Baratz and been discredited and humilated in court. He is frequently
the Butt
of jokes at alt.Misc.health. The fact that professionals are quoting
him as their
primary source shows whay low lying desparate scum they are. Lets see
what Baratz says:

Mercury is found in the earth's crust and is ubiquitous in the
environment. Thus, even without amalgam fillings, everyone has small
but measurable blood and urine levels. Amalgam fillings raise these
levels slightly, but this has no clinical significance.

LIE- the NEJM published this year that amalgam IS the largest source of
Hg
in humans.

The legal limit of safe mercury exposure for industrial workers is 50
micrograms per cubic meter of air for 8 hours per day and 50 weeks per
year. Exposure at this level will produce urine mercury levels of about
135 micrograms per liter. These levels are much higher than those in
the general public but produce no symptoms and are considered safe.

Most people without fillings have a maximum of 5-10 micrograms per
liter of urine. Most practicing dentists have levels below 10
micrograms per liter, even though they are exposed to mercury vapor
when placing or removing amalgam filings and typically have amalgams in
their own teeth. Thus, even with that exposure, the maximum levels
found in dentists are only twice those of their patients -- and most
dentists are have the same levels as most patients. These are far below
the levels known to affect health, even in a minor way.

Incorrect-Mats Berlin WHO expert states that, those with highest
amalgam exposure
have levels higher than that considered capable of provoking clinical
sypmtoms due
to Hg in an industrial setting. Furthermore urine tests have been
discredited as
reliable method for determining Hg load due to amalgam since for
example
most Hg from amlagam passes through feces not urine.To say that 135
ug/L
is safe is an outrageous statement. Consider that 10ug/deciliter of
lead
is considered harmful. Additionally it is likely that some % of Hg from
amlagam
is methylized which is even more (up to 1000 times) more toxic than
elemental
Hg. The ADA themselves admits that research in this area is lacking.

Notice how Baratz has adroitly avoided stating what the actual exposure
do to amalgam actually is while throwing around questionable facts to
distract the reader. That is because exposure due to a single filling
could
range (on average) between 1ug-15ug per day making amalgam the single
largest source of Hg in the human population.

Despite these facts, small percentages of dentists, physicians, and
chiropractors are advising patients to have their amalgam fillings
replaced with other materials. Their advice is typically accompanied by
one or more tests that are either misinterpreted or completely bogus.
These activities are the hallmarks of a scam.

Baratz knows what a scam is.

Breath Testing
Breath testing is done by asking the patient to chew gum vigorously for
several minutes and then probing the mouth with an industrial mercury
detector. These instruments measure changes in electrical conductivity
caused by absorption of mercury or other metals onto a gold foil film.
In the hands of anti-amalgam dentists, several factors combine to
produce falsely high readings.

This should be good:

Vigorous chewing provokes a release of detectable but tiny quantities
of mercury in the breath for a few minutes. Because people only chew
during a small part of the day, the resultant readings are much higher
than the average amounts released per 24 hours. The correct way to
quantify mercury release (or potential absorption) is to determine the
average amount over a 24-hour period.
The devices suck in the air so that any metallic vapor and various
other compounds are deposited on a gold film. The electrical resistance
of the film is measured and interpreted. The volume of the mouth is 100
to 200 cubic centimeters. The device is designed to measure a volume of
air several times the capacity of the mouth. When applied to the mouth,
it creates a vacuum that causes mercury to be released from the
fillings, leading the machine to give an artificially high reading.

IF a meter can SUCK that much Hg off a filling think what a little
galvanic corrosion can do!
Hey WB see-here is the answer to amalgam in a vacuum, what happens.

This reflects not only more mercury than would normally be present,
but also other substances (including copper, silver, tin, plastics,
foods, and gasses produced by bacteria), which also deposit on the film
and change its electrical resistance.

gases produced by bacteria, the same bacteria which can METHYlize
mercury.
Interesting how the "vacuum meter" also sucks copper and tin off the
filling. Is
this the same material the ADA refers to as a stable alloy?

Typically the patient is shown how high the needle has gone and told
that this number indicates mercury poisoning. Small errors in
measurement, or large errors produced by the multiple sampling of the
same volume, compound the problem.
To ensure accuracy, these machines should be calibrated by testing them
with standard concentrations of mercury. This is important because over
time, the build-up of substances on the gold film tends to raise the
readings. Anti-amalgam dentists almost never calibrate their equipment
to retain accuracy.
Urine Testing

Again Baratz avoids saying what the actual release of Hg from amalgam
is.

Because mercury is ubiquitous, the body reaches a steady state in which
tiny amounts are absorbed and excreted. Thus, it is common to find
mercury in people's urine. Mercury can also be found in the blood,
because this is the major medium for transporting materials around the
body. Large-scale population studies have shown that the general
population has urine-mercury levels below 10 micrograms/liter.
Industrial workers, and dentists, who have regular exposure to mercury
vapor also have low values. Because urine-mercury levels represent the
chronic, steady state, exposure to the body of mercury, they are fairly
reliable indicators of past exposure,

A complete lie. In fact urine is a useless marker for past exposure
because Hg
is abosorbed directly into tissue and has a short half life in the
blood and urine.
Urine is also a poor indicator of current exposure in all but challenge
tests.

.

Urine mercury levels can be artificially raised by administering a
mercury scavenger (chelating agent) such as DMPS or DMSA, which collect
the small amounts of mercury from the body, concentrate them, and then
force them to be excreted. In other words, mercury that normally
recirculates within the body is now bound and excreted. The urine level
under such circumstances is artificially raised above the steady-state
level. A study of urine mercury levels in people given DMSA or a
placebo has found no association between the mercury levels and the
number of dental amalgam surfaces [1].

Challenge tests should be compared against other challenge tests.
Baratz is implying
that some dentists give challenge tests and compare them with levels
used in
plain urine testting. While wrong, that does not meant that challenge
testing
is not a usefull tool. It is the condisered the gold standard among
toxicologists
and is the only accepted method of measurement in Europe ( I
understand).
Baratz would prefer that the public come away with the impression that
correctly
done challenge testing is wrong so he can rely on meaningless plain
urine and blood
testing. The reason challenge testing is effective is because it does
measure body
burden which can't be measured in urine testing.

The use of a chelating agent before testing should be considered a
scam. Anyone told that a urine-mercury level produced after taking DMPS
represents a toxic state is being misled.

Tell that to Europe and the toxicology community. NO competent tester
would use
a challenge test to imply that those levels are representative of the
patients normal
urine Hg levels. What is considerd toxic in challenge testing is much
higher than
what is considered toxic during normal testing.

Blood Testing
Mercury is excreted by the kidneys, which filter the blood. The mercury
levels of blood are lower than those of urine and therefore more
difficult to detect. For this reason, blood testing for mercury is not
commonly done. Even at high levels of mercury exposure, industrial
workers show blood concentrations in the parts-per-billion range,
typically less than 5 parts per billion.

Exactly BOTH blood and urine are unreliable for the same reasons. The
level in blood
and urine is not necessarily reflective of exposure. HALF the truth
comes tumbling out.

These are close to the limits of detection. In this range, the amounts
are too small to identify the type of mercury or its source. Urine
mercury testing gives a more meaningful picture of exposure and is also
more accurate because the mercury is more concentrated.

Hogwash. They both suffer from the same problems.

Skin Testing
Skin testing for allergies is both an art and a science. Correct
concentrations of a suspected offender must be correctly applied and
interpreted. To be valid, patch testing must be done by a qualified
tester using appropriate controls. Mercury patch testing is usually
done with corrosive mercury salts that cause the skin to redden and
possibly swell. Even very dilute concentrations can cause redness [2].
Anti-amalgamists misinterpret these signs of irritation as allergy or
toxicity. So-called "positive" tests indicate only that the body can
detect the substance. True allergy to mercury is very rare. Its
symptoms are like those of any other allergy and include itching,
rashes, and swelling. Allergic responses do not include "brain fog,"
forgetfulness, or other nonspecific symptoms. Moreover, sensitivity to
mercury might be the result of exposure to mercury from other sources,
such as certain vaccine preparations, preservatives in cosmetics, or
foods (most notably fish).

Patch testing is a debateable issue.

Stool Testing

No stool test for mercury has been standardized. Fecal mercury levels
are not an accurate indicator of mercury exposure. The amount found in
stool reflects the amount eaten and not absorbed plus anything excreted
in the stool.

Listen carefully. The amount not absorbed, but not the amount you are
exposed to.
Baratz and the ADA play a game of not telling you how much Hg actually
comes
off the filling and pretending that the amount THEY calculate you
absorb through
convulated assumptions is the amount you are exposed too. If its in the
stool
you where not exposed to it. Labeling stool testing as inaccurate and
urine testing
as accurate for determine amalgam Hg exposure is pure fraud.

Stool patterns (frequency, consistency, volume, and density) vary
widely from person to person, and thus, the amount of mercury found in
stool would be very hard to translate into to body burden, body stores,
or excretion.

And yet somehow urine testing DOES translate to body burden. See the
two faced
deception. They don't want you to know that many people sh.t out 150ug
per day
from their fillings!

Only about 5-10% of ionic mercury (the kind associated with most
alleged poisonings) is absorbed from the gut.

Huh? Ionic mercury. How many types of mercury does an amalgam give off.

The main route of mercury excretion is through the kidneys into the
urine, and not into the stool.

Right, mercury measured in the stool wasn't abosrbed, therefore we
don't have to
count in in our caluculations. WRONG!.

What is the correlation between the amount absorbed and the amount in
the
urine? Really  None. A cleverly convenient, self serving and baseless
assumption
repeatedly made Baratz and the ADA. For example do you think that that
Hg
which comes off the top of a filling and goes into your brain inches
awaythrough
the BBB is measured accuratley in the urine. How about that which is
abosorbed in
the gum tissue and jawbone and even later methylized. This applies to
their
"preferred" path of travel through the gut, where they conveintly
determine
how much is absorbed through the gut (virtually none) and how much
of that is excreted in the urine ( nearly 100% according to them).
Virtuall none is breathed in because according to the ADA, most are
nose breathers. That which is, again conviently appears 100% in the
urine
where it is easily measurable according to BARATZ.

Further, to make an analysis, ionic mercury must be separated from any
organic mercury that occurs in foods, which is difficult to do. Thus,
at best, a stool test might indicate that mercury entered the
gastrointestinal tract, but it could not provide an accurate
measurement of either exposure or what was absorbed into the body.

Back to the trickery of using convulted assumptions to determine how
much was
absorbed and avoid telling you who much Hg is given off by an amalgam.
you the
consumer don't need to know that.

Hair Analysis
Hair mercury levels are not an accurate indicator of mercury exposure.
Hair testing has never been standardized to provide meaningful
information. In fact, it cannot be standardized because:

Ahh, but they are good for methyl exposure. How much amalgam Hg can be
methylized
and how reliable is urine testing for measuring that?

Traces of everything eaten, imbibed, or breathed can end up in the
hair. While hair analysis may be of use for detecting substances --
such as arsenic -- that are not part of the normal environment, mercury
is ubiquitous and is normally found in the hair, whether the person has
mercury fillings or not.

What a load of bull. I'll leave it to the reader to determine why.

It gets there from food, water, and air.
Mercury can be accurately measured in blood and also in urine, which is
a distillate of the blood serum.

Baratz just said blood was no good for measuring Hg burden. Did he
change his mind?
No study has established urine or blood testing as reliable for
determining body burden.

How good is urine at measuring methyl Hg? What studies has the ADA done
to
determine the ceiling on the amount of methyl Hg produced on the
surface of amalgam
or through action in the gut in those most exosed?

Hair is similar to the outer layer of the skin and has no blood
supply. Thus the amount of mercury in hair does not reflect the
concentration in the rest of the body.

The EPA uses hair testing for both Arsenic and mercury.

Measurements of blood and urine from thousands of people have never
shown high levels of mercury in the general population.

Now he's lying all out. Several recent peer reviewed abstract posted on
this group
prove otherwise (just from amalgam). The EPA themselves says that 1 in
10 has elevated levels from all sources.

Only workers with high work exposure have shown abnormal levels in
blood and urine, but these are not in the toxic range.

Really, no workers ever had toxic levels. No wonder Baratz was exposed
as a fraud.
Those dentists who post him as a reference are also frauds.

Electrodermal Testing
Some practitioners use quack diagnostic devices that are said to detect
"electromagnetic imbalances." One wire from the device goes to a brass
cylinder covered by moist gauze, which the patient holds in one hand. A
second wire is connected to a probe, which the operator touches to
various points inside the mouth. This completes a low-voltage circuit,
and the device registers the flow of current, which the operator
misinterprets as abnormal.

He may have a point here.

Probert, in your two aliases (soxypoo and yoyobon) you've used 6 o's
and 3 y's
I guess that's because you like yo yo's, you are one! Ha Ha!

Another fact you may like to have is that the average person inhales 12
cubic meters of air per day. That would equal an occupational exposure
of 12 X 25 = 300 micrograms Hg/cubic meter of air/day.
Dr. Jorge Bonilla

To late, already posioned by dentist like you. Hg once absorbed stays
there.
PS- I hope your not FAWKs using an alias. You sound a lot alike.

Probert, you lying little piece of sh.t. If I ever meet you on the
street I'm
going to kick you butt. I hope YOU get a life and use your real name
from
now on. I apologize to any dentist for thinking that this conviently
misinformed
lying, spineless, sniveling twit was representative of their views!

This is from Mark Probert.

His brain is slipping and he is exposing himself as a liar once again.

Saying he doesn't post from AOL.

net!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!postnews.google.com!f14g2
000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail

OrgName:    Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems)
OrgID:      OPTO
Address:    111 new south RD
City:       Hicksville
StateProv:  NY
PostalCode: 11801
Country:    US

Makes sense. thanks for the headsup. Who would post such
a detailed question on christmas anyway. Perhaps this
Mark Probert and Ted Nidiffer should see a psychiatrist.

I see that Jan Drew had nothing better to do on Christmas day other
than to start trouble.

What an insane need to get attention!

http://james.drew.wasarrested.com/S-IN/Bloomington/prostitute/M