> > Similarly we don't question the underlying science of amalgam
> > because we are supposedly already given the "obvious" answer.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> threads that amalgam fillings don't affect the majority of people, but
> that there is a very small minority of people whom it does affect.
No I didn't say that.
I
> don't think any dentist would argue this fact.
> But it is also true that a very small minority of people have bad
> reactions to, say, resin fillings.
This is the small minority of people are allergic to reaction argument.
Truth is that some amalgams can corrode severly and have Hg from
them converted into more toxic methylated forms. There have been
1000's of adverse reaction reports and dozens of lawsuits. However it
is true most are only affected by lower doses of elemental Hg from
"typically behaved amalgam" and that is a whole nother topic.
> I'm not entirely sure what your aims are - are you trying to achieve a
> "ban on amalgams", or trying to warn people that amalgam fillings
> aren't tolerated well by a small minority of the population?
No. I have even posted research on the instabiilty of high copper
amalgams.
You don't undertand that the structue, corrosin release rate of an
amalgam
is highly variable, regardless of what the average rates are or the
standard
devation. For example in a letter published in Sweden or Norway to
the dental authorities in the 90's it was acknowledged that worse case
exposure from amalgam could be 300 times "safe levels" for elemental Hg
alone.
> the latter, there are already tons of websites on the subject available
> on the internet, and the amalgam "controversy" has a presence
> disproportional to the actual number of people affected.
That is debatable. Keep in mind that the biggest issue is "low-dose"
Hg exposure from amalgam. After all amalgam is now admitted to
be the largest source of elemental Hg. This literally affects billions
of people. "Who knows what the effect is?" -
>Posting
> this newsgroup is not going to have any measureable impact. In fact,
> I'd wager a bet that being swamped by anti-amalgam posts has the exact
> opposite effect on people who might otherwise be quite willing to take
> your message on board.
I agree that the anti-amalgamist message isn't presented in the most
favorable light always. Many people come here because they have
been poisoned and run into an iron wall of denial. It's the only place
they can hold dentists accountable except filing an expensive lawsuit.
(Keep in mind that if a well placed amalgam posions someone that
is considered legal because it is the "standard of care")
The reason some people continue to post is the reckless disinformation
and denial they find on this list.
> A lot of dentists, including many on this newsgroup, eschew amalgams
> for reasons other "toxicity" (e. g. environmental concerns, lack of
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> of a medical or psychiatric nature) who then attribute all their
> ailments to one perceived cause.
I think it would be a sad commentary on the intelligengence of most
people
if they could not separate out the arguments being made on both sides
and
all discussion had to be censored or "skewed" to the pro-amalgam side,
just
to prevent an anticipated action. One could justify invading a country
because of what may happen in the future, but is that rational?
Furthermore
the dentists are posting heavily skewed misinformation which is being
picked
up and repeated by people who trust they know what they are talking
about.
Anti-amalgamists will admit that most amalgams are not causing obvious
symptoms of toxicity, but the dentists never admit amalgam can severly
corrode or breakdown even when presented with 1000's of adverse
reaction
reports , lawsuits, bans. dozens of patient accounts on this group and
manufacturers admissions of amalgam instability on warning labels and
in court!
> Once the perceived cause is eliminated
> (e. g. amalgam fillings removed), they're fine for a while (the placebo
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> problems with attention for example could ostensibly be "caused" by
> amalgams).
I have said many times that removing amalgam will not "cure" chronic
diseases in most situations. However I really don't know what the
benifit
of amalgam removal is for most people anyway. I know someone who
was pro-amalgam and had a lot of amalgam crown buildup removed for
dental reasons that reported that was the first winter they hadn't
gotten
sick. I.e it is difficult to guage the subtle effects of Hg on things
like
the immune system even if amalgam removal is not a cure for a chronic
health problem.