# IBS OR MERCURY POISONING?



## paul762 (Jan 4, 2004)

the doctors cant seem to find anything wrong with me or my bowels and nothing that I take gives any lasting relief, I do however have another thing and that is 18 amalgam fillings in my head, could this have been the cause of my problems all along?


----------



## Kathleen M. (Nov 16, 1999)

The number of fillings you need to really get any toxic issue would be about 500. It is totaly dose not that you have a filling at all. (Dr. Andrew Weil is source for that he had an article on this recently)You might get more exposed to mercury by removing them rather than leaving them alone and only replacing them when they need to be replaced. There is a fair amount of fraud out there in mercury testing, so if you do persue this be careful. Some of the tests are not good so they may show you are loaded with it when you are not and you might end up paying a lot of money for no benefit, just like paying a lot of money to get all the fillings removed and replaced may cost a lot of money for no benefit.Actual mercury poisoning (rather than I will tell you your symptoms are mercury poisoning and sell you expensive treatments) has a lot of symptoms that would indicate something other than IBS is going on. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002476.htm has information from a reliable source.Eating too many contaminated fish is much more of an issue than your fillings.K.


----------



## paul762 (Jan 4, 2004)

thanks Kath, I have made an appointment with the GP in any case just to be sure. btw I have had these in my mouth for about 15 years would that make a difference eg. symptoms worsening gradually, or could I be sensitive to the mercury?


----------



## Kathleen M. (Nov 16, 1999)

Most of the evidence is that they are not very likely to be causing your problems.But there are a lot of people willing to make money off of you because you are worried about them (and they do the same thing most of the health fraud providers do where no matter what your symptoms they know what caused it and their usually very expensive treatment will fix it, be careful out there).The doctor most likely will defer to all the scientific work by the American Dental Association FDA and other mainstream organizations saying they are not the problem.


----------



## 19927 (Aug 4, 2005)

I don't have a single filling, but i have IBS.


----------



## paul762 (Jan 4, 2004)

but some of my symptoms can not be ibs related eg. short term memory loss


----------



## meckle (Mar 5, 2003)

> quote:Originally posted by Kathleen M, Ph.D.:The number of fillings you need to really get any toxic issue would be about 500. It is totaly dose not that you have a filling at all. (Dr. Andrew Weil is source for that he had an article on this recently)


This is incorrect. I am unfamiliar with this Dr, but I can tell you that you can be exposed to toxic levels with a lot less than 500 fillings. There are a lot of variables thou - genetics, nutritional factors etc. The WHO estimated in 1991 that the average person with fillings is exposed to 3-10 ug of mercury a day.


> quote:You might get more exposed to mercury by removing them rather than leaving them alone and only replacing them when they need to be replaced.


This is true. You need to know what you are doing when you are getting fillings out. More importantly you're dentists needs to know what they are doing and alot of them don't.


> quote:There is a fair amount of fraud out there in mercury testing, so if you do persue this be careful. Some of the tests are not good so they may show you are loaded with it when you are not and you might end up paying a lot of money for no benefit, just like paying a lot of money to get all the fillings removed and replaced may cost a lot of money for no benefit.


Fraud is a strong word. Ignorance would be a better one. Actually most of the tests are more likely to give false negatives than false positives. But the basic point is correct - the tests are all ####. DO NOT do a chelation challenge test - they're dangerous. Urine and blood levels are irrevelant to chronic mercury poisoning - they are only accurate for recent acute exposure.


> quote:Actual mercury poisoning (rather than I will tell you your symptoms are mercury poisoning and sell you expensive treatments) has a lot of symptoms that would indicate something other than IBS is going on. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002476.htm has information from a reliable source.


Those symptoms and treatments are relevant to acute exposure only. There are different symptoms for elemental, organic and inorganic mercury and there are different symptoms for chronic versus acute exposure.


> quote:Eating too many contaminated fish is much more of an issue than your fillings.K.


Most probably this is true. Thou it depends on the number, size and skill of the dentist who installed the fillings. Also - nowadays dental amalgam comes in standardised pre-measured packs for more consistent quality. This is a relatively recent thing - if you're fillings are more than say 10-15 years old they are likely to have been mixed by the individual dentist - meaning the amount of mercury in them varied.


> quote:Most of the evidence is that they are not very likely to be causing your problems.


Incorrect - most of the em ....cough... 'evidence' is based on flawed assumptions, flawed experiments or flawed data. And so proves nothing either positive or negative.


> quote:But there are a lot of people willing to make money off of you because you are worried about them (and they do the same thing most of the health fraud providers do where no matter what your symptoms they know what caused it and their usually very expensive treatment will fix it, be careful out there).


This is true.


> quote:The doctor most likely will defer to all the scientific work by the American Dental Association FDA and other mainstream organizations saying they are not the problem.


OK - all of this work is flawed and ignorant of the basic science of mercury toxicology. And yes I can back that up (thou its very complex and I haven't got time).So - if you really think you have mercury poisoning what do you do? The only person I've come across who actually knows what he's talking about is Andy Cutler. His website :http://www.noamalgam.comHis book: Amalgam Illness - Diagnosis and Treatment.If I were you I would email him directly and ask his advice - his email is on his website I believe. I have mercury poisoning which was originally diagnosed as IBS, then candidiasis, then eventually mercury. I follow his treatment program (with a few of my own tweaks) and I am improving. I no longer have IBS symptoms - my main issue now are joints problems.Note: I did follow other treatments before I heard of him and it made me a hell of a lot worse. Chelation is dangerous if you don't know what you're doing.


----------



## meckle (Mar 5, 2003)

To illustrate the level of incompetence (or worse) of the ADA.See the following article on webmd.comhttp://www.webmd.com/content/article/109/109436.htmQuoting from the section on absorption:


> quote:"The mercury in fish is methyl mercury and is much more easily absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract, whereas elemental mercury from an amalgam is almost not absorbed," says ADA spokesman J. Rodway Mackert, DDS, a professor in the School of Dentistry at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. And if it's not absorbed, it can't cause any problems, he says.


This statement is in fact 100% true. It is also in fact 100% irrelevant. Why? The main route of exposure to mercury from dental amalgam is NOT via gastrointestinal absorption - it is via inhalation - and yes this is well established in the literature. In fact 80% of mercury emitted as vapour from amalgams is absorbed and approximately 7% of that makes it to the brain where it becomes trapped indefinitely. At a rate of 3-10ug a day that adds up over the years. All of these figure I'm taking from research articles thou I cannot remember which ones at the moment (I've read lots of them).So this raises a question - is the ADA spokesman, a professor of medicine,a) ignorant of the facts of mercury toxicology ?or is the statement deliberately misleading ?I don't know which. I don't know which scares me more. I do know it is NOT acceptable.


----------



## meckle (Mar 5, 2003)

More info:yahoo lists of people using andrew cutlers protocolfrequent_dose_chelationadult_metal_chelationsome people on there are very knowledgable and can answer questions - particularly a guy called tkhttp://www.iaomt.org...a mercury free dentist organisation with lots of infoMaths Berlin - he wrote the entry on mercury in The Handbook of Toxicology back in the 80's and is one of the big names in mercury research. The Swedish government commissioned him to write a report on amalgam use in 2003 and he wrote the following article:http://www.dentalmaterial.gov.se/Mercury.pdf


----------



## Kathleen M. (Nov 16, 1999)

Andrew Weil is a doctor that publishes a lot of holistic sorts of information. http://www.drweil.com/u/Home/index.htmlUsually if anyone is on the bandwagon for something being good or bad when there is any sort of half-way decent evidence he will be there (I think he overplays the evidence for the goodness or badness of things, but he usually picks the right ones, I thought I should at least give some indication of where I got the number, which I didn't think was a bad thing







)That he can't be convinced of how dangerous it is (and he is someone I view as likely to see it that way) tends to mean something to me even if it doesn't to anyone else.


----------



## meckle (Mar 5, 2003)

Yeah I found that site.I thought you were a scientist. You're basing you're opinion on this guys opinion - and from the article I read he doesn't know squat.Read Maths Berlin's article if you want some real info from a genuine expert on the subject. Seriously its really good and is actually well balanced.


----------



## 19927 (Aug 4, 2005)

I also have short term memory loss, and i have IBS. I attribute that to a CREBS deficiency.


----------



## Kathleen M. (Nov 16, 1999)

That was the most recent place I saw an exact number for what the dose was.I find him usually more reliable than a fair number of the amalgam scare websites and writings. If the evidence is good they will win over everyone. But so far they haven't. I am concerned that people will go to someone who will expose them to far more mercury getting them removed than they would just leaving them alone. Replacing them with a different material as the need to be replaced does make sense to me, but the fear of the fillings tends to be overblown when compared to rivers where the safe level of eating fish is less than one per year per adult human. (and we have areas of rivers in this state where that is the safe dose of fish). We will just have to agree to disagree.K.edit to add here is the dose information from the medical literature http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...3&dopt=Abstract


----------



## meckle (Mar 5, 2003)

Kathleen - there is no firmly established maximum safe dose for mercury. None, nada - so whatever exact number you saw was baseless.


> quote:I find him usually more reliable than a fair number of the amalgam scare websites and writings. If the evidence is good they will win over everyone. But so far they haven't.


Agreed - 99% of the info out there is ****. INCLUDING that from official sources. The fact is the information in clinical circles is 30 years behind the lab work. Most of what these people recommend is actually dangerous (speaking from experience).Sorry I should explain. The actual info known about mercury poisoning is insufficient to to say amalgam's are safe. The area is also full of confusion. To give an example - the ATSDR publish the Toxicological Profile for mercury. In it in one page it states - the halflife of mercury in the brain is on the order of years - this is correct and consistent with various studies. In another section it has a table with the half-life in various tissues - it lists the brain as 60 days. If you read the accompanying text it says this 60 days figure comes from one particular study.So what ?? Well this 60 days figure is oft-quoted in the literature - even thou it is inconsistent with many studies. A personal observation is it is usually quoted in the studies that conclude amalgam is safe.This is the level of buffoonary you are dealing with - the official profile of mercury is not even clear. How do expect various internet quacks to have stuff right ???I recommend cutler as after reading his book a colleague and I spent several weeks researching to verify his ideas about mercury transport. We discovered this has been known about since at least the 70's by the toxicologists - yet somehow has been entirely ignored by the clinicians. Cutlers protocol attempts to take into account the actual biochemical processes of how the stuff moves about the body. Thats why I decided to use it. I don't agree with everything he says - but by personal experience I've found his treatment more effective and safer than the alternative that I've tried.


----------



## meckle (Mar 5, 2003)

I just followed your link.30 micrograms/g creatinine urine mercury level is stated as the level where effects are noticeable. well if your read Berlins report you'll see that this is too high.And if you read a bunch of other papers you'll realise that 30ug/g creatinine is in fact meaningless. It does not measure exposure in cases of chronic low dose poisoning - and the ATSDR profile states this (or rather it states that urine levels are only indicative of exposure in cases of recent acute exposure). It does not relate to body load as excretion/retention is determined by genetic and nutritional factors.This paper in fact proves nothing other than the people who wrote do not know what they are talking about.


----------



## meckle (Mar 5, 2003)

> quote:We will just have to agree to disagree


Fair enough. I'm getting healthier - how about you ?


----------



## Kathleen M. (Nov 16, 1999)

IBS all gone.Totally using allopathic medicine theory. Standard Brain-Gut theory and all thatDid a clinical trial with Dr. Drossman. 3 months and was way better, and just kept getting better every year. (and 70% of the people in my treatment group in the study also got better, and had improvements at the 1 year follow up, don't know if all of them are as good as me)No medicationsNo dietary supplements (for the IBS, I take them for other reasons)No dietary restrictions I eat whatever I want.No abdominal pain.Stool consistancy and Frequency in normal range.Still farted like crazy after the IBS faded, but I did that before teh IBS started so I can't blame that on the IBS. Probiotics ended up fixing that right up.K.ETA: I still don't follow the logic (because I've been accused of suffering endlessly and needlessly before pretty much ONLY by proponents of one alt. med thingy or another) that because I am skeptical of the vast majority of alt. med. my IBS must be terrible and unending. Just wondering how that follows.Yep, I believe in the brain-gut theories because I have seen them work first hand and know what percentage of people they work for.Why is it bad for me to stand up for what I believe but noble for everyone else, I will never understand.


----------



## kitkat17 Lady of the Loo (Jul 21, 2005)

Kath how did you get your IBS to go away?


----------



## kitkat17 Lady of the Loo (Jul 21, 2005)

I have had bad teeth all my life.I thought maybe my teeth were a part of my IBS problem too. Allot of fillings too. ABout 6 months ago I had all my teeth pulled and got dentures. My IBS is still here 100% the same. My anxiety and panic attacks are worse casue of the accidents of D I have had.So as far as the teeth and filling theory not happening here. IBS the same.


----------



## Kathleen M. (Nov 16, 1999)

It's in the link at the end of my posts.The clinical trial was using Cognitive Behavioral Therapy designed for treating IBS.About 1/2 way through the 3 months of treatment I had a breakthrough and my IBS went down by about 1/2 in intensity painwise that week.Over the rest of the treatment I got better each week. It is common for improvement to continue after the treatment is over. For several years post treatment I still needed a very low level of medication to keep things under control. Now I don't need that anymore.The Functional GI Clinic I went to has a hypnotherapy treatment they teach to people http://www.ibshypnosis.com and I think there are more people trained in that than the CBT.K.


----------



## meckle (Mar 5, 2003)

Kath - yeah sorry that was a cheap shot. I made an assumption and attempted to score some cheap points - my bad.


> quote:Why is it bad for me to stand up for what I believe but noble for everyone else, I will never understand.


No I respect that. I always find you're posts intelligent and valid. That's why I've bothered to post all this to you - cos I think you may actually listen if I provide you with the evidence. Trouble is with mercury its hard to find. Seriously - Berlin's report I gave the link to earlier is the best place to start.


----------



## Kathleen M. (Nov 16, 1999)

Appology accepted.I believe that most of the "safe level" of mercury has to do at least in part with the normal body burden that most standard issue healthy people wander around with.I can't believe a single molecule of mercury in your entire body would make you serious ill. Most things have some threshhold below which there is no effect on the organism as a whole (it might damage a cell or two but not enough to get above the normal amount of cell damage you get from being alive). I haven't reviewd the tox studies for various mercury compounds, but they usually have stuff like that ( or effect threshholds in animals well defined, and levels found in health people) when setting levels. Although some of the older standards were set at detection level, most of those have been redone now we have better machines. It is hard to regulate stuff at levels you can't see. They have to have a reason for where they set a "safe" level. They really can't just pull numbers out of their butt. Now they are usually consensus numbers which is a number everyone on the panel will sign off on even if some people think the real number is a bit higher or a bit lower. (I do some work in industrial hygiene so I have a fair idea about how they set these levels of what exposures are safe or not, they do review them once in a while and new data does effect the levels given, everything has a no effect level, the hard part is knowing exactly what it is which is why there is always a margin of safety added to the calculation so the figure given includes the uncertainty one has and that some individuals may be more sensitive than others)If mercury had NO safe level at all I think every person on the planet would be very sick or dead. After all I'm fairly certain that one cannot live in this world (even remote areas) with the amount of mercury pollution there is and all and not have at least a few atoms of mercury running around in the body. K.


----------



## Kathleen M. (Nov 16, 1999)

Never mind it took me awhile to figure out which link was to the berlin report...maybe I need more coffee.K.


----------



## Kathleen M. (Nov 16, 1999)

A quick read so far.I didn't really see IBS and all the other disorders that most anti-amalgam people talk about being talked about in the Berlin report. A fair number of effects, mostly in the neurobiology (which is what mercury poisoning is noted for ala the Mad Hatter of Alice in Wonderland fame....they were mad from Mercury exposure) and a few other things.The lowered the level at which exposure might be significant, but did not seem to conclude that is it toxic at all levels of exposure no matter how low.And they agree with my point that you shouldn't remove them just in case. They mentioned the increase in exposure when removed, and that the problems from removal may be more problematic than the side effects of the amalgam.I'm not saying people should not avoid it, but don't assume every health problem has to be due to your fillings, or go removing them just in case. While you see reports of people who suddenly regained health from removal of fillings you also find plenty of people on boards like this without a specific agenda that found no effect from the removal. I don't think it is as simple as ALL bad or totally safe. It is something I would be cautious of, but not get paniced over and do something that might cause more problems than doing nothing.K.


----------



## meckle (Mar 5, 2003)

Kath - regarding the safety levels - yes I am familiar with how these things work too. Trouble is with mercury - there are people with different levels with tolerances. And even the dental folk recognise that hypersensitivity occurs.


> quote:Originally posted by Kathleen M, Ph.D.:A quick read so far.I didn't really see IBS and all the other disorders that most anti-amalgam people talk about being talked about in the Berlin report. A fair number of effects, mostly in the neurobiology (which is what mercury poisoning is noted for ala the Mad Hatter of Alice in Wonderland fame....they were mad from Mercury exposure) and a few other things.


No he doens't talk about those diseases. His paper is very balanced. But he does cast doubt on the usual opinions....no ? And he does recommend against amalgam use.


> quote:And they agree with my point that you shouldn't remove them just in case. They mentioned the increase in exposure when removed, and that the problems from removal may be more problematic than the side effects of the amalgam.


Yes I agree with that and as I said before - there is a right way and lots of wrong ways to do it.


> quote:I'm not saying people should not avoid it, but don't assume every health problem has to be due to your fillings, or go removing them just in case. While you see reports of people who suddenly regained health from removal of fillings you also find plenty of people on boards like this without a specific agenda that found no effect from the removal.


Agreed. I'm not saying its the route of all evil. I am saying its the root of some evil.


> quote:I don't think it is as simple as ALL bad or totally safe. It is something I would be cautious of, but not get paniced over and do something that might cause more problems than doing nothing.K.


Fair enough. Glad you read the paper - sorry I didn't repost the link!! Its an introduction to the subject - didn't expect it to convince you absolutely - but would you say its made you more skeptical of amalgam safety ?


----------



## flux (Dec 13, 1998)

> quote:This is incorrect. I am unfamiliar with this Dr, but I can tell you that you can be exposed to toxic levels with a lot less than 500 fillings. There are a lot of variables thou - genetics, nutritional factors etc. The WHO estimated in 1991 that the average person with fillings is exposed to 3-10 ug of mercury a day


*False* Funny if the number were actually more than 500. Anyway doesn't appear make any such estimate, nor would it make sense for it too. The WHO says that amalgam fillings are very safe.


> quote:Incorrect - most of the em ....cough... 'evidence' is based on flawed assumptions, flawed experiments or flawed data. And so proves nothing either positive or negative.


*False* The evidence is highly reliable.


> quote:OK - all of this work is flawed and ignorant of the basic science of mercury toxicology. And yes I can back that up (thou its very complex and I haven't got time).


It would be pretty complicated to back your statement because it is *false*. This work is highly reliable and is entirely based on the science of mercury toxicology.


> quote:knows what he's talking about is Andy Cutler. His website :http://www.noamalgam.comHis book: Amalgam Illness - Diagnosis and Treatment.


I don't see *any* accurate information on this site.


> quote:It is also in fact 100% irrelevant. Why? The main route of exposure to mercury from dental amalgam is NOT via gastrointestinal absorption - it is via inhalation - and yes this is well established in the literature. In fact 80% of mercury emitted as vapour from amalgams is absorbed and approximately 7% of that makes it to the brain where it becomes trapped indefinitely. At a rate of 3-10ug a day that adds up over the years. All of these figure I'm taking from research articles thou I cannot remember which ones at the moment (I've read lots of them).


*Nonsense* Most absorbed mercury comes from the surroundings, not from amalgam. People with fillings have pretty much the same amount of mercury in their bodies as people who don't..


> quote:Agreed - 99% of the info out there is ****. INCLUDING that from official sources.


The official sources may not be 99% but they're pretty close. Almost everything you posted is false.


> quote:The actual info known about mercury poisoning is insufficient to to say amalgam's are safe.


This is an example of that.A summary of accurate information is contained in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsumThe basic consensus is as expected. *Mercury in fillings is safe.*


----------



## meckle (Mar 5, 2003)

###fluxHa ha ha. You think you can just say FALSE and that makes you right ? I have actually exposed some of the problems already in this thread - did you read the toxicological profile for mercury - I have - its over 600 pages long. Why don't you go use some of that info you have access to for a change?Here - I'll give you a start:Lorscheider FL - Mercury exposure from "silver" tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions a traditional dental paradigm. FASEB J 9, 504-508(1995)


----------



## meckle (Mar 5, 2003)

Hear is a brand new paper on genetic factors - specifically the CPOX4 alelle. I haven't gotten my hands on the full paper yet.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsumAnd I'll finish with a quote from the textbook Toxicology of Metals Vol 1 by Louis W Chang 1996 pg483


> quote:Comparison of data on the release and uptake of Hg from amalgam fillings with available human and animal data on the toxicity of inorganic Hg indicates that the level of exposure to Hg from amalgam fillings should be a matter for serious concern.........It follows that the practice of using amalgams as tooth restorative materials cannot be defended by claims that they are safe, for there is no basis for such a statement. It can only be motivated based on a judgement that, as is the case for pharmaceuticals, the benefits outweigh the risks. However, presently available data may not allow for any conclusions........In our view, the potential dangers with these materials in the past have been grossly neglected...........It appears that the legal status for many materials used in dentistry do not even include a demand on documentation of content and quality of components of the products used. The difference compared with the demands on pharmaceuticals is most striking, and yet many dental restorative materials have a far wider usage than even the most commonly used pharmaceuticals. Negligence in the past with respect to the possible health hazards cannot justify a continuing lack of concern in the potential risks with products used in dentistry.


----------



## Kathleen M. (Nov 16, 1999)

While there may be some individuals with specific sensitivities I think that for most people any health issues they have are independant of the fillings and far too many places are set up to scare people more than is needed about them. I've always been more of a if you can avoid it maybe you should, but if the choice is to not fix the tooth or get the amalgam I would get the amalgam (some reasons are because you can't afford the more expensive tooth colored material or the cost of replacing it regularly as they don't last nearly as long as the metal fillings, and gold usually cost a lot more as well, or the tooth decay is severe enough you need something stronger than composite can provide the risk of the amalgam filling is usually for most people going to be much less than what will occur by leaving the tooth to rot or pulling it rather than fill it)For a few individuals removal may make sense, but for the most part people should look elsewhere for more likely explainations for health problems before spending big bucks on removal.As with most things. Generally unlikely to be a problem for most standard issue people. There is always someone who isn't standard issue that runs into trouble with things that typically are not a problem. Like I have to avoid penicillin even though it is the drug of choice for a lot of things and AOK for most people. There is always no matter what it is going to be a few people that run into trouble with things. But banning something that works for most so the few won't be effected usually doesn't make much sense public health-wise either. I mean not vaccinating people for the flu because a few people are allergic to eggs, it is that sort of thought process for me. The some danger is allowed if the greater good for the majority of people you need to have it around. Now sometimes it ends up being enough of a problem for enough people that public health-wise it makes sense to stop doing something, but unfortunately too many of those decisions are made because of politics or fear-mongering than actual well-done risk assessment (we had some people in the Env. Sci department that did the sociology of risk assessment, and far too often people's emotions trump all scientific data when the laws are made). Although it is funny how some things abandoned by allopathic medicine because the benefit (often non-existant) is not worth the risk (sometimes considerable) get taken up by alternative types as just the thing to do for good health.I just don't seem to run into the "it changed my life" type people anywhere other than on the anti-amalgam websites. We've had some people here that did this (either had to get dentures, or did the removal) and usually it makes no difference at least for IBS. Maybe for people with more standard mercury poisoning symptoms it might actually be making a difference, but those are the symptoms you find around here all that much. And the main question was in dealing with IBS, not other symptoms of mercury poisoning.If you have the neurological issues that is the main target of mercury poisoning, it might, possibly be worth persuing, but as a general cure-all for whatever ails you I still can't buy that amalgam is the root of all ills in people who have them, which seems to be some people's position on the subject. K.


----------



## 13542 (Nov 10, 2005)

Kathleen -As a moderator (and one who gives good advice)I urge you to check out the IBS-D site "itchy".Sorry, but I think the comments from IBS 6 are not on the topic, or helpful and have strong sexual connotations. Hey, I'm not a prude but this is an IBS site not a "name your sexual desires site".


----------



## meckle (Mar 5, 2003)

###freelilyhuh?###kathleenthats fair enough. but the point in regard to mercury is that the effects of chronic low dose exposure are unknown and unquantified. You can't do a risk benefit analysis if you don't know the risks. I do not think its the root of all ills. but for some people it is. And yes I agree removal only make sense in certain circumstances. I for example had a positive lab result on chelation challege test. These tests are inaccurate and as I've since learned potentially dangerous so I wouldn't advise anyone to take one. I know mine was accurate as therapy has improved my condition (and I had some of the neurological symptoms)And for the record - I only ever had 3 mercury fillings (thou I suspect I am one of those genetically predisposed to have a problem). I was not a fish eater until after I was already ill, but before i was diagnosed.as to alternate materials. Plenty are available. In my country they cost the same as amalgams so if they are more expensive in the US there must be some reason for it. Mercury is extremely toxic - there is no rational for using it when safer materials are available.


----------



## flux (Dec 13, 1998)

> quote:You think you can just say FALSE and that makes you right ?


No, but decades of research says it is.


> quote:I have actually exposed some of the problems already in this thread


But there aren't *any* problems.


> quote:- did you read the toxicological profile for mercury - I have - its over 600 pages long. Why don't you go use some of that info you have access to for a change?


The toxicological profile on amalgam is *0* pages long.


> quote:Lorscheider FL - Mercury exposure from "silver" tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions a traditional dental paradigm. FASEB J 9, 504-508(1995)


I admit it's rare for published paper to contain nonsense, but this is an instance of that.


> quote:the point in regard to mercury is that the effects of chronic low dose exposure are unknown and unquantified. You can't do a risk benefit analysis if you don't know the risks.


From mercury in fillings, the effects is known and has been quantified to be zero. *That amalgam (silver) fillings, which contain mercury, are very safe is an incontrovertible fact. *


----------



## meckle (Mar 5, 2003)

> quote:Originally posted by flux:
> 
> 
> > quote:You think you can just say FALSE and that makes you right ?
> ...


Really - have you read it critically then ? Post me some of that evidence (full papers please - abstracts aren't good enough) and I'll point out the flaws for you.


> quote:
> 
> 
> > quote:I have actually exposed some of the problems already in this thread
> ...


Yes there are - I'm not repeating myself. If you are incapable of reading or comprehending that is you're problem.


> quote:
> 
> 
> > quote:- did you read the toxicological profile for mercury - I have - its over 600 pages long. Why don't you go use some of that info you have access to for a change?
> ...


See my above quote from a toxicology textbook on the indequate safety standards for dental materials. And actually I'm pretty sure dentists would have a Material Safety Data Sheet shipped with amalgam when they receive it for employee safety reasons.


> quote:
> 
> 
> > quote:Lorscheider FL - Mercury exposure from "silver" tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions a traditional dental paradigm. FASEB J 9, 504-508(1995)
> ...


Your opinion. If you are going to make such an accusation please back it up.


> quote:
> 
> 
> > quote:the point in regard to mercury is that the effects of chronic low dose exposure are unknown and unquantified. You can't do a risk benefit analysis if you don't know the risks.
> ...


No they aren't. Amalgam's have NEVER been tested to modern standards. This is currently being done in a study called The Children's Amalgam Study - thou I have issues with their ways of measuring the physiologocial effects.


> quote: *That amalgam (silver) fillings, which contain mercury, are very safe is an incontrovertible fact. *


Back that up then. With papers - in full. I'll explain why they are wrong.Seriously - you are actually being quite irrational about this. You've failed to properly respond to a single point I've made. You think you can dismiss me by using you're assumed authority and attempting to belittle me. You can't. The points I've made are valid and I've provided backup reading from credible sources for them. Either respond to them properly or leave the thread. Put up or shut up.


----------



## administrator (Aug 20, 2004)

This thread is degenerating into an endless debate. Locking.


----------

