 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / March 2006Tissue mercury levels in relation to number of amalgams
"Total mercury levels were significantly higher in subjects with a greater number of occlusal amalgam surfaces (>12) compared with those with fewer occlusal amalgams (0-3) in all types of tissue (all P </= 0.04)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=16501347&query_hl=23&itool=pubmed_docsum Yeah Chuckster is right ..... the F.B.I. is investigating pizin ......  SignatureJoel344 >Joel344 wrote: > Yeah Chuckster is right ..... the F.B.I. is investigating pizin ...... > Joel344 Unfortunately for open minded, forward looking dental professionals, Joel is a babbling moron who represents them ever so poorly. Fortunately, for the mounting public who seek the truth, they see through him like a clean window. As one MD, who has been seeking treatment for his own debilitating, yet unknown, autoimmune illness told me... "I used to think that anyone who thought amalgam fillings could initiate or exacerbate illness were quacks" ... until he did independent research. Thankfully he is doing better. Keep up the great (contra) work Joel. If you had a clue you might see what a pathetic fool you are - mercury is not an essential nutrient (but a severely deleterious toxin) and should not be used for placement in the mouth as to add to systemic Hg body burden. CB Like I said, pizin is pizin ...... Chuck Wrote: > >Joel344 wrote: > > Yeah Chuckster is right ..... the F.B.I. is investigating pizi [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > as > to add to systemic Hg body burden. C -- Joel34 > Yeah Chuckster is right ..... the F.B.I. is investigating pizin ...... You don't work fo the F.B.I.? Then who gave you your liscence to "pizin" children? Although the study could have some merit, there's not much to go on as far as the abstract is concerned. What are the controlled factors in this study? How old were these people? What was the environment in which they lived? What was their diet? If you tell me, that other than their exposure to mercury from the amalgams, these people lived in bubbles and had no exposure to elemental mercury elsewhere (i.e. lead pipes carrying drinking water, lead paint exposure, urban living conditions when leaded gas was all the rage), then I'll listen. Until then that abstract has more holes than Swiss cheese. --Phil > "Total mercury levels were significantly higher in subjects with a > greater number of occlusal amalgam surfaces (>12) compared with those > with fewer occlusal amalgams (0-3) in all types of tissue (all P </= > 0.04)." > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=16501347&query_hl=23&itool=pubmed_docsum > Although the study could have some merit, there's not much to go on as far > as the abstract is concerned. What are the controlled factors in this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > --Phil Buckle up, and I would suggest padding a 2' X 2' area of the wall by the computer. Then it won't hurt so much when you bang your head on it. Been there done that. carabelli > > Although the study could have some merit, there's not much to go on as far > > as the abstract is concerned. What are the controlled factors in this > > study? How old were these people? What was the environment in which they > > lived? What was their diet? If you tell me, that other than their > > exposure to mercury from the amalgams, these people lived in bubbles and What is amazing is that dentists will claim that they "know" amalgam is safe because none of their patients "ever" had any toxic affects WITHOUT any testing, even while admitting that due to diet, environment, lead etc patients probably DiD have effects of toxiciy. The change in approach occurs, WHEN they try to discredit an autopsy study. So which is it? Are many of patients generally suffering from toxicity or heavy metals or not? If so, I would suggest your blank check on amalgam safety to be a fraud because I'm sure you never scientifically attempted to separate the effects of environment from amalgam. If not, then the above study clearly "proves" amalgam to be harmful! We agree. Amalgams in the blood is a serious condition. Joel Clinton Wrote: > > > Although the study could have some merit, there's not much to go o > as far [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > separate the effects of environment from amalgam. If not, then the > above study clearly "proves" amalgam to be harmful -- Joel34 Amalgam placement will always be an issue where each side is not likely to win the other over. I place amalgams and composites. I find both to be acceptable restorations. For those who have problems with the content of amalgams, fortunately these days you have options. But am I going to test all of my patients for mercury toxicity and try to narrow the controls so that their only exposure to mercury is from the fillings that I place. That would be ridiculous, and I think that you know that. We read the studies that are conducted and make our choices from those results. The abstract originally quoted proves nothing. --Phil > What is amazing is that dentists will claim that they "know" amalgam is > safe because none of their patients "ever" had any toxic affects [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > separate the effects of environment from amalgam. If not, then the > above study clearly "proves" amalgam to be harmful! > Amalgam placement will always be an issue where each side is not likely to > win the other over. I place amalgams and composites. I find both to be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > --Phil Sounds like "self rationalization", "Doctor Phil". Sorry I couldn't resist. Well you've admitted quite a lot actually and if you knew the intensity of some of these debates you probably wouldn't admit that there is no way to test your patients for toxicity. I certainly agree that it is not YOUR job to do all the science, but unless you can guarantee that no amalgam will corrode from a wet field or suffer from galvanism, crevice corrosion, etc (and knowing that amalgam is the largest source of hg). it is your responsability to inform the patient. Are you willing to guarantee every amalgam you place? No! If there was a case of possible/probable posioning you would "hide" behind the powerful (if arbitrary) standard of care defense and place the burden of proof on the poor patient. What can i say? >Although the study could have some merit... And the benefit of placing amalgams as to increase systemic mercury body burden (when other materials are available) is what? CB "And the benefit of placing amalgams as to increase systemic mercury body burden (when other materials are available) is what? CB" _________________________________ The main benefit in the patient's mind is the COST. Some people care more about their monetary cost than anything else. Amalgam is the cheapest dental restorative material. Anything else costs more. Since no dental material can even be placed without the patient's consent, the patient is in complete control of whether amalgam is used. Amalgams are only placed when the patients want them. I haven't placed one in years, because the patients I've seen since the late 1990's all want "white" fillings instead of dark metal. Legally, the choice is always up to the patient. - dentaldoc . > Since no dental material can even be placed without the patient's > consent, the patient is in complete control of whether amalgam is used. Gee, what is the obvious flaw in the above statement? However, you are right about one thing. Society as whole, endorses and allows amalgams to be used, Therefore blame for the use of amalgam by those who think it is unsafe cannot be placed soley on dentists. In fact the public is actually more to blame for the use of amalgam without informed consent than dentists. Chuck wrote: "And the benefit of placing amalgams as to increase systemic mercury body burden (when other materials are available) is what? CB" _________________________________ The main benefit in the patient's mind is the COST. Some people care more about their monetary cost than anything else. Amalgam is the cheapest dental restorative material. Anything else costs more. Since no dental material can even be placed without the patient's consent, the patient is in complete control of whether amalgam is used. Amalgams are only placed when the patients want them. I haven't placed one in years, because the patients I've seen since the late 1990's all want "white" fillings instead of dark metal. Legally, the choice is always up to the patient. - dentaldoc AND: It is YOUR responsibility to POST the risks or better yet have your patients' READ AND SIGN a consent form. Making sure they KNOW what is going in their mouth and the R I S K S! Do you do that Doc? "It is YOUR responsibility to POST the risks or better yet have your patients' READ AND SIGN a consent form. Making sure they KNOW what is going in their mouth and the R I S K S! Do you do that Doc?" ___________________________________ Of course I do. Every dentist in my state does exactly that. Is you memory that short? This was already discussed and posted, long ago. I'm surprised you might have forgotten this point. Since the profit is much higher for other materials, dentists have a great incentive to avoid amalgam and place other materials anyway. Patients in my state only receive amalgams when they CHOOSE it. But we don't want to stand in the way of patient choice, do we?? - dentaldoc Although the study could have some merit, there's not much to go on as far as the abstract is concerned. What are the controlled factors in this study? How old were these people? What was the environment in which they lived? What was their diet? If you tell me, that other than their exposure to mercury from the amalgams, these people lived in bubbles and had no exposure to elemental mercury elsewhere (i.e. lead pipes carrying drinking water, lead paint exposure, urban living conditions when leaded gas was all the rage), then I'll listen. Until then that abstract has more holes than Swiss cheese. --Phil I'll just bet it was the peas, Phil. As phased by Hans the *honest* dentist. You are of the *I-don't-want-to-be-informed-attitude*. Seafood fillings are loaded with mercury ...... -- Joel34 Chuck, how do we get the amalgams out of the blood ...? Any ideas? Joel Chuck Wrote: > "Total mercury levels were significantly higher in subjects with a > greater number of occlusal amalgam surfaces (>12) compared with those > with fewer occlusal amalgams (0-3) in all types of tissue (all P </= > 0.04)." > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=16501347&query_hl=23&itool=pubmed_docsu -- Joel34 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.