Sep 042010
 

NOTE:  this was compiled in 2010.

If you click on the sub-category “Mercury .. . ” under “Health”  and then scroll down, you will have a list that includes more than the following.   But some of the following are not separate postings and so will not appear, except here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeanAuZK_DY&feature=player_embedded “Poison in the Mouth”   Includes how mercury is treated after it has been removed from the mouth (with hazardous material “haz mat” handling procedures).  Includes Dr. Lyle Friberg and the work of researchers at the University of Calgary (the sheep and monkey research), the research from California regarding accumulation of mercury from amalgams in the brain.   Kentucky researcher on Alzheimer’s connection.  Mercury crossing the placenta. Etc.   (Made into a separate posting.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ylnQ-T7oiA 2002   (Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas.  Includes some of the information in the preceding video.  Mercury amalgams in children. Etc.)   By IAOMT (The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology)

“Smoking Teeth” was refuted by a Dr. Laidler from Oregon.  A small group of dentists working in collaboration produced a response to Dr. Laidler’s statements.  The rebuttal is at  http://curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=778748 .  The text is copied at the bottom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uccpChyPSLg&feature=related Video done in Auckland, N.Z. of a media interview of Dr. Hal Huggins and contrary evidence from David Symes of the N.Z. Dental Association (which is pretty shaky!).

http://www.iaomt.org/ References to “FASEB” are to the Federation of American  Societies for Experimental Biology Journal.

http://www.fasebj.org/ If you click on “Search the Archives” and then enter “amalgams” in the “search” box, “keywords”  you will come up with a number of scientific papers.

http://www.mercury-free-dentistry.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27&Itemid=35

This is a particularly good presentation of information.  It is copied at the bottom

PRO-AMALGAM DENTISTS AND THE ADA ASSERT THAT: MERCURY-FREE DENTISTS AND ANTI-MERCURY ACTIVISTS RESPOND:

EXCERPT:

“A Canadian study found that blood levels of five metals, including mercury, were able to predict with 98% accuracy which children were learning disabled. Other studies found mercury causes learning disabilities and impairment, and lowers IQ. . . . ”

(Doesn’t that bite, if you have a child with learning disabilities?   All invisible possibilities:  I jogged in downtown Halifax on my noon lunch breaks.  At that time (1980) there was still lead in gasoline.  Or was it mercury from my amalgams?  — the science is nailed down on mercury from mothers going into foetus (crossing the placenta) and new-borns (through breast milk).

http://www.naturalhealthway.com/articles/amalgam/amalgam.html

by Dr. Zoltan P. Rona MD MSc

One American dental group, namely the American Academy of Head, Neck and Facial Pain, has decided to take a stand against the ADA and its outdated policy on mercury dental fillings. According to some of their recent literature, this group states, “We feel the evidence is too overwhelming to continue to practice in ignorance and avoidance of the facts. The Board of Directors, under the name of our Academy, has written a petition to several agencies (the FDA, OSHA, NIH, NIDR, U.S. Public health Service and the National Institute of Environmental health Services) asking that all past and current scientific literature concerning mercury and dental amalgams be reevaluated.”

What is the evidence incriminating the mercury dental filling? The following are documented facts about mercury amalgam toxicity taken from the scientific literature:   … “

http://www.holisticmed.com/dental/amalgam/

A listing of articles with web links.

And this statement:

“Obviously, not everyone experiences acute toxicity effects from the mercury in amalgam fillings. However, virtually everyone does have mercury build up in their bodies from implantation of such fillings. The large increase in mercury exposure from the newer non-gamma-2 mercury fillings means that only time will tell how much damage has been caused by daily exposure to mercury to such fillings.
I do not recommend that people assume automatically that they will be healed by the removal of amalgam fillings. Many people are helped tremendously and some are healed. The 80% figure for people showing improvement within a year likely refers to people who had good reason to suspect that they were being significantly affected by the fillings. The percentage of people in the general population who might experience health improvement within one year after removal is probably much lower than 80%. I recommend going into the mercury amalgam removal procedure knowing that, at the very least, you will have removed yourself from a regular exposure to an extremely toxic material such that it will not build up in your organs and possibly cause significant health problems at a later date.
. . .  I believe that composite (plastic) fillings are a better replacement than metal (e.g., gold) fillings even in chemically-sensitive individuals. They are, however, not without safety questions, but are still likely to be much less toxic than mercury amalgam fillings. . … “
http://www.stanford.edu/~bcalhoun/AStock.htm The experience of the author, translated from the German, 1926.

The Dangerousness of Mercury Vapor
By Alfred Stock, Berlin-Dahlem
Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut fuer Chemie
(Eingeg. Febr. 9, 1926)
Translated by Birgit Calhoun

(NOTE:  the full text is now posted on this blog at  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4304 )

http://www.yeastinfectionadvisor.com/mercurypoisoning.html Mercury Poisoning, Candida Yeast, Or Is It Both?

http://www.flcv.com/indexa.html A listing of relevant information with web links.

http://www.cfspages.com/fire.html “Chronic fatigue syndrome or Chronic mercury poisoning?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgam_(dentistry)

–                  The WHO reports that mercury from amalgam accounts for 5% of total mercury emissions and that when combined with waste mercury from laboratory and medical devices, represents 53% of total mercury emissions.[33] Separators may dramatically decrease the release of mercury into the public sewer system, where dental amalgams contribute one-third of the mercury waste,[33] but they are not required in the United States.[34] As of 2008, the use of dental amalgam has been banned in Norway[35], restricted in Sweden and Finland, and a committee of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has refused to ratify assertions of safety.

–                  Scientists agree that mercury amalgam fillings expose the bearers to a daily dose of mercury, but the level and effects of the chronic exposure are disputed. In the 1990s, several governments evaluated the effects of dental amalgam and concluded that the most likely health effects would be due to hypersensitivity or allergy. Germany, Austria, and Canada recommended against placing amalgam in certain individuals such as pregnant women, children, those with renal dysfunction, and those with an allergy to metals. In 2004, the Life Sciences Research Office analyzed studies related to dental amalgam published after 1996. Concluding that mean urinary mercury concentration (μg of Hg/L in urine, HgU) was the most reliable estimate of mercury exposure, it found those with dental amalgam were unlikely to reach the levels where adverse effects are seen from occupational exposure (35 μg HgU). 95% of study participants had μg HgU below 4-5. Chewing gum, particularly for nicotine, along with more amalgam, seemed to pose the greatest risk of increasing exposure; one gum-chewer had 24.8 μg HgU. However, from reviewing medical literature, the World Health Organization states mercury levels in biomarkers such as urine, blood, or hair do not represent levels in critical organs and tissues. (INSERT:  I think this preceding statement is a critical point.)

–                  Additionally, Gattineni et al. found that mercury levels do not correlate with the number or severity of symptoms. It concluded that there was not enough evidence to support or refute many of the other claims such as increased risk of autoimmune disorders, but stated that the broad and nonspecific illness attributed to dental amalgam is not supported by the data.[36] Mutter in Germany, however, concludes that “removal of dental amalgam leads to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials.”[37]

–                  The American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs has concluded that both amalgam and composite materials are considered safe and effective for tooth restoration,[38] and a study has stated that amalgam fillings pose no personal health risk, and that replacement by non-amalgam fillings is not indicated.[39] Recent randomized clinical trials have found no evidence of neurological harm or deleterious renal effects associated with use of amalgam in children after examining a period of 5–7 years following treatment.[40] [41] Both these trials were published in the same issue of the JAMA. Also published in the same journal was an editorial by Prof. Herbert Needleman noting these two articles, explicitly advising against using them as evidence of dental amalgam safety. He says:

–                  “It is predictable that some outside interests will expand the modest conclusions of these studies to assert that use of mercury amalgam in dentistry is risk free. This conclusion would be unfortunate and unscientific. The conclusions that can be extrapolated from these 2 studies are constrained by several factors.”[42]

–                  The health problems usually focused upon include chronic illnesses, oral lesions, birth defects, mental disorders, autoimmune disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, erethism, and multiple sclerosis[citation needed]. There is strong evidence that a certain percentage of lichenoid lesions are caused by amalgam fillings.[43]

– – – – – – – – –

http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/

Hi….this is a website with much info and many relevant links.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)