murcury fillings

lbouyle48 · 05-09-2011 9:59am #1

Hi I have quite a few murcury fillings. However, I am wondering how safe these are! I know there have been many debates on this topic, however, what are your views on murcury fillings. I know some researchers argue that they can be linked to neurological conditions? Do you think I should replace them with white filllings?

Oral Surgeon · 05-09-2011 2:42pm

lbouyle48 wrote: »

Hi I have quite a few murcury fillings. However, I am wondering how safe these are! I know there have been many debates on this topic, however, what are your views on murcury fillings. I know some researchers argue that they can be linked to neurological conditions? Do you think I should replace them with white filllings?

They are safe.

Don't get them replaced for this reason alone.

OS

Ruby T · 06-09-2011 11:51am

A lot of debate surrounds the issue of mercury fillings. I had all mine replaced. I was grinding my teeth in my sleep, had big old fillings and was worried about mercury seepage. It's an expensive process. If you decide to go ahead with it, I would advise having the fillings replaced in quadrants over a few months and having some sort of chelation (vitamins/mineral therapy) to rid the body of mercury. Try to find a dentist specialising in amalgam-free dentistry.

RT

btkm8unsl0w5r4 · 06-09-2011 2:33pm

The largest doses of mercury you will every get is when you have old filling drilled out, dam, chelation (pseudo science at best, rip off useless extra at worst), high volume suction or otherwise. You do not need a dentist specialising in amalgam free dentistry any dentist can do this.

CyberJuice · 06-09-2011 8:28pm

i have an amalgam filling on the top row of teeth,when i do a big smile you can see the bit of metal there, it kinda shows through the tooth,makes the outside of the tooth look dark as you can see the metal inside of the tooth

was thinking of having this metal filling taken out and replaced with a white one so the tooth wont look dark anymore and will match the surrounding teeth

could you tell me what the potential risks could be of having this done and does a white filling last as long as a metal one

also what would a possible price for such a procedure be

btkm8unsl0w5r4 · 06-09-2011 8:38pm

CyberJuice wrote: »

i have an amalgam filling on the top row of teeth,when i do a big smile you can see the bit of metal there, it kinda shows through the tooth,makes the outside of the tooth look dark as you can see the metal inside of the tooth

was thinking of having this metal filling taken out and replaced with a white one so the tooth wont look dark anymore and will match the surrounding teeth

could you tell me what the potential risks could be of having this done and does a white filling last as long as a metal one

also what would a possible price for such a procedure be

Replacing them for aesthetic reasons, due to disease or just cause you want to is fine. Its your mouth and you can have what you want.

There are no actual risks to doing this, however you can find all sorts of quackery on the internet ranging from a risk of cancer to memory loss, and of course some dentist to agree with you and take more money than necessary.

Dont last as long as metal ones, replacement cycle is about 2-3 years less.

Cost will depend on size and position in your mouth. Basically less than 200 euro with a general dentist.

dlofnep · 15-09-2011 12:19pm

I can only offer you my view.

My health completely deteriorated since getting mercury fillings. It is highly toxic, and while most people tolerate it - there are vast amounts of people around the world, (myself included) who have had their health destroyed by it. Remember - when it's removed from your mouth, it's treated as toxic waste.

If you do opt to replace them - I would advise you to make sure that it's done correctly, and safely as you will get further exposure to mercury.

davo10 · 15-09-2011 2:45pm

dlofnep wrote: »

It is highly toxic, and while most people tolerate it - there are vast amounts of people around the world, (myself included) who have had their health destroyed by it.

Ignore this, it is complete and utter rubbish.

dlofnep · 15-09-2011 3:09pm

davo10 wrote: »

Ignore this, it is complete and utter rubbish.

No, it's not complete and utter rubbish. Mercury is a highly toxic element, and even in small quantities can be hazardous to the body and brain. It was the direct cause of the downfall of my health, and to attack my history with it as 'rubbish' is reflective of your ignorance, and the general ignorance within the dental community on the subject.

The facts are - Mercury is one of the most toxic elements on earth. Anecdotal evidence in many cases have shown mercury to be the root cause of a vast array of issue (including my own). When dental amalgams are removed from a patient, they are treated as toxic waste.

So save your absurd comments for another thread, and allow the poster to make an informed decision on the future of their health.

helimachoptor · 15-09-2011 3:27pm

dlofnep - I'm pretty sure davo10 is a dentist if memory serves so he is quite informed about this type of stuff.

Mod Note - I'd prefer if this thread didnt go way off track, so please read what you type before posting.

davo10 · 15-09-2011 3:29pm

By all means make an informed decision about your health, but save the rest of the public from spouting that rubbish, I've have read some of your posts on this topic before and your inability to understand/accept the results of peer reviewed research on this matter as presented by informed professionals. It's the same quackery everytime.

dlofnep · 15-09-2011 3:38pm

helimachoptor wrote: »

dlofnep - I'm pretty sure davo10 is a dentist if memory serves so he is quite informed about this type of stuff..[/B]

That does not make him qualified on the subject. Andrew Cutler is a chemist, and is much more qualified on the matter. It would serve Davo10 well to at least give his document on the link between amalgams and illness a read. But instead, he would rather put his head in the sand and pretend that no issue exists.

davo10 wrote: »

By all means make an informed decision about your health, but save the rest of the public from spouting that rubbish, I've have read some of your posts on this topic before and your inability to understand/accept the results of peer reviewed research on this matter as presented by informed professionals. It's the same quackery everytime.

Andrew Cutler is an informed professional, who is FAR more knowledgeable than you on this topic.

Do you dispute that mercury is a highly toxic element, and do you dispute that when mercury is removed from the mouth, it is treated as toxic waste?

I have read an abundance on information on the topic, including Áine Ní Cheallaigh's memoir - which saw her regain her health by removing dental amalgam's and following Dr. Cutler's chelation protocol.

I have medical evidence to prove that my mercury levels were very high - where the only logical cause for those levels was through dental amalgams - as I consume a diet that would not contain organic mercury.

If you want to ignore the reality that a large number of people have cited health issues after receiving dental amalgams, where the same symptoms all seem to crop up and where their health was fully restored only after removing them and enduring chelation therapy - then be my guest. But don't dare tell me that it's quackery, when you refuse to accept the potential dangers involved.

The OP wanted to know - I shared my own experience with them. Deal with it.

Dianthus · 15-09-2011 5:37pm

There are patients out there who are just as opposed to the BIS GMA content in composite restorations.
Rock. Hard place.

AnonDentist · 15-09-2011 9:50pm

Never mind the mercuty what about all the Dihydrogen monoxide dentists use?

It is fatal if inhaled
Is the major component of acid rain.
Contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
Contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
Accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
May cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Hal Emmerich · 15-09-2011 10:07pm

^^^ How is that used? Or what is it in?

Oral Surgeon · 15-09-2011 10:21pm

AnonDentist wrote: »

Never mind the mercuty what about all the Dihydrogen monoxide dentists use?

It is fatal if inhaled
Is the major component of acid rain.
Contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
Contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
Accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
May cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Ha..... very good:D:D

Hal Emmerich · 15-09-2011 10:26pm

AnonDentist wrote: »

Never mind the mercuty what about all the Dihydrogen monoxide dentists use?

It is fatal if inhaled
Is the major component of acid rain.
Contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
Contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
Accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
May cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Another name for Water folks.

Side splitting stuff...:rolleyes:

Hal Emmerich · 15-09-2011 10:28pm

Other names include hydrogen hydroxide, hydrogen oxide, hydroxic acid, hydroxylic acid, and oxidane. :pac:

davo10 · 16-09-2011 7:00am

AnonDentist wrote: »

Never mind the mercuty what about all the Dihydrogen monoxide dentists use?

It is fatal if inhaled
Is the major component of acid rain.
Contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
Contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
Accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
May cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
Has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

excellent, it also sometimes stored in protective plastic containers dlofnep, very hazerdous stuff.

dlofnep · 16-09-2011 8:13am

davo10 wrote: »

excellent, it also sometimes stored in protective plastic containers dlofnep, very hazerdous stuff.

Don't be facetious. You're well aware that mercury is a highly toxic element.

dlofnep · 16-09-2011 8:40am

World Health Organization on dental amalgams

Dental amalgam is the most commonly used dental filling material. It is a mixture of mercury and a metal alloy. The normal composition is 45-55% mercury; approximately 30% silver and other metals such as copper, tin and zinc. In 1991, the World Health Organization confirmed that mercury contained in dental amalgam is the greatest source of mercury vapour in non-industrialized settings, exposing the concerned population to mercury levels significantly exceeding those set for food and for air.

Chronic neurobehavioural effects of elemental mercury in dentists.

In neurobehavioural tests measuring motor speed (finger tapping), visual scanning (trail making), visuomotor coordination and concentration (digit symbol), verbal memory (digit span, logical memory delayed recall), visual memory (visual reproduction, immediate and delayed recall), and visuomotor coordination speed (bender-gestalt time), the performance of the dentists was significantly worse than that of the controls. The dentists scored 3.9 to 38.9% (mean 13.9%) worse in these tests....

These results raise the question as to whether the current threshold limit value of 0.050 mg/m3 (TWA) provides adequate protection against adverse effects of mercury.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1039326/?tool=pmcentrez

ballsymchugh · 16-09-2011 10:15am

bender? :eek:

flahavaj · 17-09-2011 10:40am

dlofnep wrote: »

I can only offer you my view.

My health completely deteriorated since getting mercury fillings. It is highly toxic, and while most people tolerate it - there are vast amounts of people around the world, (myself included) who have had their health destroyed by it. Remember - when it's removed from your mouth, it's treated as toxic waste.

If you do opt to replace them - I would advise you to make sure that it's done correctly, and safely as you will get further exposure to mercury.

Prove that amalgam has ruined your health. Correlation does not imply causation. I suspect your problems are more psychological than dental and no amount of absurd chelation treatments or coffee enemas will fix that.

It is treated as toxic waste when removed from your mouth because of the large quantities in which it is disposed of in dental practices, as you well know.

opinion guy · 17-09-2011 10:48am

I'm just going to note here that dlofnep has actually posted some scientific material whilst the rest of you sneer him and tell him he has psychological problems in return.

Speaks volumes to be honest

flahavaj · 17-09-2011 11:00am

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm just going to note here that dlofnep has actually posted some scientific material whilst the rest of you sneer him and tell him he has psychological problems in return.

Speaks volumes to be honest

He has had reams of scientific evidence put to him in the past but continues to put his faith in treatments and remedies that themselves have little or no scientific basis. Go figure.

Anyway not getting into this again. I learned a long time ago you won't convince people that are determined to obsess over and focus upon a convenient scapegoat for their personal issues. He has invested too much time and effort into this particular personal crusade to ever admit he's wrong.

Though it will be fascinating to see ere he goes from here when having amalgams removed and his tortuous course of treatment to "rid" his body of mercury doesn't work and he continues to have the same symptoms.

opinion guy · 17-09-2011 11:07am

flahavaj wrote: »

Though it will be fascinating to see ere he goes from here when having amalgams removed and his tortuous course of treatment to "rid" his body of mercury doesn't work and he continues to have the same symptoms.

Sounds like you want that to happen. That's pretty horrible to be honest.

What will you say if he posts on here saying - wow it has worked wonderful I feel healthy again ?

dlofnep · 17-09-2011 11:07am

flahavaj wrote: »

Prove that amalgam has ruined your health. Correlation does not imply causation.

It's a simple case of occam's razor. My health went downhill after receiving dental amalgams, prior to which my health was perfect. My symptoms are a carbon copy of a vast array of cases of people who have also cited health degradation after receiving dental amalgams. I have tested via two separate methods (hair analysis, and urine analysis) which both confirmed toxic mercury levels in my body. Now, if I was a seafood eater - there might be a case for seafood being the root cause of my elevated mercury levels, but since I do not, and have never eaten seafood - we can safely rule that out.

So here is what we do know for a fact. Mercury is a highly toxic element, which can cause a number of health problems. The levels of mercury in my body are extremely elevated beyond tolerable levels.

flahavaj wrote: »

I suspect your problems are more psychological than dental and no amount of absurd chelation treatments or coffee enemas will fix that.

What a remarkable feat that is, to be able to diagnose someone through a webforum. Prove that my problems are psychological. You make the infallible claim that chelation therapy will not resolve my issues, despite a large number of cases from people who have remedied their health problems through chelation (Including Irish Author, Áine Ní Cheallaigh who documented her recovery through chelation in great detail). I have already seen improvements through chelation, and as far as the enemas go - they are merely to address poor bowel movements, and clear up brain-fog. Speaking of which, since beginning chelation - my brain-fog has reduced drastically.

But who am I to judge my own health, when we have Dr. Flahavaj, internet diagnoser extraordinaire here to fully assess me. You are ignorant, intolerant and wilfully so. Infact, you seem emotionally opposed to the idea that mercury could ever possibly cause health problems.

dlofnep · 17-09-2011 11:17am

flahavaj wrote: »

He has had reams of scientific evidence put to him in the past but continues to put his faith in treatments and remedies that themselves have little or no scientific basis. Go figure.

Chelation therapy has no scientific basis? Dental amalgams aside for the moment, do you dispute any of the following?

1) Mercury can cause health problems.
2) Chelation therapy can remove mercury from the body and brain.

If you do dispute any of the above, then it is you who are scientifically ignorant - because they are documented fact.

If you do not dispute the above, then your only basis for objecting to the idea that dental amalgams would expose a patient to sufficient levels of mercury to affect their health. Any reasoned person would accept the possibility that the human body is unique, and the tolerance to a highly toxic element such as mercury could differ from person to person.

flahavaj wrote: »

Anyway not getting into this again. I learned a long time ago you won't convince people that are determined to obsess over and focus upon a convenient scapegoat for their personal issues. He has invested too much time and effort into this particular personal crusade to ever admit he's wrong.

On what grounds would I admit that I was wrong, when all of my experience and education on the topic has pointed to mercury toxicity? If after 2-3 years of no results from chelation - I'll be more than happy to come back on here and admit that I was wrong. The scientific thing to do would be to proceed therefore with chelation and pass judgement after therapy, and not before - where I would have absolutely no grounds to judge it's effectiveness.

flahavaj wrote: »

Though it will be fascinating to see ere he goes from here when having amalgams removed and his tortuous course of treatment to "rid" his body of mercury doesn't work and he continues to have the same symptoms.

My amalgams have already been removed. I have begun chelation, and I have seen results already. Go figure. But I suppose you'll reject that also, because it doesn't sit well with your emotional objections to something you don't have the foggiest clue about.

flahavaj · 17-09-2011 12:25pm

As I said I'm not goping to waste my time trying to convince peole who wouldn't be convinced by anything I could possibly say. Good luck with the "treatment."

opinion guy · 17-09-2011 12:29pm

flahavaj wrote: »

As I said I'm not goping to waste my time trying to convince peole who wouldn't be convinced by anything I could possibly say. Good luck with the "treatment."

You don't believe chelation is a medical treatment ?

dlofnep · 17-09-2011 12:35pm

flahavaj wrote: »

As I said I'm not goping to waste my time trying to convince peole who wouldn't be convinced by anything I could possibly say. Good luck with the "treatment."

You've well and truly lost the debate. And chelation is a scientifically proven treatment of heavy metal toxicity. Way to go for asserting your ignorance once again.

flahavaj · 17-09-2011 12:37pm

Enjoy the victory, its obviously important.:pac:

dlofnep · 17-09-2011 12:45pm

flahavaj wrote: »

Enjoy the victory, its obviously important.:pac:

Not especially, considering you haven't really offered much substance in your posts - but rather, reduced yourself to posting petty and ill-founded comments, that were clearly driven by such bizarre emotional objection you have to the idea of illness through mercury exposure from dental amalgams.

opinion guy · 17-09-2011 12:49pm

opinion guy wrote: »

You don't believe chelation is a medical treatment ?

flahavaj wrote: »

Enjoy the victory, its obviously important.:pac:

Perhaps you missed my question. Its fairly simple - do you believe chelation is a legitimate medical treatment or not ? Please clarify

btkm8unsl0w5r4 · 17-09-2011 12:59pm

opinion guy wrote: »

Perhaps you missed my question. Its fairly simple - do you believe chelation is a legitimate medical treatment or not ? Please clarify

Chelation is a valid treatment for heavy metal toxicity however dental amalgam does not cause heavy metal toxicity. Is open heart surgery a valid treatment for heartburn?

If you believe despite the evidence that dental amalgam is causing problems then its a valid treatment, however I think given the lucrative area that dentists could get into with chelation and mass removal of amalgam restorations and replacement with more expensive restorations, if there was evidence that way we would all be doing it.

Can anyone give me a reason why dentists keep saying amalgam is safe if its not. Given the financial rewards of pandering to the anti amalgam lobby?

opinion guy · 17-09-2011 1:15pm

Cory Teeny Schoolwork wrote: »

Chelation is a valid treatment for heavy metal toxicity however dental amalgam does not cause heavy metal toxicity. Is open heart surgery a valid treatment for heartburn?

If you believe despite the evidence that dental amalgam is causing problems then its a valid treatment, however I think given the lucrative area that dentists could get into with chelation and mass removal of amalgam restorations and replacement with more expensive restorations, if there was evidence that way we would all be doing it.

Can anyone give me a reason why dentists keep saying amalgam is safe if its not. Given the financial rewards of pandering to the anti amalgam lobby?

Thanks Fitzgeme but thats not what I was getting at.

He made the generic inference that chelation is a quack treatment regardless of circumstance. I'm merely asking him to clarify his beliefs.

dlofnep · 17-09-2011 1:16pm

Cory Teeny Schoolwork wrote: »

Chelation is a valid treatment for heavy metal toxicity however dental amalgam does not cause heavy metal toxicity.

That's up for dispute. It is accepted that dental amalgams will cause exposure to mercury. Opinions varying on what the tolerable levels of mercury are for the human body, and the levels of exposure that occur from dental amalgams. Some studies reported exposure as high as 27 µg per day. Another study from Sweden cited that mercury levels in the kidney and brain correlated directly to the amount of amalgam fillings. G. Mark Richardson who performed a risk study in Canada on amalgam use stated that there was "no clear threshold for subclinical neurological and cognitive function impairment is evident from published studies of the CNS effects of Hg vapor."

So the claim you are making is that under no circumstances, could the levels of mercury exposure resulting from dental amalgams ever reach intolerable levels. That, is a very bold claim to make. I find it particularly bold that you would not at least be open to the possibility.

dlofnep · 17-09-2011 1:24pm

opinion guy wrote: »

He made the generic inference that chelation is a quack treatment regardless of circumstance. I'm merely asking him to clarify his beliefs.

Yes - I agree. He should at least clarify this point before anything else.

btkm8unsl0w5r4 · 17-09-2011 1:35pm

The moon landing is up for dispute also, just because there is a contrary view does not make that view as valid as the view supported by the evidence. The dangers of mercury are disputed, the effectivenedd of chealation is disputed there is a lot of disputed issues on top of eachother, each drawing conclusion from the other. Bad science:

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelation.html

Chelation is a quack treatment for dental amalgam removal because it is unnecessary.

Can anyone give me a reason why dentists would resist your views....given that we could tack multi thousand euro chelation onto every filling, or replace perfectly serviceable restorations?

recedite · 17-09-2011 8:33pm

Cory Teeny Schoolwork wrote: »

Can anyone give me a reason why dentists keep saying amalgam is safe if its not. Given the financial rewards of pandering to the anti amalgam lobby?

This link?

dlofnep wrote: »

Chronic neurobehavioural effects of elemental mercury in dentists.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1039326/?tool=pmcentrez

If someone thinks they may be at some risk, but on the other hand feels that the risk is unavoidable in their particular circumstances, they will frequently try to downplay it, or pretend to themselves it doesn't exist. Its natural.

recedite · 17-09-2011 8:46pm

Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ylnQ-T7oiA

But before anyone gets too upset, see this plausible explanation

Of course, we don't know whether its a fume cupboard extractor fan that is drawing the smoke upwards and to the left.

Oral Surgeon · 17-09-2011 9:14pm

recedite wrote: »

Enjoy!

But before anyone gets too upset, see this plausible explanation

Of course, we don't know whether its a fume cupboard extractor fan that is drawing the smoke upwards and to the left.

I don't get it, the video and explanation don't agree...!!

Amalgam filling is the correct name as it is a chemical compound, mercury fillings would just flow out of the teeth....

By the way, if that amalgam filling was truly leaking that amount of mercury constantly for 25 years- there would be nothing left of it at this stage!!!

OS

recedite · 17-09-2011 9:54pm

Oral Surgeon wrote: »

I don't get it, the video and explanation don't agree...!!

Yes, but for balance I was also putting forward the skeptic's explanation that the mercury shadow "smoke" is in fact steam.
Although the only basis for this explanation seems to be that it is rising and not falling.

Big_G · 18-09-2011 6:43am

MOD WARNING Attack the post and not the poster please. Both sides of this current debate have crossed the line on that one several times, the next person to do it gets a holiday.

Might I suggest that this debate is not currently resolvable on an internet forum?

btkm8unsl0w5r4 · 18-09-2011 7:10am

recedite wrote: »

Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ylnQ-T7oiA

But before anyone gets too upset, see this plausible explanation

Of course, we don't know whether its a fume cupboard extractor fan that is drawing the smoke upwards and to the left.

I think that does more damage to the anti amalgam argument than anything else, total scare mongering showing water vapor (gee what vapor rises from a heated soaked tooth????let me think???). Again when will somebody give me a reason dentists dont believe this given the rewards for them if this is true, despite what some chemists on here think dentists are made study this in great depth in college and in a far more specific way than a toxicologist. People are tending to mix up Amalgam with Mercury. That like mixing up chlorine with salt.

Big_G · 18-09-2011 7:40am

My feelings on this topic are as follows:

Any scientist must take a pragmatic and unemotional approach to any particular phenomenon or area of interest. This is sometimes difficult when some people seem intent on laying blame for things that may/may not have happened to them or treatment outcomes/side effects not living up to expectation.

The pragmatic approach requires me to say that no definitive proof exists that amalgam causes ill-health. We know that mercury does cause adverse effects, but the science is poorly developed for the reason that testing the effects of mercury in humans would be unethical because it is such a potent toxin, so we are reduced to speculation about its in vivo effects, because they simply cannot be studied without damaging the subject. We can look at in vitro studies, retrospective studies, post mortem studies, animal studies and we can build a picture. There seems to be significant debate currently amongst toxicologists about the minimum threshold of exposure to mercury beyond which adverse health effects may occur. What seems to be at issue is that not everyone reacts to mercury exposure in the same way and again, this is poorly studied simply because it is difficult to study and also because there are so few people who have these metabolic issues with mercury.

Certain conclusions about acceptable levels of mercury exposure have had to be assumed due to the difficulties in scientific study. This therefore, opens these figures to attack.

What we also know is that amalgam releases mercury vapour in very low amounts, that scientists have assumed were insignificant because they are so low that in the original studies that had to invent design and build mercury probes that had a sensitivity an order of magnitude higher than previously existed.

To date no study has shown causation between the mercury released from amalgam and any systemic effect. They have shown effects of mercury on tissue from in vitro studies, post mortem studies and associations between mercury and systemic effects from retrospective studies. Crucially the same cannot be said of amalgam. This may seem like splitting hairs and that it is a short jump to logically conclude that if amalgam releases mercury and mercury causes damage then amalgam must cause damage. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on your perspective science cannot and does not work like this.

In my mind, I cannot rule out the possibility that some people may experience adverse effects from having amalgam placed because they cannot tolerate the miniscule amounts of mercury released. I also feel that in the next few years the studies will show this to be true and that it will also show that the numbers of people who suffer this will small enough that it will almost be statistically insignificant. What does this mean? It means that in my opinion, even if (and its a big if) amalgam is shown to cause adverse effects in a section of the population, that number will be so small as to mean that amalgam will still be used as a restorative material. What we have (currently) is a possible unknown side effect. If it becomes a known side effect, then we have to establish a persons risk of developing the side effect.

Many things in medicine have known and acceptable side effects and known and calculable levels of risk. My opinion is that amalgam may in the future be shown to have a known level of risk for developing so-called 'mercury toxicity' (a misnomer at best - toxicity denotes poisoning which is generally lethal, the symptoms described are very often almost sub-clinical, not lethal)
but that this risk will not outweigh the benefits of using amalgam in the majority of the population. Perhaps a test can be devised to establish that subset of the population who may not be able to excrete mercury as efficiently as the rest of the population.

People have choice in medicine, the principle of autonomy is sacrosanct in medical ethics. That means you can self-diagnose (even if ill-advised) based on limited knowledge and training or by googling and reading anecdotal accounts by others that have experienced relief, you can prescribe a course of treatment for a disease that is not proven to exist and you can even feel better. What is not helpful is coming on and trying to 'inform' people of same. Your experience is just that- your experience, even if a particularly vocal minority on the internet says otherwise. There simply has not been enough study into this area to conclude anything. The reason that we do not decide on a theory of disease based on anecdote is because at best it means that don't get results at worst it means that we do damage to the patient. We need to understand fully the mechanism of disease and make a proper diagnosis before a treatment can be devised. In my mind this so called 'amalgam related mercury toxicity' has not been proven to exist, so how can a treatment be devised? It's bad science.

Also to say that a chemist is better qualified to understand the properties of amalgam and its effects on the human body than a trained medical professional is utter nonsense. Particularly in light of the level of specialisation of some health professionals. Chemistry is quite broad as an area of expertise. It's taken as it's meant: as an insult to the profession of dentistry, the weakness in the science surrounding amalgam notwithstanding.

murcury fillings

Comments