SENT: August 4, 2010
Dear Dr. Murray,
I appreciate your input.
A couple of questions:
(1) re ” no increase in mercury in MS patients”
(INSERT: I have re-written this point. What I sent to Dr. Murray was muddling.)
The majority of the population has mercury amalgams. That there is “no increase” in mercury in MS patients – – in comparison with other people in the population – – is to be expected. It does not argue for a non-causal relationship between mercury amalgams and MS:
The same toxins cause different health outcomes in different people, and they exist in different bodies in different combinations with other environmental toxins.
If most everyone has mercury amalgams, and people react differently to mercury poisoning, then a level of mercury in you may result in disease A, but that same mercury in your neighbor may result in disease B, and so on. NOT ONE of the disease groups (like MS or alzheimers or whatever) will show an elevated level of mercury, IN COMPARISON with the rest of the population. The mercury levels can be the same or variable across the population, but with different and/or no disease outcomes. Not everyone with the same level of mercury will get the paticular disease. So, MS patients may not have elevated mercury readings in comparison with the rest of the population.
I am concerned about mercury, not just related to MS.
What happens if you add in the fact that babies, who have no amalgams, begin life with a mercury load transferred to them because mercury crosses the placental barrier and because breast milk carries a high level of mercury. (INSERT: see the listed URL’s, item #3) Both are the consequence of the dental amalgams in the Mother’s mouth.
Some of those babies have also been given several vaccinations that contain mercury as a preservative, which is true at least up until the fairly recent past. Compounds that contain the syllable “mer” contain mercury, as in “thimerosal”, a preservative that has been used in vaccines although under pressure to discontinue use. Shipments of vaccines to developing countries continue to contain thimerosal.
Many of these young children then have mercury placed directly and permanently in their mouth through dental amalgams. The slow but relentless off-gassing of mercury, 365 days a year, is set in motion. It compounds the earlier foetal, breast milk (and in some, vaccination) assaults by mercury.
For decades it has been known that breast milk is highly contaminated. We are told that it is because of environmental poisons. (Nursing Mothers are recommended to breast-feed nonetheless because of the offsetting health boosters from breast-feeding. )
Health Canada sends employees to the Arctic to explain to indigenous people how to avoid particular body parts of the fish they catch because it is health-destroying to ingest food that is contaminated by mercury.
You will see in the URL’s listed below a Government web page that only names fish as the source of mercury poisoning. Not one word about dental amalgams.
I am from the Prairies. Many of us eat almost no fish. You cannot tell me that the source of mercury in prairie Mother’s breast milk is only from fish. It makes no sense.
Some people will have seemingly no health consequences from mercury that has entered their body, whether it comes from the chain that starts with the off-gassing from amalgams in their Mother’s mouth, vaccinations, or their own dental amalgams. You can’t measure such things as mental functioning and memory. Other people will eventually develop MS, some alzheimers, some will suffer from migraine headaches, high blood pressure, slowed down functioning of the brain, and so on. Will the people who develop MS have “elevated” levels of mercury, in comparison with the rest of the population? No.
I should think that for sound science you would have to look, for example, at the incidence of (the particular disease – use MS as an example) in a population of people who have dental amalgams, in comparison to the incidence of MS in a population of people who do not have amalgams, and for whom other environmental poisons (including mercury received from their Mothers) are approximately the same?
Or, based on the evidence to date (see the appended), we should just do what the northern European countries have done: stop using mercury amalgams. And then research to follow the long term trend-lines for the incidence of MS (for example) in the population.
(2) re ” no improvement after amalgam removal” (INSERT: the disease doesn’t improve after the amalgam is removed)
Is it REASONABLE to expect that with removal of the amalgam in an MS patient, that there will be improvement in the MS?
Our body is a dynamic system. A characteristic of dynamic systems is that once they pass “overload” or the “tipping point”, there is permanent damage.
Is it possible that there is “no improvement” after the amalgam has been removed from MS patients because the intervention occurred TOO LATE? You can’t wait until after the body is past the critical load point to remove the amalgams. It won’t / can’t do any good. By the time you have the full-blown disease, it is too late; the damage is permanent. So the argument doesn’t hold.
Sincerely,
Sandra Finley
—–Original Message—–
From: Thomas (Jock) Murray
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:45 PM
To: Sandra Finley
Subject: Re: Regarding your interveiw, CBC Radio Aug 4 MS
Dear Sandra,
There has been a lot of promotion of dental filing removal for MS, ALS, Alzheimer’s disease and other diseases in the past but all the well designed clinical research showed no increase in mercury in MS patients and no improvement in amalgam removal. There is a lot of non- scientific promotion of the concept despite this. We did studies many years ago using an Atomic Slow Poke Reactor that measures parts per billion of 40 trace elements and showed no increase in MS patients in any, including mercury. There was also an extensive review of all the studies of mercury and MS and the conclusion was that there was no association. I know some people still believe it, as they believe all sorts of things as causes and cures of MS, but this is about belief in an idea, not on scientific evidence. We do not recommend people with MS have dental amalgam removed. The issue seemed to die some years ago, although I note there are still people promoting it on the internet.
Sincerely,
TJ Murray