Are we being poisoned by our dental work?

I have heard scare stories for some time now about the toxicity of mercury, yet we are still allowing dentists to put this stuff in our mouths.

www.dentalwellness.net...

Should we all be having our mercury removed?

If we did, would there not then be a problem of a huge pile of toxic waste?

I have had all my lead turned into gold fillings..
But more scary to me is that when you get fillings, there are/can be small monitoring??? devices inserted..Beware of your dentist, some are in the "know"..about ops projects..

I heard about a woman that had headaches and tremors for years and she realized the mercury from her fillings was leaking into the bloodstream.

I had some filling put in earlier today. The bastards better not have put any mercury in there.

I don't think I have mercury in my teeth....I guess we don't allow that here in the Netherlands...

That's scary stuff though...

I have a few fillings with mercury in it, you can tell by their silver color...
I am very upset, because denstist never informed me of this..
There is a law in California, where doctors are actually required to inform the patient and get permission before putting in mercury filling. I think this law shold apply to every state.

I would encrouge to take the actual heavy metal test and know it for certain if you are being poisoned or not. There is a test kit offered by greenpeace, [ google: green peace mercury test ]
for 25$ using your hair. I'm sure there are other vendors offering such tests, however this is the cheapest one i found, therefore i'm posting it.

I'm yet to receive my results.. I will update you when i get them :]

I am more worried about coal powered energy plants.. I think that is the main source of mercury in our body, as it is in the air, and in the form that is easiily absorbed by the body.







[edit on 6-11-2005 by psilocin]

Hello

I appreciate that this thread 'died' about a month ago, but I new to this site and have been trawling through all the old topics because I find this place fascinating!

I'm a dentist from the UK, who is requalifying in North America. I'd just like to observe that amalgam has been used for 150 years + and that there have been billions of restorations placed without any evidence of there being any problems. Amalgams are cheap, strong and more importantly from my point of view, last without rotting in a few years. I'd be more worried about a dentist putting a 'technique-sensitive' composite (white filling) in one of my back teeth than an amalgam - get it wrong and you're looking at causing quite a few problems with recurrent decay, sensitivity and pulp death.

I also get quite cynical about a few dentists who make pretty good money taking out acceptable amalgams from healthy people and slapping in 'white fillings' at a healthy profit. I've seen a few people who have had pretty severe problems caused by this approach - the lady that sticks in my mind most was a lady with MS who had been convinced by 'junk science' sites on the web that her condition had been caused by amalgams; had them all out, composites and glass ionomers placed, and *bang* - she still had MS, but six months later also had toothache because quite a few of them were failing. Nightmare to treat and quite upsetting for everyone.

Here's a good site with some referenced articles. Assuming I can post the link properly. Here goes.

quackwatch.org...

Anyway. Sorry for the rant. I appreciate that no-one is going to read this, but I feel better for getting it off my chest!

Cheers and have a good 2006!

Taupe

Scarey thing is Doctors and Dental professionals are a type of secret society. Look at the medical logo

Snakes
images.google.com...

Hey Magnito

The snake thing harks back to Classical Times - here's the Wikipedia link.

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't know about Secret Societies - the GDC and GMC (General Medical and General Dental Councils) certainly used to work as Old Boys Clubs, which were more concerned with protecting their members than patients. The GMC got into some serious trouble over Harold Shipman (mass-mudering GP in the UK). To be fair, they have both had to re-organize themselves and I believe that lay members make up more of the councils than healthcare professionals these days.

Don't ask me about North Americans I haven't got a clue!

Cheers

Taupe

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
I'm a dentist from the UK, who is requalifying in North America. I'd just like to observe that amalgam has been used for 150 years + and that there have been billions of restorations placed without any evidence of there being any problems.

So you have never noticed that some of your patients may have psychological problems? [Do shrinks and dentists swap notes?] Psychiatry is a very young science.. most causes of mental illness are still unknown. Mercury poisoning would rarely be assumed to be anything other than a mental illness [possible fatigue syndrome] as it effects the 'mysterious' brain.. given 1/4 people have mental illness of some kind.. where isn't the evidence? How can you be certain that people who have been diagnosed with mental illness haven't got mercury poisoning causing it? Perhaps what is accepted to be 'safe' amounts' should be re-evaluated.

Here's a good site with some referenced articles. Assuming I can post the link properly. Here goes.

quackwatch.org...

Anyway. Sorry for the rant. I appreciate that no-one is going to read this, but I feel better for getting it off my chest!

I read some of it but wasn't overly convinced as it begins sounding like damage control.

Mercury is a component of the amalgam used for "silver" fillings. The other major ingredients are silver, tin, copper, and zinc. When mixed, these elements bond to form a strong, stable substance. The difference between bound and unbound chemicals can be illustrated by a simple analogy. Elemental hydrogen is an explosive gas. Elemental oxygen is a gas that supports combustion. When combined, however, they form water, which has neither of these effects. Amalgam's ingredients are tightly bonded to each other. Although the types of chemical bonds in water and amalgam differ, saying that amalgam will poison you is just as wrong as saying that drinking water will make you explode and burst into flames.

Aside from the bad analogy.. if this were a fact there would be no vapour and no such thing as fillings crumbling after several years. There would be also no detectable presence of mercury from the fillings if they were so 'bonded'.

Some studies have shown that the problems patients attribute to amalgam restorations are psychosomatic in nature and have been exacerbated greatly by information from the media or from a dentist

He's now saying people imagine their symptoms?

According to Huggins, "sensitive" individuals can develop emotional problems (depression, anxiety, irritability), neurological disorders (facial twitches, muscle spasms, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis), cardiovascular problems (unexplained rapid heart rate, unidentified chest pains), collagen diseases (arthritis, scleroderma, lupus erythematosus), allergies, digestive problems (ulcers, regional ileitis), and immunologic disorders (which he claims include leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, and mononucleosis). He recommends replacing mercury fillings with other materials and taking vitamins and other supplements to prevent trouble following amalgam removal.

Some 'sensitive individuals' instantly become autistic after having vaccines containing mercury and many of those symptoms listed are symptoms of mercury poisoning. There has been a definite connection made with autism and the vaccines.. [of course the vaccines apparently have 'low' levels in the as well ] this research is issue is also relatively new so it is too early to be dismissing concerns. Now.. given that they don't know much about the brain and how it can be effected by toxins.. no matter how 'miniscule' [eg. if you have a severe peanut allergy.. a miniscule amount will still kill you] -taking the risk for everybody and trying to talk them out of removal based on 'not sure but' is irresponsible.

Anti-amalgam dentists typically use a mercury vapor analyzer to convince patients that "detoxification," is needed. To use the device, the dentist asks the patient to chew vigorously for ten minutes, which may generate tiny amounts of mercury from the fillings. Although this exposure lasts for just a few seconds and most of the mercury will be exhaled rather than absorbed by the body,

The guy did not explain why most of it would be exhaled. Typically.. when you chew something, any vapours etc would end up mixing with the saliva. There is no reason to assume that it wouldn't be absorbed by the body, saliva, the skin in the mouth and the nasal passages etc. I completly agree that there are alot of scam artists around taking advantage of people with health problems.. if there are people with absolutely no health problems they'd be no reason to take them out anyway. I personally have to get mine replaced [they're falling apart] but as I have got an auto immune disease, have psychogical allergies to certain chemicals [anxiety, hyperativity, insomnia, depression... even the smell of petrol at a gas station knocks me around] I'd rather be on the 'safer' side as there is no clear way of knowing whether or not the fillings are compouding the problems. I will get a test but.. again if I have an allergy to it, it won't matter how much is in my system.

[edit on 28-12-2005 by riley]

Hey. I'm trying to quote you back in my reply, but this is first time I've used this reply option, so excuse any confusion.....

*********
So you have never noticed that some of your patients may have psychological problems? [Do shrinks and dentists swap notes?] Psychiatry is a very young science.. most causes of mental illness are still unknown. Mercury poisoning would rarely be assumed to be anything other than a mental illness [possible fatigue syndrome] as it effects the 'mysterious' brain.. given 1/4 people have mental illness of some kind.. where isn't the evidence? How can you be certain that people who have been diagnosed with mental illness haven't got mercury poisoning causing it? Perhaps what is accepted to be 'safe' amounts' should be re-evaluated.
************

Hello Riley

Yup. Have definitely seen patients with psychological problems - it's something you try and notice *before* you do any treatment. You also get a pretty extensive grounding in the physiology and pharmacology of mental illness. Just as you say - it's not something that is completely understood. I'd simply argue that mental illness has existed before amalgams and will exist after amalgams. You don't see lower rates of mental illness in 'mercury-free' countries, such as Sweden or Germany. You also don't see higher rates of mental illness in 'mercury-rich' countries such as Japan. All I am saying is that a 'cause and effect' should be scientifically established before you consign a very successful material to the dustbin and replace it with inferior products.

People get more mercury in their system from eating tuna, to be honest. I think all the article has been trying to point out, and as most reputable organisations would agree, their is no real evidence linking amalgam restorations to anything other than long-lasting restorations!

I don't even see where the 'motive' is for dental organisations to try and debunk the amalgam conspiracy theory, other than a dislike of junk science and scare stories. You get paid about three times as much to put a white filling in a tooth as you do for an amalgam. And they have to be replaced more frequently. So if I was being a cynic here, I'd be bang alongside the concept of 'mercury-free dentistry' because it would double my income.

*******
Aside from the bad analogy.. if this were a fact there would be no vapour and no such thing as fillings crumbling after several years. There would be also no detectable presence of mercury from the fillings if they were so 'bonded'.

Some studies have shown that the problems patients attribute to amalgam restorations are psychosomatic in nature and have been exacerbated greatly by information from the media or from a dentist

He's now saying people imagine their symptoms?
***********

I don't think anyone is saying that there isn't a trace of mercury released from these restorations. On the other hand, it's not at a level that is going to cause grief. I hate to go back to the seafood analogy, but there you have it - if you want to reduce your mercury levels, stop eating tuna! You'll get far more from that than you'll ever get from an amalgam restoration.

In terms of the 'psychosomatic' point - I would certainly argue that you get people blaming horrible, distressing, conditions, such as M.S. on 'amalgam restorations', based, basically, on charlatans who can make any statement they want on the internet without having to back things up. I don't think he was saying people 'imagined' their conditions, rather that they were clutching at straws for an explanation and resolution.

*******
Some 'sensitive individuals' instantly become autistic after having vaccines containing mercury and many of those symptoms listed are symptoms of mercury poisoning. There has been a definite connection made with autism and the vaccines..
**********

I would take issue strongly with the vaccine and autism issue. I think that Andrew Wakefield's studies in The Lancet on autism and MMR vaccination have been pretty much discredited, and the last reputable study (out of Finland, I think) on a link between autism and vaccination showed absolutely no link. This is a whole other topic, but the real tragedy of the 'autism and vaccination' issue is that children in developed countries have died from measles because their parents have failed to vaccinate them with MMR on the basis of bad science and media hysteria.

************
[of course the vaccines apparently have 'low' levels in the as well ] this research is issue is also relatively new so it is too early to be dismissing concerns. Now.. given that they don't know much about the brain and how it can be effected by toxins.. no matter how 'miniscule' [eg. if you have a severe peanut allergy.. a miniscule amount will still kill you] -taking the risk for everybody and trying to talk them out of removal based on 'not sure but' is irresponsible.
***************

I would definitely argue it is irresponsible to stop vaccinating populations on the basis of poor science. I don't think the 'allergy' analogy is a fair one, unless you are saying that mercury causes a massive anaphylaxis. Which it doesn't. (whoops, typo!)

The only thing that has been proven by vaccination is that vaccinated children don't get measles, mumps, rubella, TB, polio or smallpox anymore. Which means you have a lower infant mortality and morbidity as a result. At a population level it works, as anybody who is old enough to remember the days *before* vaccination will tell you.

************
The guy did not explain why most of it would be exhaled. Typically.. when you chew something, any vapours etc would end up mixing with the saliva. There is no reason to assume that it wouldn't be absorbed by the body, saliva, the skin in the mouth and the nasal passages etc. I completly agree that there are alot of scam artists around taking advantage of people with health problems.. if there are people with absolutely no health problems they'd be no reason to take them out anyway. I personally have to get mine replaced [they're falling apart] but as I have got an auto immune disease, have psychogical allergies to certain chemicals [anxiety, hyperativity, insomnia, depression... even the smell of petrol at a gas station knocks me around] I'd rather be on the 'safer' side as there is no clear way of knowing whether or not the fillings are compouding the problems. I will get a test but.. again if I have an allergy to it, it won't matter how much is in my system.
****************

I think the point was that the levels are really insignificant clinically. And I think that taking out fillings because someone has 'health problems' will only guarantee that they get their fillings replaced. And won't sort out any health problems.

As I said, there is no financial reason why any dentist should defend amalgam. It's far more lucrative to put in composites. It's simply the BS associated with the whole 'amalgam toxicity' thing that irritates me.

If it's any consolation, long-term, amalgams are getting replaced by composites because people don't want to show metal in their mouths any more. It's still a better material, but then again, the customer is king, eh?

I give it about five years before some enterprising journalist starts writing about the 'oestrogenic' properties in composites and then people can start moaning about that instead. You want to find to find 'nasties', start looking at the ingredients of composities and glass ionomers. )

Cheers

TD

[edit on 28-12-2005 by riley]

[edit on 28-12-2005 by TaupeDragon]

Oh well. Give me 6 months and I'll work out how to sort out he 'quote' option too

I have Mercury in my teeth.....Look at the bright side.......I can always tell what temperature it is.....

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Oh well. Give me 6 months and I'll work out how to sort out he 'quote' option too

I would give up TD, once people on this site get a idea in there head, you cant change what they think. Sometimes it makes me laugh to see people clutching at straws.

Originally posted by CyberWasp
I have Mercury in my teeth.....Look at the bright side.......I can always tell what temperature it is.....

Boom Boom!

Actually, I was wondering how I could back up the 'Tuna is more dangerous that amalgam fillings line. So here goes:

The latest copy of Alpha Omegan (dental magazine, not an secret society, although with a name like that they're asking for trouble)

1-2 micrograms/ADULT released on chewing per day - which is apparently much lower than the threshold for hazard to health from air/mercury exposure.

The following is taken from:

www.pbs.org...


***********************************************************************
So exactly how much mercury a 45 lb. child would ingest by eating one 6 ounce can of tuna per week, and how does that compare to the EPA's reference dose? Take a look at the following calculations:

Step 1 - DETERMINE EPA's RECOMMENDED LEVEL FOR A 45 LB CHILD

* Multiply child's body weight by EPA's reference dose.
* Convert 45 pounds to kilograms = 20.45 kilograms
* 20.45 kilograms x .1 micrograms per kilogram per day

EPA RECOMMENDED LEVEL = 2.05 micrograms per day = 14.35 micrograms per week.

Step 2 - HOW MUCH MERCURY IS IN 6 OUNCES OF CHUNK WHITE TUNA?

* Multiply amount of fish by average mercury level for chunk white albacore.
* Convert 6 ounces to grams = 170 grams 170 grams X .31 ppm (or micrograms per gram)**

MERCURY INGESTED = 52.7 micrograms per gram

Step 3 – COMPARE MERCURY INGESTED WITH EPA'S RECOMMENDED LEVEL

* Divide 52.7 micrograms by 14.35 micrograms = 3.7

BY EATING 6 OUNCES OF CHUNK WHITE TUNA A WEEK, THE CHILD IS INGESTING ALMOST FOUR TIMES EPA'S RECOMMENDED DOSE
**********************************************************************

So there.

Cheers TD

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Hey. I'm trying to quote you back in my reply, but this is first time I've used this reply option, so excuse any confusion.....

..swap ( for [

(quote) blablabla (/quote)

Yup. Have definitely seen patients with psychological problems - it's something you try and notice *before* you do any treatment. You also get a pretty extensive grounding in the physiology and pharmacology of mental illness. Just as you say - it's not something that is completely understood.

It usually takes a qualified psychiartist several sessions to establish what kind of mental illness some one has.. they may not even have one and may be just 'different'. Unless you've been given the info, or you personally know the person in a situation where you are not about to inflict a whole lot of pain on them I don't see how you can make an objective assessment.

I'd simply argue that mental illness has existed before amalgams and will exist after amalgams.

I believe psychiatry only became a medicine after amalgams were in use [ie.they were still doing labotomies in the 70s]. There is nothing previous to compare stats with [other than studying the history of 'mad hatters' specifically]. Regardless.. until more is known about the causes of mental illness and disorders.. there is no way to be sure what present triggers may ore may not be.

You don't see lower rates of mental illness in 'mercury-free' countries, such as Sweden or Germany. You also don't see higher rates of mental illness in 'mercury-rich' countries such as Japan.

I don't see this because I have not got the information.. has this been studied? Have you got a source?

All I am saying is that a 'cause and effect' should be scientifically established before you consign a very successful material to the dustbin and replace it with inferior products.

There is a huge question mark regarding what levels of mercury are safe, if there is doubt it should be addressed fully and not put to chance.

People get more mercury in their system from eating tuna, to be honest.

As you have shown.. it can also be dangerous. I rarely eat fish.. [once every few years] for some reason it makes me anxious, irritable and dizzy for three days afterwards. The fact that tuna can have high levels of mercury does not somehow make fillings safer.

I think all the article has been trying to point out, and as most reputable organisations would agree, their is no real evidence linking amalgam restorations to anything other than long-lasting restorations!

And what do you mean by 'reputable'? By who's standards? You have already dismissed information from other organisations that don't agree with your stance. Convenient.

I don't even see where the 'motive' is for dental organisations to try and debunk the amalgam conspiracy theory, other than a dislike of junk science and scare stories. You get paid about three times as much to put a white filling in a tooth as you do for an amalgam. And they have to be replaced more frequently. So if I was being a cynic here, I'd be bang alongside the concept of 'mercury-free dentistry' because it would double my income.

Being sued for malpractice for instance [no inferences] would be very expensive.. if it were ever found that silver filling were dangerous and dentists used them without warning their patients they would be legally liable. I think that qualifies as motive enough [you asked].

I don't think anyone is saying that there isn't a trace of mercury released from these restorations. On the other hand, it's not at a level that is going to cause grief.

Is Tuna safe or not? Again.. how does comparing levels of mercury in fish to fillings make fillings more safer? Are fillings approved by the FDA? Who measure and mixes the 'puttie'? Are they already measured or can the levels of mercury vary between dentists? Is this regulated?

I don't think he was saying people 'imagined' their conditions, rather that they were clutching at straws for an explanation and resolution.

Deluded then? Seems you do think they imagine it.

I would take issue strongly with the vaccine and autism issue.

Why? Are you an advocate for fillings or mercury in general?

I think that Andrew Wakefield's studies in The Lancet on autism and MMR vaccination have been pretty much discredited, and the last reputable study (out of Finland, I think) on a link between autism and vaccination showed absolutely no link.

Speaking of links.. care to provide one? The Wakefield study was fairly extensive and professional.. who discredited it? How are these finland guys more reputable?

This is a whole other topic, but the real tragedy of the 'autism and vaccination' issue is that children in developed countries have died from measles because their parents have failed to vaccinate them with MMR on the basis of bad science and media hysteria.

There have been hundreds of cases where kids have had seizures and rashes within 24 hours of vaccinations.. then have developed autism. If you look at the autism sites it is a very common story.
In all honesty I'm finding it difficult to take your opinion seriously when you keep reffering to any studies where you do not agree with the conclusion as 'bad science'.. yet fail to give examples of 'good science'. It makes you come off as having an agenda.. especially given the bias of the 'quackwatch' link you provided.

I would definitely argue it is irresponsible to stop vaccinating populations on the basis of poor science.

They are phasing that preservative out. I'm fairly certain Mr Bush has also given companies immunity from being sued for injuries caused by vaccinations. Why would he do that if they are safe?

[edit on 6-1-2006 by riley]

Hello Riley

I am posting links in my short lunchbreak but I will try and respond in more detail this weekend.

Concerning mental illness - I am not sure that I have heard from anyone that amalgams cause mental illness. I have lots of other claims against them, but not that one. Here is a link to the best stats I could find off the top of my head (lies damn lies and statistics.....)

www.wrongdiagnosis.com...

Amalgams have been in use for about 150 years, and literally billions have been placed since that time - I appreciate that statistics are difficult to find but there is no evidence that they are causing mental health issues. I don't see what I could say to convince you that amalgams don't cause problems. It's kind of like asking me to disprove the existence of God!

I am not claiming to be a psychiatrist, simply that qualified dental professionals have a passing knowledge of common mental illnesses. I was specifically saying that you are taught to identify conditions such as schizophrenia *before* commencing any treatment.

I know you made a statement about pharmacology and the treatment of mental illness - I am aware that that psychotherapeutics are becoming more common in the treatment of mental disorders, but I would disagree with you on the timescales. Phenothiazines have been around since at least the 1950s, and barbiturates probably just before that.


Here's a link about MMR, which Wakefield caused all the trouble about:

www.cochrane.org...

Here's a link to the Editorial in The Lancet that brought up the conflicts of interest that Andrew Wakefield had, and the problems with his research and conclusions (may have to register - it's free)

www.thelancet.com...

I'm running out of time!
***********************************************************
And what do you mean by 'reputable'? By who's standards? You have already dismissed information from other organisations that don't agree with your stance. Convenient.

***********************************************************

I mean, reputable as making statements based on sound scientifically conducted studies. I'll chase them up for you when I get a chance - over the weeked, or hopefully this evening, even.

What I am saying is the evidence against amalgam restorations in light of the (sorry to repeat myself) billions placed is scant. The evidence that they are cheap, strong and safe is overwhelming. And I'll provide you with some links this evening.

Here's a few to be going on with:

www.dentalwatch.org...

www.quackwatch.org...


I really have to run! The only statement you made I would strongly object to is this one:
*************************************************************
Deluded then? Seems you do think they imagine it.

************************************************************

If you read my original post, I have NEVER accused anyone of being deluded. I believe I mentioned that people who suffer from terrible conditions like MS on look for causes (perfectly reasonable). I saw a lady once who had all her (acceptable) amalgams removed (not ones I had placed) and had composites placed which were failing, necessitating a lot of work to sort out the pain and infection. She thought the amalgams were to root of her disease - someone had made a lot of money putting in 'mercury fillings'. SHe still had MS, only now she also had tootache.

I have to run! It's a very interesting topic and I look forward to corresponding with you! - hopefully more this evening

TD

OK...please excuse the disjointed nature of my reply, take this as a continuation of my last post, although hopefully with better organisation, and correct use of the quote function!

It usually takes a qualified psychiartist several sessions to establish what kind of mental illness some one has.. they may not even have one and may be just 'different'. Unless you've been given the info, or you personally know the person in a situation where you are not about to inflict a whole lot of pain on them I don't see how you can make an objective assessment.

I believe psychiatry only became a medicine after amalgams were in use [ie.they were still doing labotomies in the 70s]. There is nothing previous to compare stats with [other than studying the history of 'mad hatters' specifically]. Regardless.. until more is known about the causes of mental illness and disorders.. there is no way to be sure what present triggers may ore may not be

I think I answered some of that in the post above. I am not claiming to be a pyschiatrist, I was saying that I can probably recognize a few common conditions, often helped by the medications being taken.

Not really disagreeing with you on the progression on the treatment of psychiatric illness and the increased used of pyschotherapeutics, apart from maybe putting the time scale back a few decades to the 40's-50's (see above).

These are the conditions are I am aware anti-amalgam people blame amalgam for:

Kidney damage
MS
Alzheimers
CV problems
immunosuppression
Antibiotic Resistance
vague 'amalgam illness'

They're all addressed in (referenced detail) here:

dentalwatch.org...

The 'mental illness' thing isn't one I've really heard of, although it is refuted here, again with references:


dentalwatch.org...

I don't see this because I have not got the information.. has this been studied? Have you got a source?

This is quoting you quoting me (!) on rates of mental illness. I tried to give the best figure I could quickly find in my last post. I don't think there is a huge difference in the rates of mental illness between comparable nations.

To bring this back to your point - you could argue that mental illness is going to be very multifactorial. Do you have any evidence to prove that the removal of amalgam restorations contributes to mental health, or conversely, that the placement of amalgam restorations is detrimental to mental health.

I would argue that the burden of evidence would be for anti-amalgamists to find some (any!) reliable evidence that amalgam causes mental disorders before it should be banned.

I apologize if I am hammering on about mental health - the way I am reading your post is that you were of the opinion that there is some sort of link. If this is not the case, then I apologize now.

There is a huge question mark regarding what levels of mercury are safe, if there is doubt it should be addressed fully and not put to chance.

I don't think anyone is complacent about mercury, as the health and safety legislation for dental offices shows. I would again fall back on the fact that in the 150 years that amalgam has been in use for billions of restorations, we are not seeing a human race that is becoming sicker and dying earlier.

Here is another referenced link to my favourite site about the amalgams you have in your mouth and the amount of mercury that gets released:

dentalwatch.org...

SERIOUS point now. You are saying that amalgam restorations should be replaced (or never put in in the first place) with some sort of 'bio-friendly' material. Where is the (peer-reviewed and referenced) evidence to support doing this? Where is the evidence that the 'bio-friendly' materials are any good in posterior teeth compared to amalgam. I am going to quote this article:

***********************************************************
Journal of Dentistry
Volume 31, Issue 6 , August 2003, Pages 395-405

J. -P. Van Nieuwenhuysen, , a, W. D'Hooreb, J. Carvalhoa and V. Qvistc


Conclusion. Within the limits of the study the data support the view that extensive amalgam restorations but not composite resin restorations can be used as an appropriate alternative to crowns, with due consideration to the longevity of the restorations.
***********************************************************

I can get to it online, and you should be able to do the same via Pubmed, I hope - but the article may need you to 'subscribe' to the publisher.

To risk sounding like a cracked record - you are asking me to throw a safe and effective material in the bin and replace it with an inferior material.

Where's the evidence?

As you have shown.. it can also be dangerous. I rarely eat fish.. [once every few years] for some reason it makes me anxious, irritable and dizzy for three days afterwards. The fact that tuna can have high levels of mercury does not somehow make fillings safer. !

I actually don't think eating fish is massively dangerous (although frankly I don't like Tuna). I was simply trying to make the point (badly) that if people *want* to pick a fight, could they please do so with the fising industry and not dentists, thanks very much, because their product contains more of the stuff than our product!

And what do you mean by 'reputable'? By who's standards? You have already dismissed information from other organisations that don't agree with your stance. Convenient.

Pretty sure I posted above concerning this, but what I mean by this is: referenced, peer-reviewed, well-designed study, significant numbers of subjects, adequate time, appropriate measurement techniques and claims appropriate to the study.

It's not convenient at all, in fact it's a complete pain in the backside, because it means that a lot of stuff published in good journals isn't of sufficient quality to draw conclusions (case reports, for example are notoriously unreliable as a guide to clinical practice). There is an increasing trend to follow evidence-based practice, admittedly about 20 years after the medics started it, but nevertheless, better late than never.....

www.nature.com...

Being sued for malpractice for instance [no inferences] would be very expensive.. if it were ever found that silver filling were dangerous and dentists used them without warning their patients they would be legally liable. I think that qualifies as motive enough [you asked].

Right. I've got to go again. Will try and address this issue and the stuff below when I get back.

Cheers!

TD

I don't think anyone is saying that there isn't a trace of mercury released from these restorations. On the other hand, it's not at a level that is going to cause grief.

Is Tuna safe or not? Again.. how does comparing levels of mercury in fish to fillings make fillings more safer? Are fillings approved by the FDA? Who measure and mixes the 'puttie'? Are they already measured or can the levels of mercury vary between dentists? Is this regulated?

I don't think he was saying people 'imagined' their conditions, rather that they were clutching at straws for an explanation and resolution.

Deluded then? Seems you do think they imagine it.

I would take issue strongly with the vaccine and autism issue.

Why? Are you an advocate for fillings or mercury in general?

I think that Andrew Wakefield's studies in The Lancet on autism and MMR vaccination have been pretty much discredited, and the last reputable study (out of Finland, I think) on a link between autism and vaccination showed absolutely no link.

Speaking of links.. care to provide one? The Wakefield study was fairly extensive and professional.. who discredited it? How are these finland guys more reputable?

This is a whole other topic, but the real tragedy of the 'autism and vaccination' issue is that children in developed countries have died from measles because their parents have failed to vaccinate them with MMR on the basis of bad science and media hysteria.

There have been hundreds of cases where kids have had seizures and rashes within 24 hours of vaccinations.. then have developed autism. If you look at the autism sites it is a very common story.
In all honesty I'm finding it difficult to take your opinion seriously when you keep reffering to any studies where you do not agree with the conclusion as 'bad science'.. yet fail to give examples of 'good science'. It makes you come off as having an agenda.. especially given the bias of the 'quackwatch' link you provided.

I would definitely argue it is irresponsible to stop vaccinating populations on the basis of poor science.

They are phasing that preservative out. I'm fairly certain Mr Bush has also given companies immunity from being sued for injuries caused by vaccinations. Why would he do that if they are safe?

[edit on 6-1-2006 by riley]

Originally posted by picklewalsh

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Oh well. Give me 6 months and I'll work out how to sort out he 'quote' option too

I would give up TD, once people on this site get a idea in there head, you cant change what they think. Sometimes it makes me laugh to see people clutching at straws.

NO SURRENDER!

Final post and I'm going home! Apologies again for the disjointed nature of this reply.

Being sued for malpractice for instance [no inferences] would be very expensive.. if it were ever found that silver filling were dangerous and dentists used them without warning their patients they would be legally liable. I think that qualifies as motive enough [you asked].

Have never been sued, don't ever want to be! Please note that you can't practice without insurance, so even if you were awarded against, it's not like you're paying for it out of your own pocket.

There are many things I worry about at night, but getting sued for using an amalgam isn't one of them! If you were likely to be awarded against, it would be based on:

1 reasonable practice (traditionally)
2 evidence base (probably the way of the future)

Show me the successful class actions! *Any* evidence and you'd have lawyers salivating at prospect of a bumper payout. Like I said, not something that worries me.

All you can do is give the patient a reasonable (evidence-based) opinion on the relative merits and demerits of amalgam and tooth-coloured materials. And then let the patient make up his/her own mind.

Is Tuna safe or not? Again.. how does comparing levels of mercury in fish to fillings make fillings more safer? Are fillings approved by the FDA? Who measure and mixes the 'puttie'? Are they already measured or can the levels of mercury vary between dentists? Is this regulated?

Don't ask me about Tuna, it's not my field of expertise I was being mischevious, as I said before - people should be worried about the higher mercury levels in tuna than in dental amalgams.

Don't ask me about the FDA, I certainly know in Europe all medical products need to have some sort of CE certificate and stamp so that they contain what they are supposed to contain in the amount they say they do. I would imagine someone checks on this.

The 'putty' is encapsulated (pre-set quantities in a hard plastic shell) and auto-mixed in a machine for a set time. Keeps the mix consistent and means your 'mercury' hygiene is scrupulous.

Regulation? Again, don't ask me about North America, in the UK, you'll rely on the CE stamp of manufacturer and also the fact that NHS Boards and Authorities do 'practice inspections' to make sure you are doing things to an acceptable standard. If you love legislation and paperwork then practice management is the place for you - probably more important than the dentist!

I don't think he was saying people 'imagined' their conditions, rather that they were clutching at straws for an explanation and resolution.

Deluded then? Seems you do think they imagine it.

I think I said before this was the only thing that wound me up a little. Deluded isn't a good word, and certainly not one that I ever used.

Desperate to find out what the 'cause' of their distressing condition is, and often being misled to believe that amalgam is the root of all evil with disastrous results in terms of their dental health. See one of my last posts.

Why? Are you an advocate for fillings or mercury in general?

OK, I'll hold my hands up on that one. I don't see the point of thiomersal in vaccines, because there are other preservatives, and indeed our son got the thiomersal-free form of DTP. He also got MMR and various other vaccinations.

HOWEVER, MMR doesn't contain *any* thiomersal:

www.who.int...

And I was specifically having a 'pop' at Andrew Wakefield, whose MMR 'work' has led to a big upsurge in measles mumps and rubella in the UK on pretty poor science.

Not an 'advocate' for anything, I just don't like people being influenced by quackery.

I think that Andrew Wakefield's studies in The Lancet on autism and MMR vaccination have been pretty much discredited, and the last reputable study (out of Finland, I think) on a link between autism and vaccination showed absolutely no link.

Speaking of links.. care to provide one? The Wakefield study was fairly extensive and professional.. who discredited it? How are these finland guys more reputable?

The Finnish guys looked about about 500,000 MMR cases. I think Wakefield looked at a couple of dozen. They also didn't have a 'perceived conflict of interest' - see the Lancet retraction.

Here it is:
************************************************************
Pediatrics. 2002 Nov;110(5):957-63. Related Articles, Links

Comment in:
Pediatrics. 2003 Jul;112(1 Pt 1):206.

Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination.

Makela A, Nuorti JP, Peltola H.

Hospital for Children and Adolescents, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.

OBJECTIVE: The possibility of adverse neurologic events has fueled much concern about the safety of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccinations. The available evidence concerning several of the postulated complications is controversial. The aim of this study was to assess whether an association prevails between MMR vaccination and encephalitis, aseptic meningitis, and autism. METHODS: A retrospective study based on linkage of individual MMR vaccination data with a hospital discharge register was conducted among 535 544 1- to 7-year-old children who were vaccinated between November 1982 and June 1986 in Finland. For encephalitis and aseptic meningitis, the numbers of events observed within a 3-month risk interval after vaccination were compared with the expected numbers estimated on the basis of occurrence of encephalitis and aseptic meningitis during the subsequent 3-month intervals. Changes in the overall number of hospitalizations for autism after vaccination throughout the study period were searched for. In addition, hospitalizations because of inflammatory bowel diseases were checked for the children with autism. RESULTS: Of the 535 544 children who were vaccinated, 199 were hospitalized for encephalitis, 161 for aseptic meningitis, and 352 for autistic disorders. In 9 children with encephalitis and 10 with meningitis, the disease developed within 3 months of vaccination, revealing no increased occurrence within this designated risk period. We detected no clustering of hospitalizations for autism after vaccination. None of the autistic children made hospital visits for inflammatory bowel diseases. CONCLUSIONS: We did not identify any association between MMR vaccination and encephalitis, aseptic meningitis, or autism.

************************************************************

Vaccination isn't my field of expertise, but when the Lancet issues a retraction of Wakefield's work there are serious problems.

Here are a few more links, I dug up from PubMed, although you may have to subcribe to read them in full. Here goes. I have put the PMID no. on the article to make it easier to find.

I don't like 'cutting and pasting, but if some people may not be able to access PubMed, or indeed the links from Pubmed.
************************************************************
The Lancet Infectious DiseasesVolume 5, Issue 1 , January 2005, Pages 2-3

Informed choice, balance, and the MMR–autism saga

DrC Paddy Farringtona, , and Elizabeth Millerb

aDepartment of Statistics, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
bImmunisation Department, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Health Protection Agency, London, UK
************************************************************
1: Drug Saf. 2004;27(12):831-40. Related Articles, Links


MMR vaccination and autism : what is the evidence for a causal association?

Madsen KM, Vestergaard M.

Department of Epidemiology and Social Medicine, The Danish Epidemiology Science Centre, Aarhus, Denmark. [email protected]

It has been suggested that vaccination with the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism. The wide-scale use of the MMR vaccine has been reported to coincide with the apparent increase in the incidence of autism. Case reports have described children who developed signs of both developmental regression and gastrointestinal symptoms shortly after MMR vaccination.A review of the literature revealed no convincing scientific evidence to support a causal relationship between the use of MMR vaccines and autism. No primate models exist to support the hypothesis. The biological plausibility remains questionable and there is a sound body of epidemiological evidence to refute the hypothesis. The hypothesis has been subjected to critical evaluation in many different ways, using techniques from molecular biology to population-based epidemiology, and with a vast number of independent researchers involved, none of which has been able to corroborate the hypothesis.


PMID: 15366972 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
***********************************************************
Pediatrics. 2001 May;107(5):E84. Related Articles, Links


Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autistic spectrum disorder: report from the New Challenges in Childhood Immunizations Conference convened in Oak Brook, Illinois, June 12-13, 2000.

Halsey NA, Hyman SL; Conference Writing Panel.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the possible association with MMR vaccine has received much public and political attention and there are many who have derived their own conclusions based on personal experiences, the available evidence does not support the hypothesis that MMR vaccine causes autism or associated disorders or IBD. Separate administration of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines to children provides no benefit over administration of the combination MMR vaccine and would result in delayed or missed immunizations. Pediatricians need to work with families to ensure that children are protected early in the second year of life from these preventable diseases. Continued scientific efforts need to be directed to the identification of the causes of ASD
************************************************************

This is a whole other topic, but the real tragedy of the 'autism and vaccination' issue is that children in developed countries have died from measles because their parents have failed to vaccinate them with MMR on the basis of bad science and media hysteria.

There have been hundreds of cases where kids have had seizures and rashes within 24 hours of vaccinations.. then have developed autism. If you look at the autism sites it is a very common story.

I really don't want to get into an argument about vaccinations, all I can say is I am guided by what I perceive to be reliable evidence, rather than individual case reports. On the basis of reliable evidence I had my son vaccinated because the risk of measles mumps or rubella is far greater than any (dubious) link to autism.

In all honesty I'm finding it difficult to take your opinion seriously when you keep reffering to any studies where you do not agree with the conclusion as 'bad science'.. yet fail to give examples of 'good science'. It makes you come off as having an agenda.. especially given the bias of the 'quackwatch' link you provided.

I hope I have addressed some of your concerns, and I hope the Lancet article (? last post) and immediate ones above count as valid links. Having said that, vaccination is absolutely NOT something I am expert on, however as a parent in the UK in mid-2002, and with the mass hysteria over MMR I owed it to my son to try and be as informed as possible before allowing him to get his jab.

Don't have an agenda, honest, especially when it comes to vaccination. Base my opinions on the quality of the articles I read, especially if they come from Cochrane or peer-reviewed journals

As for amalgam restorations, I guess you're right - I do have an agenda. I like my patients' fillings to stay in and not rot. If I was being unethical, then I'd just slap in white fillings, because they cost three times as much and don't last as long!

OK. My brain hurts. Have a good evening!

TD

[edit on 6-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]

[edit on 6-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]

[edit on 6-1-2006 by TaupeDragon]