Mercury amalgam fillings - a poisoning of generations
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
I'm quite happy to engage in the subject matter. However no-one has contested anything mentioned in either of the videos, including you. What's there for me to do?Techno303 said:
why are they 'half-baked'? Do explain. perhaps then we'll have a discussion along the lines you are asking for.
What's the point Jazzz? - everytime someone demolishes one of your pet sources, you just put your fingers in your ears, claim it's far more convincing than anything else and move rapidly onto more scattergun sources. See earlier in this thread where you used that silly questionnaire from a self-selecting sample as well researched 'proof' that removing amalgams was genuinely beneficial.
There's really no point reasoning with you.
There's really no point reasoning with you.
Jazzz said:
Okay. The Calgary one doesn’t even have a hypothesis other then mercury is bad for cells. What is new here? Seriously?
Can you reference their publication that explains the method of the protein denaturing further?
What concentration of mercury are they pipetting in? I think I saw 7M flash on the screen?
They mention a link between the lesions formed by pippetting a high concentration of mercury directly onto the neuron and the types of lesions that occur in Alzheimer’s. This is spurious to say the least, not that anything conclusive can be drawn from a 5 minute video.
The amyliod plaques found in various types of neurodegenerative diseases are, I believe, rich in copper, zinc and iron. In fact copper tends to be the main culprit due to it having a high affinity to a certain protein (I’d have to go and look up which one this is). There is unlikely to be the same degree of affinity (the ability to tightly bind) to mercury. I must point out here that I am not an expert in neuronal metal homeostasis but I do collaborate with a leading expert and we both use techniques to investigate neuronal lesions.
All of this though, concerning mercury, is frankly moot until a feasible mechanism for mercury’s transport across the blood brain barrier is proposed. What are your thoughts on this? Have you looked this up in the literature? Mechanisms for mercury transport across the BBB would be the stuff of Nature papers? What about chelating, what are your thoughts on this considering the small amounts of mercury used in fillings?
So let’s stick with these themes:
1) Mercury delivery to the neuron
- mercury chelation and delivery across the BBB
2) Mercury uptake and binding with plaque forming proteins
3) How this compares to established problems with metal homeostatsis in neuronal degradation
No wriggling.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Jazzz said:
Couldn't put it any better than that
Seeing as you never, ever, take on board and debate any evidence presented to you why the fuck should we? Taking the piss is much easier
Do pay attention. It wasn't a questionnaire, it was a collation of studies. And if you read the later article I posted, it says there are documentation of over 60,000 cases of improvement in health after amalgam removal, never mind the 1000 in that collation.tarannau said:
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
lalalalala, not going to listen to you....Jazzz said:
<sticks fingers in ears>
Are you seeing how frustrating this is yet Jazzz?
Jazzz said:
And ask yourself what those 'studies' involved? Was it:
a) A series of rigorous, well designed medical tests, with control groups and proper appraisal of whether there really have been medical benefits
or
b) The dentist sending out questionnaires, or merely asking his customers (who have specifically visited these select clinics to have their amalgams removed) if they felt better in certain areas. Eg "Have your headaches improved since spending £1k on having your amalgam fillings removed - Y/N
Christ and you wonder why people can't be arsed to reason with you. You're wilfully blind to the flaws of your favoured 'research' and nearly entirely unqualified/incapable or looking at data dispassionately
Jazzz said:
I am assuming by your somewhat belated response to my post that you are scurrying off around the internet to try and address some of the biology I have discussed/proposed in relation to the Calgary video. This strikes me as being a bit disappointing as your inability to cope with the science off the cuff suggests that you have done very little reading/thinking on the molecular biology (metal homeostasis in particular) before posting the video.
Is this correct? Why am I doing the thinking for you?
The concentration of mercury which was shown to mess up brain structure in that video was 10 to the power of minus 7, i.e. one part in ten million by weight.Techno303 said:
Clearly, if a relatively low concentration of mercury can cause brain degeneration, it doesn't matter whether there might be high concentrations of other metals present in plaques.
And that seemed to be well demonstrated in the video.
A quick google brought up this
mercury crosses blood-brain barrier which would suggest that mercury will cross the BBB by nerve transport.
Of course, this video is just concerned with neurotoxic effects.
What about chelation? Yes the body will chelate mercury. But it can only get such a proportion of what is in the body out, if I am right, mercury will have a high affinity for fatty tissues. The body's ability to chelate may also become compromised. In my case my glutathione level below normal even years after amalgam removal and supplementation with the amino acids which comprise it.
Jazzz said:
No it doesn’t! It shows the amount pipetted as a concentration (you do know what a concentration is don’t you?) – 10^-7 M. That is 10 ^ -7 moles per litre mercury, or 100 nM mercury placed directly onto the dendrite. That IS a large concentration to be placing on a cell!
So what is new here?????
What do you mean by “brain degeneration”???
Where is the paper that that video is relating too?
It does matter what the concentration of other metals are in the plaques, because they represent that the homeostasis process has failed! It is HIGHLY significant that specific proteins in plaque formation have great affinity for copper and NOT mercury!
That google link shows fuck all! They speculate, using fish as a model, that mercury can enter CSF (they give no mechanisms in the paper by the way) and it was published in an environmental science journal!
How does mercury have a high affinity for fatty tissue?
Jazzz,
Also, would you just like to give me your thoughts on what the significance is between pipetting something directly onto a cell in vitro and something being uptaken and transported to a cell in vivo. Do you not see any problems in directly comparing the two? Does in vitro work represent in vivo?
Also, would you just like to give me your thoughts on what the significance is between pipetting something directly onto a cell in vitro and something being uptaken and transported to a cell in vivo. Do you not see any problems in directly comparing the two? Does in vitro work represent in vivo?
tarannau said:
Thing is, like axon above, I’m not going to say I know a great deal about mercury leeching from filings and causing cell death. Heck, I’ve no idea where to start really. I can do a little biology and I do know something about neurochemistry. I also know that dropping mercury onto cellular structures does not equate to mercury in fillings causes ill health.
I also get narked when Jazzz leans on the science and knows next to fuck all about it himself. He doesn't even know the difference between weight and concentration for fuck sakes.
But he got a prize at his schools physics olympiad* dontcha know, which qualifies him to know better than eminent scientists, architects and folks who actually work in the field.
It's the delusional thing that gets me too. I'm not even going to pretend that I fully understand the science behind discussions like this. However, it's patently obvious that Jazzz doesn't either - which makes his hectoring and alarmist tone all the more mystifying
*Sadly Jazzz did actually use this corker to justify his 'in-depth' knowledge of architecture and collision forces.
It's the delusional thing that gets me too. I'm not even going to pretend that I fully understand the science behind discussions like this. However, it's patently obvious that Jazzz doesn't either - which makes his hectoring and alarmist tone all the more mystifying
*Sadly Jazzz did actually use this corker to justify his 'in-depth' knowledge of architecture and collision forces.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
So, once again jazzz gets pwnd 
Put simply the difference between 'in vitro' and 'in vivo' is that with in vitro it's in a pint mug, with 'in vivo' it could be up yer bum.
Different physiological effects.
Licence- 'In vitro' is a test tube experiment. 'In vivo' normaly refers to whacking the nasties into a living organism or cell.
The difference is, that different organisms have all sorts of protection in their cell walls against nasties.
One could use the weak analagy that an injecting heroin user is 'in vivo', whereas a dragon chaser is 'in vitro'.
The product inhaled, is at the mercy of the mucus producing cells lining the bronchus trachea, and other pulmonary wibbly wobblies, thus, largely, preventing overdose.
Although how we developed that particular evolutionary strategum remains mysterious.
Different physiological effects.
Licence- 'In vitro' is a test tube experiment. 'In vivo' normaly refers to whacking the nasties into a living organism or cell.
The difference is, that different organisms have all sorts of protection in their cell walls against nasties.
One could use the weak analagy that an injecting heroin user is 'in vivo', whereas a dragon chaser is 'in vitro'.
The product inhaled, is at the mercy of the mucus producing cells lining the bronchus trachea, and other pulmonary wibbly wobblies, thus, largely, preventing overdose.
Although how we developed that particular evolutionary strategum remains mysterious.
thanks for the correction, yes the concentration is mols per litre.Techno303 said:
You can read the paper here.
Retrograde degeneration of neurite membrane structural integrity of nerve growth cones following in vitro exposure to mercury
The same concentrations of cadmium, lead, aluminium or manganese didn't seem to create any bother.
Well it would seem to be your speculation that mercury does not cross the blood-brain barrier, please provide your source for that info. Precautionary principle demands that that is where the burden of proof lies.
here's one study for you on that:
Correlation of dental amalgam with mercury in brain tissue
I guess it likes the taste.
axon said:After 2 minutes on PubMed,
The amalgam controversy. An evidence-based analysis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001 Mar;132(3):348-56.
Now, as I stated earlier I don't want to get into a debate about the safety of mercury fillings as it would take me several months to get up to date with all the literature and be able to make an informed judgment. Unlike some people I don't just blindly believe what appears on the internet
It should be noted, as I've discovered from watching the full version of the video from the IAOMT, that the Journal of the American Dental Association is not a scientific journal at all but a trade journal! It is not peer-reviewed, and it carries adverts for the amalgam industry.
Seppoes have fillings?
A fundamental error Jazzz! Now, what are your thoughts on that concentration? How does it relate to what could be leaching from filings and crossing the BBB? How do they equate this concentration with “chronic” exposure?Jazzz said:
And we have to take their word on that.Jazzz said:
Jazzz said:
Not at all, show me wher you think I am speculating that. I am merely looking for evidence that there is a mechanism proposed for the transfer of mercury across the blood barrier, since it would seem that your case rests strongly on this biological feat.
Oh shut up you tit!Jazzz said:
Jazzz said:
You have no idea do you?
What are your thoughts on comparing in vitro with in vivo?
Techno303 said:
But this is the crux of the matter!
It's fucking toxic! The burden of proof lies with the industry to prove that it is safe, and not contributing to a whole load of degenerative diseases!
Without highly sound evidence that it does not, we must assume that it may very well cross the blood-brain barrier!
I gave you one study showing correlation between amalgams and brain mercury concentration. There are others, if you insist I will try to find the links again.
Jazzz said:
Well you'd better tell the journal it's not peer-reviewed because they seem to think it is.
http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/jada/about.asp
And it looks pretty much like a scientific journal rather than a trade journal to me from the latest issue...
And adverts for the amalgalm industry? I've no idea but pretty much all scientific journals have adverts in them so it wouldn't surprise me.
In mediaeval times people used to drink glasses of metallic mercury as a laxative.
Lets face it, it went straight through. Probably killed them in the end, but their life expectancy wasn't that great.
Mercury has always been with us.
If it does get in, apparently you go barmy.
Popular in hat manufacturing at one time I believe. Dr Jazzz.
Lets face it, it went straight through. Probably killed them in the end, but their life expectancy wasn't that great.
Mercury has always been with us.
If it does get in, apparently you go barmy.
Popular in hat manufacturing at one time I believe. Dr Jazzz.
<Jazzz applies vaseline in preperation for a good wriggling>
Jazzz, here's a little secret that people that interact with the real world know. There is inherent risk in everything. Saying that mercury is poisonous is not evidence that mercury fillings are dangerous. Can you understand why?
Jazzz, here's a little secret that people that interact with the real world know. There is inherent risk in everything. Saying that mercury is poisonous is not evidence that mercury fillings are dangerous. Can you understand why?