Mercury expert rebutts amaglam safety

opinion guy

Right so. The topic of amalgam safety is always a contentious one around here amongst claims of conspriacy theories and lack of scientific debate.

I've come across an Article by Joachim Mutter PhD of the University of Constance in Germany. Dr Mutter is one of the few researchers who performs analysis of mercury levels in the brains etc at autopsy. As such he is a leading expert in his field. His article as of January this year was written to address and rebutt a report Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) on dental amalgam.

The full paper is here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025977/?tool=pubmed

Its quite long and detailed so I won't post the whole article but here is the abstract:

Abstract wrote:

It was claimed by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR)) in a report to the EU-Commission that "....no risks of adverse systemic effects exist and the current use of dental amalgam does not pose a risk of systemic disease..." [1, available from: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_016.pdf].
SCENIHR disregarded the toxicology of mercury and did not include most important scientific studies in their review. But the real scientific data show that:
(a) Dental amalgam is by far the main source of human total mercury body burden. This is proven by autopsy studies which found 2-12 times more mercury in body tissues of individuals with dental amalgam. Autopsy studies are the most valuable and most important studies for examining the amalgam-caused mercury body burden.
(b) These autopsy studies have shown consistently that many individuals with amalgam have toxic levels of mercury in their brains or kidneys.
(c) There is no correlation between mercury levels in blood or urine, and the levels in body tissues or the severity of clinical symptoms. SCENIHR only relied on levels in urine or blood.
(d) The half-life of mercury in the brain can last from several years to decades, thus mercury accumulates over time of amalgam exposure in body tissues to toxic levels. However, SCENIHR state that the half-life of mercury in the body is only "20-90 days".
(e) Mercury vapor is about ten times more toxic than lead on human neurons and with synergistic toxicity to other metals.
(f) Most studies cited by SCENIHR which conclude that amalgam fillings are safe have severe methodical flaws.

The rest of the paper lays out in detail his argument that amalgam is not proven to be safe. I'm not going to address each point here - its far too long and detailed to address every point here in my opening post but no doubt individual points will be raised throughout the discussion.
In summary here we have a leading mercury expert penning a substantial rebuttal to the orthodoxy that amalgam is safe and backing up his opinion with details of the science of the issue. I'd like to hear the opinion of the dentists on the forum about Doctor Mutter paper which I recommend you all read in detail.

Surely it gives you cause to at least re-examine the assumptions of amalgam safety or otherwise ?

Big_G

I've read the paper in detail and can tell you that the main points that Dr. Mutter uses to rebut the original paper can themselves be rebutted. This is the problem with amalgam 'science', the evidence both for and against the safety of amalgam is not strong enough to stand up to robust attack.

Further study is required, randomly controlled prospective studies need to be conducted. Autopsy studies, in my opinion, are not useful unless the person died of or had significant clinical symptoms from the particular phenomenon that you are studying.

In other cases where questions have been raised about the safety of a particular product, that products use has been discontinued. If the issues surrounding mercury toxicity from amalgam exposure were statistically significant, surely we would be seeing a lot more disease? Dr. Mutter even quotes a study into mercury toxicity that stated that 'self reported symptoms' were alleviated by removal of amalgam. I mean come on, that's hardly science is it?

florodon2

opinion guy wrote: »

Right so. The topic of amalgam safety is always a contentious one around here amongst claims of conspriacy theories and lack of scientific debate.

I've come across an Article by Joachim Mutter PhD of the University of Constance in Germany. Dr Mutter is one of the few researchers who performs analysis of mercury levels in the brains etc at autopsy. As such he is a leading expert in his field. His article as of January this year was written to address and rebutt a report Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) on dental amalgam.

The full paper is here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025977/?tool=pubmed

Its quite long and detailed so I won't post the whole article but here is the abstract:



The rest of the paper lays out in detail his argument that amalgam is not proven to be safe. I'm not going to address each point here - its far too long and detailed to address every point here in my opening post but no doubt individual points will be raised throughout the discussion.
In summary here we have a leading mercury expert penning a substantial rebuttal to the orthodoxy that amalgam is safe and backing up his opinion with details of the science of the issue. I'd like to hear the opinion of the dentists on the forum about Doctor Mutter paper which I recommend you all read in detail.

Surely it gives you cause to at least re-examine the assumptions of amalgam safety or otherwise ?

Interesting article. Very difficult to get through the "Credo" of those brainwashed in dental/medical schools.
"I believe in amalgam fillings. Mercury is a deadly poison until it is put in a person's mouth - then it is totally safe!"
"I believe in mass medicating the population by adding fluoride to water supplies."

However, you have made a valiant attempt to open minds. Well done.

dlofnep

I became ill only weeks after getting amalgam fillings, and I haven't been right since. That was over 5 years ago. My health is completely destroyed, and my brain isn't functioning at even 20% of what it was. Tests have shown that my body is way over-exposed to mercury, and I'm to begin detox soon. I'll give it a read, thanks for posting.

dlofnep

Big_G wrote: »

If the issues surrounding mercury toxicity from amalgam exposure were statistically significant, surely we would be seeing a lot more disease?

How exactly would we be seeing a lot more of it? Any patient who attempts to even bring up the idea of mercury toxicity with their doctor are laughed at. I asked a leading Irish infectious disease specialist to test my mercury levels, but she flat out refused. I had to get them tested privately, only to confirm my original suspicions - I was overly exposed to mercury.

There is what appears to be a pandemic of people coming down with explained illness, fatigue and poor immune systems. Doctors are not exhausting the cause of these problems. So to say that we'd be seeing a lot more of it is silly - because we might see it everyday, and not know it - because doctors are either ignorant, or not bothered to investigate it.

florodon2

I had all mercury/amalgam fillings removed more than 15 years ago. Never been ill since then. Not a scientific example I suppose.

And maybe it is all in my mind! But I would never again revert to such poison being inserted into my mouth and body.

The real challenge is to find a dentist who will do the job.

Solair

To me, amalgam seems like a rather outdated and ugly way of filling a tooth anyway. The modern composite fillings are a far nicer looking job.

Also, some of the newer composites are much better physical matches for tooth than amalgam i.e. they are unlikely to respond to heat / change shape etc.

I find some older dentists seem to be a bit fixated on amalgam and distrust modern materials.

dlofnep

Amalgam's are just easier to put in for dentists than composites. Less aggro for them, but potentially heaps of aggro for someone who has them.

Solair

I've had quite a few composites put in, including pretty complicated ones and there's never been any issue.

My dentist was saying he finds composites much easier to work with because you can control the setting process i.e. they remain mailable until set with a UV lamp.

I suppose it depends on how good the dentist's technique is!

davo10

Guys if you request to have your amalgams replaced with composite or inlays, your dentist will oblige, it may be against their advice but you are the customer. Also if you have a cavity you can insist on a white filling, no problem.

But bare in mind they take longer to put in, may not last as long and are a more expensive material so be prepared to pay the extra cost over and above an amalgam. A large posterior composite can take 45mins to place in layers, light cure (can only be done effectively in 2mm increments), shape, check occlusion, strip polish contact points, and polish to a smooth tooth-like surface, don't then complain about the price if you believe you are getting a health benefit by having a more costly type of filling.

Incidently, if you came in to me and said you wanted ten posterior fillings replaced the cost would be in the region of €1300.00.

dlofnep

davo10 wrote: »

Guys if you request to have your amalgams replaced with composite or inlays, your dentist will oblige, it may be against their advice but you are the customer. Also if you have a cavity you can insist on a white filling, no problem.

But bare in mind they take longer to put in, may not last as long and are a more expensive material so be prepared to pay the extra cost over and above an amalgam. A large posterior composite can take 45mins to place in layers, light cure (can only be done effectively in 2mm increments), shape, check occlusion, strip polish contact points, and polish to a smooth tooth-like surface, don't then complain about the price if you believe you are getting a health benefit by having a more costly type of filling.

Incidently, if you came in to me and said you wanted ten posterior fillings replaced the cost would be in the region of €1300.00.

Do you inform your patient prior to amalgams of the potential health hazards?

Esel

Is there any issue whereby mercury levels can be increased by the process of removing amalgam fillings (due to drilling etc.)?

davo10

dlofnep wrote: »

Do you inform your patient prior to amalgams of the potential health hazards?

I inform them of the potential health hazards which have been conclusively proven by peer reviewed studies, anything else would be scaremongering and unprofessional.

dlofnep

davo10 wrote: »

I inform them of the potential health hazards which have been conclusively proven by peer reviewed studies, anything else would be scaremongering and unprofessional.

I would have appreciated the courtesy. Instead, I've been left with woeful health for 5 years running now. That was unprofessional. Davo, tell us what you do when you remove an amalgam filling from a patient. What's the protocol? Throw it in a bin? Or treat it as the toxic waste that it is?

davo10

dlofnep wrote: »

I would have appreciated the courtesy. Instead, I've been left with woeful health for 5 years running now. That was unprofessional. Davo, tell us what you do when you remove an amalgam filling from a patient. What's the protocol? Throw it in a bin? Or treat it as the toxic waste that it is?

No prob. I have a highly efficient suction motor the tip of which is placed close to the tooth being worked on to evacuate all material. The suction unit has an amalgam separating filter, this is regularly cleaned and the amalgam stored in an amalgam waste container. A company called Star Refining collects it once a year for disposal/recycling. If a patient requests barrier removal I place a rubber dam isolation frame around the tooth. Before you jump in and say why is it disposed of in this way, we remove/place approximately 10,000 amalgams per year in my clinic. In 20 years no patient has ever come back to say they felt unwell as a result of amalgam fillings.

Dlofnep, if the amalgams caused your ill health 5 years ago, why have you not had them removed?, if you have had them removed why has your brain function not recovered?. What was the exact level of mercury found in your body?, this will be on your test results. How was the tester able to quantatively measure exposure retrospectively after the initial exposure?, how was he/she able to distinguish between incidental ingestion from natural sources? Have you stopped ingesting mercury from other sources eg fish, water etc?.

Lastly, this is the biggy, how were they able to measure the 80% decrease in brain function and correlate this with the placement of an amalgam filling?

dlofnep

davo10 wrote: »

No prob. I have a highly efficient suction motor the tip of which is placed close to the tooth being worked on to evacuate all material. The suction unit has an amalgam separating filter, this is regularly cleaned and the amalgam stored in an amalgam waste container. A company called Star Refining collects it once a year for disposal/recycling. If a patient requests barrier removal I place a rubber dam isolation frame around the tooth. Before you jump in and say why is it disposed of in this way, we remove/place approximately 10,000 amalgams per year in my clinic. In 20 years no patient has ever come back to say they felt unwell as a result of amalgam fillings.

If it's disposed of as toxic waste, why is it inserted into a patient's mouth? Do you accept that mercury is a highly toxic element, and has the potential through amalgam fillings of causing mercury toxicity?

davo10 wrote: »

Dlofnep, if the amalgams caused your ill health 5 years ago, why have you not had them removed?

I have had them removed 2 months ago.

davo10 wrote: »

if you have had them removed why has your brain function not recovered?.

Because the half-life of mercury on the central nervous system and body tissues is substantially longer than the period of time that I have had them removed. I am to begin chelation soon to remove the mercury from the body - but the most difficult aspect is breaking the blood-brain barrier. Anecdotal evidence suggests that patients spend upwards of 9 months on DMSA before lowering the body burden substantially - which is tested through a challenge urine test.

davo10 wrote: »

What was the exact level of mercury found in your body?

Creatinine (g/l) levels: 0.62 (post-dmsa), 0.64 (pre-dmsa):

davo10 wrote: »

How was the tester able to quantatively measure exposure retrospectively after the initial exposure?, how was he/she able to distinguish between incidental ingestion from natural sources? Have you stopped ingesting mercury from other sources eg fish, water etc?.

I have never at any point in my life eaten sea-food, of which is the largest contributing factor for natural mercury exposure. It's safe to say that my exposure is largely contributed by 7 amalgam fillings. Is it anecdotal? Sure. But when you go from perfect health to being unable to move from your bed, directly after amalgam fillings - where every other possible avenue has been checked by a number of specialists across multiple hospitals - then it's good enough for me.

davo10 wrote: »

Lastly, this is the biggy, how were they able to measure the 80% decrease in brain function and correlate this with the placement of an amalgam filling?

That is my assertion. My brain does not function. It's irrelevant at what percentage I quantify it. The reality doesn't change for me - I have to deal with daily doses of extraordinary brain-fog where I cannot concentrate on even the most minor tasks, and which subsequently forces me into bed for the past 5 years. That's my reality and is much more important than a game of semantics.

So pardon me if I'm less forgiving about the poor practice of dental experts, who have willingly inserted toxic materials into the mouths of millions of people around the world.

digzy

Amalgam -- Resurrection and Redemption Part 2:
The Medical Mythology of Anti-Amalgam

Michael J. Wahl, D.D.S.



Myth #10: There are no health concerns about the components of
composite resins, glass ionomers, and other nonamalgam materials.

Fact #10: Although they appear safe and effective, there are health concerns
warranting further study about the components of composite resins,
glass ionomers, and other nonamalgam materials.



Since many anti-amalgamists consider mercury released from dental amalgams to be unsafe, they recommend the use of "nontoxic" nonamalgam alternatives, most commonly composite resins. One group of anti-amalgamists stated, "It would seem that now is the time for dentistry to use composite (polymeric and ceramic) alternatives and discard the metal alchemy bestowed on its profession from a less enlightened era." [1] But Mackert stated:

A frequent claim by the anti-amalgamists is that "no research has shown that dental amalgam is safe," yet the same charge can be leveled against composites and other dental materials. No material can ever be judged "safe" with any kind of finality, because new biological evaluation techniques are always being developed, and previously unanticipated adverse effects are continually being discovered for all materials [2].

Just as amalgam fillings release mercury, so composite resin restorations have been shown to leach between 14 and 22 separate potentially hazardous compounds, including DL-camphorquinone; 4-dimethylaminobenzoic acid ethy ester, drometrizole; 1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo[2,2,1]heptane; 2,2-dimethoxy[1,2] diphenyletanone; ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate; and triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate [3].
In a study of 35 identifiable dental resin composite monomers/additives of commercial composite resin composites (Table 1), investigators found nine severely or moderately cytotoxic components [4]. Other studies have also shown composite resin components to be cytotoxic (causing damage or destruction of cells). [5-15] Several studies have shown that dentin bonding agents and their components are mutagenic (cause mutations in new generations). [16-19] Wataha et al stated, "the components of resin composites are hazardous in that they all cause significant toxicity in direct contact with fibroblasts." [20]

Table 1. Components of Resin Composites

AbbreviationCompoundBEA
BEMA
BHT
Bis-EMA
Bis-GMABenzyl alcohol
Benzyl methacrylate
2,6-Di-t-butyl-4-methyl phenol
Ethoxylated bisphenol-A-di-methacrylate
Bowen monomer, isopropyliden-bis (2-hydroxy-3-(4-phenoxy)-propylmethacrylateBis-MA
BL
BME
BPE
CA
CQ
DBPA
DCHA
DCHP
DDMA
DEAE
DEGDMA
DHEPT
DICH
DIPA
DMABEE
DMAPE
DMBZ
DMDDA
DMPT
DMTDA
EGDMA
HEMA
HMBP
TEG
TEGDMA
THA
TPP
TPSb
UDMABisphenol-A-dimethacrylate
Benzil
Benzoic-acid-methylester
Benzoic-acid-phenylester
Camphoric acid anhydride
Camphoroquinone
Dibenzoyl-peroxide
Dicyclo-hexylamine
Dicyclo-hexyl-phthalate
1,10-Decane-diol-dimethacrylate
Diethyl-amino-ethanol
Diethyleneglycol-di-methacrylate
Dihydroxy-ethyl-p-toluidine
1,6-Diisocyanato-hexane
2,6-Diisopropyl-aniline
4-Dimethylaminobenzoic acid ethyl ester
2-(4-Dimethyl-aminophenyl)ethanol
Dimethoxybenzoine
Dimethyl-dodecane-amine
Dimethyl-p-toluidine
N,N-Dimethyltetradecylamine
Ethyleneglycol-di-methacrylate
2-Hydroxy-ethyl-methacrylate
2-Hydroxy-4methoxy-benzophenone
Triethylenglycol
Triethylenglycol-di-methacrylate
Trihexylamine
Triphenylphosphine
Triphenylstibane
Urethane-di-methacrylate[SIZE=-1]Reprinted with permission of Wiley-Liss, Inc., a subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Adapted from Geurtsen W et al [4][/SIZE]

Resin composite components have been shown to cause immunosupression or immunostimulation [21] and to inhibit DNA [22] and RNA synthesis [23]. Resin composite restorative material was shown to be more cytotoxic than amalgam in a comparative in vitro study [24]. Various resin components of dentin bonding agents have been shown to suppress the mitochondrial acitivty of macrophages [25]. Various composite restorative materials implanted into animals have been shown to cause inflammatory responses, including an increase in lymphocytic infiltration as well as fibroblasts and epithelioid cells [26].
There have been several reports of allergy to composite resins and their ingredients [27-31]. It has been suggested that composite resins may be a cause of hand eczema and skin symptoms in dentists [32]. Vinyl, latex, and modified latex gloves are permeable to several resin composite materials [33]. Some resin monomers have been shown to encourage the growth of cariogenic microorganisms [34].
Resin composites [35], sealants [36], and glass ionomers [37] have been shown to release formaldehyde, a possible carcinogen [38]. One dentist, commenting on the fact that some anti-amalgamists describe composite resins as "mercury-free fillings," has called amalgam restorations "formaldehyde-free restorations." [39] Chemically cured composite resins contain the initiator benzoyl peroxide [40], which has been shown to be carcinogenic in many studies [41-43]. There is even concern that there may be environmental harm from the waste in dental offices using composite resin filling materials [44].
Glass ionomer cements have been shown to inhibit macromolecular synthesis [23]. In a review of the side-effects of dental ceramics, Mackert reported that ceramic dental restorations may cause silica granulomas and often contain radioactive fluorescing agents, both of which may cause systemic effects [45]. Even gold can be allergenic [46]. One study showed that the gold itself in gold foil restorations, and not the condensation of the gold foil, caused hemorrhage, destruction of odontoblasts, and inflammation of the pulp [47].
Most reviews have concluded that composite restorative materials are safe [48-51], but there is far more knowledge about dental amalgam than there is about composite resin and glass ionomer filling materials [52]. After extensively reviewing the toxicity of non-amalgam filling materials, Schmalz concluded, "it is not possible to rank dental filling materials in respect to their biocompatibility, and it is evident that biocompatibility must be considered to the same extent for both amalgams and commonly used or recommended alternative fillings materials." [53]


Conclusions

Amalgam restorations release small quantities of mercury, but apparently not enough to cause systemic health problems. Mercury from dental amalgam fillings cannot be linked to kidney damage, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, other central nervous system diseases, "amalgam disease," mental disorders, damage to the immune system, increases in antibiotic resistance, or harmful reproductive effects. Dentists occupationally exposed to mercury from the placement and/or removal of amalgam fillings have not been shown to have harmful reproductive or other systemic health effects, provided proper mercury hygiene is used. Just as with amalgam, although they appear safe, there have been health concerns raised about alternative filling materials, including about composite resin. Dentists, physicians, dental assistants, and patients can be confident that based on the available scientific evidence, amalgam remains a safe and effective filling material.

Hal Emmerich

^^^:( ya can't win.

Big_G

Nothing like a bit of solid science to put an end to anecdotal evidence and post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense.

dlofnep

Big_G wrote: »

Nothing like a bit of solid science to put an end to anecdotal evidence and post hoc ad propter hoc nonsense.

What science exactly is that? That "Amalgam restorations release small quantities of mercury, but apparently not enough to cause systemic health problems."?

Keep your head under the sand all you like. The reality for me is that my health went drastically downward since getting amalgam fillings, that the burden of mercury according to tests on my body is far too high. And yet - you still back the claim that one of the most toxic elements on the planet is of no danger to anyone in the form of an amalgam filling. Bearing in mind that when it comes to removing the fillings for a dental surgery, it is removed as 'toxic waste'.

The problem with most dental practitioners is that you won't even acknowledge the potential dangers of placing mercury in a patient's mouth. That's a shocking abuse of the patient's trust in you.

Big_G

I was just making a statement in general with regard to my opinions about good science.

dlofnep

Big_G wrote: »

I was just making a statement in general with regard to my opinions about good science.

Do you accept that there are potential dangers with the use of mercury in an amalgam filling?

Big_G

No. I don't accept that there is significant evidence in the literature to reach that conclusion. I believe that there are questions about the quality of the evidence supporting the safety of amalgam AND EQUALLY the lack of evidence supporting the theory that amalgam is unsafe. If you want to compare anecdotal evidence, I have amalgam fillings and have had no adverse health effects from them, also I am exposed to a much higher level of mercury on a daily basis than you because I place and remove amalgam every day. Therefore, my anecdote negates your anecdote. That's why anecdotal evidence isn't worth a damn, no offense intended to you or your experience, but I'm not going to determine best practice based on your story. I'm going to base it on all of the available evidence of studies done on thousands/millions of patients published in reputable peer reviewed journals.

Unfortunately that is the way things work, and there is a reason for that. We use evidence based practice because that is what is likely to produce the best results in the majority of patients (there will always be exceptions) because that is what previous evidence points to. Unfortunately, there will be exceptions to the evidence base because not everyone is the same. It may be possible that not everyone has the same ability to metabolise mercury or other chemistries and therefore may experience adverse effects. Unfortunately there is insufficient evidence to support that theory at this time, although there is some evidence to that effect.

So, the possibility, unsupported by evidence, that some people may experience adverse effects from a treatment cannot allow us to limit that treatment to the majority whom it will benefit. Otherwise we wouldn't have any treatments at all, all treatments MAY have a side effect. In fact the only known possible side effect of amalgam restorations with systemic implications AND significant evidence base is allergic reaction.

Amalgam must be disposed of responsibly after removal. This does not mean that it is toxic waste. This may have led to some of your confusion. Imagine we take out one gram of amalgam and dispose of it in landfill and the mercury from that amalgam leaches out into the ground water supply after a number of years. Hardly an environmental disaster. However, imagine a million amalgams removed and dumped in the same landfill leaching mercury into the groundwater. Now we may have a problem. It's a logistical/geographic environmental issue more than anything else. It's not mercury, it's the amount of mercury. This is why amalgam was banned in the Scandinavian countries. It wasn't because of in vivo side effects, it was because it became an environmental issue due to irresponsible disposal.

There are many other substances used on a daily basis that need to be disposed of in a responsible manner, batter chemistry for one, biohazard sharps etc.

I am not suggesting that you may not have had a bad experience due to amalgam but I am saying that there are far more people who have had no problems at all, including myself. Hardly scientific, I know, but then neither is your argument.

Big_G

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

davo10

dlofnep wrote: »

Do you accept that there are potential dangers with the use of mercury in an amalgam filling?

I hope for your health's sake your treatment works, if it does not you are going to have to find some thing else to blame for your decreased brain function.

Here's a question, if your brain is 20% of it's original funtion, how can you be certain that your thought process and assertions are right?, you could be unknowingly dillusional.

dlofnep why did you wait 4 years and 10 months to have them replaced if you are sure they are the cause of your problems?, surely if you really believe it a problem of mercury toxicity, you would have had them removed immediately. I think you want to believe it is your fillings but you are clutching at straws because the Doctors cannot diagnose your pshychological problems.

dlofnep

davo10 wrote: »

I hope for your health's sake your treatment works, if it does not you are going to have to find some thing else to blame for your decreased brain function.

If my health deteriorates directly after receiving amalgams, and my symptoms correspond exactly with the vast majority of cases which have saw deteriorating health directly after receiving amalgams, and all other causes have been ruled out by a vast array of medical experts - then it isn't a giant leap to attribute my problems to high mercury levels in my body (which tests have already confirmed).

So the conundrum is - is my high mercury levels due to natural sources (tuna, and other seafood which I never eat), or amalgam fillings - which saw my health go downhill directly after receiving them? Occam's razor is about all I have when medical experts can't find the root cause of my problem, and private tests have demonstrated a high burden on the body of mercury.

davo10 wrote: »

Here's a question, if your brain is 20% of it's original funtion, how can you be certain that your thought process and assertions are right?, you could be unknowingly dillusional.

I could be delusional, but at least I can spell it. When I say my brain function isn't 100% - it varies throughout the day. Right now for example - I only have mild brain fog and can think and concentrate without much problem. It's only when I receive heavy brain fog that my brain function is diluted, which forces me to sleep until it dissipates.

Furthermore - I've never made the assertion that my claim is one of a scientific nature. I acknowledged from the get-go that my experience has been wholly anecdotal, but that does not mean that it is not valid or correct. My view is that the human body responds differently for everybody - and under normal circumstances, it should be able to detoxify heavy metals from the body. Which is why Big_G may not have health problems because of mercury exposure. But my last dentist did receive health issues because of mercury exposure, and stated that his health did not come back until he lowered his mercury levels through chelation. Once again - anecdotal - but another valid case. In my case - my selenium levels were low, which would have had a direct effect on my antioxidant enzymes. My view is that my body was not able to detox the levels of mercury on my body and brain - which lead to it becoming overburdened.

Susie564

I don't even know what my fillings are made of I never even thought to ask!

davo10

dlofnep, a scan through your post history shows you have drawn out an entire thread with over 250 posts based solely on your feeling "virusy", "foggy brained", "sweaty", "feeling like crap", if this was due to amalgam fillings as you suggested originally in your "long term illness" thread in 08/10 why did you wait so long to remove them?.

Regarding the spelling, it's never been my strong point and I cannot be arsed using spellcheck for each post.

What will you do if chelation ends up being a costly waste of time?, what next, flouride?, iron?, carbon dioxide?.

Incidently, gold may be the best filling material for you in the future.

dlofnep

davo10 wrote: »

if this was due to amalgam fillings as you suggested originally in your "long term illness" thread in 08/10 why did you wait so long to remove them?

Because I wanted to educate myself first, and weigh up the pros and cons. After substantial reading - I decided to opt for replacing my amalgams. My dental work costed 1,000 euros - which is alot for someone with very little disposable income. So it's irrelevant as to when I had them removed in the wider picture.

davo10 wrote: »

What will you do if chelation ends up being a costly waste of time?

If it does, then at least I will have exhausted the issue and will be content with myself that I have tried everything humanly possible to remedy my health issues. If you had to walk a day in my shoes, you would be just as eager to exhaust all possibilities when traditional routes have failed you.

But I am confident that mercury is the direct cause of my poor health. If your health spiralled downwards after receiving fillings, if your symptoms matched hundreds of other reported cases of people with poor health after receiving dental amalgams, and if medical tests showed elevated levels of mercury in your body way higher than tolerance levels - when all other routes were exhausted, I don't think you would be so eager to dismiss it as playing a role in poor health.

Hal Emmerich

Susie564 wrote: »

I don't even know what my fillings are made of I never even thought to ask!

Types of fillings

flahavaj

I have to laugh at how dlofnep has completely chosen to ignore Big G's rather brillaint post above where the entire basis of his "argument" has been blown to smithereens. Head in the sand tactics.

Or maybe people can only see certain posts when their mercury addled brain is reduced to one fifth of its capacity?:rolleyes:

Esel

Personally, I would not be so quick to mock (or attempt to ridicule, as you have done) anyone who has serious concerns about an issue such as this. Do you have a vested interest, by any chance?

Oral Surgeon

Esel wrote: »

Personally, I would not be so quick to mock (or attempt to ridicule, as you have done) anyone who has serious concerns about an issue such as this. Do you have a vested interest, by any chance?

Flav, big g and the guys have no vested interests- they are looking out for patients (why else would they take the time to post here).
My own opinion is to forget amalgam and composite and just extract them all- now that's a vested interest...!!!!!:D

ballsymchugh

Oral Surgeon wrote: »

Flav, big g and the guys have no vested interests- they are looking out for patients (why else would they take the time to post here).
My own opinion is to forget amalgam and composite and just extract them all- now that's a vested interest...!!!!!:D

we should have a vested interest in composites really, they're more expensive for the patient at the end of the day, and they don't last as long.
just hope that the potentially carcinogenic and oestrogen mimmicking effects of composite are kept quiet.

dlofnep

flahavaj wrote: »

I have to laugh at how dlofnep has completely chosen to ignore Big G's rather brillaint post above where the entire basis of his "argument" has been blown to smithereens. Head in the sand tactics.

I didn't ignore any of his post. Anyone who attempts to pursue this matter is ridiculed, despite the overwhelming reality that mercury is a highly toxic element, and a number of anecdotal cases of people becoming ill directly after receiving fillings.

I have backed up my suspicions with a test to prove high levels of mercury in my system. The only real debate is where it came from, and since my diet has never consisted of sea-food, and since my health went downward after mercury fillings - there is nothing laughable to suggest that the two events are linked.

flahavaj wrote: »

Or maybe people can only see certain posts when their mercury addled brain is reduced to one fifth of its capacity?:rolleyes:

I'm not interested in ad hominem. You can save that for AH. This is a perfectly legitimate discussion, and I have brought up perfectly valid points. Nobody has blown any elements of my argument out of the water, because I have stated from the very get-go that the basis of my argument was anecdotal. I have not claimed at any point to be an overall authority on the issue.

dlofnep

ballsymchugh wrote: »

we should have a vested interest in composites really, they're more expensive for the patient at the end of the day, and they don't last as long.

And more expensive for the materials, and take longer to insert. No, no vested interests at all. Even if there were no vested interests, it would still be woefully ignorant to dismiss the potential health hazards of placing a highly toxic element in the mouth of anyone.

opinion guy

flahavaj wrote: »

I have to laugh at how dlofnep has completely chosen to ignore Big G's rather brillaint post above where the entire basis of his "argument" has been blown to smithereens. Head in the sand tactics.

Or maybe people can only see certain posts when their mercury addled brain is reduced to one fifth of its capacity?:rolleyes:

Oh I wouldn't call his post brilliant. I can and will expose the flaws in it and other posts (give me till Tuesday or Wednesday I'm busy with something till then and computer giving me issues to boot).

One thing that is bugging me here is the sneering of dlofnep over this 20% 80% figure. Clearly, this wasn't meant as a strict scientific assessment of his brain function. Clearly its not meant as an objective measurement. Whatever you think of his arguments, he is sick as diagnosed by a doctor. Have a little respect for the guy.

I mean really - if you guys are so sure of your position do you have to stoop to sneering at the guy who is disagreeing with you? Gotta say it doesn't exactly give the impression of having stength of logic in your arguments if you have to stoop to that instead of objective debating withe the guy

Big_G

At no point in this thread did I sneer.

I look forward to your deconstruction of my posts opinion guy. I don't know how you're going to argue against risk/benefit and evidence based practice in modern healthcare but I might be amazed.

I don't have a problem with dlofnep believing that they have had a bad experience due to amalgam. Dlofnep is entitled to believe whatever they wish and good luck to them. I do have a problem with dlofnep coming on and saying that what I do on a daily basis is wrong because they've had a bad experience. That's just not the way I work or any dentist or healthcare practitioner should work.

Is there enough evidence to bin amalgam? In my opinion, no. There is nothing as cost effective for a patient to restore cavities than amalgam. Do some people have health issues due to amalgam? Possibly. Will amalgam stay forever? Probably not. As cad/cam comes down in price and composites improve in quality, there will be less of a market for amalgam. It will disappear, consigned to history along with it's predecessor gold foil, hopefully, too, along with this argument.

opinion guy

Big_G wrote: »

At no point in this thread did I sneer.

Apologies Big_G that wasn't really directed at you!

dlofnep

Big_G wrote: »

I don't have a problem with dlofnep believing that they have had a bad experience due to amalgam. Dlofnep is entitled to believe whatever they wish and good luck to them.

The thing is - I have already demonstrated that there is a substantial mercury load on my body, of which is already scientifically accepted to cause health issues. And since I have ruled out sea-food as a natural means of ingesting mercury in my case, there are very little alternatives. Furthermore - It seems all too co-incidental that my health would go downhill directly after receiving amalgam fillings.

Big_G wrote: »

I do have a problem with dlofnep coming on and saying that what I do on a daily basis is wrong because they've had a bad experience. That's just not the way I work or any dentist or healthcare practitioner should work.

Is there enough evidence to bin amalgam? In my opinion, no. There is nothing as cost effective for a patient to restore cavities than amalgam. Do some people have health issues due to amalgam? Possibly. Will amalgam stay forever? Probably not. As cad/cam comes down in price and composites improve in quality, there will be less of a market for amalgam. It will disappear, consigned to history along with it's predecessor gold foil, hopefully, too, along with this argument.

Here's the problem I have with this. There is a chance that dental amalgam fillings are causing health issues - but with this in mind, you do not at least educate your patient about it. Whether you choose to use amalgams in the future is your own business - But you could and should offer a disclaimer to the patient, so that they can make an educated decision, stating that the fillings contain mercury, and that there is anecdotal cases of mercury toxicity from amalgam fillings.

Had I have been informed of this - I would have saved up the money for composite fillings. But instead - you continue to fill up patient after patient's mouth with amalgams, and are more worried about your own business - rather than the potential health hazards of using some toxic substances.

opinion guy

ok one question for the dentists
This thing about composite costing more ? In both my current and previous dentists amalgams and composite are the same price.
So how is it that composites are more expensive then ?!?!?

ballsymchugh

opinion guy wrote: »

ok one question for the dentists
This thing about composite costing more ? In both my current and previous dentists amalgams and composite are the same price.
So how is it that composites are more expensive then ?!?!?

expensive amalgams.

Big_G

dlofnep wrote: »

The thing is - I have already demonstrated that there is a substantial mercury load on my body, of which is already scientifically accepted to cause health issues. And since I have ruled out sea-food as a natural means of ingesting mercury in my case, there are very little alternatives. Furthermore - It seems all too co-incidental that my health would go downhill directly after receiving amalgam fillings.



Here's the problem I have with this. There is a chance that dental amalgam fillings are causing health issues - but with this in mind, you do not at least educate your patient about it. Whether you choose to use amalgams in the future is your own business - But you could and should offer a disclaimer to the patient, so that they can make an educated decision, stating that the fillings contain mercury, and that there is anecdotal cases of mercury toxicity from amalgam fillings.

Had I have been informed of this - I would have saved up the money for composite fillings. But instead - you continue to fill up patient after patient's mouth with amalgams, and are more worried about your own business - rather than the potential health hazards of using some toxic substances.

Why? I am not convinced there is a risk surrounding the use of amalgam.

Here's what we know: Amalgams release a small quantity of mercury.
Here's what we don't know, despite your experience: whether that small quantity has an adverse effect on the body. Lots of evidence and expert bodies say no. A small but vocal minority say yes. Why should we change what we are doing, especially in the absence of any epidemiological evidence as to the potential adverse effect of amalgam?



Incidentally the State of California agrees with you and says that amalgam should carry a warning. I would be quite happy to do so but I will have to increase my fees to cover all the time I'm going to have to take to explain the minute and unproven risks associated with everything I do on a daily basis, not to mention that very little actual treatment would get provided.

I agree, patients should make their own informed decision. But informed consent is a misnomer at best and at worst a total contradiction. Many of the concepts that are involved in healthcare science require many years of study to comprehend, and at the risk of sounding like an intellectual snob, are beyond a significant proportion of the population. Trying to explain some of these concepts in the limited time available is serving only to confuse. However we all do it, because that is what medical ethical principlism tells us is the correct thing to do, as well as the law.

I accept that you believe you have a problem. I hope that chelation works for you. Even if you experience relief after chelation, it still does not prove that you had experienced deleterious side effects of amalgam use. It does not eliminate the possibility of psychosomiasis or placebo effect. I'm not saying that to offend you, I'm saying it from a scientific point of view. Only large scale randomly controlled, double blinded studies can do that.

dlofnep

Big_G wrote: »

Why? I am not convinced there is a risk surrounding the use of amalgam.

That's not the case for some Nordic countries which have banned the use of dental amalgams for health & environmental concerns. Sweden in particular.

Big_G wrote: »

Here's what we know: Amalgams release a small quantity of mercury.
Here's what we don't know, despite your experience: whether that small quantity has an adverse effect on the body.

In my case, that is exactly what appears to be the case - as tests have confirmed high levels of mercury in my body. I accept that my case is purely anecdotal, but I would like to think that it is a valid case.

Big_G wrote: »

Lots of evidence and expert bodies say no. A small but vocal minority say yes. Why should we change what we are doing, especially in the absence of any epidemiological evidence as to the potential adverse effect of amalgam?

I believe it is your responsibility to warn your patients of the potential risks associated with the use of mercury, which is already accepted as playing a role in degraded health.

Big_G wrote: »

Incidentally the State of California agrees with you and says that amalgam should carry a warning. I would be quite happy to do so but I will have to increase my fees to cover all the time I'm going to have to take to explain the minute and unproven risks associated with everything I do on a daily basis, not to mention that very little actual treatment would get provided.

As suspected, it is in your interests to not inform the customer. It is in the customer's interests that you do inform them. Therein lies a conflict of interest.

Big_G wrote: »

I accept that you believe you have a problem. I hope that chelation works for you. Even if you experience relief after chelation, it still does not prove that you had experienced deleterious side effects of amalgam use. It does not eliminate the possibility of psychosomiasis or placebo effect.

I can assure you that no placebo effect would convince me that I am healthy. It will either work, or it will not work. If it doesn't - I will be the first to admit it, but if it does - I will be the first to tell the world of my story.

flahavaj

You have still to respond to Posts #23/24 in the detail you have with all others I see, dlofnep.

ballsymchugh

dlofnep, in many many threads you've talked about the lack of evidence against prominent republicans for activities in the past. the evidence against amalgam is even more schnary. anecdotal evidence in medicine, while it may be interesting, cannot be used for the masses. just like some fella saying that gerry adams had a hand in the murder of certain people. it won't stand up.

davo10

Opinion guy, I do have a couple of comments to make about dlofneps posts:

1. Anyone who posts that he is certain that 7 amalgam fillings placed 5 years ago has caused an 80% decrease in brain function deserves at least to be challenged and at most be ridiculed.

2. He now has 300 posts solely discussing how bad he feels, this may have less to do with the mercury absorbed and more to do with self absorbed.

3. In regard to the treatment he quoted in a previous post, DMSA, has he actually had it? he starts the sentence "Anecdotal eveidence suggets that....", can he confirm that he actually had the treatment and these are his results?. If he had the treatment already and the mercury was removed, he should have noticed an improvement in health.

4. I just cannot understand why someone who spent a whole year posting about how bad he feels did not have his amalgams removed until two months ago even though he is now "sure" that the fillings placed 5 years ago are the cause of his ill health, appearently he spent a fortune on Doctors and tests.

I have a feeling the thread in "Long Term Illness" has been exhausted and dlofnep wants to continue it here.

Phoenix Park

dlofnep wrote: »

I became ill only weeks after getting amalgam fillings, and I haven't been right since. That was over 5 years ago. My health is completely destroyed, and my brain isn't functioning at even 20% of what it was. Tests have shown that my body is way over-exposed to mercury, and I'm to begin detox soon. I'll give it a read, thanks for posting.

Not sure why people continue to answer this stuff, the guy has made up his mind, clearly nothing is going to change that, we all need a crutch sometimes i guess, maybe it helps in the recovery.
I had to get glasses in my 20's for shortsightedness. I remember when i was a small child i was sick and my mother took me to the doctor. He checked my ears, my breathing and shone a light in my eye. I wonder if he hadn't shone that light would i have needed glasses in my 20's....?

opinion guy

davo10 wrote: »

Opinion guy, I do have a couple of comments to make about dlofneps posts:

1. Anyone who posts that he is certain that 7 amalgam fillings placed 5 years ago has caused an 80% decrease in brain function deserves at least to be challenged and at most be ridiculed.

2. He now has 300 posts solely discussing how bad he feels, this may have less to do with the mercury absorbed and more to do with self absorbed.

3. In regard to the treatment he quoted in a previous post, DMSA, has he actually had it? he starts the sentence "Anecdotal eveidence suggets that....", can he confirm that he actually had the treatment and these are his results?. If he had the treatment already and the mercury was removed, he should have noticed an improvement in health.

4. I just cannot understand why someone who spent a whole year posting about how bad he feels did not have his amalgams removed until two months ago even though he is now "sure" that the fillings placed 5 years ago are the cause of his ill health, appearently he spent a fortune on Doctors and tests.

I have a feeling the thread in "Long Term Illness" has been exhausted and dlofnep wants to continue it here.

davo10
I'm not here to speak for dlofnep. But he has told us his doctor has diagnosed him with mercury toxicity. Now you may not agree with that but that is what his doctor is telling him. Show the guy a little respect and compassion. Reported your post because you seem to advocating ridiculing a sick person and really your comments about self-absorption are very poor form. Ridiculing the guy for listening to his doctor is just not on imho.

I started this post to discuss the science here. I'll respond to that later in the week when I have an hour or so to sit down and reread the thread.

flahavaj

I would be interested in how his doctor reached the diagnosis of mercury toxicity and whether it is even possible for the amount of mercury needed to produce toxicity in a human being to be produced by seven amalgam restorations? I presume dlofnep has looked into all this.

Phoenix Park

flahavaj wrote: »

I would be interested in how his doctor reached the diagnosis of mercury toxicity and whether it is even possible for the amount of mercury needed to produce toxicity in a human being to be produced by seven amalgam restorations? I presume dlofnep has looked into all this.

Or mercury present in fish taken in the diet. Perhaps he does not eat fish though.