Partial Bans of amalgam 2

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

clintonz@prodigy.net - 17 Feb 2005 04:49 GMT

> > http://www.dentalmaterial.gov.se/Mercury.pdf

> > I've also already posted cases of elevated exposure in peer
> > reviewed journals. 100ug easy.

> So now you've backed off the 500ug claim, and have retreated to a 100

> claim? Of course, even those studies show 100 ug as being the

absolute

> upper limit. But in how many individuals did the uptake reach 100

ug? What

> was different about those folks? Did they have a large serving of

swordfish

> during the study and didn't tell anyone?

I started a new thread because the old one is getting too long.

I haven't backed off the 500ug claim, that was actually quoted
and referenced by a Bernie windham. The tubigen study which
I also posted and had 20,000 participants shows ranges from
2-3ug up to 1000ug.

That 100ug was supposedly associated with that particular WHO study,
but I have no idea wha their methods where or how large the sample size

was. That was not from Fish but attributed to amalgam.
Cm'on.

Keep in mind also that as you pointed out it would be very unlikely to

sustain a 500ug release. therefore if 1/500 had such an Hg emisssion
for 6 months what are the chances of picking it up,
even in a study of 1000?

Did they using bleaching gels

> during the study? What caused the higher uptake in some individuals?

> that a sustained exposure? For how many continuous days?

> These are important questions, because even at the maximum uptake of

100ug,

> a person is just barely exceeding the safe exposure level set by the

WHO

.

But if 1% of that is methylized that could be the equivalent
of 1000ug.

> BTW--I especially liked these points from the article you cited

(speaking of

> the 1997 risk analysis):
> "No known epidemiological population study has demonstrated any

> adverse health effects in amalgam bearers. "

Did you read the update?

> "There are no scientific grounds for assuming that the prevalence of

> clinically demonstrable effects of mercury exposure from dental

amalgam

> exceeds 10 per cent. "

10% is expendable

> The problem with the folks on your side is that you cite several

dozen

> studies to support your claims, but then parse the data so that only

the

> supportative data is mentioned in your arguments. For

don't accuse others of what you do. Its bad form.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

example,when talking

> about mercury and Alzheimers, the study that you referenced had this

very

> important statement:
> "The mercury concentrations

> were more than twice as high in the Alzheimer.s patients as in both

the

> control

> groups."

> That's the soundbite that will show up on all of Jan's links. I

wonder if

> those links will also include the following continuation of that same

study:

> "Nevertheless, no association was found between elevated mercury

> concentrations and the presence of amalgam fillings" (Hock et al.

1998

).

That is odd. No one argues that amalgam is the largest source
of Hg. I don't know what caused that.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> The more I read from the link you cited, the more I start to wonder

if you

> really read the report before you posted it. Did you catch this

part:

> "The fact that a person feels ill as a result of amalgam fillings may

be due

> to

> various factors. It may be because the person perceives a connection

between

> the symptoms and the oral cavity, or that the symptoms are connected

with a

> dentist.s manipulations. Alternatively, amalgam may be perceived as

> explanation for malaise of a different origin, if a credible

explanation is

> sought. "

> (that sure sounds like they're talking about you, jan, and a lot of

other

> folks here)

> The sad part about the report is that it ignores the many studies

(like the

> Hock study) that said "no association was found between elevated

mercury

> concentrations and the presence of amalgam fillings".

You can't seriously be saying that's true. NO one argues
amalgam is the #1 of source of Hg.

> The report states that mercury is bad. (well, no kidding). The

report

> states that most of the studies failed to find a direct correlation

between

> amalgam and specific diseases.

You forgot that the report says not many studies had been
done and that the subclinical effects are difficult to
measure. Remember how no one had "proved" cigarettes where
harmful for years.

But then the report makes a huge leap of

> faith and states that since amalgams contain mercury, they should not

> used...even though many of the studies found no association between

elevated

> mercury concentrations and the presence of amalgam fillings.

The report quotes animal studies where specific mechanisms
of toxicity where shown at the level given off by amalgams,
especially in genetically suseptable populations.

also blood levels of Hg are not a reliable indicator of
amalgam Hg release, much of the research is old.

If the best argument you have is that amalgam is not
the largest source of Hg in the population your a fool
or a propagandist.

I suggest everyone who reads this read the full report. Then they
can see what a bunch of garbage your above analysis is.

Reply to this Message

jdrew63929@aol.com - 17 Feb 2005 05:35 GMT

> > > http://www.dentalmaterial.gov.se/Mercury.pdf
>
[quoted text clipped - 175 lines]
> I suggest everyone who reads this read the full report. Then they
> can see what a bunch of garbage your above analysis is.

Everyone who is HONEST.

Sadly the liars, lie for and with the rest of the liars.

*gang* behavior.

Wonder why they can't post one single study showing amalgams to be
safe?

Wonder what the FDA has never aprroved amalgams?

Jan

Reply to this Message