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.
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: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.
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: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.
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: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.
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:Eating too many contaminated fish is much more of an issue than your fillings.K.
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:Most of the evidence is that they are not very likely to be causing your problems.
This is true.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).
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.