This post has been removed from the Science channel by channel owner rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

The Scientific Case Against Mercury Amalgam
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

Upvote - I have alwys been a bit dubious about amalgram mercury based fillings...

Not that I particularly care to argue:

NCAHF Position Paperon Amalgam Fillings

The "Mercury Toxicity" Scam: How Anti-Amalgamists Swindle People by Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Exposure to some atoms of soluble mercury from amalgam fillings is thermodynamically inevitable. It's just a question of
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.

Adding video to channels (Science) - requested by jwray.

Rembar, I know you want to see peer reviewed scientific studies, so here you are...

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

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Upvote for the discussion - I have read that you will get much more mercury from eating a tuna fish sandwich a week than fillings- but I don't have my mind made up on this.

This post has been removed from the Science channel by channel owner rembar. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

PNAS isn't the only journal on the planet, and I wasn't citing because I want to argue, but because they're something for people to read easily and with papers they can access that are reasonably on topic. Not like anyone's looking to IAOMT for unbiased papers.

IAOMT is showing a wealth of scientific studies that have appeared in peer reviewed journals that back their claims. So once again I'm showing that there is solid science behind these claims and that the issue is not black and white as you seem to think.

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.

*yawn*...did you miss the part where I said I wasn't citing because I wanted to argue? I'm not trying to convince people, I was dropping the link because it was easily readable and on target. You already know your opinion carries zero weight with me.

yes *yawn*. It's not my opinion that I'm concerned about. It's the wealth of valid scientific literature on the subject that you mistakenly turn a blind eye to that concerns me. You dropped the link to justify your opinion on the subject. I hardly doubt it would convice anyone who takes the time to look into the person or orgnaization you've promoted since they are seriously compromised.

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.

Wikipedia is in general a non-optimal resource when it comes to things like this, because the NPOV rules lean to the sort of "teach the controversy" kind of middle-ground bs that lets people get away with framing some things as "issues" that shouldn't be. I looked up but couldn't read the 2nd citation because it's in German. If you can find a translation of the entire paper, rather than just the abstract, I'll take a swing at it.

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.

The FDA, as quoted by Qruel's little site:
"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.

If an article is written properly and properly referenced, you shouldn't have to take anything on the author's word, ergo ad hominem is irrelevant.

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?

Norway and Sweeden have banned amalgam fillings for both environmental and health reasons. These countries are not to be ignored, since both have better standards of living than the USA This is not just some fringe conspiracy theory, this is a serious scientific controversy. Rembar is being dogmatic and not even reading the references to the contrary.

"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]"

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mercury vapor dental filling' to 'mercury vapor dental filling, science' - edited by twiddles

"If an article is written properly and properly referenced, you shouldn't have to take anything on the author's word"

...then why are you quoting somebody else's review of studies?

...actually, don't even bother answering that....it doesn't matter anyways.

BBC Panorama covers this topic

This information comes from a lawsuit against the FDA. Looks like the science against the mercury in amalgams was there, but the FDA scientists ruling was overturned.

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.

Just came across this. It seems relevant to the discussion.

http://www.videosift.com/video/How-Mercury-Causes-Neurodegeneration-Brain-Damage

In light of these videos being included in the science channel

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

*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.”

Hmmmm! Mercury vapor rising from a tooth apparently held in someones hand, with no other heat source than a little friction?

Please return your periodic tables to the proper authorities immediately!!

Oh and by the way, this:

>> ^jwray:
Norway and Sweeden have banned amalgam fillings for both environmental and health reasons. These countries are not to be ignored, since both have better standards of living than the USA "


Is about as valid as this:

"Kansas has required the teaching of biblical creation in public schools based on the fact that it is an appropriate alternate to the theory of evolution. Kansas is not to be ignored because they have a lower per capita suicide and alcoholism rate than both Norway and Sweden"

^if you're doubtful, there are plenty of studies published in peer reviewed journals (links listed above) for you to read in addition to the lawsuit the FDA lost on the matter.

I have made no comment on the health risks of amalgam fillings, I do not dispute the dangers posed by the ingestion of mercury. I simply pointed out that the vapors rising from the tooth in the video cannot be either mercury,gold or some other metallic component of the amalgam, and be held in a bare hand. The vapor is most likely water.

I also pointed out the fallacy in your argument based on the actions of Sweden and Norway in regard to this issue.

Nice avatar.

your reference of the periodic table was not specific enough for me to deduce what you meant. But your post in another thread I read tonight explained what you were getting at. That seems valid enough to me and I've emailed the researcher posing the same question so as to understand.

my suggestion of perusing the studies was to examine how they could have come to the conclusion that the vapor was indeed mercury vapor (I should have been more specific). I made no mention of your comparison to jwrays Norway, Sweden comparison.
Thanks for the avatar compliment even if it was meant as a backhanded compliment. (most don't see the word FUNDAMENTALISM written at the bottom.)

MAYBE IT SHOULD BE IN ALL CAPS SOWECANUNNERSTANBETTER

LOL. although quite small, the word itself on the avatar is in all CAPS.

I wanted to share with you the response I got in regards to the mercury vapor.

First, the reason the vapors are rising is due to the air current provided to make them do so. Otherwise they would fall and could not be visualized as easily. This is just good photography.

The reasons we know this is mercury vapor is the following:

1. What else could it be coming distinctly from the amalgam? Tin, Copper, silver and zinc do not vaporize into gases like mercury does.
2. Others say it is water but the amalgams are dry. Also, water does not absorb the UV light (a mercury vapor lamp) as does mercury vapor. In other words, water vapor does not absorb the UV light, if it did we could not do UV spectrometry in water solutions which is very common place in biochemical research.
3. In the class I taught at the University of Kentucky called “Mercury, Science and Politics” the students did the ‘smoking tooth’ experiment. While doing this they used the mercury vapor analyzer from the OSHA office to measure mercury levels in the mouths of each other (some with and some without amalgams). During the smoking tooth experiment the students were directed to place the intake of the mercury analyzer into the ‘smokey release’ and test it for mercury. There was absolutely no doubt, the meter on the mercury analyzer showed the vapor was mercury. Heat the amalgam and the amount of vapor visualized increased and the analyzer meter increased also.

Boyd E. Haley, PhD
Professor Emeritus
University of Kentucky
Chemistry Department