Stumble This | You should also watch “How Mercury Causes Neurodegeneration (Brain Damage)” |
This video shows the harmful effect on several of the vital organs in our body due to mercury vapor outgassing from amalgam dental fillings.
Information from <b>The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology.</b>
Odorless, colorless and tasteless -- but it casts a shadow in black light! This dramatic video of mercury vapor outgassing from an amalgam dental filling has outraged the world since it was first demonstrated at an IAOMT meeting in 1995.
<b>The Scientific Case Against Mercury Amalgam</b>
http://www.iaomt.org/articles/category_ ... 3&catid=30
Information from <b>The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology.</b>
Odorless, colorless and tasteless -- but it casts a shadow in black light! This dramatic video of mercury vapor outgassing from an amalgam dental filling has outraged the world since it was first demonstrated at an IAOMT meeting in 1995.
<b>The Scientific Case Against Mercury Amalgam</b>
http://www.iaomt.org/articles/category_ ... 3&catid=30
A review of the scientific evidence demonstrating significant exposure to mercury and resulting physiological harm from dental amalgam.
http://www.iaomt.org/articles/files/files210/The%20Case%20Against%20Amalgam.pdf
NCAHF Position Paper on Amalgam Fillings
The "Mercury Toxicity" Scam: How Anti-Amalgamists Swindle People by Stephen Barrett, M.D.
1. Calculating the dose
2. Determining the long-term effect of that dose, if any.
I won't argue with their calculation of (1), but the studies on (2) are weak in methodology, since all of them that I have seen are too short, non-human, non-randomized, not double-blind, or fail to consider effects on intelligence.
The NCAHF is a little private hobby-job, not an authority. Try the National Academy of *Sciences.
And I have both kinds of fillings. Polymer fillings are commonly used on front teeth because of cosmetic concerns (color) and are deemed safe by the medical establishment. So why not also use them on back teeth? The NCAHF has nothing to support the claim that polymers are inferior. Those concerned with cosmetics would be getting polymer fillings in both places regardless. The difference in cost is small and will likely get smaller when patents on the newer technology expire. Cost parity would make this issue moot, as then no one would have any reason to get an amalgam filling.
Selected Studies on the Release and Toxicity of Mercury from Dental Amalgam Published in Peer Reviewed Scientific, Dental and Medical Journals
http://www.iaomt.org/testfoundation/amalgam.htm
I thought you should know that yes, this is the same Stephen Barret that you've linked to.
Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases (2006)
http://www.whale.to/a/quck.html
1. Barrett has claimed to be a medical expert, yet failed his medical board certification.
2. Barrett has claimed to be a legal expert, yet has not studied law.
3. Barrett has claimed to have no ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA), yet under oath he had conceded these ties.
4. Barrett has recently sued many times for libel and yet has never won a single case.
In addition, on April 22, 2003, A California Appeals Court, ruled against the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). The Court declared that Stephen Barrett (quackwatch.com), and Wallace Sampson MD (Scientific Review of Alternative and Aberrant Medicine) were found to be biased… and should be accorded little, if any, credibility.
one can read a copy of the Court document signed by Judge Fromholz, here
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm
but my personal favorite is this
Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials,
Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification
http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/
and if you want to talk about biased, you should seriously look up information on NCAHF as they are the posterchild for misinformation on health related issues.
One review from the US found little evidence to link mercury fillings to health problems[1] while the other from Germany found that removal of dental amalgam lead to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials.[2]
Therefore I think it's a legitimate scientific debate, even if the ADA maintains that mercury amalgam is safe. For example, for some people with autoimmune disorders removing mercury amalgam has been beneficial. I don't know where the preponderance of research points for the general public, however, because I am no expert.
Just one man's opinion.
But first, check the paper you linked. So the patients with autoimmune disorders in the study were specifically selected for lymphocyte reactivity to mercury, ok, that's already bringing it out of the original question about general amalgam safety. Then note the discussion, in which it is observed that health worsened for some of the patients in treatment, but this effect was dismissed because of smoking...wonder about the smoking habits for all the rest of the patients? Hmmm..... Then consider the materials and methods where the setup for determining whether a patient was getting better or worse was described. Any good, quantitative analysis there? Oh, and then there's the fact that the study had a sample of 35 people, of which four diseases were represented, and of which the maximum number of people in one disease category was 15.
....hm. I mean, there's some shaky ground, and that's even for their very specific case of people suffering from immune disorders with high lymphocyte reactivity to mercury, who, it does seem reasonable, might be better suited for non-mercury treatments. As for the general public...well, there's a reason I don't feel particularly inclined to argue about this "issue".
Oh, and Qruel....lol.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I'm lazy, so I just went to Wikipedia to learn about this controversy. If what the article states is true, then it sounds like the scientific jury may still be out on this issue:
One review from the US found little evidence to link mercury fillings to health problems[1] while the other from Germany found that removal of dental amalgam lead to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials.[2]
Therefore I think it's a legitimate scientific debate, even if the ADA maintains that mercury amalgam is safe. For example, for some people with autoimmune disorders removing mercury amalgam has been beneficial. I don't know where the preponderance of research points for the general public, however, because I am no expert.
Just one man's opinion.
"After review of the scientific evidence and review of numerous studies submitted in support of banning or upclassifying dental restorative products containing mercury, FDA does not find any persuasive evidence that the physiological and psychological symptoms attributed to amalgam fillings are caused by amalgam fillings. Furthermore, FDA does not find any persuasive evidence that there is any improvement of these symptoms after removal of amalgam fillings. Although there are studies purporting to support the view that amalgam products pose risks to persons beyond the small subpopulation of hypersensitive individuals, conclusions cannot be drawn studies because they are methodologically flawed."
FDA Consumer Update: Dental Amalgams February 2002
lolwut.
This whole issue of amalgam fillings is moot because you can easily get tooth-colored composite/polymer fillings instead, that don't cost much. Even if you are 99% certain that amalgam fillings are safe, why ever get them?
"The World Health Organization notes that exposure can be greatly increased by personal habits such as bruxism or gum-chewing, and cites a report which found a 5.3 fold increase in mercury levels after chewing, eating, or toothbrushing. They report that amalgam is estimated to contribute 50% of mercury exposure in adults. In the studies the WHO reviews, daily mercury exposure estimates range from 3 μg/day to 9 μg/day.[11] Separately the World Health Organization reports that "there may be no level of mercury at which some adverse effects do not occur", that mercury from amalgam and laboratory devices accounts for 53% of total mercury emissions, and that one-third of the mercury in the sewage system comes from dental amalgam.[12]"
"A Swedish study of autopsies examined the mercury levels in brains and kidneys and found a strong correlation with the number of amalgam fillings.[15]"
...then why are you quoting somebody else's review of studies?
...actually, don't even bother answering that....it doesn't matter anyways.
The FDA's Associate Commissioner for Science, Norris Alderson (whose degree is in veterinary medicine) is in charge of classifying mercury amalgam. He presided at the meeting of the two Scientific Advisory Committees in September 2006. Rather than ask the scientists questions about the toxicity of mercury amalgam, Alderson orchestrated a “white paper,” promoted it to the press as if it were an official FDA position, then presented it to the Panels on a take-it-or-leave-it vote. When not only the “white paper” but also staff’s methodology to propagandize for mercury amalgam were rejected by twin 13 to 7 votes, Alderson embarked on a disinformation campaign to claim they won the vote they actually lost – astonishingly, they actually claim the scientists voted favorably to the white paper claim that amalgam is safe. First they caused this false information to be posted on the Center’s website in 2006, then Alderson testified to Congress deceptively about the vote of the Panels.
http://www.toxicteeth.org/Complaint_Dec282007.pdf
also learn how the FDA corrupted “independent” literature reviews
• Directing that no scientist with experience in researching mercury toxicity be on the panel, the opposite of what is supposed to occur;
• Allowing LSRO to invert the research question (from evidence of harm to proof of safety) in order to get the result that Braveman and Runner needed to continue their agenda of protecting mercury amalgam use.
http://www.toxicteeth.org/REPORT--Agenda%20Above%20Science.pdf
There is a lot more going on at the FDA than just science. Sounds like a lot of politics and protecting industry.
http://www.videosift.com/video/How-Mercury-Causes-Neurodegeneration-Brain-Damage
http://www.videosift.com/video/Mercury-Hg
http://www.videosift.com/video/How-Mercury-Causes-Neurodegeneration-Brain-Damage
I see no reason why this video should not. *science
After a lengthy lawsuit, The FDA has agreed to change its website on amalgam --dramatically. Gone, are all of FDA’s claims that no science exists that amalgam is unsafe, or that other countries have acted for environmental reasons only, or that the 2006 Scientific Panel vote affirmed amalgam’s safety.
(taken from http://toxicteeth.org/We%20Win%20June%202008.pdf )
FDA now states, for example:
“Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetus.”