DENTAL MERCURY
Question:
>>Somebody > please post something that even remotely resembles proof that
amalgam is 100% safe.<< Hell, I’d like to see someone post something that even remotely resembles proof that today’s WATER is 100% safe. I seriously doubt there is *any substance that can be guaranteed 100% safe for *everyone… Doesn’t mean I’m going to shut the water off to my house… J "So long as we love, we serve; So long as we are loved by others, I would almost say we are indispensable; and no man is useless while he has a friend." R.L. Stevenson
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Joseph wrote: > On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:29:41 -0500, "juliek" <jul…@del.net> wrote: > >amalgam fillings have served us all well for more than 125 years now without > >any serious health implications. Hype and scare tactics can actually make > >more business for dentists. Think of the number of restorations that would > >have to be replaced to accommodate your scare tactics. If all existing > >amalgams were removed for no reason that is clinically and medically sound, > >dentists would be a very busy lot indeed. > It would be really nice if you could supply some evidence of some sort > to support your claim. Show me studies that say there’s a safe level > of mercury in the human body. Show me evidence that amalgam cannot > expose a person to this ’safe’ level. Whatever you do, don’t come back > with the idiotic argument that a person is exposed to more mercury > from eating fish. Even if it is true, it does absolutely nothing to > take away from the hazards of mercury exposure from amalgam. Somebody > please post something that even remotely resembles proof that amalgam > is 100% safe. I’d really like to see it. Just make sure that your > argument is logically sound. The fallacious arguments that the dental > profession puts forth to support the continued use of mercury are easy > enough to refute. > Joseph
I’d like to know if someone can critique the journal article Toxicol Lett 1994 June;72(1-3):345-351, by F Schweinsberg, Risk estimation of mercury intake from different sources> The Abstract is as follows: "Biological monitoring of mercury in blood, urine and hair was performed in volunteers with amalgam fillings, in subjects who consumed fish and in Hg-exposed workers. It was found that both amalgam fillings and the consumption of fish burden the organism with Hg in the same order of magnitude. The Hg concentrations in urine in the occupationally exposed group were higher by a factor of about 100 compared to the group with amalgam fillings. No patholgical changes were found in the exposed workers. It seems safe to conclude that no health-related problems from Hg are to be expected from amalgam fillings."
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Joseph wrote: > On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:29:41 -0500, "juliek" <jul…@del.net> wrote: > >amalgam fillings have served us all well for more than 125 years now without > >any serious health implications. Hype and scare tactics can actually make > >more business for dentists. Think of the number of restorations that would > >have to be replaced to accommodate your scare tactics. If all existing > >amalgams were removed for no reason that is clinically and medically sound, > >dentists would be a very busy lot indeed. > It would be really nice if you could supply some evidence of some sort > to support your claim. Show me studies that say there’s a safe level > of mercury in the human body. Show me evidence that amalgam cannot > expose a person to this ’safe’ level. Whatever you do, don’t come back > with the idiotic argument that a person is exposed to more mercury > from eating fish. Even if it is true, it does absolutely nothing to > take away from the hazards of mercury exposure from amalgam. Somebody > please post something that even remotely resembles proof that amalgam > is 100% safe. I’d really like to see it. Just make sure that your > argument is logically sound. The fallacious arguments that the dental > profession puts forth to support the continued use of mercury are easy > enough to refute. > Joseph
To Whom It May Concern– I asked once on the MS alternatives newsgroup but never got an answer: Is it important to have the amalgam fillings that are under a bridge removed also? (I had all the others replaced but not those in the two teeth under the bridge.) TIA, Cheryle
Response:
My wife had all of her amalgams replaced due to posts like this. It made absolutely no difference in the progression of her MS. I would classify this as another quack cure idea that can cost an MSer a lot of money for no benefit. Why is it that these recommendations that have never had double blind studies done continue to have such a following? Seems like they all tend to be money makers for someone other than the MS patient. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -pc…@tcp.co.uk wrote in message <652rke$f7…@zeus.tcp.net.uk>… >If anyone doubts that enough mercury >leaks from Amalgam to have biological >effects, read this. (Also note indication of >importance of genetic suseptability..) >—————————————————————– >The following article by Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent, >appeared in The Sunday Telegraph (Main Section) 14 September 1997, >Page 17. >(The Sunday Telegraph is a major UK National Paper, with >a readership of 2,400,000. It is considered one of the >better "serious" papers for technical matters.) >————————————— >Filling and drilling ‘breeds superbugs’ >————————————— >The fashion among dentists for "drilling and filling" with >mercury amalgam in the Seventies may have spawned dangerous >superbugs immune to antibiotics, say leading microbiologists. >They are studying samples taken from thousands of patients to >discover the extent of the problem, and say mercury fillings >may have to be discontinued if the threat is confirmed. >The dental trend for drilling out decayed parts of teeth and >filling them with mercury amalgam reached its peak in the late >Seventies, with more than 32 million fillings being made in >1977. >With the advent of wide spread fluoridation, this has dropped >at least 50 percent. Most concern over fillings has so far >focused on the potential dangers from mercury poisoning, with >some countries banning their use. Now a team led by Professor >Rohn Rowbury of University College, London believes that the >fillings may have helped trigger antibiotic resistance in >bacteria — widely seen as one of the most serious threats >facing modern medicine. >These so-called superbugs include streptococci, responsible for >bacterial pneumonia and meningitis, some types of mycobacteria, >which causes TB, and staphylococcus, a cause of lethal septic >shock. Such superbugs have become immune to treatment using >many common antibiotics such as penicillin, and doctors fear >it may only be a matter of time before all treatments fail >against them. >The numbers of superbugs is rising, as bacteria pass on their >antibiotic resistance to others. The link with dental fillings >comes from the fact that genes giving bacteria antibiotic >resistance are often on the same part of the bacterial genetic >blueprint as those for resistance to lethal heavy metals — >including mercury. >As a result bacteria that survive the relatively high levels of >mercury in the mouth are also likely to become resistant to >antibiotics. Prof Rowbury said: "If there is an association >between the use of mercury amalgams and antibiotic resistance, >then the implications are enormous." >According to Prof Rowbury, one immediate effect would be that >dentists would have fewer antibiotics capable of fighting >mouth infections. But he said there could be more serious >effects. "Some oral bacteria can have very serious effects, >such as endocarditis, which affects the heart," he said. >"The ingress of resistant bacteria into the gut may also >result in the spread of antibiotic resistance to the >normal gut microflora." So far, only animal studies of >the link between fillings and antibiotic resistance have >been carried out. Theses have, however, confirmed that more >fillings increase the prevalence of antibiotic resistant >bacteria. >Prof Rowbury and colleagues at the Eastman Dental Institute in >London have begun the first human studies. "If an association >between dental amalgam and antibiotic resistance in bacteria >is established, then it may be necessary to prevent or limit >the use of dental amalgam. "We are now studying 6,000 isolates >taken from patients over a wide range of ages whose mercury >levels we know. What we plan to is to see if there is a link >between those levels and both the antibiotic resistance and >virulence of bacteria in the isolates." >Photograph shows infant recieving a filling. Subtitle says:- >"Open wide: microbiologists fear fillings may help trigger >antibiotic resistance in bacteria – seen as one of the most >serious threats facing modern medicine." >————————————— >The WWW sites below have extracts for other media stories on >Dental Amalgam ie. >* German Env Ass BUND Tuebingen study of 20,000 people > finds co-relation between Amalgam and other illnesses.. >* Canadian Broadcasting Corperation "Discovery" documentary > exposes adverse effects of Amalgam, and tells of the > government research that was suppressed.. >* Transcripts of BBC Panorama Dcoumentary on Amalgam. >* Many other news stories on research into Amalgam and > possible health effects.. >For more info on Amalgam contact:- >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pcsol/homepage.htm >http://www.bioprobe.com >You can join the Internet Discussion Group I have started >"alt.health.dental-amalgam" >Or the AMALGAM mailing list (see WWW site above for >joining details..) >To learn more about the Amalgam safety issue (or lack of) visit:- > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pcsol >(Includes FAQ & more links..) >PLEASE NOTE – "REPLY TO" on this message may be incorrect >to discourage junk mail. EMAIL replys to : pc…@tcp.co.uk
Response:
And don’t forget "Mad Hatter’s" disease: "lunacy in habadashers sometimes resulting from handling mercury and breathing mercury vapors while curing materials for hats…." — MZ
Response:
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:29:41 -0500, "juliek" <jul…@del.net> wrote: >amalgam fillings have served us all well for more than 125 years now without >any serious health implications. Hype and scare tactics can actually make >more business for dentists. Think of the number of restorations that would >have to be replaced to accommodate your scare tactics. If all existing >amalgams were removed for no reason that is clinically and medically sound, >dentists would be a very busy lot indeed.
It would be really nice if you could supply some evidence of some sort to support your claim. Show me studies that say there’s a safe level of mercury in the human body. Show me evidence that amalgam cannot expose a person to this ’safe’ level. Whatever you do, don’t come back with the idiotic argument that a person is exposed to more mercury from eating fish. Even if it is true, it does absolutely nothing to take away from the hazards of mercury exposure from amalgam. Somebody please post something that even remotely resembles proof that amalgam is 100% safe. I’d really like to see it. Just make sure that your argument is logically sound. The fallacious arguments that the dental profession puts forth to support the continued use of mercury are easy enough to refute. Joseph
Response:
"juliek" <jul…@del.net> wrote: >amalgam fillings have served us all well for more than 125 years now without >any serious health implications. Hype and scare tactics can actually make
It is nonsense to talk of 125 years of amalgam usage, when the contents of amalgam have changed so radically over time. In the 1970’s, after the silver price hike, cheaper "hi-copper" amalgam was introduced. Research has indicated that these release Hg vapour at a much higher rate than the original silver-tin alloys. You might as well say "Our new genetically engineered soya is safe, because soya has been in safe usage for thousands of years.." >more business for dentists. Think of the number of restorations that would >have to be replaced to accommodate your scare tactics. If all existing >amalgams were removed for no reason that is clinically and medically sound, >dentists would be a very busy lot indeed.
As someone who has actually suffered from Mercury poisoning from Amalgam, I consider it correct and moral to warn others of the *potential* danger, and I consider it immoral to use thin excuses to continue arcane usage of a toxin like mercury in dentistry. If you are telling me that "coming clean" about Amalgam isnt going to be easy, I can only say that the alternative of ignoring it is even worse. My advice to the ADA – when you are in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.. Prove Amalgam is "medically sound". Do you believe that if introduced today, it would stand a chance of being passed as a safe filling material – in an age where use of mercury is now banned for a massive range of items because of its well-known toxic properties? Amalgam avoids proper drug-safety testing because it is classified as a medical device. If it were classified as a drug, it could not possiblly pass safety tests. >pc…@tcp.co.uk wrote in message <64dpvi$of…@zeus.tcp.net.uk>… >>Dentistry Stepping Out of the 1830’s >>by James E. Hardy, D.M.D. >> Mercury use in dentistry has been the subject of my studies for the >> past 14 years. I thought I knew the history of the mercury- amalgam >>controversy well, but yesterday I pulled a book down from my shelf >>that a patient of mine had given me. It was a bound volume of Dental >>Students’ Magazine, dated 1942 and 1943. What I read gave me new >>insight into the history of mercury-amalgam and its intimate >>relationship to organized dentistry. >>…….
To learn more about the Amalgam safety issue (or lack of) visit:- http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pcsol (Includes FAQ & more links..) PLEASE NOTE – "REPLY TO" on this message may be incorrect to discourage junk mail. EMAIL replys to : pc…@tcp.co.uk
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -David DiBenedetto <oralhea…@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >Joseph wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:29:41 -0500, "juliek" <jul…@del.net> wrote: >> >amalgam fillings have served us all well for more than 125 years now without >> >any serious health implications. Hype and scare tactics can actually make >> >more business for dentists. Think of the number of restorations that would >> >have to be replaced to accommodate your scare tactics. If all existing >> >amalgams were removed for no reason that is clinically and medically sound, >> >dentists would be a very busy lot indeed. >> It would be really nice if you could supply some evidence of some sort >> to support your claim. Show me studies that say there’s a safe level >> of mercury in the human body. Show me evidence that amalgam cannot >> expose a person to this ’safe’ level. Whatever you do, don’t come back >> with the idiotic argument that a person is exposed to more mercury >> from eating fish. Even if it is true, it does absolutely nothing to >> take away from the hazards of mercury exposure from amalgam. Somebody >> please post something that even remotely resembles proof that amalgam >> is 100% safe. I’d really like to see it. Just make sure that your >> argument is logically sound. The fallacious arguments that the dental >> profession puts forth to support the continued use of mercury are easy >> enough to refute. >> Joseph >I’d like to know if someone can critique the journal article Toxicol >Lett 1994 June;72(1-3):345-351, by F Schweinsberg, Risk estimation of >mercury intake from different sources> >The Abstract is as follows: >"Biological monitoring of mercury in blood, urine and hair was performed >in volunteers with amalgam fillings, in subjects who consumed fish and >in Hg-exposed workers. It was found that both amalgam fillings and the >consumption of fish burden the organism with Hg in the same order of >magnitude. The Hg concentrations in urine in the occupationally exposed >group were higher by a factor of about 100 compared to the group with >amalgam fillings. No patholgical changes were found in the exposed >workers. It seems safe to conclude that no health-related problems from >Hg are to be expected from amalgam fillings."
Couldn’t find that ref on MEDLINE – maybe not important enough? I found the documents below, which may be of interest.. The 1991 WHO survey put amalgam as #1source of exposure *on average*. How big was the study? How many years did they wait after to measure possible long term effects? Certainly not decades.. (Virtually no studies ever do..) The method of measuring Hg is not given above. Methods like urine analysis only show what the current exposure is, not what has accumulated long term, or what damage has already been done. Someone may have high levels for *acute* exposure, but not for 24 hours a day, for decades on end as with Chronic exposure through Amalgam.. And there are variables that mean a small fraction of individuals are effectively much more liable to mercury accumulation/damage than the general population.. Title People with high mercury uptake from their own dental amalgam fillings. Author Barreg
