Mercury amalgam fillings - a poisoning of generations

[story]

We've just had a radon test on the house that shows we have 30 times the national average

((((madzone's house and home))))))

If we were to substitute the radon argument for this current debate about amalgam fillings, I suspect that fewer people would be so adamant that there is no potential for harm.

Which is not to say that the radon debate is necessarily any more clear cut...

 

[Psychonaut]

Yes - we do not expel it, we store it. All living systems, including plants, bioaccumulate mercury. This is true of all heavy metals.

There are substances that chelate and/or 'free' mercury - one of which is present in many common foods (ALA). So i dont think its fair to say we dont expel it.

People vary in their ability to excrete mercury, and possibly some dont excrete it at all. (i dont know how much of this is genetics/dietary etc)

 

[story]

There are substances that chelate and/or 'free' mercury - one of which is present in many common foods (ALA). So i dont think its fair to say we dont expel it.

People vary in their ability to excrete mercury, and possibly some dont excrete it at all. (i dont know how much of this is genetics/dietary etc)

I'd forgotten about chelates; thanks for the reminder

And I agee that each individual will deal with mercury differently; I dispute, however, that mercury can be excreted via normal waste channels, without the aid of a chelate.

*goes off to google...*

 

[story]

Okay - so mercury can be excreted in faeces and urine.

 

[Jazzz]

Please explain ... this seems simplistic to me.

laptop may be right. But a lot more detail is required.

There's a distinction between mercury in its elemental form, the metal, and organic forms such as methyl mercury. The organic form is quite stupendously toxic - the body is so unable to deal with it that a few drops of the stuff will cause a horrible death. Now the amount of metallic mercury you will have to absorb to cause death due to acute exposure is quite high, but this has little bearing on the (very low) levels at which it will cause harm. Another factor is how you take it. When ingested via the mouth, most metallic mercury will actually pass through the system. However if you breath in the vapour you will take in 95% of the gas (IIRC). Other things to consider are that candida may be able to convert metallic mercury to methyl mercury in the gut.

 

[story]

BTW, while making that search, I did come across a couple of papers that seemed to find a corelationship between the number/surface areas of amalgam fillings, and levels of Hg in the faeces and urine.

However, there were also a couple of studies that showed higher than average levels of Hg in the faeces and urine, in individuals with no amalgam fillings, nor exposure to industrial Hg. Were they being exposed via the diet? Medicine? Who knows....

It does give weight to the argument that amalgam fillings are of no greater risk than any other source of exposure.

Can anyone link to a meta-analyis of the available research?

 

[story]

laptop may be right. But a lot more detail is required.

There's a distinction between mercury in its elemental form, the metal, and organic forms such as methyl mercury. The organic form is quite stupendously toxic - the body is so unable to deal with it that a few drops of the stuff will cause a horrible death. Now the amount of metallic mercury you will have to absorb to cause death due to acute exposure is quite high, but this has little bearing on the (very low) levels at which it will cause harm. Another factor is how you take it. When ingested via the mouth, most metallic mercury will actually pass through the system. However if you breath in the vapour you will take in 95% of the gas (IIRC). Other things to consider are that candida may be able to convert metallic mercury to methyl mercury in the gut.

Quite so; which fact makes the whole argument far more complex than is allowed by the current debate.

I'm not a chemist, and struggle for clarity in the matters of the salts (etc.) and their differing effects.

 

[Jazzz]

Okay - so mercury can be excreted in faeces and urine.

You can. Interestingly, soon after I had my fillings changed, I had my urine levels measured. It was 1 microgram/litre - way below normal. This was incorrectly interpreted by my doctor at the time as meaning that I had got rid of the stuff. In fact what it meant is that my metabolic pathways for getting it out weren't working, so it had all been building up (I had been tooth grinding to the point of grinding up the fillings!). When I was tested again a year or two later, my base urine level had risen to 4 micrograms/litre, which was much healthier.

If anyone's interested in testing for mercury burdens (or other heavy metals) this place is the cutting edge of research

Biolab Medical Unit

Another thing to consider is allergies - how many people are allergic to metal when its on the outside of their skin? Funnily enough, it's a lot more of a problem if it's inside your body. Have anyone ever heard a dentist ask if someone was allergic to silver before placing a silver/mercury filling?

 

[Wilf]

By this logic, any reasearch done on any animal is irrelevent.

In vivo research that uses mice or monkeys or beagles (or whatever) is one of the mainstays of medical research. If you're going to dismiss this reasearch conducted on sheep, the nyou must also dismiss all in vivo research that uses animals.
.

Eh? In mentioning that animals were referred to in the video all i was doing was adding to the malarky between Callie and Jazz (on posting vids of racoons or summat). Wasn't a contribution on the science of this thread!

I think I'd pretty much agree with you actually. Mercury is undoubtedly a poison - and no doubt gets into the body from teeth. However, given that millions (billions?) have these fillings its unlikely that it causes problems for the vast majority. It is though, plausible to think it mightcause problems for a minority - and that dentists should use something else in future.

 

[story]

Ah, orlright then, 4thwrite. I should've read the exchanges more carefully, I s'pose.

 

[madzone]

However, given that millions (billions?) have these fillings its unlikely that it causes problems for the vast majority. It is though, plausible to think it mightcause problems for a minority - and that dentists should use something else in future.

Is it though? What about all the low grade, chronic stuff that people just chunner along with in their daily lives? Things like yeast infections, skin problems, bowel problems, sleep disorders and low level constant fatigue? Not saying they're all related to mercury but it's easy to overlook something as not being a problem becasue it doesn't cause accute symptoms (IMO)

 

[story]

Is it though? What about all the low grade, chronic stuff that people just chunner along with in their daily lives? Things like yeast infections, skin problems, bowel problems. Not saying they're all related to mercury but it's easy to overlook something as not being a problem becasue it doesn't cause accute symptoms (IMO)

I think this is a crucial point, madzone.

We have perhaps become accustomed to generally feeling rather crappy, and thinking that it's normal. Some people, anyway.


(((((some people))))))

 

[Wilf]

Is it though? What about all the low grade, chronic stuff that people just chunner along with in their daily lives? Things like yeast infections, skin problems, bowel problems, sleep disorders and low level constant fatigue? Not saying they're all related to mercury but it's easy to overlook something as not being a problem becasue it doesn't cause accute symptoms (IMO)

You might be right. I haven't looked into it, but the only way to tell would be pretty major studies of:

groups with amalgams v those who had them removed

and/or

groups with amalgams v those who never had them

they'd have to be pretty big studies because of all the other variables involved in people's health - and also because you might end up having to compare 'countries who do' and 'countries who don't' (which is pretty complex study wise). Not the sort of research govt. or the dental industry is going to fund any time soon *

* unless they already have, in which case I'm

 

[madzone]

You might be right. I haven't looked into it, but the only way to tell would be pretty major studies of:

groups with amalgams v those who had them removed

and/or

groups with amalgams v those who never had them

they'd have to be pretty big studies because of all the other variables involved in people's health - and also because you might end up having to compare 'countries who do' and 'countries who don't' (which is pretty complex study wise). Not the sort of research govt. or the dental industry is going to fund any time soon *

* unless they already have, in which case I'm

I don't just think it's mercury though, it's the general level of chemicals that we have in our lives as compared to even 30 years ago. Pesticides, fire retardants, adhesives etc and those fucking awful plug in air fresheners I personally feel that we have a chemical burden that's bound to have some side effects.

 

[story]

The problem here is that even people who've never had an amalgam filling may have a toxic load of mercury in their body from the environment, industry, medicine, or diet.

Mercury has been widely used in medicine for at least three hundred years, and so it is unlikely that anyone in the Modern West (where most of the chronic low level health problems occur) will be entirely free from mercury. This is because it bioaccumulates, and it can be passed from mother to child. Amalgam fillings were introduced about 40-50 years before calomel and other forms of mercury were phased out of normal use; that seems to me a fairly big overlap. And of coure mercury is still present in lots of common medicines.


ETA...and as Madzone says, there are loads of other pollutants, including heavy metals, that might be contributing to the problems.

 

[axon]

The way mine were removed I can't see how any actual mercury was ingested and my airways and eyes were protected from vapours. My point is that once the mercury is in the braincells or wherever it ends up residing - just having the fillings out won't address the residual stuff. It'll just stop it being topped up. Surely?

This can't be the case, have you forgotten Jazzz's anecodote about getting better after removing fillings

 

[axon]

However if you breath in the vapour you will take in 95% of the gas (IIRC). Other things to consider are that candida may be able to convert metallic mercury to methyl mercury in the gut.

Well I dunno about you but I usually breath using my lungs not my stomach.

 

[story]

The thing is that people do "get better" after intervention. It might be just the fact that something, anything, was done.

Placebo surgery seems to give pretty good results, with recipients doing as well or better than the group receiving the real operation. This has been well documented.

So perhaps replacing the fillings was the thing that made the difference.

BTW, anecdotal evidnce is not dismissed by the scientific fraternity as readily as you might suppose. It often gives pointers, or clues, which then bear fruit when followed up. The narrative provided by subjects is a valuable resource for many researchers.

 

[WouldBe]

Well I dunno about you but I usually breath using my lungs not my stomach.

How do you expel mercury from your lungs?

At least if you ingest it, it can 'roll' through your digestive tract before dropping out the other end. It can't do that if it collects in your lungs.

 

[story]

Well I dunno about you but I usually breath using my lungs not my stomach.

Air contains all sorts of substances, some of which can be carried with the oxygen when it crosses into the blood. Blood then transports it to every cell in the body. How do you suppose carbon monoxide poisoning works? Or laughing gas?

The thing about candida... well, I'd like to see the mechanics of action of that.

 

[story]

Vapour can then be deposited as solids. Look at soot.

I don't understand the chemistry of this debate, but I do understand that it's not as simple as it looks.

 

[axon]

The thing is that people do "get better" after intervention. It might be just the fact that something, anything, was done.

I agree.

BTW, anecdotal evidnce is not dismissed by the scientific fraternity as readily as you might suppose.

It is if it comes from Jazzz As you say it can give clues and pointers but it is worthless when trying to work out some subtle long temr effect (and it must be subtle otherwise people would be dropping like flies), of small unknown amounts of mercury vapour from fillings.

 

[axon]

Air contains all sorts of substances, some of which can be carried with the oxygen when it crosses into the blood. Blood then transports it to every cell in the body. How do you suppose carbon monoxide poisoning works? Or laughing gas?

The thing about candida... well, I'd like to see the mechanics of action of that.

I agree with you (again!). I was just pointing out earlier that mercury vapour would enter the lungs not the stomach. Of course then some (how much??) could then be absorbed into the blood, and some (how much??) would be immediately exhaled again. And of the mercury absorbed into the blood, this would be absorbed across the whole body (where, how much, who knows!).

But this is all simple (in theory) pharmacology. Mercury is nasty, but cheap fillings are a good idea. So there's a comprimise somewhere along the line. Seems simple to me (much simpler than the conspiracy by The Grand Coven of American Dentists) that has been alluded to on the thread.

I'm off to the pub now, it's their 12th anniversary you know.
I may be some time.

 

[madzone]

This can't be the case, have you forgotten Jazzz's anecodote about getting better after removing fillings

But I have got better - significantly so

 

[madzone]

The thing is that people do "get better" after intervention. It might be just the fact that something, anything, was done.

Placebo surgery seems to give pretty good results, with recipients doing as well or better than the group receiving the real operation. This has been well documented.

If that were the case (in my case) wouldn't all the symptoms have gone?

 

[madzone]

but it is worthless when trying to work out some subtle long temr effect (and it must be subtle otherwise people would be dropping like flies), of small unknown amounts of mercury vapour from fillings.

So, is all that enough to dismiss out of hand that some people can suffer serious health effects from having amalgam fillings?

 

[story]

If that were the case (in my case) wouldn't all the symptoms have gone?

This is a good point, madzone.

I was wanting to introduce another facet: I'm interested in highlighting the grey areas in this discussion. I do find these board debates that go "This is the truth, no it's bollox" to be tedious and unhelpful. This debate about amalgam fillings is worth having, but it's misguided (I think) to talk about it as if it's a black-and-white issue.

My own subjective experience was that several discrete and specific symptoms were markedly improved immediately and swiftly after I had my fillings replaced. Added to this was a more generalised sense of improved health. Some of this was looked for, some was unexpected.

Health is so very multifactorial (hence our slightly inept touching on the subject of holism earlier in the discussion): it's impossible to say that the presence or removal of amalgam fillings is the significant factor that makes a difference to a person's health.

Amalgam fillings may indeed be detrimental to many people, and also of no physiological consequence for other people. I don't think we can say that amalgam fillings are evil, or that they are blameless.

Certainly, now that we have good alternatives, they should be avoided if at all possible in the future. However, if amalgams are the only option, should a person be denied a filling? The subsequent pain, inability to eat properly and other attendant problems might be more problematic... (Not being a dentist, I have no idea of cost comparisons, the rates of teeth decay in countries with no public health care etc.)

 

[Jazzz]

The thing about placebo effects - and I'm sure madzone will say the same - is that I tried pretty much anything anyone had to offer first, and failed to have a placebo effect with those.

My experience was unequivocal. I felt different as soon as the last one was out. This was accompanied by physical responses, such as my heart rate dropping 20 beats/min, within a week my gums which had been dark red and somewhat receded became pink and healthy, and I soon put on half a stone I never had before. I was also cured of bruxism (tooth grinding) which is supposedly incurable. I looked very much better.

story, it's always tempting to take the attitude that 'the truth is in the middle'. It isn't. Thankfully our justice system works on the basis that it is one way or the other. And that is the way it is with amalgams. Either they are dangerous, or they aren't. If they are dangerous, then they have absolutely no business being introduced to the human body.

Maybe you aren't personally sure. But the first video makes the very good point that the precautionary principle applies. If something has the potential to cause great harm, one shouldn't go ahead with it and sit back and wait for the link to be proved beyond all doubt. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to say that it is safe.

 

[story]

...which is why I spent money having my amalgams removed.

Really Jazz, it's almost as if you only ever skim read anything

 

[Jazzz]

oh well I say mercury fillings are evil.