does not justify the removal of amalgam given the lack of credible evidence.107 A Challenge to the ADA A lack of credible evidence? Experts on the topic would beg to disagree. The Academy, for one, issued this response in mid-1990 to the ADA’s then-recent statement of confidence in amalgam: "Given the inconsistencies between the scientific facts and the American Dental Association Special Report, the (Academy) has serious concerns regarding the ADA’s lack of scientific rigor and the tendency to misinform the dental profession and, thereby, the public at large regarding the established scientific facts about amalgam safety." "We hereby call to task the ADA for failure to adequately support their position on dental amalgam with hard scientific data. This failure has resulted in inadequate protection to the public and inadequately protects the membership of the ADA from personal harm due to amalgam usage."108 Likewise, researchers at the University of Calgary reached this conclusion following their 1989 study of amalgam: "Our findings are at variance with the anecdotal opinion of the dental profession, which claims that amalgam fillings are safe. Experimental evidence in support of amalgam safety is at best tenuous. From our results, we conclude that dental amalgam can be a major source of chronic mercury exposure."109 Today, the burden of proof regarding amalgam’s safety lies with those who defend its use, says Dr. Penzer. Its advocates must offer convincing support of their position, given the many studies that show a substantial danger in using mercury amalgams. "Only valid scientific evidence of safety could possibly justify the continuation of amalgam use in dental practice," he says.110 As the debate heats up, many scientists have questioned the continuing use of mercury amalgam or have called for an outright ban on its use. "There is no safe level of mercury at all," say" Dr. Jay Dooreck.111 Toxicity experts such as Thomas Clarkson of the University of Rochester Medical School – and Lars Friberg of the Karolinska Institute also argue against the notion of a "safe" level of mercury exposure.112 Dr. Huggins, for his part, says the immune suppression caused by mercury exposure "may well prove to be the most invasive disease of our time."113 And Dr. Vimy has stated that the use of dental amalgam "should be banned immediately."114 For a frontier society such as the United States, however, the challenge is to rise above our history of exploiting natural resources without regard for the long-term consequences. Much like the strip mine, harmful pesticides and deforestation, mercury amalgam is a legacy to our pay-later society. But the days of indiscriminate use of our resources are long gone, and we must now establish a new ethic in tune with our new reality. Correspondence: Gary Null P.O. Box 918 Planetarium Station New York, NY 10024 212-721-6044 References 1. Report of ICBM (International Conference on the Biocompatibility of Materials) 1988, 44. 2. Interview by Gary Null, September 1989. 3. Correlation of Dental Amalgam with Mercury in Brain Tissue, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (December 1987). 4. Hal Huggins, DDS, Medical and Legal Implications of Components in Dental Materials, 4. 5. Null, interview. 6. Patrick Stortebacker, MD,PhD, Direct Transport of Mercury from the Oro-Nasal Cavity to the Cranial Cavity As A Cause of Dental Amalgam Poisoning, Swedish Journal of Biological Medicine (March, 1980): 19. 7. Huggins Diagnostic Center, The PAR Booklet (Proper Amalgam Removal), September 1989, 12. 8. The Harvard Medical School, Harvard Health Letter (September, 1990). 9. Saving Your Teeth, Natural Living Newsletter, No. 11. 10. Huggins, Medical and Legal, 4. 11. Huggins, Mercury in My Molars (1989), 4. 12. Two Studies Suggest Risk from Silver Fillings, Chicago Tribune August 15, 1990. 13. Silver (Mercury Amalgam) Dental Fillings Natural Living Newsletter, No. 32. 14. (Author unknown), Regulations of Mercury and the Politics of Amalgam Fillings, (article, date unknown). 15. Environmental Dental Association, A History of the Amalgam Controversy, 1992. 16. Null, interview. 17. Colorado Act concerning the use of mercury amalgam for dental fillings, and obtaining informed consent from patients prior to treatment. 18. Null, interview. 19. Huggins Diagnostic Center, The PAR Booklet 14. 20. Leezek Hahn et al. Dental Silver Tooth Fillings: A Source of Mercury Exposure Revealed by Whole-Body Image Scan and Tissue Analysis, FASEB Journal (December1989): 2641. 21. Null, interview. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24. Huggins, Medical and Legal, 1-2, 19. 25. J. E. Patterson et al. Mercury … read more »
Response:
A variety of factors contribute to the corrosion of fillings, including the physical stress of chewing, the acidity and temperature of foods and beverages and the electromagnetic potential of other metals in the mouth. Dental amalgam contains not only mercury (52% by weight), but also silver, tin, copper and zinc. Crowns and bridges may contain these elements as well as aluminum, beryllium, gold, iridium and nickel.24 Even the simple act of brushing your teeth can release mercury from amalgam, according to a 1985 report by J.E. Patterson.25 In a 1983 study, Hakon Hero and other researchers at the Scandinavian Institute of Dental Materials stated: Amalgam restorations tend to deteriorate at their margins after some time in service. The mechanism by which the degradation takes place is not fully understood. However, both electrochemical corrosion and particle release must be expected to occur.26 Indeed, microgram amounts of mercury leach from fillings daily. Researchers generally agree that each surface of a dental filling (an amalgam can consist of several layers) leaches one microgram of mercury per day.27 Consider the results of in vitro experiments that measured mercury leakage: When amalgam pieces weighing one gram were sealed in a glass tube for less than a month, they gave off up to 30 milligrams of mercury in total. That’s about 1 milligram (1,000 micrograms) of mercury per day.28 To follow through on the logic, consider that an amalgam has an initial weight of about one gram, and that mercury comprises about half of that weight, or 500,000 micrograms. If the amalgam corrodes by 50% over its 10-year life, then half of the mercury it initially contains -or 250,000 micrograms – has vanished.29 And many studies have shown that the mercury content of some five- to 10-yearold fillings is indeed reduced to only 25 to 35%.30 Mercury vapor in expired air. Other studies have analyzed the expired air of humans to determine how much mercury leaches from amalgams. In a 1985 study by Drs. Vimy and Lorscheider of the University of Calgary (Canada), 35 subjects with amalgams chewed gum for 10 minutes and released "quite substantial" amounts of mercury vapor into intra-oral air, about six times more vapor during chewing than before. Meanwhile, the intra-oral air of control subjects contained insignificant levels of mercury vapor, and the act of chewing did not alter those levels. The researchers concluded: "The results demonstrate that the amount of elemental mercury released from dental amalgam exceeds or comprises a major percentage of internationally accepted threshold limit values for environmental mercury exposure. It is concluded that dental amalgam mercury makes a major contribution to total daily dosage."31 This study confirmed the findings of a similar experiment conducted in 1981 by C.W. Svare at the University of Iowa College of Dentistry and Environmental Chemistry. When researchers analyzed the mercury content in the expired air of 40 people with amalgams and eight without fillings, those with amalgams released 15.6 times more mercury vapor after chewing, while the expired air of the other subjects remained unchanged.32 The route of mercury vapor. Once an amalgam releases mercury vapor, the inhaled fumes can travel throughout the body and into the brain. The mercury fumes also settle on the mucous membrane of the nasal cavity, an especially dangerous location since the mercury is then transported directly to the pituitary gland and, again, the brain.33 A study released in 1989 followed the route of mercury vapor in the bodies of five pregnant sheep. Dr. Vimy, a consultant to the World Health Organization, placed amalgams in the sheeps’ molars during the middle of their pregnancy. The researchers then used a radioactive isotope to isolate the amalgam mercury from other sources and trace its course. They noted the following effects after the amalgam placement: Day 3: Mercury build-up was evident in the maternal and fetal blood, the amniotic fluid and the maternal urine and feces. Day 16: Maternal mercury levels were highest in the kidneys, liver, gastrointestinal tract and thyroid. Fetal levels peaked in the pituitary gland, liver, kidneys and placental cotyledon. Day 33: Most fetal tissues of the newborn sheep had higher mercury levels than did the maternal tissues, specifically in the liver, epiphysial bone, bone marrow, bile, blood and brain. Day 73: Mercury levels in the mothers’ tissues continued to rise in the kidneys, liver, parotid glands, lungs, pancreas, gastrointestinal tract, adrenal glands, pituitary gland, urine, bile, brain and thyroid gland. Based on these results, the researchers concluded not only that the mercury released from fillings accumulates in maternal and fetal tissues, but also that "dental amalgam is most probably the major source of chronic mercury exposure in humans."34 The formation of methylmercury. Common organisms of the mouth and intestines can convert elemental mercury into methylmercury, an organic form of the metal that attacks the nervous and immune systems, the intestinal functioning and the allergy-triggering mechanism.35, 36 Methylmercury can be particularly devastating: It is absorbed through the intestinal wall 45 times more rapidly than mercury and is retained in the body longer.37 Methylmercury is 1,000 times more potent in causing genetic damage than colchicine, the next most powerful agent known, according to Swedish professor Claes Ramel. In experiments with fruit flies and onion root cells, extremely low doses of Methylmercury – 0.1 ppm or less -inhibited mitosis and caused chromosome breakage. Sublethal doses also decreased the fertility rate in mice, and increased the rates of litter resorption and stillborn fetuses in pregnant mice.38 The effects of methylmercury. Methylmercury can cause harm to every part of the body. It leads to bleeding and bone loss, a loss of muscle coordination, impaired vision and sense of smell, and kidney and glandular dysfunction. It is 100 times more toxic to the nervous system than is elemental mercury.39 Methylmercury can permanently damage the brain and nervous system, in fact. Following a large exposure, high levels of methylmercury can lodge in the brain for 10 years or more.40 Unlike elemental mercury, which touches the outside of a cell and hinders its ability to interact with others, methylmercury actually penetrates the cell. That means it can disrupt the cell’s metabolism, break its DNA and, with the addition of a few more mercury molecules, kill the cell.41 Methylmercury even passes the bloodbrain and placental barriers, says Dr. Huggins. "There is virtually no barrier in the body to methylmercury. It can go to every cell in the body."42 When it passes the placental barrier, it accumulates in the fetal brain and blood, thereby increasing the fetus’s level of red blood cells to 30% above that of the mother.43 Indeed, pregnant women who show no signs of mercury poisoning can give birth to a child with neurological disorders caused by either mercury or methylmercury.44 The effects of mercury exposure on children include: extensive changes to the brain that affect the entire cortex, including the frontal lobe; a 26% to 55% reduction in brain weight; and a heavy loss of neurons. In cases where the neuron loss exceeded 50%, decortication syndrome developed.45 Mercury’s accumulation in the brain. The link between dental amalgams and the presence of mercury in brain tissue was established in a 1987 study conducted by Dr. David Eggleston of California in conjunction with Dr. Magnus Nylander of Sweden. The study found a direct correlation between the number of occlusal molars and the amount of mercury accumulated in the brains of 83 cadavers.46 The subjects with five or more amalgams had an average of three times more mercury in the brain than those with no amalgams.47 Likewise, autopsies performed at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, whose board of governors selects the recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine, found that people with amalgams had three times more mercury in the brain and nine times more in the kidneys than those with no amalgams.48 One of the nation’s leading toxicologists, Dr. Louis Chang, also has found a direct connection between dental amalgams and mercury concentrations in the brain. "Mercury levels tend to be higher in those people that have the amalgams, and mercury levels increase as the number of amalgams increases," reports Chang, director of interdisciplinary toxicology and experimental pathology and a professor of pathology, pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Arkansas.49 The link with neurological disorders. Occupational and environmental exposure to mercury is known to cause neurological disorders, including syndromes that mimic multiple sclerosis and amyotropic lateral sclerosis, says Dr. Douglas Swartzendruber, chairman of the department of biology at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. As a result, it’s reasonable to consider that the mercury from amalgam may have a similar effect. "Much of the controversy concerning mercury is the possible relationship between mercury released from dental amalgams and multiple sclerosis," states Dr. Swartzendruber. While the controversy has not yet been addressed by a controlled clinical trial, he says, several studies provide evidence of a causal relationship. In one such study, he explains, researcher E. Baasch demonstrated in great detail that "facts concerning the geographical and age distribution, pathological development and symptomatology of multiple sclerosis are all consistent with amalgams as the primary cause of the disease."50 The effects on immune functioning. Not everyone who has dental amalgams will develop highly visible reactions that demand medical attention. But even in cases where no easily identifiable disease occurs, mercury will diminish the effectiveness of the immune system. As the … read more »
Response:
Another good anecdote. The difference between an anecdote and a "reliable evidence" is who is reporting the event. Huh? I thought reliable evidence was produced by scientifically conducted studies. I can’t tell you the number of positive "anecdotes" I’ve heard over the years from patients who have tried all sorts of treatments for whatever ailment. They’ve all pretty much played out to be the placebo effect. Can you provide statistical evidence that amalgam removal is helpful for anything? That would be a lot more helpful than an anecdote here and there.
Reliable evidence comes when you’re the person whose health returns once you’ve rid yourself of amalgams. And the converse is true, all the stats in the world don’t make a difference if it doesn’t work for you. C. Bond.
Response:
Reliable evidence comes when you’re the person whose health returns once you’ve rid yourself of amalgams. And the converse is true, all the stats in the world don’t make a difference if it doesn’t work for you.
That’s fine if it’s something that isn’t recommended to others. However, the placebo effect is alive and well and I hate to think of how many people have been led down the garden path because of someone’s personal testimony and find themselves no better but certainly poorer wallet wise. At least if something has been scientifically tested, I can judge the probabilities and risks involved. I can’t help but think of how much more productively the billions that people spend on untested treatments could be put to if channeled in the right direction. — Support the anti-Spam amendment. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/ Before you buy.
Response:
Another good anecdote. The difference between an anecdote and a "reliable evidence" is who is reporting the event.
Huh? I thought reliable evidence was produced by scientifically conducted studies. I can’t tell you the number of positive "anecdotes" I’ve heard over the years from patients who have tried all sorts of treatments for whatever ailment. They’ve all pretty much played out to be the placebo effect. Can you provide statistical evidence that amalgam removal is helpful for anything? That would be a lot more helpful than an anecdote here and there. — Support the anti-Spam amendment. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/ Before you buy.
Response:
We have a lady in our church who suffered for years with many unusual symptoms of indeterminate origin. Someone told her it sounded like mercury poisoning, from leaky amalgams. She had them all replaced and her health has become normal. Another good anecdote. The difference between an anecdote and a "reliable evidence" is who is reporting the event. It is still good for the patient who recovers!! regards David
Thanks David, hopefully this news will be spread! Jan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I found this on the alt sci med NG.After I have answered an MD’s post saying that mercury is still safe, and couldn’t cause PN, MS, fibro, cfs. etc. Yada yada yada. I believe we will see more of this is the future. Jan Here’s another one who profited from having mercury amalgams removed. I spent nearly $100,000 over 4 1/2 years and a week at the Mayo Clinic, only to get the answer from a nutritionist who suggested I get the metal out of my mouth. Once the last bit of mercury was removed, after about six more weeks, I began a recovery that took about two years to return to fullness of health, except for a bladder problem (a neuropathy) which came on during my illness and did not resolve. Anecdotal? Yes, but I have sent 12 or so others complaining of similar symptoms to the same dentist to have their mercury removed, and they all got well too! So who cares if it’s anecdotal evidence. It’s evidence that demands a verdict. Not so, I have profited with my life. I nearly died, even got to the place where my bowels had shut down. I have spent the last two years and $20,000 searching for answers. I am now recovering. I am on a metals list with many others who have many conditions/diseases caused by metal in the mouth. You might want to read Dr Frank Jerome’s book *Tooth Truth* Jan
Response:
Amalgams are toxic to the human body, and some may be more sensitive than others… It is a foreign substance to the human body… but so are other fillings. Further tests need to be made – perhaps with saliva… it is possible forit to interact with either your saliva, or maybe a food intake… I had one that acted up with a stainless steel spoon… shock waves… but what else was it doing?
Response:
We have a lady in our church who suffered for years with many unusual symptoms of indeterminate origin. Someone told her it sounded like mercury poisoning, from leaky amalgams. She had them all replaced and her health has become normal. Another good anecdote. The difference between an anecdote and a "reliable evidence" is who is reporting the event. It is still good for the patient who recovers!! regards David
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I found this on the alt sci med NG.After I have answered an MD’s post saying that mercury is still safe, and couldn’t cause PN, MS, fibro, cfs. etc. Yada yada yada. I believe we will see more of this is the future. Jan Here’s another one who profited from having mercury amalgams removed. I spent nearly $100,000 over 4 1/2 years and a week at the Mayo Clinic, only to get the answer from a nutritionist who suggested I get the metal out of my mouth. Once the last bit of mercury was removed, after about six more weeks, I began a recovery that took about two years to return to fullness of health, except for a bladder problem (a neuropathy) which came on during my illness and did not resolve. Anecdotal? Yes, but I have sent 12 or so others complaining of similar symptoms to the same dentist to have their mercury removed, and they all got well too! So who cares if it’s anecdotal evidence. It’s evidence that demands a verdict. Not so, I have profited with my life. I nearly died, even got to the place where my bowels had shut down. I have spent the last two years and $20,000 searching for answers. I am now recovering. I am on a metals list with many others who have many conditions/diseases caused by metal in the mouth. You might want to read Dr Frank Jerome’s book *Tooth Truth* Jan
Response:
I found this on the alt sci med NG.After I have answered an MD’s post saying that mercury is still safe, and couldn’t cause PN, MS, fibro, cfs. etc. Yada yada yada. I believe we will see more of this is the future. Jan Here’s another one who profited from having mercury amalgams removed. I spent nearly $100,000 over 4 1/2 years and a week at the Mayo Clinic, only to get the answer from a nutritionist who suggested I get the metal out of my mouth. Once the last bit of mercury was removed, after about six more weeks, I began a recovery that took about two years to return to fullness of health, except for a bladder problem (a neuropathy) which came on during my illness and did not resolve. Anecdotal? Yes, but I have sent 12 or so others complaining of similar symptoms to the same dentist to have their mercury removed, and they all got well too! So who cares if it’s anecdotal evidence. It’s evidence that demands a verdict. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Not so, I have profited with my life. I nearly died, even got to the place where my bowels had shut down. I have spent the last two years and $20,000 searching for answers. I am now recovering. I am on a metals list with many others who have many conditions/diseases caused by metal in the mouth. You might want to read Dr Frank Jerome’s book *Tooth Truth* Jan
Response:
Categories: Neuropathy From Lipitor Law Suit | 
No Comments »
thanks alot my friend God bless you annie Ultimately…..we know deeply that the other side of every fear is a freedom. "Courage"…is *fear* that has said it’s prayers. 
)))) I actually told him no FREAKING way, but that was NOT what I was thinking. I are a lady, dammit.