Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mercury/dental amalgam is a common cause of Alzheimer's/dementia

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 01:25 PM
Original message
Mercury/dental amalgam is a common cause of Alzheimer's/dementia
Mercury & Alzheimers Disease/Dementia

Mutter J, Naumann J, Sadaghiani C, Schneider R, Walach H. Alzheimer disease: mercury as pathogenetic factor and apolipoprotein E as a moderator.
Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2004 Oct;25(5):331-9.
abstract:
The etiology of most cases of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is as yet unknown. Epidemiological studies suggest that environmental factors may be involved beside genetic risk factors. Some studies have shown higher mercury concentrations in brains of deceased and in blood of living patients with Alzheimer's disease. Experimental studies have found that even smallest amounts of mercury but no other metals in low concentrations were able to cause all nerve cell changes, which are typical for Alzheimer's disease. The most important genetic risk factor for sporadic Alzheimer's disease is the presence of the apolipoprotein Ee4 allele whereas the apolipoprotein Ee2 allele reduces the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. Some investigators have suggested that apolipoprotein Ee4 has a reduced ability to bind metals like mercury and therefore explain the higher risk for Alzheimer's disease. Therapeutic approaches embrace pharmaceuticals which bind metals in the brain of patients with Alzheimer's disease. In sum, both the findings from epidemiological and demographical studies, the frequency of amalgam application in industrialized countries, clinical studies, experimental studies and the dental state of AD patients in comparison to controls suggest a decisive role for inorganic mercury in the etiology of AD


Schofield P, Dementia associated with toxic causes and autoimmune disease.
Int Psychogeriatr. 2005;17 Suppl 1:S129-47.

Toxic causes of dementia include exposure to heavy metals such as lead, mercury and aluminum as well as to carbon monoxide and solvents. Such conditions can be prevented by avoiding toxic exposures.


Mutter J, Daschner F, et al, Amalgam risk assessment with coverage of references up to 2005] , Gesundheitswesen. 2005 Mar;67(3):204-16.
(Medline)
Abstract
Dental Amalgam contributes substantially to human mercury load. Mercury accumulates in some organs, particularly in the brain, where it can bind to protein more tightly than other heavy metals (e. g. lead, cadmium). Therefore, the elimination half time is assumed to be up to 1 - 18 years in the brain and bones. Mercury is assumed to be one of the most toxic non-radioactive elements. There are pointers to show that mercury vapour is more neurotoxic than methyl-mercury in fish. Review of recent literature suggests that mercury from dental amalgam may lead to nephrotoxicity, neurobehavioural changes, autoimmunity, oxidative stress, autism, skin and mucosa alterations or non-specific symptoms and complaints. The development of Alzheimer's disease or multiple sclerosis has also been linked to low-dose mercury exposure. There may be individual genetical or acquired susceptibilities for negative effects from dental amalgam. Mercury levels in the blood, urine or other biomarkers do not reflect the mercury load in critical organs. Some studies regarding dental amalgam reveal substantial methodical flaws. Removal of dental amalgam leads to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials. Summing up, available data suggests that dental amalgam is an unsuitable material for medical, occupational and ecological reasons.

Kidd PM., Neurodegeneration from mitochondrial insufficiency: nutrients, stem cells, growth factors, and prospects for brain rebuilding using integrative management. Altern Med Rev. 2005 Dec;10(4):268-293.

mitochondrial insufficiency contributes to the etiopathology of many disorders. Mercury exposure is a factor in such effects. Alzheimer's and other dementias, Down syndrome, stroke, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington's disease, Friedreich's ataxia, aging are affected.
B vitamin group; vitamins E and K; and the antioxidant and energetic cofactors alpha-lipoic acid (ALA), ubiquinone (coenzyme Q10; CoQ10), and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, reduced (NADH) help. The trophic nutrients acetyl L-carnitine (ALCAR), glycerophosphocholine (GPC), and phosphatidylserine (PS) provide mitochondrial support and conserve growth factor receptors; all three improved cognition in double-blind trials. The omega-3 fatty acid docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is enzymatically combined with GPC and PS to form membrane phospholipids for nerve cell expansion.


more documentation: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/alzhg.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. Mercury also known to cause other neurological problems: Parkinson's, P.N.
Mercury & parkinsons

Carpenter DO. Effects of metals on the nervous system of humans and animals.
Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2001;14(3):209-18.

metals, especially lead, mercury, manganese and copper, have been implicated in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis(ALS) and Parkinson's disease.


Miller K, Ochudlo S, Opala G, Smolicha W, Siuda J. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2003;37 Suppl 5:31-8.

chronic mercury encephalopathy (parkinsonismus) was diagnosed based on documented occupational exposure and diagnostic test results.
much more documentation:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/parkins.html
(note pesticides also causes parkinson's http://www.flcv.com/pesticid.html )

Mercury & PN
Gerr F, Letz R. Epidemiological case definitions of peripheral neuropathy: experience from two neurotoxicity studies. Neurotoxicology. 2000 Oct;21(5) :761-8.

Conclusion: the composite case definition showed an odds ratio of more than 3.1 for the mercury study and 5.1 for the arsenic study.


Mercury & PN & hypertension & behavioral changes
Koyun M, Akman S, Guven AG. Mercury intoxication resulting from school barometers in three unrelated adolescents. Eur J Pediatr. 2004 Mar;163(3):131-4. Epub 2004 Jan 13.

CONCLUSION: mercury intoxication should be considered in any child with signs and symptoms of hypertension, skin rash, peripheral neuropathy and behavioural changes. The parents and school administrators, as well as paediatricians, should be aware of the potential risks of mercury and should be encouraged to avoid mercury-containing devices in schools and households.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Only in extremely high concentrations does it cause symptoms
that mimic these diseases. Sorry, but dental fillings don't supply that kind of concentration.

Coincidence is not causality.

This is quackery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Careful!
If you keep up that kind of logic and reason, you'll be labeled an agent of Big Dentistry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KT2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. long term - low dose
exposure is the missing link in most toxicology research. Its absence is generally used to assert that there is no risk. Idiotic conclusion.

Synergy is another missing link. Absence of such research is also used to assert that there are no risks arising from synergistic effects of various toxins. Bush was so convinced of that fact that he halted government research into synergysitc effects.

Quackery? I suggest that it is quackery to base conclusions on lack of research - a profit driven, corporate tactic by the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Well, that didn't take long
a profit driven, corporate tactic by the way.

In any DU discussion of corporate involvement in public health, a person who questions the assertion that corporations undertake a campaign of deliberate poisoning & coverup will invariably be accused of either working for such corporations or sympathizing with their nefarious doings.

Here's an overview of the amalgam issue from a non-corporate, non-quack authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Good luck
I'm done with these dental filling true believers. I won't let bullshit and quackery pass with tacit approval, but I know it's like trying to convince fundies, libertarians, and other true believers, nothing penetrates.

Plus, the research has been done, and done to death, you just won't find that in the pages of "Prevention."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. These studies are from peer-reviewed journals by prestegious researchers
If you disagree with the studies, what is your basis. Are you aware that when researchers
publish in peer-reviewed studies, other researchers are duty bound to point out any problems
they find with the study. Are you aware of any credible researcher who has disagreed with
any of the studies I have posted? Its possible to search for such by web or through such as
Science Citation Index. Because I've been doing research on such for many years, I'm certain
that you can find no credible study or comment to the contrary. But if you believe you can I'd
be interested in seeing it.
I'm aware that you can find statements by those with special interest to the contrary or
even something called a study, but it will be easy to see that they aren't real science and are not
credible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. You're attempting to place an unreasonable burden on your debate opponents
In a nutshell, you're asking us to review the thousands of (no doubt) excellent and serious medical studies that you describe so that we can correct and/or point out the errors. Sorry, but that's just not a reasonable demand for you to make.

Like it or not, the prevailing wisdom is that amalgam does not cause the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to. If your intent is to unseat that prevailing wisdom, then it's on you to distill your argument to its essence and to present it.

I have seldom read or heard of a study "confirming" the dangers of amalgam by anyone who did not have a vested financial interest in the subject, and the majority of those are hardcore holistic "healers" and similar profit-conscious gurus. Anyone who suspects the ADA's moneymaking complicity in the Great Amalagam Coverup should subject anti-amalgamists to the same financial scrutiny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. I am a single dad, a landlord and a consumer of dental services.
Aside from the obviously toxic properties of mercury,

mercury amalgam turns black with age, gets brittle and cracks with age, leaks, and just doesn't hold up as well or look as good as do the ceramic fillings.

Add all that up, and as a consumer, I know what I'm buying. And it ain't the mercury amalgam.

At one time I had a whole mouthful of mercury amalgam. Then as it cracked and leaked over time I had those teeth refilled with ceramic fillings. I'm very happy with them and my whole mouth looks much better without all the black fillings in there.

I haven't read any studies pro or con about mercury amalgam. I've talked to my dentist.

As for "hardcore holistic "healers," I can't see how they would make a dime off the issue unless they are also licensed DDS and then can provide the ceramic alternatives, which are only slightly more expensive than amalgam.

As a consumer, it's a no brainer for me, no matter how much the pro mercury folks keep trying to make my consumer choice appear somehow suspect.

I remember when they did the same thing with organic food, ridiculing anyone who would dare to oppose the orthodoxy of Corporate Farming.

If you want mercury in your mouth, ask for it. I don't care.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #28
40. A point that must be mentioned
I haven't read any studies pro or con about mercury amalgam. I've talked to my dentist.

Unless your dentist has qualifications that you haven't revealed, he's no authority on the subject of amalgam-based toxicity, so his testimony is basically worthless unless he backs it up with credible data.

I don't doubt that your dentist is a highly skilled professional and very good in his field, but his advice on mercury absorption is outside of his field, and he should stop witnessing about it in any official capacity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. The above studies are peer-reviewed studies from National Library of Medic
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 01:59 PM by philb
ine Medline. You apparently haven't done your homework. It is well documented that mercury from dental amalgam
commonly causes over 40 chronic health conditions and people commonly recover when treated for mercury deto x(including
amalgam replacement)
The mechanism by which mercury is documented in the medical literature to cause these conditions, as well as over
60,000 clinical cases of recovery are documented (over 4,000 peer-reviewed medical studies cited, most from Medline)
at:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/indexa.html

You apparently get your information unknowingly from quack sites. Stick to sites like the National Library of Medicine
http://www.nlm.nih.gov or similar
The U.S. Dept. of Health (ASTDR) and EPA list mercury as the most toxic non radioactive element with drinking water standard equal to 2 parts per billion, and in the top 3 of toxic substances causing adverse effects to large numbers of people. Amalgam exposures are hugely higher. The average person with several fillings has hugely high exposure of approx. 30 micrograms per day
flushed down toilets from their excretion(according to medical studies, medical labs, EPA, and Municipal Sewer Agencies)
Amalgam is the largest source of mercury exposure for most people (http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html
and also the largest source of mercury in sewers(by a lot) due to the high levels from dental officies and from the high level in
excretion of those with amalgam fillings
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr2f.html


I'd be glad to discuss any of the thousands of studies cited here, and any study you are aware of that you think contradicts any of them.

I've been doing research on mercury for over 20 years and have served on Federal advisory panels.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GrumpyGreg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Something like the second-hand smoke thing? I don't believe
those statistics either.

Junk science abounds these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. The battle over mercury fillings is a long one, dating back to the
early 20th century. Their was a major battle in the ADA over the adverse health effects of mercury. Eventually, the pro-mercury side won. Not surprisingly, the pro mercury forces were also invested heavily in in cinnabar mines, speculating that mercury amalgam would be approved and mercury would rise rapidly in price.(which is what happened)

My dentist won't use amalgam. He's an older guy close to retirement and he told me this;

"I can't tell you that mercury amalgam is dangerous. If I did I could lose my license. But I can tell you I wouldn't put it in my mouth or in the mouths of any of my loved ones."

I asked him about the license aspect. He said it's true, that they could pull his license if he said what he believes as regards mercury amalgam.

He also said the term "quick silver" for mercury dates from the early 20th century battles over mercury amalgam, when they were trying to come up with an acceptable euphemism for mercury, which was widely known to be highly toxic.

I trust my dentist. He's a fairly conservative guy, but a straight shooter and he does great work.

I remember the EPA said the air was fine at ground zero, Manhattan. Lies.

Any fool knows mercury is a deadly poison with irreversible effects on body organs, especially but not limited to, brain function. As amalgam fillings get old, they turn black from oxidation, they leak, and when drilled they gasify to some extent. Why put that in your mouth when there are non-toxic alternatives? (Though they are slightly more expensive and require more skill on the part of the dentist than does amalgam) Just think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. With due respect to your dentist, he's way off on his etymology
"cwicseolfor" predates the 20th century by close to a millennium.

That doesn't mean he's a quack, but it does mean that he passes on (some) bogus information without subjecting it to critical review.

Hmm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Shut up, you corporate stooge!
Lies, lies, lies, I tell ya!!! ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Doh! I've been caught!
My only hope is to fill your molars with amalgam and wait for nature to take its course!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. Your point is fine, and well taken, but in fairness to my
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 03:15 PM by John Q. Citizen
dentist the discussion took place back in early 1994. After thinking about it perhaps what he said was the term "Silver Amalgam" was the euphemism put in place, since their is no silver in "silver amalgam" but about 50% mercury and 50% other metals.

I am not posting to try to convince you of anything, just offering my experience.

If you like your dentist to put mercury in your mouth or the mouths of your loved ones, go for it! that is your right as an American.

However, to use the "public service" history of commercial corporations to bolster your argument seems counter productive, at best.

I'm sure there are lots of studies that prove pesticide are harmless to humans, that smoking tobacco isn't harmful, and that asbestos isn't really the problem that alarmist think it is. So what. Their arguments seem pretty close to yours. Those arguments also ask people to assume that anecdotal evidence is always suspect, that what we know is poison really isn't poison, and don't worry, because corporations have our best interest at heart.

We are ultimately responsible for our own choices. I've made mine, and apparently you have made yours.

Good luck!

-edit for spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Silver amalgam typically contains mercury, tin, zinc, copper, and SILVER
I don't mean to belabor the point, but I'm afraid that your dentist was basing his actions and conclusions on really shaky evidence. That's his right, of course, but as a purported man of medicine he's doing his patients and himself a great disservice by failing to explore the topic critically. Instead, he accepts (as many here appear willing to accept) anecdotal hearsay coupled with a lot of eyebrow waggling and "corporations-are-bad" mantras.

Sorry, but that's insufficient, as are testimonials along the lines of "I got my fillings removed and my hemorrhoids went away."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. What percentage is silver? It seems a more precise term would
be mercury amalgam. Does that seem like a more precise term to you?

So, why are these medical professionals using a term which is so imprecise? Just an accident?

Hardly.

Also, I'm wondering what your dog in this fight is? It seems the purpose of your responses to the OP (and to me) is to ridicule and to dismiss the notion that putting mercury in your mouth might not be such a good idea.

You (and your cohort) have thrown up the straw man of Corporations. The OP didn't attack all corporations as bad, and neither have I, yet you seem intent on bending our remakes to make it appear that is our intent.

Just out of curiosity, why are you so well informed about the mercury issues as pertains to dentistry. Or is full disclosure out of the question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Good and valid questions
My "dog in this fight" (an expression that's new to me but which I will steal) is that I've had a great interest in the claims of pseudoscience and holistic medicine for over a decade. I'm not in the medical field (I work in the finance industry), but matters of science and biology fascinate me. I am fairly well-schooled in critical thought and inquiry, so the nature of this particular debate is right up my alley.

It was not my intent to ridicule you or the original poster, so I apologize for that. However, I find the claims of "anti-amalgamists" (a term I've culled from websites on the subject) to be dangerous and potentially harmful. In addition, I bristle when I hear of some crusader against amalgam who happens to profit nicely from his crusade. Of course, that isn't in itself an invalidating argument, but it's often significant.

The "straw man" of corporations admittedly addresses issues outside of the current debate, but I've been in enough of these discussions (Thimerosal/autism, for example) to know that someone will eventually accuse me of being in league with Big Pharma or some other corporate interest. My comment was, therefore, an attempt to head that baseless accusation off at the pass.

And as far as the imprecision of the term "silver amalgam," I should reveal that my own dentists, to the extent of my recollection, have called it "dental amalgam," which is, I think, the correct designation. It's a combination of several components, chiefly mercury, but it's an amalgamation rather than separate quantities of mercury, silver, copper, etc.

It's also technically correct but imprecise to claim that using dental amalgam is "putting mercury in your mouth," just as it would be imprecise to say that you're putting raw sodium in your mouth whenever you eat french fries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. And chlorine! Don't forget chlorine!
It's a deadly poisonous gas, you know. And it's in SPLENDA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Thanks for your straight forward and serious reply.
I often curse this medium of expression because it so cumbersome and easy to misunderstand both the message and the subtext of strangers in the written form. It's like almost having a discussion, but not quite.

Back in the mid eighties I took a course on folk medicine at a junior college and the professor invited in a number of alternative practitioners to speak to the class about their fields of practice. For that class I did a report on the history (in the US) ancillary medicine. One interesting aspect is that all of our current mainstream therapies at one time were considered outlandish quackery by the status quo at the time. Of course, some remained in that realm. Yet fields such as dentistry at one time were fought tooth and nail by the existing "powers that were." They claimed it was dangerous for patients, it was quackery, efficacy couldn't be varified etc.

We see these same "turf" battles being waged today. I have given some thought to your post and I can't for the life of me see where the potential financial profit is in opposing dental amalgam. I can't see what the danger is, unless of course, the recommended alternative is to just not fill a cavity. That would be stupid and dangerous. Since there are high quality ceramic composite fillings available, what's the danger?

I have had a long term interest in alternative medicine as well. I see no danger in alternative medicine except in certain circumstances. And I see no problem with "holistic medicine," because it works (depending on your definition of holistic, of course) For instance, in China Physicians are trained in both western medicine AND Chinese traditional medicine. This makes sense for a whole lot of reasons - economic, cultural and in terms of results.

In that class, I learned that Western Medicine (allopathy) had contributed two things to the practice of medicine. 1. surgery, and 2. antibiotics/vaccines and germ/virus theory, from whence they come.

These are huge, yet they are also only a part of the practice of medicine. I can't assume possibly assume that the vast majority of Allopaths are only in it for the money, anymore than I can assume that the vast majority of alternative practitioners are quacks.

Given the many turf battles over therapies, I can only assume that the status quo will try to defend their turf just as the "alternative practitioners" will challenge that turf.
My belief is that health practitioners and patients need to work together, and anyone who gives up all control to any practitioner is gamboling on what is already a gambol.

Medicine is both an art and a science, and often it's impossible to tell where one begins and the other ends. And what once was thought to be pseudo science, can, over time, become accepted science. Acupuncture is one good example of that. Scoffed at and ignored for years by the Western Medical Establishment(although not by all allopaths)the AMA published a major report a while back that said, yes it can be very effective as a pain management therapy for many patients. They still have no idea why it works, although there are some theories.

As an aside, how do you feel about lay mid-wifery? (as opposed to physician supervised mid-wifery)
I ask because this is currently a turf battle that has been fought for the last 40 years in this country and because all three of my children were delivered at home by the same lay mid wife. The cost was about 1/4 of a hospital birth and the quality of care was superior to any hospital birth/prenatal OBGYN care I've ever seen. That said, home-birth isn't feasible or desirable for everyone. It's good to have choices and options because everyone is a little bit different.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Hey, I can be civil when pushed to it!
I have given some thought to your post and I can't for the life of me see where the potential financial profit is in opposing dental amalgam. I can't see what the danger is, unless of course, the recommended alternative is to just not fill a cavity. That would be stupid and dangerous. Since there are high quality ceramic composite fillings available, what's the danger?

Elsewhere in the thread I mentioned a fellow by the name of Huggins who charges several thousand dollars for his "ills of amalgam" consultation services, which basically amount to a bogus analysis of mailed-in hair samples that always yield a result of "you have too much mercury in your system." Huggins has made quite a tidy sum for himself by playing on the fears of his victims. He's also a leading figure in the crusade against dental amalgam.

In addition, numerous types of "absorbed mercury detectors" exist and are sold to the credulous. I'm on my dial-up connection at home, so I can't hunt for links right now, but I'll supply them if you'd like. Basically, you get a sophisticated-looking device with a probe that you wave in your mouth and which registers, surprise surprise, unsafe levels of mercury. Almost without exception, these devices are bunk. Yet they are sold for not insignificant amounts of money.

I don't really object to Dentist X voicing his concerns about amalgam, though unless he's studied toxicology he's unlikely to have specialized knowledge in the field. The problem, IMO, comes when snake-oil peddlars pounce on some victim and scare him into buying a detector or a consultation.


I should confess that I've made a sloppy usage of the term "holistic medicine," and I should clarify. I reject as wholly unfounded any "medicine" that purports to treat the body's "energy balance" or "chi" or the like, none of which has ever been demonstrated to function as advertised. Yes, acupuncture has some apparent benefits, but there's no evidence that the needles rework the energy in one's chakras (prevailing theory suggests an interruption in nerve-communication, which is a very different process). Likewise, chiropractic therapy can benefit people with bone misalignments, but there's no evidence that a chiropractor can treat illness by smoothing out one's subluxions (sp?).

Similarly, I have no respect for herbal treatments based upon sympathetic magic, however inexpensive or well-intentioned they may be.

Regarding germ theory, I would submit that the understanding of germs and viruses has saved far more lives than all the folk remedies and "traditional" medicines combined. Heck, the impact upon polio, smallpox, and malaria alone is testimony of the power of western medicine. Even the most ardent supporter of traditional medicine will, when he breaks his femur, seek out the nearest available practitioner of western medicine.

And, since you asked, I have no problem with midwives, as long as they are held liable for errors or injury resulting from their actions or negligence. But I think that even the most dedicated midwife is a poor surrogate for the full range of prenatal care available through a conventiona ObGyn. Genetic maladies and most physical problems are invisible to the midwife's examination, and if a child is born in need of immediate emergency care, can a midwife provide it?

Sure, mothers got along just fine for a few million years without having a fetal pulse monitor at their disposal, but it's nice to have one if you need it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. Dental Amalgam: What Others Say
http://www.ada.org/public/media/presskits/fillings/othe...

Current evidence shows no connection between mercury in silver dental fillings and Alzheimers or other neurological diseases, environmental health experts report in a comprehensive review of the health effects of mercury appearing in the Oct. 30 New England Journal of Medicine. Silver-colored fillings are made from an amalgam (mixture) containing about 50 percent mercury and tin, copper, and other metals.This conclusion is consistent with earlier studies that also found no connection between Alzheimers and mercury-containing dental fillings, says William H. Thies, PhD, Alzheimers Association vice president of medical and scientific affairs. Source: Alzheimers Association, Silver Dental Work Not Linked to Alzheimers Oct. 30, 2003 http://www.alz.org/News/03Q4/103003dental.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. I gave URLs to over 4,000 peer-reviewed medical studies supporting
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 02:11 PM by philb
my statements- most are found in the NIH National Library of Medicine Medline http://www.nlm.nih.gov

I cited peer-reviewed studies and URLs to thousands.

If you disagree with any of them state your objection. My sources cite a lot more experts than yours, but lets stick
to facts and science. State what you think is wrong with any of the papers I cited, or provide a study that
you think contradicts any of them. Then we can discuss them.

But I also personally know people from my experience who have recovered from the chronic conditions like Alzheimer's, MS, Parkinson's, lupus, arthritis, etc. after amalgam replacement, in addition to the thousands of cases I provided documentation
on from peer-reviewed medical studies
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/hgremove.html

some cases of people I know:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/recover.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. All that "evidence"...
yet the American Dental Association, whom I assume would prefer to keep their patients around rather than kill them with mercury, says they're safe.

I believe you are confusing mercury toxicity (which is known) with dosage.

If your papers are valid, why aren't they published somewhere other than your personal website? What peer-reviewed journals has your work (the conclusions YOU make from other studies) been published in?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. ADA holds the patent for amalgam and was set up to promote them
they are a special interest- have stated in court that they should not be considered to have
any expertise or to be held liable for what they might have said regarding amalgam. I could find
the court case if needed. But they have also acknowledged in the FDA dental amgalam docket that
they are aware of the high exposures that one gets from amalgam and of the adverse health effects
in the studies that they provided in that docket:
http://www.flcv.com/adaabsr.html

As I said before, I've supplied URLs to 4,000 peer-reviewed studies supporting what I say.
Show me one "credible" study to the contrary and we can discuss it. Even the ADA science submission
to the FDA dental amalgam docket supported a ban on amalgam(imo). Read the abstracts and comments and
see if you don't agree.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. You cite Hal Huggins, a known and well-documented quack
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 02:48 PM by Orrex
Your choice to include him speaks volumes about the seriousness of your approach, as does the haste with which you make the profit-equals-skullduggery connection.

Sorry--if you can't be bothered to sift through your mountain of data to filter out the obvious bullshit sources, you can't expect your readers to do it for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Hal Huggins!
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercu...

In addition to seeing patients, Huggins operated a consultation service through which patients were evaluated and received advice by telephone or mail. The advice centered around a "Mercury Assist Program," based on the results of hair analysis, a complete blood count, a chemistry profile, a urine mercury test, and a detailed questionnaire about diet, lifestyle, past medical history, and current symptoms. The resultant data were incorporated into a lengthy report containing recommendations for diet, supplementation, lifestyle, and amalgam removal. Huggins claims that to successfully rid the body of mercury, one must be on a restrictive diet, take supplements that stimulate the cell membrane, and have the mercury fillings removed in the proper sequence.

In the late 1980s, when Huggins charged $1,500 for an in-office consultation and $378 for the assist program, I went through the assist program by mail. The report claimed that my urine mercury level "suggested toxicity" (because it was too low!), and that my hair sample showed "deficiencies" in chromium, iron, manganese, potassium, and lithium, and "excesses" in calcium, zinc, and copper. The report included 17 pages of biochemical nonsense related to these findings and more than 30 pages of other advice. The accompany instructions said to contact Huggins' facility for the name of a dentist who would replace my amalgam fillings. The report recommended that I begin taking vitamin C (3 grams per day), potassium, and three of Huggins' special supplement products two days before the old fillings were removed and that I have blood, urine, and hair tests three weeks after removal is completed. The cost of the follow-up interpretation would be $100 plus the cost of tests done through Huggins's office.

Neither hair analysis nor computerized nutrition questionnaires provide a legitimate basis for determining the body's nutritional state or for recommending supplements. Nor can a low urine mercury level "suggest toxicity." Robert S.. Baratz, M.D., D.D.S., an expert on dental materials, has reviewed about a dozen "Mercury Assist" reports and concluded: "They vary only slightly from person to person. All advise that the sender has mercury poisoning. The Assist Program was a scam."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #23
35. Huggins is one of most respected dentists & authors; Baratz is the quack
Edited on Fri Dec-23-05 09:22 AM by philb
as has been well documented in Dental Board Hearings and Court cases. I quote Huggins as one
of over 4000 peer-reviewed sources. Note Huggins has graduate degree outside of dentistry
and publishes in peer-reviewed journals. That isn't true of Baratz, who if he disagreed with Huggins
papers could comment on the articles in the same journal- as a matter of fact is supposed to do so.
Why would he choose to comment on his web site, but not to the peer-reviewed journals Huggins publishes in.
If He had a credible case, I assume he would make it. But Baratz case is phony as has been documented
in hearings and court. And his credentials are exagerated and phony as well as has been documented in
hearings. I think his main practice is treating pimples or hair removal. Thats what I was told, and
I've had personal interactions with him.

Here are snips from Dental Board hearings that Baratz testified for special interests in Florida where
credible scientists were asked to review his testimony- and found it dishonest and ludicrous.

1. snip from review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board by Dr. Ralph Dougherty, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Florida State Univ.

I have qualified as an expert witness in chemistry and toxicology in both federal and state courts. I have conducted extensive research in analytical toxicology. I have more than 100 papers published in refereed journals.

To allege that there is no mercury in mercury amalgam as Dr. Baratz has done in his sworn testimony before the Florida Dental Board is either a reflection of ignorence, or intent to deceive.
Sincerely,

Ralph Dougherty
2.Dr. Boyd E. Haley
Chair, Department of Chemistry
University of Kentucky
www.altcorp.com 3 January 2002

The following is my comments on the content and specific statements made in the Sept. 29th Florida Dental Board where the FDA presented Amalgam Related Material to support their proposed rule. Please feel free to share it with whomever you wish and especially the Florida Dental Board (FDA). Sincerely, Boyd Haley


With regards to statements made by Dr. Baratz. First, to be an esteemed academic as claimed one should hold an academic position and publish articles in refereed journals on his subject of expertise. I have been unable to find a single research article on mercury or amalgams or about anything authored by Dr. Baratz. I further could not find any source of academic appointments in tenure leading positions. With my personal knowledge of numerous outstanding and productive academic research scientists available to the FDA for consultation I am somewhat perplexed that they would select someone with such weak credentials---unless they were searching for someone who would adamantly support their preconceived position of amalgams being totally safe. Dr. Baratz is evidently well known for taking that position. Finally, statements made by Dr. Baratz concerning amalgams and chemistry in general are so pathetic that they almost defy sensible analysis. I WOULD CHALLENGE THE FDA TO TRY TO GET THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRS OF CHEMISTY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY TO AGREE WITH DR. BARATZS COMMENTS REGARDING THE CHEMISTRY OF AMALGAMS AND MERCURY. (FDA = Florida Dental Assoc. who was paying Baratz)
***********
He gave a long detailed analysis of Dr. Baratz testimony, which I can provide in full if desired, which documented that Dr. Baratz
either was extremely ignorant of the subject being dealt with or was simply being dishonest on behalf of a special interest.
He was being paid lots of money, but provided no science. At the end of the hearing(which his side lost) he didn't bother to even
attempt to respond to the other scientists who totally discredited his testimony. Similar has happened other times.
A lot of his statements reflect total lack of scientific understanding of chemistry and medical principals, as pointed out by
the reviewers. There were others as well. Baratz represents and is paid by special interests, but I've never seen credible
science from him.



ps: Huggins is cited as author of 5 articles in peer-reviewed journals in National Institute of Health
National Library of Medicine Medline; has published hundreds of articles and books that are on the best
seller list, and there is a reason- he has lots of experience and is well respected for his scientific
and clinical work. I'm virtually certain he is the most read dentist in the world. If there were a
worldwide vote for who is the most respected dentist in the world, I think Huggins would win. Of course
he has an advantage of having been controversial. But no dentist has cured as much MS as Huggins, and
similar with some other conditions. He was basically penalyzed for being so bold as to say publically that mercury
from amalgam causes chronic health conditions and replacing fillings properly can cure chronic conditions. Which is
clearly documented in the medical literature in lots of peer-reviewed articles(in Medline) and is non-controversial
for some conditions. But the condition he was critized for was MS, that was controversial at that time, but has
now been documented by peer-reviewed credible studies to in some cases be caused by autoimmune reactivity to mercury,
and to be cured by eliminating the source(I've posted Medline abstracts before on another thread)
The fact that he was disciplined for being ahead of his time, by a board that has
nothing to do with science and is known to be dominated by less than credible special interests doesn't
change the facts or the science. The same has happened to many of the most accomplished and most educated
dentists in the U.S. They are punished for disagreeing with the special interests that control the dental
establishment these days. But that is changing, as it has already in some countries and some U.S. states.
Colorada Legislature has passed a special bill for Huggins to insure such doesn't happen there again.
The most educated and credentialed and probably best dentist in Florida likewise had similar problems,
as is true of other states. Politics & big money don't mix well with science.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #23
36. Peer-reviewed study abstracts by Huggins & others on MS/mercury connection
Edited on Fri Dec-23-05 09:51 AM by philb
Huggins lost his licence for claiming that mercury from amalgam causes chronic autoimmune conditions like MS, Parkisons, etc.
and that replacement of amalgam fillings could in many cases cure or greatly improve the condition. Which was true but not accepted by dental boards at that time. Dental boards unfortunately listened to people like Baratz with no scientific credentials until real scientists starting challanging their decisions with real science. Huggins did in fact cure thousands of such conditions, and his dental abilities were not in question, but unfortunately it wasn't politically correct at that time to tell the truth since special interests controlled the dental establishment. The following abstracts from NIH NLM Medline and lots of clinical experience have now vindicated Huggins, it is documented in the medical literature and by clinical experience(medical labs) that mercury commonly causes autoimmunity including autoimmune conditions like MS, and that in such cases if one removes the source of the autoimmunity the condition improves or goes away. Its now known that one with autoimmune condition can have a blood immune reactivity test done to determine what their immune system is reacting to and along with exposure information can eliminate such exposures, resulting in improvement/cure of the condition, as the last abstract here demonstrates, and as thousands of clinical cases documented on the DAMS web site demonstrate.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/hgremove.html


Cerebrospinal fluid protein changes in multiple sclerosis after dental amalgam removal.

Huggins HA, Levy TE. Altern Med Rev. 1998 Aug;3(4):295-300.

A relationship between multiple sclerosis (MS) and dental silver-mercury fillings has been suggested by some investigators, but never proven. This study documents objective biochemical changes following the removal of these fillings along with other dental materials, utilizing a new health care model of multidisciplinary planning and treatment. The dramatic changes in photolabeling of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteins following these dental interventions suggest CSF photolabeling may serve as an objective biomarker for monitoring MS. The clear-cut character of these changes should also encourage more research to better define this possible association between dental mercury and MS.


Mutter J, Daschner F, et al, Amalgam risk assessment with coverage of references up to 2005] , Gesundheitswesen. 2005 Mar;67(3):204-16.
(Medline)
Abstract
Dental Amalgam contributes substantially to human mercury load. Mercury accumulates in some organs, particularly in the brain, where it can bind to protein more tightly than other heavy metals (e. g. lead, cadmium). Therefore, the elimination half time is assumed to be up to 1 - 18 years in the brain and bones. Mercury is assumed to be one of the most toxic non-radioactive elements. There are pointers to show that mercury vapour is more neurotoxic than methyl-mercury in fish. Review of recent literature suggests that mercury from dental amalgam may lead to nephrotoxicity, neurobehavioural changes, autoimmunity, oxidative stress, autism, skin and mucosa alterations or non-specific symptoms and complaints. The development of Alzheimer's disease or multiple sclerosis has also been linked to low-dose mercury exposure. There may be individual genetical or acquired susceptibilities for negative effects from dental amalgam. Mercury levels in the blood, urine or other biomarkers do not reflect the mercury load in critical organs. Some studies regarding dental amalgam reveal substantial methodical flaws. Removal of dental amalgam leads to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials. Summing up, available data suggests that dental amalgam is an unsuitable material for medical, occupational and ecological reasons.

Mercury & autoimmune conditions/MS
Prochazkova J, Sterzl I, Kucerova H, Bartova J, Stejskal VD; The beneficial effect of amalgam replacement on health in patients with autoimmunity. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2004 Jun;25(3):211-8.

Results of lymphocyte reactivity measured with MELISA indicate that in vitro reactivity after the replacement of dental amalgam decreased significantly to inorganic mercury, silver, organic mercury and lead. Out of 35 patients, 25 patients (71%) showed improvement of health. The remaining patients exhibited either unchanged health (6 patients, 17%) or worsening of symptoms (4 patients, 11%). The highest rate of improvement was observed in patients with multiple sclerosis, the lowest rate was noted in patients with eczema

ps: the laws of science aren't different for Europe vs U.S.; but its clear that the political establishment and special intersts
have much more control of the system in the U.S. than scientists, which isn't true of some European countries to the extent it is in the U.S.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. As I noted before these are from NIH National Library of Medicine
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 02:58 PM by philb
Medline- which accepts only peer-reviewed medical studies.
They are published in peer-reviewed journals. The DAMS website only summarizes them and cites the references.
(but note that the World Health Organization and U.S. Dept. of Health(ATSDR) also document that amalgam is the largest source of mercury in most people- these are among previously cited references)

I've been researching mercury for over 20 years, have served on Federal advisory committtes, and have some
credentials- but I haven't asked that you believe me because of credentials- but instead depend on the science-
as shown in peer-reviewed medical studies and many thousands of clinical cases.

DAMS has coordinators in most states and some other countries who interact with people with chronic conditions
related to mercury(or other toxic dental related) exposures. Virtually all of the DAMS coordinators and most of their
members have recovered from a chronic degenerative condition after amalgam replacement- which is why they now for no pay
help others with similar problems. I've recovered from several chronic problems diagnosed by doctors using lots of tests
after being diagnosed with mercury toxicity and having my amalgams replaced.

you can contact DAMS at 800-311-6265 if you want information from them or know someone with a chronic health problem that
might be related to mercury.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. I do not dispute the other studies.
I dispute the conclusions that YOU are drawing from them.

If your conclusions were well-supported, I would expect to see them published on their own merit. Not just on a personal webpage.

DAMS has its own issues, most notably that I can't find any information about who they are, who funds them, or an indication of what the funds they solicit on their webpage are going towards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #21
31. DAMS is a non-profit; coordinators are not paid; their only income
Edited on Thu Dec-22-05 08:59 PM by philb
is membership dues and book sales; and thats not much. But they have lots of volunteers who have recovered
from chronic conditions caused by dental amalgam mercury. You can find out more about DAMS at http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/indexd.html
and http://www.amalgam.org
DAMS has an international newsletter you could also check out? They accept comments on articles.

My conclusions are similar to those of the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health(ATSDR) and the Gov'ts of Sweden and Norway and Germany and etc. who I quote directly; and to that of many hundreds of researchers; and thousands of dentists; and etc. My conclusions are the same as those of the many peer-reviewed studies and Gov't studies that I reference. If you have followed other threads on this you know I can also reference statements in hearings and court by some of the most prestigious Univ. researchers on these topics from Chemistry Departments such as Univ. of Kentucky and FSU and others.
I just summarize the articles. Are you saying that you disagree with some of my summary statements or the "fact sheets" on the page above? they are all fully referenced. I think your problem may be that you interact more with politicians and special interest lobbyist than with scientist and researchers- for whom there is considerable consensus. Unfortunately some politicians don't seem very interested in science these days.

Again I ask: specifically which statement or conclusion do you disagree with and why?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. As has been pointed out elsewhere,
it is not the job of those who take the accepted position (amalgam is safe) that have the burden of sifting through all your sources and determining WHICH makes a legitimate claim, and WHICH does not.

It's YOUR job to eliminate the errors in your research, and present your case in a scientific peer-reviewed journal.

Until then, I'll side with the majority of educated experts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #31
41. Trotsky can speak for himself, but I'd like to add something
Edited on Fri Dec-23-05 11:45 AM by Orrex
Again I ask: specifically which statement or conclusion do you disagree with and why?

Without sifting through the thousands of papers, I would offer this objection to the overarching conclusion: Empirical evidence and credible studies do not support the assertion that dental amalgam leads to the forms of mercury toxicity for which amalgam is routinely blamed. Additionally, the causative relationship between absorbed mercury and the various maladies (ADD, fibromyalgia, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, et al ad nauseum) has not been established beyond the most tenuous and anecdotal link.

In essence, the majority of anti-amalgamists reason this way:

Person1 has Malady X
Person1 has dental amalgam fillings that contain mercury
Mercury is harmful

Therefore

Person1's Malady X was caused by Person1's harmful amalgam fillings.

(in essence: "I have Malady X and dental amalgam, therefore I have Malady X because I have dental amalgam)

Sorry, but that's a major logical fallacy.

I don't care how many dentists or reformed dentists or holistic healers or sufferers of Malady X step forth to offer their testimony about the evils of amalgam, because their testimony is frankly irrelevant without objective supporting evidence, which to date has not been provided. Yes, I know that your page links to thousands of studies, but your underlying claim is that all of these studies have been ignored or silenced by the Great Amalgam Conspiricy. I wonder also how many of those thousands of studies cite each other, in a sort of anti-amalgam perpetual motion machine.

/humor on
It's fortunate that tinfoil doesn't (apparently) cause toxicity when worn in proximity to the brain.
/humor off
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. I don't need to say anymore - you've said it perfectly.
Thanks, Orrex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angry Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #14
34. The ADA has very strong capitalistic motives for keeping the issue mum
There used to be a time when washing one's hands in a hospital wasn't required. Italians in the Renaissance used face powder full of arsenic. Just a few generations ago, the cool, refreshing taste of a menthol cigarette was touted as a health remedy. Light cigs were *supposed* tobe healthier too. Sun bathing was a good way to get that nice, healthy glow! All those gastric bypass surgeries so raved about on TV? Did you know 20% of them need to go back in for surgery due to complications? We could go on for hours, obviously.

We are each responsible for our own decisions. I am not going to trust a bunch of greedy lobbyists to tell me the truth. C'mon, this is AMERICA, land of capitalism gone amok! Anyway, if you read the stuff below and still want to stick mercury down your hatch, more power to you!

In an interesting article (worth the read - LEF's mag is a pretty decent)
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/may2001_report_merc...
"The American Dental Association, which for so long has promoted the use of mercury amalgams, has recently divested itself of any culpability with regard to mercury. In a case before the Superior Court of the State of California, lawyers for The ADA and others stated: The ADA owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from allegedly dangerous products used by dentists. The ADA did not manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing amalgams. The ADA does not control those who do. The ADAs only alleged involvement in the product was to provide information regarding its use. Dissemination of information relating to the practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the public from potential injury."

Dr. Williamson goes on to make an observation: "Now, an obvious question arises: if mercury were safe, as the dental profession has insisted for years, why would the American Dental Association feel obligated to claim nobody can hold it responsible for the harm it has caused? Their statement is just a way of saying, the stuffs dangerous, but dont blame us if it hurts you."

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/may2001_report_merc...


International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has wanted to ban mercury amalgams since 1985 and claims the ADA is misleading
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/PDHA/mercury/asr.htm


1. Dental office staff mercury exposure is comparable to exposure from more than 15 amalgam fillings and commonly more than the federal ATSDR/EPA health guideline (MRL) for mercury(1,2,3).
<snip>
3. Dental staff have significantly higher levels of mercury excretion than non-
occupationally exposed controls(1,2).
<snip>
5. Dentists and dental staff commonly accumulate mercury body burden and develop
neurological conditions such as irritability, depression or mood disorders, memory deficits, headaches, neuropathies, motor function deficits, or tremors(1,2,9,10).
<snip>
9. Patients and occupationally exposed workers who get their amalgam fillings replaced and avoid further exposure to mercury often recover from serious chronic systemic conditions(6,2).

Much more here: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr6.html


A study examining the health effects of mercury on dentists was done in the UK and published in the Occupational and Environmental Medicine Journal. This study found that 180 dentists had on average 4 times the urinary mercury excretion levels of 180 people in a control group. Also, dentists were significantly more likely than control subjects to have had disorders of the kidney and memory disturbance. But a direct correlation between urinary mercury levels and the disability was not found. More research needs to be done before a solid conclusion can be reached. The unreliability of urine test in showing lifetime of mercury accumulation rather than recent exposure (and unreliability to measure recent exposure in autistics) has slowed down any kind of research on living humans, and the short life of animals in the classic lifetime exposure tests known as LD50 was not conductive of safety proofs in humans for chronic amalgam exposure.

http://oem.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/59/5/287


Chronic neurobehavioural effects of elemental mercury in dentists.
Neurobehavioural tests were performed by 98 dentists (mean age 32, range 24-49) exposed to elemental mercury vapour and 54 controls (mean age 34, range 23-50) with no history of occupational exposure to mercury. The dentists were exposed to an average personal air concentration time weighted average (TWA) of 0.014 (range 0.0007-0.042) mg/m3 for a mean period of 5.5 (range 0.7-24) years and had a mean blood mercury concentration of 9.8 (range 0.6-57) micrograms/l. In neurobehavioural tests measuring motor speed (finger tapping), visual scanning (trail making), visuomotor coordination and concentration (digit symbol), verbal memory (digit span, logical memory delayed recall), visual memory (visual reproduction, immediate and delayed recall), and visuomotor coordination speed (bender-gestalt time), the performance of the dentists was significantly worse than that of the controls. The dentists scored 3.9 to 38.9% (mean 13.9%) worse in these tests. In trail making, digit span, logical memory delayed recall, visual reproduction delayed recall, and bender-gestalt time test scores were more than 10% poorer. In each of the tests in which significant differences were found and in the block design time, the performance decreased as the exposed dose (product of the TWA of air mercury concentrations and the years of exposure) increased. These results raise the question as to whether the current threshold limit value of 0.050 mg/m3 (TWA) provides adequate protection against adverse effects of mercury.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retri...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #34
38. Some researchers believe health effects due to amalgam as much as smoking
Edited on Fri Dec-23-05 10:19 AM by philb
Many of the well credentialed scientists among the 4000 peer-reviewed article authors that are cited on
the DAMS science pages believe that the health harm caused by chronic conditions due to mercury are more
than the harm caused by smoking. More people are exposed to mercury and millions have been disabled and
many died prematurely. Though this is well documented by thousands of peer-reviewed medical studies, by
medical tests, and clinical experience, the political establishment still has not accepted it in the U.S.
Some countries and some states have recently done so, and are passing bans on amalgam, or requiring dentists
to give warnings of the danger of using mercury in the mouth. Whether the harm caused by mercury is as much as
that by smoking is not clear, but what is clear is that the costs of both are huge. After over 20 years of
research on mercury, I am now aware that mercury damages any cell in the body it interacts with and is documented
in the literature to be extremely neurotoxic(accumulates in the brain and nerve cells and causes neurolgical effects
and conditions), extremely immunotoxic(chronic exposure often produces autoimmune conditions since the immune system
can't win against mercury and constantly escalates its losing efforts, resulting in damage to the person's body
rather than to mercury, which the immune system can't destroy-even one atom); is endocrine system disrupter(disrupts all hormonal function including thyroid-commonly causing hypothyroid condition, autoimmune thryroiditis, diabetes,and disruptions of
all hormonal functions); blocks metabolic enzymatic processes at the cellular level- which are the basis for cellular and
organ function- blocks formation of red blood cells and blocks needed oxygen from the body, blocks basic cellular
enzymatic process like the Krebs energy cycle and generation of the energy and building blocks the body needs to function.
(The specific blockages can be tested for by a urine fractionated porphyrin test, and knowing the blocked waste products
in the urine you know the metabolic processes that are blocked, the extent to which this is the case, and the likely source
since differenct toxics have different patterns of which processes are blocked and which porphyrin waste result)
mercury also is a reproductive toxin(has long been used as a spermicidal) and damages the sperm(causes reduced sperm counts and abnormal sperm) and damages the female reproductive system as well, documented to cause birth defects and infertility. Many
clinics successfully treat infertility(documented in med. studies) by mercury detox.
There's more but all of this is documented by peer-reviewed studies by prestigious scientists on the DAMS web site:
http://www.earthlink.net/~berniew1/indexa.html adults
http://www.earthlink.net/~berniew1/indexk.html kids



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #34
39. Yes, and many anti-amalgam folks do too.
Greed is a primary motivator for a lot of people. I just wish that the anti-amalgamists would apply the same level of scrutiny and skepticism to the people who are telling them what they WANT to hear.

My dentist has amalgam fillings, as does his family, and as does every other dentist I've ever been to. If dentists "know" this is so deadly, and it's one big conspiracy by the ADA to make money, why do so many dentists and their families still have amalgam fillings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. Most dentist know amalgam is dangerous. Your dentist is in minority
and is dangerous to himself, his family his patients.
The science is clear, as I've provided the documentation for.

I produced over 4000 peer reviewed studies supporting my case.
Your dentist can't produce any to the contrary. I posted the science articles
that the ADA provided to the FDA amalgam panel. Read the abstracts and make your
own decision.
There is and has never been any scientific evidence that amalgams are safe.
There is scientific consensus that: dental amalgam is the largest source of mercury in most who have several fillings
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html
do you disagree? why? does your dentist disagree? show him this and ask why?

There is scientific and Gov't agency agreement that exposure to those with amalgams is so high, that dental amalgam
is the largest source of the huge amount of mercury in sewers, and in sewer sludge, and a major source in water bodies and fish
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr2f.html
do you disagree? why? does your dentist disagree? show him this and ask why?

There is scientific documentation that mercury commonly causes over 40 chronic conditions and many who get tested
and reduce mercury exposure(replace amalgams properly) recover from all of these conditions
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/indexa.html
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/hgremove.html
do you disagree? why?
ask any dentist or any doctor or any researcher you know to join the discussion; the more the better


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. "Most dentists know amalgam is dangerous."
Back up this statement. It is an unfounded claim as far as I can tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Most dentists in Europe don't use amalgam; because they know its dangerous
Edited on Fri Dec-23-05 11:15 PM by philb
and in the U.S. its my understanding that about 30% of dentists hardly ever use amalgam because they know its dangerous.
But I think its pretty clear that of the 70% that do use amalgam, they are increasingly using less due to the
common knowledge of the huge amount of documentation that amalgam is the largest source of mercury in most with several fillings,
dentists and dental workers have higher than average exposures and commonly have adverse health effects, knowledge regarding the many studies showing mercury commonly causes adverse effects to those with amalgams, and patient concerns. Organizations like DAMS and many scientists interact with ADA and state dental boards in all states and have educated them about the high exposures people get from amalgam and the common adverse health effects. I and other DAMS coordinators have been a part of that process and have made a special effort to educate dentists in most states. Given the huge amount of studies, documentation, Gov't information, the big FDA amalgam docket, Congressional hearings, legislative hearings in most states, dental board hearings in all states where the issues and studies are discussed and debated, I think its unlikely that many dentists aren't aware that mercury is extremely toxic and often causes adverse effects. The ADA has been the primary force holding back the political system and a major force in preventing honest media attention to the issue, through their extensive lobbying and PR campaigns that confuse many. But in the last couple of years more are coming to understand the extent of the mercury problem and that millions have been adversely affected, and the ADA appears to be in serious trouble trying to hold back forces they probably can no longer control. The ADA has enforced a gag rule on dentists whereby if they tell the truth about the toxicity of mercury amalgam they could lose their license through the state dental boards that the ADA has historically controlled. But the gag rule is being exposed and banished in many states, and dentists are becoming more free to talk openly and honestly about mercury amalgam and its toxicity. Given the huge amount of studies, clinical information, and the controversy, as well as concerns of dental assistants and hygenists about the known health effects, I don't see how many dentists could not be aware of information such as on the DAMS web page and in the National Library of Medicine Medline.
It appears to us that there is increasing concern about these issues among the dental community in most states we interact in.
States are starting to pass restrictive measures, and most states are taking up such measures. This is fairly new. I don't think
the ADA can much longer cover up the facts and control the process. I expect amalgam to be phased out by Gov't actions or increasingly rejected by the public and dentists in the next couple of years. I know several dental offices that have gone mercury free near me in the last year due primarily to the adverse effects on their staff health.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-24-05 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. See? You're already altering your claim.
And you still didn't provide any numbers to back up your smaller claim.

This is why I and many others have to view you and your data with much suspicion. You make alarmist claims, throw mountains of "evidence" at us, demand that WE dig through it to find the information that supports you, and then when confronted to document the simplest of claims, back off from it.

Your claims are unproven.

http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsa...

Study backs amalgam
Top scientists find no link to neurological functions

By Mark Berthold

Bethesda, Md. A new study, conducted by leading scientists from highly regarded research and academic institutions, finds no link between amalgam exposure and neurological function.

"Our findings do not support the hypothesis that exposure to amalgam produces adverse, clinically evident neurological effects," concludes a research team led by Albert Kingman, Ph.D., Chief, Biostatistics Core, at the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, part of the federal National Institutes of Health.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angry Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-23-05 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. I blame ignorance, lack of education, and/or not being told all the facts
Same reason a lot of people still think "Bush shits ice cream" (to quote an old lady in a DU Greatest thread I read recently). I think the same applies to the sugar industry. Another interesting subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kansasblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
24. Why do you hate dentists? War on Dentistry!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-22-05 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. I have more friends who are dentist than any other occupation
if you are talking about me. I interact with them continuously. Dentists are one of the main groups that
DAMS interacts with and provides information to and gets support from.

Most dentist in most advanced countries don't use mercury in fillings. They know its well documented that
mercury is extremely toxic, commonly causes neurological, immune, autoimmune, hormonal, metabolic, and reproductive problems
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berneiw1/indexa.html

Most advanced countries have at a minimum a warning about use of amalgam and some essentially have bans,
and several states require dentists to warn patients that amalgam contains mercury which is known to be extremely toxic
and to commonly cause adverse health effects. (Calif., Maine,etc.)

Do you dispute that people who have amalgam fillings get high mercury exposures?
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html

Do you dispute that dental amalgam is the largest source of mercury in sewers and that mercury in sewers is a major source of mercury in rivers, lakes, bays, fish, etc. and also through sewer sludge a major source in the atmosphere since the mercury in sludge whether land filled or land spread is methylated to methyl mercury by soil bacteria and outgassed when the sun shines; if it makes it that far before being outgased? Oak Ridge National Laboratory studies
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr2f.html

Do you dispute that occupational exposure to dentists and dental staff commonly causes adverse health effects, and that patients in officies that use amalgam get significant exposures when they go to the dentist? see above and
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/dental.html

If you disagree with any of the above, tell me which and why.

If you show me any thing I'm mistaken about, I can assure you I'll edit whatever is appropriate.
I engage in peer review regularly. Its very useful and the best way to determine what is factual and what not. I also participate in hearings and workshops and FDA dockets, etc. Part of my job has been to be an expert witness on some things. Plus providing documentation for other such.
I assume developing consensus is one of the functions of forums such as this.
But the papers I quote have also been peer-reviewed by scientists and used in hearings, etc. and much of my work has been translated into several languages, posted on Univ. websites, and some of it is used in medical school courses. Which I could document. I've also written many articles for medical newsletters. I think that the documentation is clear and credible for all of the above. Is the problem that its not being looked at? Is there a credible source that contradicts any of the statements above?











Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 02nd 2014, 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC