Studies find dental amalgam has significant developmental effect on kids

[philb]

A group of German children with amalgam fillings had urine mercury level 4 times that of a control group without amalgams(76a), while a Canadian study found 3.2 times as much exposure in those with amalgam with adverse health effects(low weight and height)(76c), and in a Norwegian group with average age 12 there was a significant correlation between urine mercury level and number of amalgam fillings(167).

The CDC also found that amalgam is a significant factor in the level of mercury in children's urine(578) based on the large NHANES III epideological study.



(76c) Childhood urine mercury excretion: dental amalgam and fish consumption as exposure factors. Environ Res. 2004 Mar;94(3):283-90.

Levy M, Schwartz S, Dijak M, Weber JP, Tardif R, Rouah F.

Montreal Public Health Department, 1301 Sherbrooke Street East, Montreal, Canada H2L 1M3. [e-mail]

The authors investigated the effect of amalgam fillings and fish consumption on urine mercury level (UHg), in children aged 4-8 years old inclusive. Using a sample of 60 children, we found that children with amalgam fillings had significantly higher UHg levels than children without amalgams (geometric mean=1.412microg Hg/g versus 0.436 microg Hg/g, respectively, P = 0.0001). (3.2 times) Subjects with reported higher fish consumption also had significantly higher UHgs (P = 0.004). Univariate analyses provide evidence of an association between elevated UHg level and young age (P = 0.009), short height (P = 0.024), and low weight (P = 0.049) in children with amalgam chewing surfaces. We also found a negative correlation between urine mercury and age (-0.378), height (-0.418), and weight (-0.391). A multiple logistic regression model shows that the presence of amalgam fillings leads to increased odds of high UHg in children (OR=47.18), even after adjusting for high fish consumption (OR=8.66) and height (OR=11.36).


(76) A. Schulte et al, "Mercury Concentrations in Children with and without Amalgam Restorations", J.Dent Res 73(4): 980 A-334; & Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed, 1994,104(11):1336-40; & Pesch A et al, Mercury concentrations in urine, scalp hair, and saliva in children from Germany. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2002 Jul;12(4):252-258; &(b) Becker K, Seifert B. German Environmental Survey 1998 (GerES III): environmental pollutants in blood of the German population. Int J Hyg Environ Health 2002 May;205(4):297-308; & (c)Levy M, Schwartz S, Dijak M, Weber JP, Tardif R, Rouah F. Childhood urine mercury excretion: dental amalgam and fish consumption as exposure factors. Environ Res. 2004 Mar;94(3):283-90.

(167) M.L Olsted et al, “Correlation between amalgam restorations and mercury in urine”, J Dent Res, 66(6): 1179-1182,1987.



(578) Urinary mercury concentrations associated with dental restorations in adult women aged 16-49 years: United States, 1999-2000. Occup Environ Med. 2005 Jun;62(6):368-75. Dye BA, Schober SE, Dillon CF, Jones RL, Fryar C, McDowell M, Sinks TH.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD 20782, USA. [e-mail]

BACKGROUND: Mercury amalgam dental restorations have been used by dentists since the mid 19th century and issues on safety continue to be periodically debated within the scientific and public health communities. Previous studies have reported a positive association between urine mercury levels and the number of dental amalgams, but this relation has never been described in a nationally representative sample in the United States. AIMS AND METHODS: Using household interview, dietary interview, dental examination, and laboratory data from the 1999-2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the association between mercury concentrations and dental restorations was examined in US women of reproductive age. RESULTS: In women of childbearing age, approximately 13% of all posterior dental surfaces were restored with amalgams and the average urinary mercury level in women was low (1.34 microg/l). It is estimated that an increase of 1.8 microg/l in the log transformed values for mercury in urine would occur for each 10 dental surfaces restored with amalgam. CONCLUSIONS: Although the findings do not address the important issues of adverse health effects at low thresholds of mercury exposure, they do provide important reference data that should contribute significantly to the ongoing scientific and public health policy debate on the use of dental amalgams in the USA.

[RC]

1. It took 150 years to find this out? Sure it did.

There is Mercury in the air we breath, the ground we grow our crops in. They have been trying to blame teeth fillings for 50 over years.

One problem with the starting post. Mercury is not just Mercury. There are different forms. The Mercury in dental amalgam is a very stable form that does not leach out.

[philb]

2. You've been listening to quacks. amalgam is extremely unstable.

Anyone with amalgam is documented to get high exposure to mercury. Dental amalgam is by far the largest source of
mercury in those with mercury amalgam fillings. Its well documented those with amalgam have exposure levels 10 times
that of those without, on average. And for some 100 times as well. There's concensus on that in the medical literature, so
where do you get your info??

1. Dental amalgam is the largest source of mercury in most people who have amalgam fillings and exposure is commonly more than U.S. Gov't health standards (FS1)

2. Dental amalgam is often the largest source of methyl mercury in people who have amalgam fillings (FS1)

3. Prior to amalgam replacement, those with amalgam have average mercury levels in feces and saliva 10 times those without amalgam (FS1)

4. After amalgam replacement, mercury levels in feces and saliva decline by 90% while mercury in urine is reduced by an average of 75% (FS1)


FS1 http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html

Medical Study Abstracts- FS1
Dental amalgam fillings and the amount of organic mercury in human saliva. Caries Res. 2001 May-Jun;35(3):163-6.

Leistevuo J, Leistevuo T, Helenius H, Pyy L, Osterblad M, Huovinen P, Tenovuo J.

The National Public Health Institute, Antimicrobial Research Laboratory, Turku University, Turku, Finland.

We studied differences in the amounts of organic and inorganic mercury in saliva samples between amalgam and nonamalgam human study groups. The amount of organic and inorganic mercury in whole saliva was measured in 187 adult study subjects. The mercury contents were determined by cold-vapor atomic absorption spectrometry. The amount of organic and inorganic mercury in paraffin-stimulated saliva was significantly higher (p<0.001) in subjects with dental amalgam fillings (n = 88) compared to the nonamalgam study groups (n = 43 and n = 56): log(e) (organic mercury) was linearly related to log(e) (inorganic mercury, r(2) = 0.52). Spearman correlation coefficients of inorganic and organic mercury concentrations with the number of amalgam-filled tooth surfaces were 0.46 and 0.27, respectively.
In the study of a group with amalgams, a group without amalgams, and a group that had undergone amalgam replacement- using saliva mercury measurements, it was concluded that amalgam is the main source of organic mercury in most people. Those with amalgams on average had more than 4 times as much organic mercury as either group without amalgam. Those with amalgam had over 10 times the total mercury as those without. And mercury from fish was controlled for in the study and not a factor in these results. Our results are compatible with the hypothesis that amalgam fillings may be a continuous source of organic mercury, which is more toxic than inorganic mercury, and almost completely absorbed by the human intestine.

Exposure to methylmercury in non-fish-eating people in Sweden. Environ Res. 2004 Sep;96(1):28-33.
Lindberg A, Bjornberg KA, Vahter M, Berglund M.
Division of Metals and Health, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Box 210, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden.

The extensive use of fish meal as a source of protein for poultry and swine may lead to additional exposure to methylmercury (MeHg). We determined the concentration of MeHg and inorganic mercury (I-Hg) in blood and total mercury (T-Hg) in hair in 27 persons (9 men and 18 women, 20-58 years of age) who stated that they had consumed no fish for a period of 2 years or more. The participants answered a food frequency questionnaire and reported their number of dental amalgam fillings. The MeHg concentrations in blood (median, 0.10 microg/L; range, 0.0-1.0 microg/L) were very low and did not constitute a concern for health effects. We also analyzed selenium (Se) in serum. The median concentration was 76 microg/L (range, 53-103 microg/L), which is in agreement with previous studies of the Swedish general population, indicating that the Se status of non-fish-eating individuals is not substantially lower than that of people who include fish in their diet. We found a significant association (P=0.002) between the number of dental amalgam fillings and the I-Hg concentration in blood (median, 0.09 microg/L; range, 0.03-0.57 microg/L). The T-Hg in hair (median, 0.06 mg/kg; range, 0.04-0.32 mg/kg) was significantly associated (R2=0.89; P<0.001) with the MeHg in blood, but not with the I-Hg in blood. Therefore, the T-Hg in hair seems to reflect MeHg exposure and not I-Hg exposure even in persons with no intake of fish
Mercury in saliva and feces after removal of amalgam fillings.

Bjorkman L, Sandborgh-Englund G, Ekstrand J. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1997 May;144(1):156-62.

Department of Basic Oral Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

The toxicological consequences of exposure to mercury (Hg) from dental amalgam fillings is a matter of debate in several countries. The purpose of this study was to obtain data on Hg concentrations in saliva and feces before and after removal of dental amalgam fillings. In addition Hg concentrations in urine, blood, and plasma were determined. Ten subjects had all amalgam fillings removed at one dental session. Before removal, the median Hg concentration in feces was more than 10 times higher than in samples from an amalgam free reference group consisting of 10 individuals (2.7 vs 0.23 mumol Hg/kg dry weight, p < 0.001). A considerable increase of the Hg concentration in feces 2 days after amalgam removal (median 280 mumol Hg/kg dry weight) was followed by a significant decrease. Sixty days after removal the median Hg concentration was still slightly higher than in samples from the reference group(85% decline). In plasma, the median Hg concentration was 4 nmol/liter at baseline. Two days after removal the median Hg concentration in plasma was increased to 5 nmol/liter and declined subsequently to 1.3 nmol/liter by Day 60(65% decline). In saliva, there was an exponential decline in the Hg concentration during the first 2 weeks after amalgam removal (t 1/2 = 1.8 days). It was concluded that amalgam fillings are a significant source of Hg in saliva and feces. Hg levels in all media decrease considerably after amalgam removal..

Long-term mercury excretion in urine after removal of amalgam fillings.

Begerow J, Zander D, Freier I, Dunemann L.

Medizinisches Institut fur Umwelthygiene, Dusseldorf, Germany.

The long-term urinary mercury excretion was determined in 17 28- to 55-year-old persons before and at varying times (up to 14 months) after removal of all (4-24) dental amalgam fillings. Before removal the urinary mercury excretion correlated with the number of amalgam fillings. In the immediate post-removal phase (up to 6 days after removal) a mean increase of 30% was observed. Within 12 months the geometric mean of the mercury excretion was reduced by a factor of 5 from 1.44 micrograms/g (range: 0.57-4.38 micrograms/g) to 0.36 microgram/g (range: 0.13-0.88 microgram/g).
(75% decline)
After cessation of exposure to dental amalgam the mean half-life was 95 days. These results show that the release of mercury from dental amalgam contributes predominantly to the mercury exposure of non-occupationally exposed persons. The exposure from amalgam fillings thus exceeds the exposure from food, air and beverages. Within 12 months after removal of all amalgam fillings the participants showed substantially lower urinary mercury levels which were comparable to those found in subjects who have never had dental amalgam fillings

Doctor’s Data Lab http://www.doctorsdata.com/repository.asp?id=43

METALS mg/kg Reference RANGE 68th
Mercury <.05 w/o amalgams*
Mercury < .5 with amalgams*
Based on hundreds of thousands of tests in a medical lab, the average level of mercury in those with amalgam is 10 times that of the group without amalgam.

[RC]

5. I'll file this in the same folder that has the information that

drinking Lemonade will eat your teeth right our of your head because of it's high acid content. I've seen the pictures on the flyer's they used to pass out door to door when I was a kid. Not pretty.

Come to think of it, nothing was mentioned about orange juice. Hmmmm...

[philb]

16. These are peer-reviewed studies and medical lab tests; not opinion

You talk a lot but don't seem to be able to make a case to back up your talk.
Got any studies supporting your view? Any rational for problems with the peer-reviewed studies I posted?

I assume if there were any problems with the studies that comments would have been filed in the journal pointing out
the problems as that's what peer-review is all about. But by your comments it would appear you aren't a peer.

[philb]

25. As further documentation, note amalgam is largest source of methyl mercury

in those with amalgam; and those with amalgam have on average 4 times more methyl mercury than those without amalgam.
And note that there is a huge amount of documentation of the adverse effects of methyl mercury and a huge effort to
reduce exposure to methyl mercury from fish, etc.- which are much lesser sources than dental amalgam.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html

Wonder why that would be? the wonders of special interest with lots of money.


Is someone suggesting that methyl mercury doesn't have adverse effects at levels much higher than
one gets from fish that have a lot of mercury?

[FM Arouet666]

29. Wow, Philb what a response

When confronted by a skeptic you post even more data than in your original posts. I can't wait to see how you respond to my other posts. Probably a whole encyclopedia of data. Do you expect me, or anyone else, to wade through all this data.

Stop hiding behind nonsense. A large quantity of poor quality data does not support a conclusion. I have seen this method of argument many times before. X billion humans believe in god, or ghosts, or UFOs therefore it must be true. Your logic is flawed.

[philb]

3. These facts on mercury/amalgam are also documented by peer-reviewed medica

l studies- like the others. You apparently didn't notice that I cited peer-reviewed studies including some by the
U.S. Center for Disease Control(CDC) and U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances(ATSDR). Do you disagree with them?

Group with amalgam had feces level 13 times that of group w/o(80) Group with amalgam had feces level 10 times that of group w/o(79)
Group with amalgam had feces level 11 times that of group that had amalgam removed(80). Decline of 85% in 60 d after replacement(79,196)
Saliva levels declined over 90% within 2 weeks(79)
Urine hg levels declined 75% in one year(82,196)
Blood hg levels declined at least 60% after replacement(79,196)
Group with amalgam averaged over 1 ppm Hg in feces(over 130 ug/day)(80) (EPA health standard for water is 2 parts per billion)

Top 18% of group with amalgam had approx. 4 ppm Hg in feces (over 500 ug/d)(39 times the level of average person w/o)(80)
Some with amalgam had 10 ppm Hg in feces ( over 1000ug/d) 170 times the average of those w/o amalgam. (80)
Fecal excretions ranged up to 190 micrograms Hg/24 h(83,335) with average for Swedish adult of 32 ug/day and systemic uptake of 12 ug/d(83). Systemic uptake of worst case estimated as 70 ug/day(83,77).
Total excretion for average Swedish adult with 30 amalgam surfaces of 60 ug/day(77) . average oral hg = 22 ug/day(77)
Oral emission ranged up to 125 micrograms Hg/24 h(83,335)
urinary excretions ranged up to 19 micrograms Hg/24(83)
significant correlation between number of amalgam surfaces and urine Hg level(77,80,82,83,117) and saliva(117,580)
The average in those with amalgam was 4.5 times that of controls, and the average level of those with over 49 surfaces was over 8 times that of controls(49).
each ten-surface increase in amalgam exposure is associated with an increase of 1 microg/L mercury in urine concentration(49).
(National Istitute for Dental Research,49)

These exposure levels are hugely more than the ATSDR or EPA MRLs for mercury. (6 ug(micrograms per day)

references at end of http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/amalg6.html

[trotsky]

14. A question.

Why should anyone accept the peer-reviewed studies that you've cherry-picked, when you refuse to consider any peer-reviewed studies that contradict your claims?

[philb]

17. Show me one you consider valid that contradicts mine- I know you can't

I can't remember a credible study that you've ever produced that I haven't pointed out major problems with.
Do you think you know of one. I'd be interested to see it and discuss it.

[trotsky]

30. I've given you many.

But your definition of "credible" means "supports my views." You weasel out of honest discussion and consider only information that seems to support your preconceived views. That's not science, and that's not honest intellectual inquiry.

[philb]

23. Regarding cherry picking, would the ADA be an ok source for you?

They are a special interest organization that was organized for the purpose of promoting amalgam fillings.
But I'm willing to go by the science articles that they posted to the FDA Amalgam Docket 2 years ago as
a source of information. You can find all of their science articles at the following site- with some comments on
some of the poorer studies in their group of articles. But on balance I think you would agree that the ADA made a strong case
to ban amalgam.

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/adaabsr.html

But the doctors, dentists, and researchers who submitted science articles to the FDA made a much stronger and overwhelming case:

http://www.flcv.com/fdarev.html (note that the thousands of articles DAMS submitted were peer-reviewed; wonder why there weren't
thousands such on the other side submitted by ADA, researchers,etc.?)
http://www.flcv.com/fdarevl.html (all of the thousands of articles submitted to FDA- reviewed & compiled)

the articles are all available by CD ROM, which I have and anyone can get.

[trotsky]

31. Wait a minute, you've bashed everything I've shown you from the ADA.

Now you turn around and accept just the parts you think support your crusade?

Do you know what hypocrisy means?

[trotsky]

32. Yes, I'll accept the ADA.

As long as you do!

http://www.ada.org/public/media/releases/0412_release02.asp

CHICAGO , December 9, 2004—A review of seven years worth of scientific studies concludes there is insufficient evidence "of a link between dental mercury and health problems, except in rare instances of allergic reactions," according to a report released today by the Life Sciences Research Office, Inc. (LSRO) in Bethesda, MD.

[RedOnce]

4. According to this presentation titled

Mercury Toxicity And Its Relationship To Neurological Disease http://64.202.182.52/powerpoint/dan2003/Haley.htm

Autistic children have low mercury levels in their birth hair but high mercury body burdens. This leads to the conclusion that there is probably a subset of the population that cannot effectively excrete mercury.

Might explain why some people seem to be more affected than others?

[philb]

18. There are several well documented susceptablity factors

Dr. Haley is right; he's one of the leading researchers on mercury in U.S.

Its documented that those with APOE blood allel type 4 don't excrete toxic metals well and mercury,etc. accumulate-
its a factor in autism and ADHD,etc. for kids
and those with type 4 get ALS, Alzheimer's, MS, etc. in their 40s

APOE type 2s excrete mercury well- don't have as much problems with such chronic conditions.
Type 3s and in between- have one 2 and one 4.

But immune reactivity is a major susceptibility factor also. Large numbers are immune reactive to mercury, nickel, etc.

and autoimmune conditions are caused by chronic exposures to a toxic that one is immune reactive to. The body sends out immune cells to do battle with the toxic substance, which can't be defeated given the chronic exposure and the fact the immune system can't destroy mercury- but the immune system causes major damage to the person's body while continuously doing battle with the chronic toxic exposure- this is what happens in MS, Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Oral Lichen Planus, Diabetes, and other autoimmune conditions. And its easy to test for what the immune system is reacting to (for example: www.melisa.org)
and when you take away the toxic source the condition improves along with the test results- as documented in the medical literature and by lots of medical lab tests.


Mercury & autoimmune conditions/MS
Prochazkova J, Sterzl I, Kucerova H, Bartova J, Stejskal VD; The beneficial effect of amalgam replacement on health in patients with autoimmunity. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2004 Jun;25(3):211-8.

Results of lymphocyte reactivity measured with MELISA indicate that in vitro reactivity after the replacement of dental amalgam decreased significantly to inorganic mercury, silver, organic mercury and lead. Out of 35 patients, 25 patients (71%) showed improvement of health. The remaining patients exhibited either unchanged health (6 patients, 17%) or worsening of symptoms (4 patients, 11%). The highest rate of improvement was observed in patients with multiple sclerosis, the lowest rate was noted in patients with eczema

Mutter J, Daschner F, et al, Amalgam risk assessment with coverage of references up to 2005] , Gesundheitswesen. 2005 Mar;67(3):204-16.

(Medline)
Abstract
Dental Amalgam contributes substantially to human mercury load. Mercury accumulates in some organs, particularly in the brain, where it can bind to protein more tightly than other heavy metals (e. g. lead, cadmium). Therefore, the elimination half time is assumed to be up to 1 - 18 years in the brain and bones. Mercury is assumed to be one of the most toxic non-radioactive elements. There are pointers to show that mercury vapour is more neurotoxic than methyl-mercury in fish. Review of recent literature suggests that mercury from dental amalgam may lead to nephrotoxicity, neurobehavioural changes, autoimmunity, oxidative stress, autism, skin and mucosa alterations or non-specific symptoms and complaints. The development of Alzheimer's disease or multiple sclerosis has also been linked to low-dose mercury exposure. There may be individual genetical or acquired susceptibilities for negative effects from dental amalgam. Mercury levels in the blood, urine or other biomarkers do not reflect the mercury load in critical organs. Some studies regarding dental amalgam reveal substantial methodical flaws. Removal of dental amalgam leads to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials. Summing up, available data suggests that dental amalgam is an unsuitable material for medical, occupational and ecological reasons.

[trotsky]

6. What's missing from these excerpts...

is what the "normal" amount of mercury in the urine should be, and whether four times that is worthy of concern.

In addition, if the mercury is being excreted, then that's a good thing - it's not sticking around in the body to accumulate and actually do damage.

Do you have any links to the full studies?

[RedOnce]

7. Yes, excreting is good but...

excreting 4x a control group without amalgams is not good.

[trotsky]

8. On what do you base that?

I'm sincerely curious; we're all exposed to mercury even if we don't get shots, eat fish, or have fillings. What's safe and what's not?

[RedOnce]

9. What's safe and what's not? Excellent question!

This question cuts to the heart of the issue. Perhaps there is a safe level, perhaps not. I would love to know the answer.

However, I do not think that there is a rational argument for more mercury being better than less mercury. Please explain how it can be "good" for mercury to migrate from your mouth through your body and out your urethra at 4x the control group's rate.

[trotsky]

10. Well, for starters, I never made the claim that it was "good."

So that would be a red herring.

I do see that tactic a lot in here, though. Simply asking if something is as harmful as suggested is then turned around as an attack. Like asking if the mercury in fish is as dangerous as we've been told means that I want everyone to drink a glass of mercury - which really happened right here in this forum.

[RedOnce]

11. Sorry, I didn't mean to come off that way.

[trotsky]

12. That's OK, emotions run high in here.

There are lots of chemicals out there, lots of them are bad, and lots will be with us forever. I have never disputed any of that.

There are lots of examples of companies and governments that don't have best our interests at heart. I also do not dispute that at all.

These things create a good deal of anger and frustration, and I have been on the receiving end more times than I can count simply because I'm trying to approach the issues from a balanced position, which from someone from either end views as being closer to their opposition than to them.

[RedOnce]

13. A "balanced position" sounds good to me.

[philb]

22. I provide peer-review documentation for all I claim; and know there

is no credible documentation to the contrary.
Mercury is documented to be carried throughout the body by the blood and to all organs where it accumulates,
and mercury is documented in the medical literature to block or damage every basic enzymatic process of every organ at very low levels of exposure.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/amalg6.html
(cites over 4,000 peer-reviewed studies to this effect)

[FM Arouet666]

28. Stop hiding behind the "peer review" crap.

4,000 peer reviewed studies? If that is the case then why did the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) only review 175 studies and conclude; "no valid scientific evidence has shown that amalgams cause harm to patients with dental restorations, except in the rare case of allergy."

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html

Posting that you provide peer reviewed documentation means nothing. I write an article, give it to my friend Sam, for review, he say 'yeah, it looks good.' Great, I have a peer reviewed article.

You seem to have a penchant for the logical fallacy 'argumentum ad verecundiam.' A common fallacy, I have observed many times in support of alternative medicine. I recall a post claiming authority because the argument was supported by a German chemist who was nominated 5 or 6 times for a Nobel Prize. On closer look, I found that she was not nominated by anyone with credentials necessary for a legitimate nomination, in fact, she had once nominated herself.

[philb]

20. There are studies that document how much is absorbed of the various

types of mercury one is exposed to and that is excreted.

Mercury vapor in oral air from the continuously vaporizing amalgams is 80% absorbed into the blood.
About 80% of the methyl mercury in saliva from mercury vapor in the mouth converted to methyl mercury by mouth bacteria
or intestinal bacteria or yeast or etc. is also absorbed into the blood. Only 20% of elemental mercury particles from amalgams is absorbed, but there isn't much of this. Most of the exposure is from mercury vapor due to the continuous vaporization of mercury which is naturally a gas at room temperature, and from the continuous galvanic currents of the mixed metals in the mouth that pump mercury into the gums and oral mucosa- called amalgam tattos- most with amalgam have huge amounts in their gums, oral mucosa, jaw bone, blood vessels of the mouth, etc. and on to the rest of the body.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/galv.html

See Engqvist paper for the speciation, uptake and also several of the other papers that documented uptake.
They document that there is very high uptake daily among those with amalgam, and that its pumped mostly to the major organs-
brain, heart, liver, kidneys that get a lot of blood, where it accumulates over time and commonly causes chronic conditions in the long run. I've posted cites to autopsy studies documenting the high levels of mercury that accumulate in the major organs.
This is easy to confirm. The studies are readily available, and as I've noted- there have been millions of tests run by the various medial labs.

Note: the body of one with amalgam is constantly getting significant exposure that is distributed throughout the body, and much acculates in the major organs and hormone glands as I've noted(result:hypothyroidism,etc,) but the body is also constantly trying to
get rid of the mercury- with most of it excreted through the liver to the feces, and about 10% to urine, depending on form somewhat.
But over time the major organs accumulate more and more, and the liver and kidney detox systems are damaged more and more and
get rid of the mercury less effectively. I"ll post info from a major U.S. Gov't epidemeological study of 35,000 people that shows
what happens to people with amalgam in the long run- cancer, MS, neurological, immune, etc. NHANES III study

[philb]

19. I work for a state agency and see them at the state library and

the Univ. science library here; we can get them from the state library interloan system if not in state library.
Are you in a location that has a Science Library, they have many of the journals.

You can find these all in the National Library of Medicine Medline
and get them from them- but they charge something. http://www.nlm.nih.gov


But note that most countries have medical labs and there have been millions of tests done by the medical labs
and all are consistent with what I and the studies have stated.
You can find some of the documentation on the medical lab web sites; and I interact with the medical labs
to get additional info. They've compiled averages and reference levels, etc. on some of the test info I post.
If you are serious perhaps you could too.

[MrMonk]

15. A more accurate subject line

"Studies make no findings regarding effect developmental effects on kids"

From the study in the OP : " ... the findings do not address the important issues of adverse health effects at low thresholds of mercury exposure ..."

[philb]

21. The study clearly found developmental effects- low height & weight

which are also well documented in the medical literatue to be linked to other developemental problems.

But there are lots of other studies that document that millions of kids from the 90s have been affected by developmental conditions.
A National Academy of Sciences found that 50% of U.S. pregnancies resulted in birth defects, developmental conditions like autism, ADHD, mood disorders and anxiety disorders, eczema, asthma, and other chronic developmental conditions. I've posted the percentages before of the various types, they are also given in my paper. And it has been documented that virtually all of these were the results of toxic exposures, mostly toxic metals with mercury the largest problem.
http://www.flcv.com/tmlbn.html
http://www.flcv.com/kidshg.html
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/fetaln.html

hundreds of peer-reviewed studies cited, which are readily available from libraries or Medline.
There are lots of other studies that I could have pulled out of these review articles as specific cites or
I could post the abstracts.

but as I've noted, I'm really a researcher with credentials and could also find other such with credentials to lend support.
For example I just got an email from one the leading researchers on mercury in the U.S., Dr. Boyd Haley, Chair of the Dept. of Chemistry at Univ. of Kentucky- commenting on this information which I also sent him.

(): Excellent presentation. However, you should point out that not
one research article on dental amalgam is from the USA. Could it be that
the ADA and NIDCR suppress such research? Boyd Haley (Chair- D. of Chem, U of Kentucky)

(virtually all of the studies were from Europe or Canada where researchers and the Gov't are less controlled by special interests)

[MrMonk]

24. Nothing in your OP addresses developmental effects, including height/weigh

[philb]

33. I'm not sure what you mean? One of the studies I posted found

that mercury exposure is correlated to low weight and low height.
And there are other studies that link that to other developmental problems.
But the URLs I posted had hundreds of more medical studies that support similar

A National Academy of Sciences study documented that 50% of U.S. pregnancies in the 1990s resulted in
birth defects and developmental conditions such as autism, ADHD, learning disabilities, depression, anxiety, mood disorders,
eczema, asthma, chronic allergies, MD, cystic fibroisis, etc.

And it has also been documented by doctors and medical researchers that mercury and other toxic metals were the most commonly cause of all of these.
http://www.flcv.com/tmlbn.html
http://www.flcv.com/kidshg.html
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/fetaln.html

These review articles cite many hundreds of medical studies that go way beyond the article I originally posted.

And I've posted links to Medical Treatment Clinics that have documented successful treatment of thousands.
Such as http://www.flcv.com/autismc.html
They treat autism, ADHD, and lots more conditions and their web site documents not only that the kids recover after mercury detox
but provides documentation on the mechanisms by which mercury causes the conditions treated.

This is only one such. Other clinics are cited in my URLs and I could post links to their web sites.

[FM Arouet666]

27. Yeah, the Amalgam industry is a strong lobby in the U.S.

Push the mercury, kill all scientific inquiry for the bottom line.

Do you really believe that special interests are behind the lack of research in the U.S?

[FM Arouet666]

26. Stop with the shotgun approach.

Posting a barrage of data with links to other pages with a barrage of data does not support your position. At least not in the mind of anyone with more than the most basic of reasoning skills.

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html
http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/factsheets/amalgam.htm

You post a number of referenced scientific papers. Any links? No, instead you post email addresses, you have to be kidding?

You start with the NHANES III study which you allege states that mercury levels are high in children with amalgam fillings. Great, but the CDC site also includes the link above which does not support the conclusion you are supporting. Is your whole argument to be an exercise in 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc?'

Are amalgam fillings harmful? The correct answer, "At present, there is scant evidence that the health of the vast majority of people with amalgam is compromised, nor that removing amalgam fillings has a beneficial effect on health."

Does that mean amalgam is safe. No, but there is little evidence to support what you are posting as fact.

[philb]

34. I posted specific cites to 4000 peer-reviewed studies, not emails

and you obviously have read the research. As I've noted, my papers have been reviewed by leading researchers
and they document specifically the mechanisms by which mercury from amalgam causes over 30 chronic health conditions. I'm an expert witness and they've been submitted to Health Dept. and Dental Board Hearings, FDA, Courts, Legislative Committees, etc.
I haven't lost where I've personally appeared. They supported my position. No one has found a major problem with them that I'm aware of. I've posted some of the details of some of those before. If someone finds a problem with one of my papers or statements I'd be appreciative of feedback.

The stuies and medical lab tests document that those with several amalgams get mercury exposure on aveage 10 times that of those without, and amalgams are the largest source of both inorganic and methyl mercury in most. Do you disagree? Why?
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html

The studies document that large numbers are immune reactive to mercury and mercury is the major factor in large numbers with
autoimmune conditions like MS, Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis, OLP, CFS, FM, etc.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/ms.html
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/cfsfm.html
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/immunere.html
Do you disagree? why?

And that mercury changes cell wall permeabilities and blocks cellular metabolic processes and enzymatic processes and hormonal processes in all organs of the body at very low levels of exposure- below that of the high amalgam exposures. This is all documented in peer reviewed medical studies, abstracted in National Library of Medicine Medline and cited on the URLs I posted. (which are annotated bibliographies on both my web site and FDA web site)

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/amalg6.html (this is a review article citing over 4000 peer-reviewed medical studies)

(and summerizing what they say)

It also includes documentation of over 60,000 clinical cases of recovery from the over 30 chronic conditions that mercury is documented to cause; thousands of them by peer-reviewed studies; and the majority are seen to recover from many of these conditions.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/hgremove.html
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/hgrecovp.html

Since you don't seem interested enough to look at the studies- (I admit my papers are rather long in many cases and cite large numbers of studies(from over 20 years research), I'll post a couple of abstracts of peer-reviewed studies cited in the MS paper
at the URL I posted:
Mercury & autoimmune conditions/MS
Prochazkova J, Sterzl I, Kucerova H, Bartova J, Stejskal VD; The beneficial effect of amalgam replacement on health in patients with autoimmunity. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2004 Jun;25(3):211-8.

Results of lymphocyte reactivity measured with MELISA indicate that in vitro reactivity after the replacement of dental amalgam decreased significantly to inorganic mercury, silver, organic mercury and lead. Out of 35 patients, 25 patients (71%) showed improvement of health. The remaining patients exhibited either unchanged health (6 patients, 17%) or worsening of symptoms (4 patients, 11%). The highest rate of improvement was observed in patients with multiple sclerosis, the lowest rate was noted in patients with eczema

Mutter J, Daschner F, et al, Amalgam risk assessment with coverage of references up to 2005] , Gesundheitswesen. 2005 Mar;67(3):204-16.

(Medline)
Abstract
Dental Amalgam contributes substantially to human mercury load. Mercury accumulates in some organs, particularly in the brain, where it can bind to protein more tightly than other heavy metals (e. g. lead, cadmium). Therefore, the elimination half time is assumed to be up to 1 - 18 years in the brain and bones. Mercury is assumed to be one of the most toxic non-radioactive elements. There are pointers to show that mercury vapour is more neurotoxic than methyl-mercury in fish. Review of recent literature suggests that mercury from dental amalgam may lead to nephrotoxicity, neurobehavioural changes, autoimmunity, oxidative stress, autism, skin and mucosa alterations or non-specific symptoms and complaints. The development of Alzheimer's disease or multiple sclerosis has also been linked to low-dose mercury exposure. There may be individual genetical or acquired susceptibilities for negative effects from dental amalgam. Mercury levels in the blood, urine or other biomarkers do not reflect the mercury load in critical organs. Some studies regarding dental amalgam reveal substantial methodical flaws. Removal of dental amalgam leads to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials. Summing up, available data suggests that dental amalgam is an unsuitable material for medical, occupational and ecological reasons.

[trotsky]

35. Why do we need to bother?

You dismiss ANYTHING that opposes you, declaring (with no evidence, of course) that everyone who feels amalgam is a safe and effective substance for dental work is part of a universal conspiracy to... what? Poison ALL Americans, including themselves and their families? :eyes:

The question you keep repeating, yet keep ignoring any answer to, is:

Do you disagree? Why?

We disagree because YOU haven't proven your case to any of the most knowledgable people in this area. The FDA, the CDC, and ADA all continue to confirm that amalgam does NOT cause every disease known to man (as you seem to insist). The pattern in your papers is to point out just how dangerous mercury can be (which of course isn't disputed) but then you LEAP to assume that having amalgam fillings is just the same as, oh I don't know, probably taking a bath in a pool of mercury and swallowing a gallon of it.

Convince the experts, and maybe we'll take you seriously.

[Celebration]

36. my mouth is full of them

I would rather not have them but they are there and I am not particularly tempted to have them taken out. However, I am not sure why we should trust the FDA on this any more than we can trust the EPA on air quality at the WTC site after Sept.11!! "Experts" in the USA are often industry apologists.......

Furthermore, (and I am no "expert" in this) it seems that most European countries HAVE outlawed amalgam fillings. So their experts come to different conclusions than our experts. Now why would I trust their experts just a bit more? Hmmmmmm.

[trotsky]

37. What kind of statement is that?

Furthermore, (and I am no "expert" in this) it seems that most European countries HAVE outlawed amalgam fillings.

It "seems" that way? Either they have, or they haven't. Either you know, or you don't. Please don't spread misinformation like this - you're fear-mongering. Last I heard, the EU had considered a ban but it was dismissed for lack of evidence suggesting dental amalgam was harmful.

You're also bordering on libel accusing US experts. Back up what you say.

I'm willing to trust our experts because they and their families have amalgam in their mouths, too. Ask yourself, are they THAT willing to be "apologists" that they'll poison themselves and their children intentionally?

[beam me up scottie]

38. I have yet to see philb answer that question.

It's easier and more effective to ignore it and continue with the propaganda.

Perhaps they'll be satisfied with banning all vaccinations, dental work, science based medicine and drugs.

Yeah, we'll go back to the dark ages, after all, the posers and snake oil salesmen saved so many lives back then.


Why can't the conspiroids give up modern medicine and leave the rest of us alone?

[Celebration]

39. funny

Libel, heh heh. Against the government agency that approved Vioxx and tried to cover up for Merck on its relationship to heart problems............people would still be dying but for David Graham. Sorry they cannot be relied upon to pass judgment on the safety of ANYTHING. How do you know they have amalgam fillings? Back up what you say. Hahaha.

You ignore the fact that I am being poisoned with my amalgam fillings willingly-- since I'm not going to take them out.

So the Shrub and the twins have to breathe the air with mercury in it like the rest of us but he STILL loosens emissions requirements. So much for that argument. Profits are more important than health.

[beam me up scottie]

40. The "fact" that you are being poisoned?

Since when is that a fact?

Playing fast and loose with vocabulary is what this administration does best.

Let's try not to emulate them, 'kay?

[Celebration]

41. "Poisoned"

When answering someone I generally try to use the same wording as the person that posted--perhaps both of us should have put poisoned in quotations. I wouldn't be surprised if these amalgams were actually poisoning me--but it wouldn't be a fact until I had tests run.........I really hate dental procedures, though, so I think I would rather be clueless on this one--sans any major symptoms.

[trotsky]

42. So, you admit your statement about European countries was a lie.

Or at least just talking outta your ass, yes?

One pattern that keeps coming back in discussions with "traditional" medicine haters - why can't there be some kind of middle ground? Why is it either that someone has to believe that mercury fillings are causing every disease, vaccines are solely responsible for autism and every other childhood malady, every hospital is staffed only by people who simply accept what pharmaceuticals push on them, every gov't agency is full of industry toadies, OR that the government and industry can always be trusted 100%, all the time?

It's not an either-or situation. I readily admit pharmaceuticals are big and powerful and get the rules bent so they can make more profits. But I also will admit that they make valid products that have been wonderful at dealing with some of the health problems we face. The government and its oversight agencies have fucked up. But they've also kept many harmful products from making it on to the market, too. It's not an all-or-nothing deal with me, understand?

(By the way, "air with mercury" isn't quite significant unless you're living in the vicinity of a coal-burning power plant. I doubt Shrub, his daughters, or ANYONE in his family does.)

[Celebration]

43. huh?

Did I say that mercury was causing every disease? Where did I say that? What are you talking about? Can you read? "Europe" is very broad, I admit. I am not even all that interested in the mercury question, at least compared to other issues. So I am certainly not going to spend the time to look up European regulations in each country. I never claimed detailed knowledge of this issue. What even got me to post here was the really stupid suggestion that because the FDA, et al. hadn't banned it that it must be okay. WHAT A RIDICULOUS IDEA!! WHO IN THE HECK TRUSTS THEM? Again, why should they be trusted on this issue ANY MORE THAN THE EPA ON AIR QUALITY AT GROUND ZERO????? When the EPA said air quality was fine at the WTC, I knew it was a complete pile of crap. Too bad that people in NYC were not as skeptical as I, because now people are dying. Federal government agencies are programmed to be pro industry-- the industry with the most money.

I also admit that pharmaceutical companies make valid products. But they make it exceedingly difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Doctors and hospitals vary on how much they push these products. But how many rheumatologists didn't prescribe Vioxx? And how many people did that kill? This is going to sound weird, but I don't think the drug should be banned. There are probably some *few* people for whom it was *really* effective and who were probably not going to be affected by the heart problems, and were willing to take the substantial risk of taking the drug. Most likely it should be available, but a really poor seller. But once something is approved, the pharmaceutical companies have the motivation to make the drugs BEST SELLERS. My problem with it is that this substantial risk was HIDDEN, and that consumers and doctors were not aware of it, and that drug decisions were not made with complete knowledge. Because of that I am way less inclined to trust anything, because Vioxx was considered relatively safe, and spouse even took it for a couple of weeks (he didn't need it that much, either).


So, when the FDA fails to ban amalgam fillings, that means nothing to me. NOTHING, just as the EPA pronouncement on the safety of the air at Ground Zero meant nothing to me. If I thought amalgams were the root of all evil, I would have mine taken out.

[Orrex]

50. Some misunderstandings here, as well as some logical errors

Did I say that mercury was causing every disease? Where did I say that? What are you talking about? Can you read?

Evidence suggests that Trotsky can read, but your questions suggest that you haven't read through many of the recent "mercury is the devil" threads here. Trotsky was referring to the habit of some people in this forum to blame many different ills on a diabolical corporate mercury plot on the basis of little or no (usually the latter) credible evidence. Your suggestion that the FDA is either willfully complicit or culpably inept in policing the use of dental amalgam resonates very strongly with elements of this widespread conspiracy theory. I suspect that Trotsky's comment (about mercury causing all diseases) was directed against these conspiracy theorists in general, rather than to you specifically. However, inasmuch as your arguments are in line with theirs, it's not entirely off-base to ask you the question, either.

"Europe" is very broad, I admit. I am not even all that interested in the mercury question, at least compared to other issues. So I am certainly not going to spend the time to look up European regulations in each country. I never claimed detailed knowledge of this issue.

With due respect, it was wrong of you to imply that Europe has some kind of pure (ie., untainted by the FDA) knowledge of the supposed dangers of dental amalgam. If, as you clearly assert, you have no detailed knowledge of European policies in this matter, then mentioning them here serves only to throw up a smokescreen of innuendo, and it hardly benefits the discussion. And if you're not going to investigate the regulations of each country, then you have to be prepared to receive criticism for making faulty or baseless citations.

What even got me to post here was the really stupid suggestion that because the FDA, et al. hadn't banned it that it must be okay. WHAT A RIDICULOUS IDEA!! WHO IN THE HECK TRUSTS THEM? Again, why should they be trusted on this issue ANY MORE THAN THE EPA ON AIR QUALITY AT GROUND ZERO?????

SHOUTY-CAPS and frenzied punctuation aside, you're really making a baseless argument in this excerpt. You're saying, in effect, that because one government agency has knowingly made a false claim, we can therefore never believe any claim by any other government agency.

If only it were that simple. Then we could point to any of the countless fraudulent claims made by practitioners of "alternative" "medicine" and declare that all other practitioners are just as false. Often they are equally fraudulent, but intellectual honesty requires greater detail than that.

You're engaging in a Bush-worthy bait and switch, by the way. The discussion here is about baseless claims about the disease-causing powers of dental amalgam, and you're trying to turn it into a debate about the EPA's integrity. That's a worthy discussion, but it's sufficiently removed from the debate at hand to justify its own thread. Start a new one, and we'll discuss the EPA there.

So, when the FDA fails to ban amalgam fillings, that means nothing to me. NOTHING, just as the EPA pronouncement on the safety of the air at Ground Zero meant nothing to me. If I thought amalgams were the root of all evil, I would have mine taken out.

Hey, if thine eye-tooth offends thee, pull it out. Honestly, I don't care, because it's your own mouth. But when advocates of pseudoscience start preaching about the evils of a well-established and well-supported procedure, then I'm afraid that more evidence is required than the musings of 4000+ self-referential articles.

[Celebration]

51. Wonder Why

You picked on my EPA example and left out the later FDA one. Oh well, selective memory I guess. The FDA is rife with examples of caving in to economic interests. I gave the Vioxx example (only rectified after Graham forced the issue) as a reason I don't trust them--and I really haven't seen that addressed--and that of course was the crux of the argument so that is ignored. I don't trust them to tell me the whole truth about a drug and I don't trust them to tell me the whole truth about amalgams. As a matter of fact, I do not trust the FDA. Did I say I didn't trust the FDA? Let me reword this--I do not trust the FDA at all. I don't think I have made myself clear-- the FDA cannot be trusted. Did I say that not only do I not trust the FDA, I feel that they have *earned* my mistrust. Haha. I really think it is funny that someone could think this is libelous.

Here is what this post is about--since some have a short attention span and hearken back to other people who may have said this or that. This post is about not trusting the FDA.

The reason that this is in the thread about amalgams is that I answered an answer on this thread, which stated the following--

The FDA, the CDC, and ADA all continue to confirm that amalgam does NOT cause every disease known to man (as you seem to insist).

That statement about the FDA makes no sense to me, after what we have gone through with Vioxx. It apparently was on topic for that person, so my response is on topic.

I really think it would be a good idea if people in general here would do their best not to try to put words in someone else's mouth, in particular when attacking them. I never have claimed the amalgam fillings caused everything or *anything.* All I said was that it is laughable to think that they are safe just because the FDA hasn't pronounced them dangerous. I didn't imply anything other than that. I did say that the FDA cannot be trusted.

Go on and attack me for what I say--the FDA cannot be trusted, and they give in to economic interests. Try not to be distracted about things I haven't said about amalgams.

I do have questions about amalgams. I am not sure at all that they are absolutely safe for everyone, and nothing is "well settled" about it, and feel that this pretty much sums it up.

The epidemiological studies done so far that find amalgams safe are not long enough, and not well controlled.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16448848&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2006 Jan 27;

Mercury amalgam dental fillings: An epidemiologic assessment.

Bates MN.

Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, 140 Warren Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-7360, USA.

Dental amalgam fillings containing approximately 50% mercury have been used for almost 200 years and have been controversial for almost the same time. Allegations of effects caused by amalgams have involved many diseases. Recent evidence that small amounts of mercury are continuously released from amalgam fillings has fuelled the controversy. This is a comprehensive review of the epidemiologic evidence for the safety of dental amalgam fillings, with an emphasis on methodological issues and identifying gaps in the literature. Studies show little evidence of effects on general chronic disease incidence or mortality. Limited evidence exists for an association with multiple sclerosis, but few studies on either Alzheimer's or Parkinson's diseases. The preponderance of evidence suggests no renal effects and that ill-defined symptom complexes, including chronic fatigue syndrome, are not caused by amalgams. There is little direct evidence that can be used to assess reproductive hazards. Overall, few relevant epidemiologic studies are available. Most prior assessments of possible amalgam health effects have been based on comparisons of dental mercury exposures with occupational exposures causing harm. However, the amalgam-exposed population contains a broader, possibly more susceptible, spectrum of people. Common limitations of population-based studies of dental amalgam effects include inadequate longitudinal exposure assessment and negative confounding by better access to dental care in higher socioeconomic groups. Better designed studies are needed, particularly for investigation of neurodegenerative diseases and effects on infants and children.

PMID: 16448848

Hey, maybe this is just me, but, overall the state of affairs outlined here does not leave me with an abundance of confidence, and the limited association with ms doesn't sound particularly appealing. If it does to you, so be it.

[Orrex]

53. Ho hum

You picked on my EPA example and left out the later FDA one. Oh well, selective memory I guess.

Look, your post had a number of errors, and I attacked the most glaring. It's not up to me to proofread your postings to point out every flaw--ideally, that should be your job.

The FDA is rife with examples of caving in to economic interests. I gave the Vioxx example (only rectified after Graham forced the issue) as a reason I don't trust them--and I really haven't seen that addressed--and that of course was the crux of the argument so that is ignored.

If that were the crux, then you should have focused on it and left out the EPA smokescreen because it's irrelevant. But even your Vioxx example is flawed. The FDA didn't conceal the data--the manufacturer did. In contrast, the FDA acted promptly when news of the tainted study came to light; by your logic (for lack of a better word, that should incline us to trust the FDA in preference to manufacturers, should it not?). And Vioxx is a very recently developed drug scrutinized only for a period of years. Compare that with dental amalgam, which has been around for many decades and has been rigorously studied for as long with no strong evidence that it leads to the diseases that anti-amalgamists blame on it.

I don't trust them to tell me the whole truth about a drug and I don't trust them to tell me the whole truth about amalgams.

But you'll apparently trust quack pseudoscientists with (generally) very little training in neurophysiology, biochemistry, or metalurgy.

As a matter of fact, I do not trust the FDA. Did I say I didn't trust the FDA? Let me reword this--I do not trust the FDA at all. I don't think I have made myself clear-- the FDA cannot be trusted. Did I say that not only do I not trust the FDA, I feel that they have *earned* my mistrust. Haha. I really think it is funny that someone could think this is libelous.

You articulate a poor understanding of libel. If you do not trust the FDA, that's your business and is not a matter of libel. But if you were to claim in writing that the FDA or particular members of it are deliberately engaging in illegal practices, then you'd better be able to back up your claims with evidence, or you may indeed risk a libel suit.

Also, your citation of that study is self-defeating. Anti-amalgamists make claims of certainty about the damaging effects of amalgam, yet this article indicates only that the subject is controversial and that insufficient longitudinal studies have been done.

Hey, maybe this is just me, but, overall the state of affairs outlined here does not leave me with an abundance of confidence, and the limited association with ms doesn't sound particularly appealing. If it does to you, so be it.

That kind of "and the horse you rode in on" attitude strikes me as petty and juvenile. Because you are unable to articulate a solid argument, you resort to throwing up your hands with a dismissive "suit yourself." Very dramatic, but if you want to convince anyone, you'll need to do substantially better.

On the other hand, if you want to convince the anti-amalgamists, then your style of rhetoric is ideally suited. For them, the less logic and the less evidence, the better.

[Celebration]

56. amalgams and FDA

Hey, maybe this is just me, but, overall the state of affairs outlined here does not leave me with an abundance of confidence, and the limited association with ms doesn't sound particularly appealing. If it does to you, so be it.

That kind of "and the horse you rode in on" attitude strikes me as petty and juvenile. Because you are unable to articulate a solid argument, you resort to throwing up your hands with a dismissive "suit yourself." Very dramatic, but if you want to convince anyone, you'll need to do substantially better.

Wow you are sensitive. All I meant was agree to disagree. I like horses.

Also, your citation of that study is self-defeating. Anti-amalgamists make claims of certainty about the damaging effects of amalgam, yet this article indicates only that the subject is controversial and that insufficient longitudinal studies have been done.


Again, I am not an amalgamist or a non-amalgamist. How weird. Do I have to pick one? Why? So I can't just agree with the abstract I posted that said we don't have enough studies? Is it ok to be concerned that there might be a link to ms, as stated in the abstract?

You stated that using amalgams is a "well-established and well-supported procedure." The abstact I quoted shows quite the opposite. So I would hardly call it self defeating. Of course, you have been trying to characterize me incorrectly as an anti-amalgamist, when all I have been saying is that this is unsettled. Oh, and don't forget, I don't trust the FDA.

You articulate a poor understanding of libel.

Hey I didn't bring this up first. It was trotsky that said what I said was bordering on libel. "You're also bordering on libel accusing US experts." I thought it was so laughably funny that I made sure I repeated what I said several times. And since I am still smiling about that I just thought I would mention it in passing.


Your recollection of the FDA and Vioxx is also quite different from mine.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6205699/

Updated: 12:13 p.m. ET Oct. 8, 2004
WASHINGTON - The Food and Drug Administration silenced one of its drug experts who raised safety concerns weeks before Merck & Co. yanked the blockbuster drug Vioxx due to increased risks for heart attack and strokes, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said Thursday.

Dr. David J. Graham, associate director for science in the FDA Drug Center’s Office of Drug Safety, told Senate investigators he faced stiff resistance within the regulatory agency to his findings.

"Dr. Graham described an environment where he was 'ostracized,' 'subjected to veiled threats' and 'intimidation,'" Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement after Finance Committee investigators interviewed the researcher Thursday.

Graham told The Associated Press that Grassley’s characterization was accurate. Raising safety concerns within the agency is “extremely difficult,” the 20-year employee said, declining further comment.

Graham is the whistleblower for the study, and he was ostracized at the FDA. That should tell you something. Sometimes in my more pensive moments I wonder how many more people might be alive today if the FDA had listened to him before being absolutely forced.

[RedOnce]

57. "I am not an amalgamist or a non-amalgamist.

How weird. Do I have to pick one? Why?" I totally agree with that statement!

I joined this forum with no interest and no bias regarding mercury or amalgam other than the fact that mercury is clearly toxic to humans. I wasn't even interested in this topic. Like you, I have a mouth full of amalgam and no plans to have them removed!

I couldn't understand why there was such a big fuss here about it. If you think philb's posts are wrong just ignore him, nobody is forcing you to read them! He generally posts his links, go after the links if you think that they are wrong and you're so concerned about the "common good".

But, what really got my attention was how dogging, discounting and belittling the pro-mercury crowd's tactics can be. No respect. If you ask me the pro-mercury guys are their own worst enemies.

[trotsky]

58. Excuse me.

But calling one side "pro-mercury" is bullshit. It's no different than the right wing calling pro-choicers "pro-abortion."

That mercury is a dangerous element and highly toxic in certain doses is known.

That mercury, in the form of dental amalgam, is harmful AT ALL to humans (at least those without an allergic sensitivity to it), is what's at issue.

You claim not to be an anti-amalgamist, but you parrot their same types of misinformation and bait-and-switch tactics. Are you are looking for the facts, or are you looking to justify your preconceived notions?

[RedOnce]

60. You're excused.

Would you prefer pro-amalgam?

What do you base this; "but you parrot their same types of misinformation" on?

[trotsky]

61. I base it on the content of your posts, of course. n/t

[RedOnce]

62. Have a nice evening trotsky.

[RedOnce]

44. "Some countries have restrictions on the use of amalgam..."

Information for Health Professionals - New Zealand Ministry of Health July 1999

Some countries have restrictions on the use of amalgam as a dental restoration (Austria, Canada, Germany and Sweden) because of wider environmental effects of mercury or the possibility of adverse affects on some individuals even from low mercury intakes. In April 1998 the United Kingdom Department of Health issued a media statement advising that it was prudent to avoid the placement or removal of amalgam fillings during pregnancy until appropriate research data on its safety was available.

http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/Device/device%20issues.htm

[trotsky]

45. Unfortunately, that's not applicable.

It was claimed "most" European countries had "outlawed" amalgam.

Not true.

On edit, the context and exact wording of that blurb should be noted. The context is the government of New Zealand's position on amalgam use, in which they state clearly that there is no evidence amalgam is harmful. The exact wording notes the countries that have restrictions have done so "because of wider environmental effects of mercury" (i.e., concerns over improper handling by dentists) or in the case of the small portion of the population that's allergic, not because of any overall health danger.

[RedOnce]

46. Something is going on in Europe - (see study comments)

Restoration materials for primary molars-results from a European survey. 2005 Apr

The aim of this study was to obtain an overview of the materials and restorative techniques taught for Class I and Class II restorations in primary molars of different European departments for paediatric dentistry and to compare the results to those for North America....

Only in a few regions (Eastern Europe), amalgam remains the filling material of first choice for Class I and II cavities in primary molars, whereas in others, the use has been restricted...

PMID: 15781135

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15781135&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Nordic dentists' knowledge and attitudes on dental amalgam from health and environmental perspectives. 2002 Oct

The aim of this study was to identify differences and similarities between the Nordic countries in dentists' use of dental amalgam as a restorative material, and also their knowledge and attitudes about amalgam from health, environmental, ethical, economic and social points of view....

In Finland and Sweden the use of dental amalgam had almost ceased, particularly for younger patients...

PMID: 12418724

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12418724&query_hl=23&itool=pubmed_docsum

New dental materials a health risk for dental staff. Acrylates can cause contact allergy and other problems 1998 Jun

The acrylic content of modern dental materials poses a risk of adverse reactions...

Since the use of dental amalgam has been reduced to about 10 per cent of all fillings in Sweden, the prevalence of adverse local reactions to the acrylic composite materials which are used instead may be expected to increase.

PMID: 9674364

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9674364&query_hl=23&itool=pubmed_DocSum

Do you have any details? Are these voluntary reductions and restrictions?

[trotsky]

47. It is clear only that any country restricting the use of amalgam

is doing so for reasons other than demonstrated science.

If anti-amalgamists wish to use these as examples, THEY should be the ones to provide the reasons why. It's not up to me to do their research for them.

[RedOnce]

48. Wow! What happened to this discussion?

Have a nice day! Eh?

[trotsky]

49. I'm not sure I understand.

Your question is better addressed to someone who thinks amalgam needs to be banned or should be removed from teeth that have had it put in. If they think the restriction of amalgam use in Europe supports their argument, they should find out why those countries restricted it, and present that as evidence.

As I noted, from what I understand, where it has been restricted, it was done so out of overall concern about mercury in the environment (i.e., amalgam fillings themselves not being dangerous to a person who has them) or on groups for whom no study could ethically be done (pregnant women).

Anything beyond that, you'd better ask the anti-amalgamists.

[Celebration]

52. this may sound a little odd

But does it sound like a good idea to carry something in your mouth 24/7 that is not fit for a landfill? Just sayin'--can't really think of anything else banned or limited as hazardous waste that I am altogether comfortable with having in my mouth. Not saying it causes anything specific or unspecific, but I guess it is just my kind of hangup thinkin' it might not be such a hot idea. Oh, shoot, that is just my imagination running wild again. I'll add that to my phobia list.

[trotsky]

54. Oh good grief.

Nothing like falling back the old alarmist routine. When you've got no facts, appeal to fear.

But my goodness, have you heard of this other stuff? There is a gas, that was used to kill people in WWI. And there's this metal that EXPLODES in contact with water, and will BURN you if you touch it! Holy crap, did you know that big bad mean companies actually use a chemical that's a COMBINATION of these deadly ingredients that they put into MOST of the food we buy? And that the government LETS them do this?

Whoa, now that's scary stuff!!!!

[Celebration]

55. whatever

Doesn't sound comparable. Can you come up with something that is bad for landfills that you wouldn't mind putting in your mouth? I mean the same thing, like amalgam vs. amalgam. I don't mean making a new compound or splitting it up. I can't think of anything, but I bet you can.

[trotsky]

59. One single filling, or even a dozen mouthfuls of fillings

are not in and of themselves "bad for landfills."

Hell, the stuff that can be used in place of amalgam ain't that great to have in a landfill, either.

But again, there is this tactic of taking a fact and blowing it totally out of proportion. It appears to be one of the few weapons the anti-amalgamists have.

[philb]

63. You don't bother to read the documentation; and are wrong

dental amalgam is documented to be the largest source of mercury in all sewers; and largest source in all
sewer sludge- and there is a lot of it; and a major source in water bodies, and fish, and the atmosphere- as I've documented
before
http://www.flcv.com/damspr2f.html

There is consensus about this among researchers, Gov't agencies, Municipal sewer authorities, etc.
I'm not aware of any expert or authority who disagrees?
Are you saying one of these statements isn't true??? if so on what basis??


Mercury and toxic metals are also the main cause of ADHD, autism, and a major factor(the largest) in
juvenile delinquency, schizoprenia, aggressive and violent behavior, violent crimes, etc. also as
has been documened in the medical literature

http://www.home.earhtlink.net/~berniew1/damspr4.html
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/violence.html
http://www.flcv.com/tmlbn.html
http://www.flcv.com/kidshg.html
http://www.hriptc.org/research_studies.html

Metal-Metabolism and Autism: Defective Functioning of Metallothionein Protein, Amy Holmes, MD;
http://www.healing-arts.org/children/metal-metabolism.htm

[trotsky]

64. You say I'm wrong, many experts say you're wrong.

So there we are.

I already showed you the math that demonstrates your misrepresentation of the data - I'm not going to hash it out again.

[philb]

66. I haven't seen any math suggesting I'm wrong, here's some math

The total discharge into sewers from dental amalgam at individual homes and businesses
is second only to that from dental offices(14), since the average person with amalgam fillings excretes in body waste approximately 50 micrograms per day of mercury(6,7,8,20,31a). This has also been confirmed by medical labs(13c), such as Doctors Data Lab in Chicago and Biospectron in Sweden, which do thousands of stool tests per year and is consistent with studies measuring levels in residental sewers by municipalities(13b). In a Finnish study, over 20 % of those with amalgam excrete so much to home sewers that the EEU standard for mercury in sewers(50 ug/L) is exceeded(31). The amount of mercury excreted on average doubled for each additional 10 amalgam surfaces. The AMSA study adopted the conservative estimate of 28 micrograms per day for the average person with amalgam and 17 micrograms for the average of all those with and without amalgam. In the U.S. this would amount to approximately 2800 to 5500 kilograms per year into sewers or from 3 to 6 tons per year. Over 3 tons of mercury flows into the Chesapeake Bay annually from sewer plants, with numerous resulting fish consumption advisories for that area and similar for other areas(16). Thus the amount of mercury being excreted from dental amalgam is more than enough to cause dangerous levels of mercury in fish in most U.S. streams into which sewers empty. Studies by Oak Ridge National Laboratory(U.S. Dept. of Energy)(22,23) and other studies(14) have confirmed high levels of mercury in sewers and sewer sludge(generally 1 to 3 ppm in biosolids). Publically Owned Treatment Works( POTWs) do not have equipment to remove mercury in sewers other than any pretreatment requirements imposed by sewer districts. Mercury wastes are incompatible and must be removed at the source. In general POTWs are not equipped to remove or treat toxic chemicals.
MCES found that dental offices were responsible for over 40% of Mineapolis sewer mercury and with excretion from those with amalgam responsible for over 80% of domestic mercury(4). According to an EPA study the majority of U.S. sewerage plants cannot meet the new EPA guideline for mercury discharge into waterways that was designed to prevent bioaccumulation in fish and wildlife due to household sewer mercury levels(15,13). The EPA discharge rule had been reduced due to a National Academy of Sciences report of July 2000 that found that even small levels of mercury in fish result in unacceptable risks of birth defects and developmental effects in infants(18).
references: EPA & Municipal Sewer Agencies, etc. at http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr2f.html

According to the Electric Power Research Institute(and EPA) it only takes 1/2 gram of mercury to contaminate all the fish in
a 10 acre lake to the extent that the fish are dangerous to eat, and a warning is issued to not eat the fish.
The amount of mercury documented by the sewer agencies and EPA going into sewers from amalgam each year is thus enough to contaminate all fish to dangerous levels in over 15 million acres of water bodies. This together with the mercury from power plants
pretty much takes care of most of the fish in the U.S. pretty soon. And you can see that EPA says that the amount from amalgam is way over the limit.

According to EPA there are already warnings to limit fish consumption in over 30% of U.S. lakes and similar for rivers, and
for most bays. And even the fish in the one's without warning isn't very safe. Most such lakes have mercury levels in some of the predator species high enough to cause adverse effects if you eat much of it.
Now that you amalgam/mercury lovers have contaminated all the fish, what are we supposed to eat to get our Omega 3s, which are essential for health.

And not only is the level of mercury in fish high, but also in people. A nationwide sample of hair tests by Greenpeace found that over 20% of those sampled had levels of mercury higher than the EPA safety limit, and above levels documented to often cause health harm. And 5 states had over 30% of those tested with levels over the EPA limit.

[trotsky]

73. And of course, it's back to the distortions.

Now I'm a "mercury lover."

I guess when you have nothing else, you have to resort to smear tactics. Looks like I know whose side the facts are on now.

[trotsky]

65. Here.

http://www.doctorspiller.com/mercury.htm

Tell me why this dentist is wrong, according to you.

[philb]

71. Actually I don't think you will find many U.S. doctors whose families

have amalgams in their mouths, I'm aware there aren't many in the area I'm from. And I know the dentists who
replace the fillings in their teeth- they go to dentists with special training and equipment to minimize exposures.
Most dentists aren't very well trained at such and it is documented that it makes as much as 90% difference in how much exposure
one gets when they have amalgam replaced depending on who does the work. http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html

And those dentists and dental assistants at officies that use amalgam and don't have special training are documented to have high occupational mercury exposure and documented to commonly have lots more neurological and reproductive problems than general population: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/dental.html

and most advanced countries have bans or limits or warnings about the danger of mercury amalgam,
and use in most European countries has declined to very low levels because of this. Section IX I think, see TOC.
http://www.flcv.com/amalg6.html

And even in the U.S., several states have recently passed laws requiring dentists to warn patients about the dangers of amalgam-
such as California, Maine, etc. And there is a bill in Congress to phase out use of amalgam, that has had Congressional hearings that documented the dangers. Due to the overwhelming evidence that amalgam is the largest source of mercury in most people and the largest source in sewers and major source in water bodies, fish, air, etc. And that large numbers of people have dangerous levels of mercury. I think a bill like this will pass within 2 years to phase out amalgam use.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr2f.html

[philb]

68. I think you confuse experts with politicians and special interest spokesme

I'm not aware of any "expert" who thinks that amalgams are safe.

I don't think any expert disagrees that based on millions of medical lab tests, those with several amalgams have on
average 10 time as much mercury exposure as those without; and those with more than average number often 100 times as much exposure.
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html


And since the level of exposure of most with amgalams is documented to be over the US. EPA and D.O.H.(ATSDR) mercury safety limits of approx. 6 micrograms per day http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html
I'm not aware of any scientific experts who think that level is safe.

Likewise with the high levels of mercury being excreted by those with amalgams into sewers that EPA says is endangering the population by the buildup in fish- as documented on another post.

But although the majority of real science articles published about amalgam were published by authors from other countries, science is science and tests are tests where ever done, but the difference is that special interest have more control over grants and what is published in U.S. than overseas. But even here clinic treat the thousands harmed and do real tests at real medical labs that have done millions of tests, and the results are known, as I've summarized before, and can be confirmed on the medical lab web sites or by contacting their research director and asking for more doc.
www.doctorsdata.com
www.gsdl.com
etc.
lots of medical labs

[FM Arouet666]

70. You sure do love the DAMS web stuff

Again, you go for the fringe science bit on the DAMS site then acknowledge that "real" science does not support the position you are making. Oh yes, the old canard, science is funded by big business, the mercury lobby is huge in government. Tons of mercury sitting in storage facilities waiting to be drilled into the mouths of unsuspecting Americans with poor dental hygiene. Then back to the millions and billions of tests, articles, scientists, etc etc that support your proposition.

Seems to be a straight forward issue. Should be one article out there that shows support for removing dental amalgams, showing that amalgams cause significant health issues?

No links to pages of data. No DAMS link to abstracts. No innuendo or pseudoscience. Should be one paper out there clearly showing amalgams cause harm and patients benefit from their removal.

[philb]

67. The 4000 medical studies I cited document harm, and explain how the harm

is caused; I haven't disregarded any answer you've given. You haven't supplied any documentation to the contrary of
any of the studies I've cited from the medical literature. And note that I've supplied documentation of clinics that treat people
harmed by mercury commonly, who do tests at medical labs, and that we have documented 60,000 of those recovered from over 30 chronic & degenerative conditions. And millions of tests by medical labs, some info on this you can find on the medical lab web site that I posted, that fully support what I've said. I've actually posted the names and info of hundreds of those affected, and could do so for more. My organizations interacts with thousands such each year, and have info about them.

The organizations you mention are either special interests or controled by special interests(the FDA Boards are known to be made up of and controlled by special interests)- the ADA was organized specifically to promote amalgam fillings, and has a special interest in promoting them. They aren't a credible source, and they have stated such in court- as has been posted before.
But as I've documented before, the medical studies supplied to the FDA amalgam docket by the ADA fully support my position.
You can find abstracts of the articles they supplied at:
http://www.flcv.com/adaabsr.html

Do you not agree with me that even the ADA science articles submited to the FDA support my position?

And of the science articles submitted to the FDA, thousands documented that amalgam is responsible for high exposures and health harm, and there were zero credible science studies submitted to the contrary. I've posted the list of all of the thousands of studies submitted to the FDA with notes about most of them, Can you find any credible medical study among those submitted to the FDA
that supports your contention that mercury is safe, or amalgam isn't responsible for high exposures and common health harm.
I'm still waiting. I've cited my 4000 showing harm. And you can find them all at the following summary of studies submitted.
and check them out on National Library of Medicine medline if you want to look at any of them: http://www.nlm.nih.gov

http://www.flcv.com/fdatally.html
http://www.flcv.com/fdarevl.html
http://www.flcv.com/fdarev.html

[FM Arouet666]

69. Ok Phil, this should be easy. Give me ONE paper

Noting the following.....

http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html

FDA and other organizations of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) continue to investigate the safety of amalgams used in dental restorations (fillings). However, no valid scientific evidence has shown that amalgams cause harm to patients with dental restorations, except in the rare case of allergy.

You are shot gunning the argument again.

Your position is that amalgams are dangerous and directly cause a host of medical conditions. Removal of amalgams can significantly improve medical conditions caused by amalgams. Is that correct? If so, ONE and ONLY ONE article supporting this hypothesis. That should be an easy task..........

[philb]

72. That statement is over 10 years old, and was contrary to the evidence

that was reviewed by the politician who made the statement. As I've documented before.
I've cited studies and info from medical labs that show that on average those with several amalgam fillings have exposure 10 times that of those without amalgam; and that the level of exposure is more than the U.S EPA and US. D.O.H.(ATSDR) safety limits
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html

and that the amount of mercury excreted into sewers by those with several amalgams averages 50 micrograms per day, which according to EPA is the largest source of mercury in sewers, and a level so high that it is endangering the ability to eat fish any where in the U.S. http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr2f.html

I've posted lots of articles before, its not my fault there are so many that there isn't enough space here to post them all, but I've posted abstracts of some of the articles before and will do it again if you like. Invidual articles are only one portion, but together they add up to most with amalgams get high exposure levels and millions with health effects that are documentable if they bother to have tests done. I've posted documentation on 60,000 such.

I have papers on over 40 conditions that document specifically how mercury causes that condition, and that most or many depending on the condition recover after amalgam replacement: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/indexa.html

An example is oral lichen planus, one of many autoimmune conditions amalgam has been documented to cause. Doctors, dentists, and medical schools and dental schools are in consensus on this. In most cases OLP is caused by amalgam and replacing amalgam cures it.
I'm not aware of anyone who disagrees with that: documentation-dozens of medical studies: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew/periodon.html (this also documents lots of other harm)

But the most controversial condition its seems is multiple sclerosis(MS) so I'll post some study abstracts documenting that mercury commonly causes MS. A lot of people I personally know including several of our DAMS coordinators recovered from MS after amalgam replacement:

Mercury & autoimmune conditions/MS

Prochazkova J, Sterzl I, Kucerova H, Bartova J, Stejskal VD; The beneficial effect of amalgam replacement on health in patients with autoimmunity. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2004 Jun;25(3):211-8.

Results of lymphocyte reactivity measured with MELISA indicate that in vitro reactivity after the replacement of dental amalgam decreased significantly to inorganic mercury, silver, organic mercury and lead. Out of 35 patients, 25 patients (71%) showed improvement of health. The remaining patients exhibited either unchanged health (6 patients, 17%) or worsening of symptoms (4 patients, 11%). The highest rate of improvement was observed in patients with multiple sclerosis, the lowest rate was noted in patients with eczema
(you can find the article in Medline)

Mutter J, Daschner F, et al, Amalgam risk assessment with coverage of references up to 2005] , Gesundheitswesen. 2005 Mar;67(3):204-16.

(Medline)
Abstract
Dental Amalgam contributes substantially to human mercury load. Mercury accumulates in some organs, particularly in the brain, where it can bind to protein more tightly than other heavy metals (e. g. lead, cadmium). Therefore, the elimination half time is assumed to be up to 1 - 18 years in the brain and bones. Mercury is assumed to be one of the most toxic non-radioactive elements. There are pointers to show that mercury vapour is more neurotoxic than methyl-mercury in fish. Review of recent literature suggests that mercury from dental amalgam may lead to nephrotoxicity, neurobehavioural changes, autoimmunity, oxidative stress, autism, skin and mucosa alterations or non-specific symptoms and complaints. The development of Alzheimer's disease or multiple sclerosis has also been linked to low-dose mercury exposure. There may be individual genetical or acquired susceptibilities for negative effects from dental amalgam. Mercury levels in the blood, urine or other biomarkers do not reflect the mercury load in critical organs. Some studies regarding dental amalgam reveal substantial methodical flaws. Removal of dental amalgam leads to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials. Summing up, available data suggests that dental amalgam is an unsuitable material for medical, occupational and ecological reasons.


I can post you abstracts like this for any of the 40 conditions that you would like.

[trotsky]

74. *sigh*

I've cited studies and info from medical labs that show that on average those with several amalgam fillings have exposure 10 times that of those without amalgam

Of course there are many other studies that show serum mercury levels to be nowhere near that level, and also, you're confusing the debate. First you have to demonstrate that the higher mercury levels CAUSE the problems you attribute to them.

See, here's your tactic:

1) Identify mercury as the toxic substance it most definitely is. (Ignoring, of course, the fact that the body CAN expel small amounts of mercury normally and without harm.)
2) List countless maladies attributable to extreme mercury poisoning.
3) Don't distinguish between elemental mercury and organic mercury compounds, or the differences between how the body absorbs/eliminates the different types.
4) Claim that everything wrong with our bodies is due to mercury exposure, particularly from amalgam fillings.

There. Plain and simple. Because the actual facts don't back up your fearmongering, you have to muddy the waters, equate the different forms of mercury, leave out the massive volume of studies contradicting your claims, and throw in a few personal attacks to boot. ("Mercury lovers")

Funny thing is, you don't see people with the truth on their side having to resort to these tactics.

[philb]

75. Actually there aren't any credible studies/tests that are contrary to what

I stated. I cited the medical lab that has the most feces tests in the U.S. that has documentation on their site that confirms what I say.There is no mistake. I don't exagerate. There are millions of tests- that i've cited URLs and references to that
support what I say. www.doctorsdata.com for example and the others I've cited such as the Swedish medical lab Biospectron
There are none that support what you say. Show me one credible such.

here are more peer-reviewed study abstracts that also confirm what I say:

Mercury in saliva and feces after removal of amalgam fillings.
Bjorkman L, Sandborgh-Englund G, Ekstrand J. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1997 May;144(1):156-62.
Department of Basic Oral Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

The toxicological consequences of exposure to mercury (Hg) from dental amalgam fillings is a matter of debate in several countries. The purpose of this study was to obtain data on Hg concentrations in saliva and feces before and after removal of dental amalgam fillings. In addition Hg concentrations in urine, blood, and plasma were determined. Ten subjects had all amalgam fillings removed at one dental session. Before removal, the median Hg concentration in feces was more than 10 times higher than in samples from an amalgam free reference group consisting of 10 individuals (2.7 vs 0.23 mumol Hg/kg dry weight, p < 0.001). A considerable increase of the Hg concentration in feces 2 days after amalgam removal (median 280 mumol Hg/kg dry weight) was followed by a significant decrease. Sixty days after removal the median Hg concentration was still slightly higher than in samples from the reference group(85% decline).
Dental amalgam fillings and the amount of organic mercury in human saliva. Caries Res. 2001 May-Jun;35(3):163-6.
Leistevuo J, Leistevuo T, Helenius H, Pyy L, Osterblad M, Huovinen P, Tenovuo J.
The National Public Health Institute, Antimicrobial Research Laboratory, Turku University, Turku, Finland.

We studied differences in the amounts of organic and inorganic mercury in saliva samples between amalgam and nonamalgam human study groups. The amount of organic and inorganic mercury in whole saliva was measured in 187 adult study subjects. The mercury contents were determined by cold-vapor atomic absorption spectrometry.
In the study of a group with amalgams, a group without amalgams, and a group that had undergone amalgam replacement- using saliva mercury measurements, it was concluded that amalgam is the main source of organic mercury in most people. Those with amalgams on average had more than 4 times as much organic mercury as either group without amalgam. Those with amalgam had over 10 times the total mercury as those without. And mercury from fish was controlled for in the study and not a factor in these results. Our results are compatible with the hypothesis that amalgam fillings may be a continuous source of organic mercury, which is more toxic than inorganic mercury, and almost completely absorbed by the human intestine.

Antimicrobial and mercury resistance in aerobic gram-negative bacilli in fecal flora among persons with and without dental amalgam fillings.

Osterblad M, Leistevuo J, Leistevuo T, Jarvinen H, Pyy L, Tenovuo J, Huovinen P. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995 Nov;39(11):2499-502.

Antimicrobial Research Laboratory, National Public Health Institute, Turku, Finland.

. The group exposed to dental amalgam (n = 92) had 13 times more mercury in feces than the group that had never been exposed to amalgam (n = 43) and 11 times more mercury in feces than the group whose amalgam fillings had been removed (n = 56). The group with mercury dental fillings had more than 1 part per million mercury in their feces. The top 18% of people with mercury dental fillings had approx. 4 parts per million mercury in feces, 39 times more mercury than did people who never had the fillings. Some with amalgam had as much as 10 ppm mercury in feces.



The study from the German University study I cited had 20,000 persons tested for example, and I quoted it accurately.

6. Dr. P.Kraub & M.Deyhle, Universitat Tubingen- Institut fur Organische Chemie, “Field Study on the Mercury Content of Saliva”, 1997 ; (tests at Tuebingen Univ. Health Clinic of over 20,000 people, 10% had mercury level from saliva alone greater than 100 micrograms; higher mercury levels were correlated with more chronic health conditions) www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/AMALGAM/EN/SCIENCE/tubingen.html

[FM Arouet666]

77. Philb, lets focus here

I know you have hundreds of millions of papers, lab tests, experts etc etc. Now take a breath and focus. I want ONE paper to review, just ONE. Post a few lines to the original text or a link where I can see the one paper you want to support your claim. Sounds simple? Why are you evading the question?

[FM Arouet666]

82. Waiting here Philb. ONE PAPER please

Seems easy enough, perhaps the chap didn't understand. All caps might help.

[philb]

76. documentation from Autism Treatment Center treating hundreds of autistics

for mercury toxicity- some call it autism

Amy Holmes, MD, Autism Treatment Center,Baton Rouge, La Her clinic treats over 300 autistic kids


http://www.healing-arts.org/children/holmes.htm#wethink


Metal-Metabolism and Autism: Defective Functioning of Metallothionein Protein, Amy Holmes, MD; http://www.healing-arts.org/children/metal-metabolism.htm

(note: see end of file for a clinic with a chelation protocol that may to be even more successful than Dr. Holmes)

the bad news is that there is a huge increase in childhood conditions like autism and ADD. the good news is that autism is really looking like a neurotoxic problem, with all the other biochemical problems secondary to the presence of the toxins. This is good news because

this is something we have a chance of fixing. And it appears that, if you can get these toxins out at a reasonably early age, the child can be "indistinguishable from his peers". Mercury looks like it is usually the biggest problem, but, it doesn't look like most cases are purely mercury and mercury alone. There are some other heavy metals that play a big part, both by themselves and by (horrors of all horrors) potentiating the toxicity of mercury. For example antimony is almost always extremely high, with arsenic, lead, cadmium sometimes high, and we are also finding solvents like hexane or xylene or organochlorines or such as benzene to be sometimes high.

I think just about all the kids today are getting pretty high exposures to various toxins. The main ones that are having major problems are those with defective or immature detox systems in the liver, although the exposure to mercury is certainly higher today than it has ever been in infancy before. 6 to 8 vaccines containing thimerosal in the first year alone - the first on the 1st or 2nd day out of the womb. This is a relatively recent development (last 10 years), and I think this fact alone accounts for the epidemic of autism seen in the last 10 years.

So far, I have gotten hair tests from 110 autistic children - all but one fit the counting rule for mercury/metals toxicity- that you diagnose mercury toxicity based on a large number of essential mineral levels being abnormal.. The essential elements are widely scattered all over the place. I also have some hair tests from "normal" people - about 10 total. The most interesting comes from a 25 year-old woman with no amalgams ever. Her essential elements are right around the mean. We got her hair just because of her amalgam- free status. She was not a patient.

Amy Holmes

case history info
http://www.flcv.com/autism.html





Step 2: DMSA .5 mg / lb and ALA .25 mg / lb both simultaneously every 3 to 4 hours.

As for supplementation, it very important to do.]

[FM Arouet666]

79. Philb old buddy please OH please....

Ok, please stop with the references to alternative medicine sites. They are amusing, but the joke is getting old. I am ready for a real scientific debate. Give me a single paper in a legitimate science or medical journal which supports your hypothesis. Based on what you have posted in the past this should be an easy task. I am waiting.

In case you forgot, I want a paper which shows that amalgams significantly contribute to human illness and removal of amalgams results in significant improvement in human illness. Again, I am waiting.

[philb]

84. This isn't an alternative medicine clinic. They are regular MDs

treating autism and chronic conditions. They have publications in peer-reviewed publiciations and
and among the most respected and desired doctors in the U.S. They have patients on waiting lists from
all over the U.S. They do a lot of testing and let the tests dictate the treatment, as any competant doctor should.
I've provided info on some of the test results for the patients at their clinic, but this is only one such clinic that treats
autisitc kids, and I believe most doctors treating autism and most clinics use similar methods, the same methods recommended by
the largest group of autism parents in the U.S., the Autism Research Institute, and other such.
you can find them on the web.

These clinics have very high success rates treating autism, ADHD, and other related neurological problems, as is easy to verify,
I've interacted with the parents of autism victims on forums for years, and have lots of personal experience, as can be seen by
the statements of the parents, who have verified by test that the problems were caused primarily by mercury/toxic metals and the kids got better after detox/nutritional measures.

Are you suggesting that you know of treatments or clinics that are more successful and more appropriate than
Dr. Holmes or Dr. Cave or the others from other areas that I could list,
most of whom not only have extremely successful practicies with long waiting lists, but most of whom also publish and are in high
call for giving seminars, etc. Their methods are supported by neurologists such as Dr. Blaylock, etc. who publishes widely.
(and a doctor in my family who is a Board Certified Neurologist, in Texas)

Who or what clinic would you suggest to parents out there as more knowledgable or successful than these who have by now treated thousands with such conditions, with extremely good success ?

but note also that the Pfeiffer Clinic(Dr Walsh,etc.) has successfully treated many thousands over a 30 year period. Are you suggesting you disagree with Dr. Walsh's findings or treatment protocols. He says they have high success rates with patients
that I think most other clinics don't fare very well with. Would you suggest the Pfeiffer Clinic is alternative medicine also, and if so what do you mean by that? Is "alternative medicine" less scientific or less successful than its alternative-whatever that is?


I might note that another clinic I suggest to people with chronic neurological conditions like Parkinson's, MS, ALS, Alzheimer's, etc. is Dr. Perlmutter's clinic in Naples Florida, a neurologist who uses similar methods. Would you suggest that he might not be the best choice and you know some more successful clinics??
The recently retired Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association has publically stateed that his clinic is the best in the world for such conditions, in other words is in agreement with me about this. Permutter is also widely published and a medical lab consultant,etc.
Dr. Perlmutter also uses hyperbaric oxygen. What do you think about HO?

[trotsky]

85. So, you don't have a paper, do you?

I mean, it would be very simple to just post a paper like FM is requesting. Just one. But instead you just keep avoiding, keep distracting, keep waving your hands.

[philb]

78. a few more study abstracts of recovery after amalgam replacement

1. Lindh U, Hudecek R, Danersund A, Eriksson S, Lindvall A. Removal of dental amalgam and other metal alloys supported by antioxidant therapy alleviates symptoms and improves quality of life in patients with amalgam-associated ill health. Neuroendocrinol Lett. 2002 Oct-Dec;23(5-6):459-82.
Department of Oncology, Radiology and Clinical Immunology, Rudbeck Laboratory,
SE-751 85 Uppsala, Sweden. [e-mail]

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate treatment of patients suffering from chronic ill health with a multitude of symptoms associated with metal exposure from dental amalgam and other metal alloys. SETTING AND DESIGN: We included 796 patients in a retrospective study using a questionnaire about symptom changes, changes in quality of life as a consequence of treatment and assessment of care taking. METHODS: Treatment of the patients by removal of offending dental metals and concomitant antioxidant therapy was implemented according to the Uppsala model based on a close co-operation between physicians and dentists. RESULTS: More than 70% of the responders, remaining after exclusion of those who had not begun or completed removal, reported substantial recovery and increased quality of life. Comparison with similar studies showed accordance of the main results. Plasma concentrations of mercury before and after treatment supported the metal exposure to be causative for the ill health. MAIN FINDINGS: Treatment according to the Uppsala model proved to be adequate for more than 70% of the patients. Patients with a high probability to respond successfully to current therapy might be detected by symptom profiles before treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis that metal exposure from dental amalgam can cause ill health in a susceptible part of the exposed population was supported. Further research is warranted to develop laboratory tests to support identification of the group of patients responding to current therapy as well as to find out causes of problems in the group with no or negative results.
******************************************************************************
2. Kidd RF. Results of dental amalgam removal and mercury detoxification using DMPS and neural therapy. Altern Ther Health Med. 2000 Jul;6(4):49-55.

Sixty consecutive patients who had undergone replacement of dental amalgam fillings and a protocol of nutritional support and heavy metal detoxification using dimercapto-propanyl-sulfate and neural therapy were surveyed. The most common complaints were problems with memory and/or concentration; muscle and/or joint pain; anxiety and insomnia; stomach, bowel, and bladder complaints; depression; food or chemical sensitivities; numbness or tingling; and eye symptoms, in descending order of frequency.
Headache and backache responded best to treatment, but all symptoms showed considerable improvement on average. Of the respondents, 78% reported that they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the results of treatment, and 9.5% reported that they were disappointed.
********************************************************************
3. Hilu RE, Zmener O. Mental nerve paresthesia associated with an amalgam filling: a case report. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1999 Dec;15(6):291-3.
Department of Clinical Endodontics, Maimonides University, Buenos Aires, Argentine Republic.

We present a case report in which a mental nerve paresthesia occurred in connection with an amalgam filling placed in direct contact with the pulp of a mandibular first molar. The main evidence for amalgam being the dominant etiological factor was the positive epicutaneous patch testing response to the components of the amalgam alloy, and the total remission of symptoms without further clinical complications after removal of the amalgam filling and subsequent endodontic therapy.
************************************************************************
4.

Engel P. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 1998;108(8):811-3. www.melisa.org/articles/engel e.pdf

75 patients treated at a dental clinic by P. Engel complained of multiple chronic health conditions including headaches, migraines, parasthesia, dizzyness, gastro-intestinal disturbances, allergies, vision disturbances, mental conditions including depression, back and shoulder pain,
joint pain, MS, etc. All were treated by amalgam replacement. The majority with most of these conditions reported them significantly better or cured after amalgam replacement and some for all conditions noted. 68 % of those treated reported their health had become “much better”, 12% “better”, 9% “somewhat better”, 7% “no improvement”, and 1% worsening (MS). Case history information was provided for each patient.

5. Jones, L(1999). Dental Amalgam and Health Experience: Exploring Health Outcomes and Issues for People Medically Diagnosed with Mercury Poisoning. The Bulletin of the New Zealand Psychological Society 97, 29-33.

A group of 32 patients who had been tested and diagnosed with mercury toxicity, from a medical practice that treats people for metals toxicity and who had begun amalgam replacement, were interviewed. The most common health problems were chronic fatigue, candida, allergies, migraines, muscular pain, chronic flu symptoms, memory loss, and depression. The group had either undergone or were in the process of amalgm replacement and detoxification using DMSA or DMPS. Of the 32 interviewed, 29 reported lasting health gains. www.melisa.org

**************************************************************************
6. Amalgam allergy associated with exacerbation of aspirin-intolerant asthma.
Yoshida S, Mikami H, Nakagawa H, Hasegawa H, Onuma K, Ishizaki Y, Shoji T, Amayasu H. Clin Exp Allergy. 1999 Oct;29(10):1412-4.
Dental Allergy Research Group, Clinical Research Division, AOKI International Medical Center, Yokohama, Japan.
BACKGROUND: Aspirin-intolerant asthma can be induced not only by acidic analgesics (including acetylsalicylic acid), which effectively inhibit cyclo-oxygenase, but also by cross-reactivity with paraben, and other chemical additives. OBJECTIVE: We examined whether amalgam allergy is involved in the pathogenesis of a aspirin-intolerant asthma. METHODS: We present the first case of aspirin-intolerant asthma that improved after the removal of dental amalgam. In addition, we performed both the methacholine provocation testing and sulpyrine provocation testing before and after the removal of dental amalgam. RESULTS: In addition, the methacholine concentration causing a 20% fall in FEV1 in provocation tests rose significantly, though hypersensitivity to analgesics evaluated with sulpyrine provocation testing did not decrease. These results suggest that amalgam sensitization is involved in bronchial hyperresponsiveness in aspirin-intolerant asthma. CONCLUSION: Sensitivity to amalgam may cause exacerbation of aspirin-intolerant asthma in some patients. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report of amalgam allergy associated with aspirin-intolerant asthma.


(there are hundreds of more such)

[philb]

80. More studies- people who recovered from chronic conditions by amalgam repl

8. A case of high mercury exposure from dental amalgam.

Langworth S, Stromberg R. Eur J Oral Sci. 1996 Jun;104(3):320-1.
Dept. Occupational Medicine, Huddinge University Hospital, Sweden.

This report describes a patient who suffered from several complaints, which by herself were attributed to her amalgam fillings. Analysis of mercury in plasma and urine showed unexpectedly high concentrations, 63 and 223 nmol/l, respectively. Following removal of the amalgam fillings, the urinary excretion of mercury became gradually normalized, and her symptoms declined.

*******************************************************************************
9. Lichtenberg H.J., Symptoms before and after proper amalgamremoval in relation to serum globulin reaction to metals, J of Orthomol Med., 1996, 11(4):195-9. (119 cases)
www.lichtenberg.dk/symptoms_before_and_after_proper.htm

The results of this study indicate that proper amalgam removal - and in some cases removal of all the other metals too - and replacement with biocompatible composites - can eliminate or reduce 80% of the classic symptoms of chronic mercury poisoning. These results also show that the strength of an individual's serum-globulin reactions, to many metals used in dentistry, especially the five metals present in amalgam, has important implications for recovery.
The survey covered 38 symptoms and complaints common to chronic mercury poisoning, as found in related literature. Participating in the survey were 118 patients who have been with my clinic since 1984.
The following symptoms and complains were common - before amalgam removal - to more than 50% of the participants.
Fatigue 83% ,Headache 58%, Poor concentration, 76% Bloating ,58% Poor memory 65% , Throat pain 57% , Irritability 64% , Joint pain 57% Muscle fatigue 62 Allergies 55%, Metallic taste 61% Poor appetite 51% .
82% of patients were immune reactive to mercury, and many to other metals as well.
All amalgam fillings were replaced in all participants. 2,600 amalgam areas were removed, averaging 22 areas per patient. 29 patients had all other metals replaced, especially gold/porcelain. This group had 128 gold surfaces, average 4.4 per patient.
In total within 1 to 4 years after filling out the symptom survey again, 79% of the symptoms and complaints were reduced or eliminated after amalgam removal.
***************************************************************************
10. Heavy metals and fertility.

Gerhard I, Monga B, Waldbrenner A, Runnebaum B.
J Toxicol Environ Health A. 1998 Aug 21;54(8):593-611.

Department of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproduction, University Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Heidelberg, Germany.

Heavy metals have been identified as factors affecting human fertility. This study was designed to investigate whether the urinary heavy metal excretion is associated with different factors of infertility. The urinary heavy metal excretion was determined in 501 infertile women after oral administration of the chelating agent 2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonic acid (DMPS). Furthermore, the influence of trace element and vitamin administration on metal excretion was investigated. Significant correlations were found between different heavy metals and clinical parameters (age, body mass index, nationality) as well as gynecological conditions (uterine fibroids, miscarriages, hormonal disorders). Diagnosis and reduction of an increased heavy metal body load improved the spontaneous conception chances of infertile women. The DMPS test was a useful and complementary diagnostic method. Adequate treatment provides successful alternatives to conventional hormonal therapy.
************************************************************************
11. Metal-specific lymphocytes: biomarkers of sensitivity in man.

Stejskal VD, Danersund A, Lindvall A, Hudecek R, Nordman V, Yaqob A, Mayer W, Bieger W, Lindh U. Neuroendocrinology Letters 1998;
Dept Clinical Chemistry, Danderyd Hospital and Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. [e-mail]

Many patients attribute their health problems to amalgam and other dental metals. In genetically susceptible indviduals, mercury and gold may function as haptens and elicit allergic and autoimmune reactions. The frequency of metal-induced lymphocyte responses was examined in 3,162 patients in three European laboratories using MELISA(R), an optimized lymphocyte proliferation test. The patients suffered from local and systemic symptoms attributed to dental restorations. The effect of dental metal removal was studied in 111 patients with metal hypersensitivity and symptoms resembling Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). After consultation with a dentist the patients decided to replace their metal restorations with non-metallic materials. The changes in health and in vitro lymphocyte reactivity were studied by inquiries and follow-up MELISA(R). Lymphocyte reactivity was also analyzed in 116 healthy subjects with no complaints of metal allergy. A significant number of patients had metal-specific lymphocytes in the blood. Nickel was the most common sensitizer, followed by inorganic mercury, gold, phenylmercury, cadmium and palladium. As compared to lymphocyte responses in healthy subjects, the CFS group had significantly increased responses to several metals, especially to inorganic mercury, phenylmercury and gold. Following dental metal removal, 83 patients (76%) reported long-term health improvement. Twenty-four patients (22%) reported unchanged health and two (2%) reported worsening of symptoms. Following dental metal replacement, the lymphocyte reactivity to metals decreased as well. We propose that an inflammatory process induced by metals may modulate the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA axis) and trigger multiple non-specific symptoms characterizing CFS and other chronic conditions like myalgic encephalitis (ME) and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).
***********************************************************************

I cited hundreds more such already in URLs posted for which the abstracts can be found in NLM Medline
also see: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/hgrecovp.html

[FM Arouet666]

81. Your killing me Philb

1. The paper suffers from selection bias, they chose 700+ patients who suffered from ill health secondary to heavy metals. The bias is obvious from the outset. They then questioned the retrospective group about health improvement after the amalgams where removed. The paper suffers from bias to an extent that any conclusion is meaningless.

2. Alternative therapies in health medicine? Again I suspect bias, I would love to read the whole paper.

3. Wow, a whole case report.

4. Your link is dead.

5. The Melisa organization? Again, lets stick to legitimate science articles please.

6. The sites I have referenced mention that amalgam removal is not indicated except in cases of a rare allergy. Your last article deals with the subject of a rare allergy. Not supporting your supposition.

Again, please, one article from a legitimate science journal, and a link to more than an abstract if possible. I you cannot find an online article, list the single reference of your choice and I will get it from the university library when I get back home. Again, I know this will be hard for you, one article............

[philb]

83. Which study are you talking about, the people were tested because

they had chronic conditions

the tests found that these like most tested, see the medical lab web site, they test people in general, and find high percent have immune reactivities to metals; and that most with chronic conditions have immune reactivities to metals.
There is no major group out there that is otherwise. Can you find me a study that suggest such?

I could post a hundred more abstracts, which I have in my files or could quickly get from Medline, but you would say the same thing.
But all the studies show the same thing; people with amalgam get high exposures to mercury based on millions of tests,
mercury commonly causes immune reactivity, metabolic blockages to basic enzymatic processes in all organs of the body and affecting all functions of the body, mercury accumulates in the major organs and over time often causes major significant adverse health effects, over 30 chronic conditions that are documented in the medical literature and that most recover or significantly improve after amalgam replacement/detox. I've supplied cites to hundreds of studies showing over 60,000 who've recovered and abstracts for a lot of them; since I have the cites and Medline is out there its obvious I could list more, but you have the same access.

at the National Library of Medicine Medline http://www.nlm.nih.gov
and you can also get the articles there; or at a library. You suggest I post a whole paper that you know that isn't possible in this forum, but we both know the papers are readily available to either you or me; I've seen them, you can too if you want to.
you can also find some of the immune reactivity articles on the medical lab site: www.melisa.org

maybe you will like the following study by the National Institute of Health, NHANES III better. It shows a strong connection between number of amalgam fillings and most of the conditions we've been talking about:

NHanesIII Condition Graphs http://www.vimy-dentistry.com/nhanesgraphs.htm
NHANES III Screening – 35,000 Americans


(Conditions caused by amalgam fillings)
Fewer of those with this condition have zero fillings than those of the general population while more of those with the condition have 17 or more surfaces than in the general population

Infectious and parasitic diseases (001-139)
Cancer (140-239)
Disorders of thyroid gland (240-246)
Mental disorders (290-319)
Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs (320-389)
Other disorders of the central nervous system(MS) (340-349)
.

More of those with the condition have 17 or more surfaces than in the general population

Hereditary and degenerative diseases of the central nervous system (330-337)
Diseases of male genital organs (600-608)
Other disorders of female genital tract (617-629)

Fewer of those with this condition have zero fillings than those of the general population while more of those with the condition have 34 or more surfaces than in the general population

Disorders of the peripheral nervous system (350-359)
Diseases of the respiratory system (460-519)
Diseases of the genitourinary system (580-629)

More of those with the condition have 34 or more surfaces than in the general population

Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases, and immunity disorders (247-269)
Other metabolic and immunity disorders (270-279)
Disorders of the eye and adnexa (360-379)
Diseases of the circulatory system (390-459)
Diseases of the digestive system (520-579)
Complications of pregnancy, childbirth, and the puerperium (630-676)
Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue(arthritis) (710-739)

Fewer of those with this condition have zero fillings than those of the general population
Diseases of the ear and mastoid process (380-389)

(there are others and other sites that quote the NHANES III data as well but this is a good summary)