By guest blogger Hans-Werner Bertelsen
Veronika Hackenbroch wrote in an article for the German news website Der Spiegel about clusters of cases where children were born with severe birth deformities. (1) The only common factor that researchers in the Paediatrics department of the University Medical Center Mainz were able to identify through intensive communication with the mothers was that they had all visited a dentist whilst pregnant. The fetus is particularly sensitive to exogenous stimuli during early pregnancy, which is why this period is also known as the “teratogenetic determination period” (Koberg).
The data regarding the workplace exposure limit for mercury is outdated – it is based on information collected about 50 years ago in some cases. Since that time, there have been considerable advances, in particular in the fields of measuring technology and analysis. Unfortunately, these advances have yet to be utilized to provide meaningful figures on exposure to mercury vapour when removing old fillings or drilling into teeth with mercury amalgam fillings for the purpose of acute pain management. In addition to patient protection, the focus when processing existing mercury amalgam fillings is therefore also on occupational health and safety. This has not gone unnoticed by many female employees in dental surgeries that mercury amalgam can pose serious risks to unborn children. For example, a study in Norway reported an increased risk of perinatal death associated with a high number of mercury amalgam fillings. (2)
Sylvia Gabel from the German Association of Medical Professions (Verband medizinischer Fachberufe e.V.) even called for an immediate ban on toxic mercury amalgam: “Vapours pose a danger to dental professionals’ health!”. Mrs Gabel added: “The processing of amalgam in dental surgery releases mercury vapour. As 99 per cent of the dental nurses and hygienists in Germany are female and mercury has harmful effects on both fertility and the unborn child, we are exposed to a particular risk.”(3)
Researchers in Norway documented a considerable increase in the concentration of mercury in the blood after the removal of fillings as far back as 2006. (4) Toxicologists are in unanimous agreement that these peaks, which are the result of inhalation, are extremely harmful and may well have a teratogenetic effect in early pregnancy. (5) Consequently, what I am calling for is this: until such time as we know how high the mercury vapour concentrations are and as long as we “remain in the dark”, we should refrain from removing existing fillings containing mercury and performing dental drilling procedures in women of child-bearing age for ethical reasons so as to exclude the risk of deformities (see Der Spiegel article: “Waren die Schwangeren beim Zahnarzt?”, V. Hackenbroch, 20.09.19). (6)
An immediate ban on the use of mercury amalgam would be advantageous not solely with regard to the exposure to toxins of cancer patients, as the field of “alternative medicine” often recommends expensive, unnecessary and subsequently also very harmful “detox” treatments. (7) A more than questionable business from an ethical perspective: cancer patients are often looking for additional, so-called complementary therapy methods. This often sees them fall into the clutches of healers and doctors, who have no dental expertise but can identify mercury amalgam fillings very easily due to their dark colour. As I myself experienced in a so-called “alternative” dental surgery, the frightened patients, who are often in the middle of chemotherapy cycles, are then informed that they absolutely must have the mercury amalgam removed and then undergo a “detoxification therapy”. Introjects are not spared in the process: “Your body, already devastated by the chemotherapy, should not be subjected to additional chemicals.” Of course, this “detoxification” will be performed (with maximum consideration!) as a “homoeopathic” therapy. I had to observe this very lucrative “business model” often enough – and not once has a cancer patient objected. Once they fall under the charlatan’s spell, patients will allow themselves to be treated with all manner of things. Even live cells. In one patient, a single mother of two, this method triggered a fatal anaphylactic shock. (8) However, cancers and other chronic diseases are not the only reasons that bring patients with mercury amalgam fillings within the reach of dubious individuals with promises of salvation and charlatans. (9) An unfulfilled desire to have children has also led countless desperate women to ask to be parted irrevocably from their mercury-containing fillings. German health insurance companies approve these interventions, which appear logical from a toxicological perspective, and thus contribute not only to the replacement of the fillings but also to the release of mercury vapours and thus toxic peaks resulting from inhalation. Such actions can even have fatal consequences in the early stages of pregnancy.
However, the focus with mercury amalgam is not only on protecting patients from dishonest therapists and unnecessary teratogenetic risks – female staff could also benefit in general. For example, an immediate ban of the use of mercury amalgam could significantly increase job satisfaction among female employees in the dental surgery. According to Sylvia Gabel: “Strike measures were considered in the surgeries continuing use.”(10)
Each new mercury amalgam filling brings with it numerous side effects. It:
- – increases the risk of toxic exposure resulting from inhalation during removal;
- – increases the risk of corrosion products developing in the long term;
- – increases demand in the field of detox beliefs and homoeopathic charlatanry;
- – promotes the conspiracy narrative of “the dangers of conventional medicine”; and, in doing so,
- – often undermines patients’ confidence in treatments appropriate for the indication and, along with it, the often-vital compliance;
- – fills not only the cavity in the tooth but also the charlatans’ pockets.
I believe it is time to give dental health a helping hand with an intelligent combination of contemporary prevention concepts and harmless filling materials. Currently, the political will is merely a small seed. The seed must now germinate and grow.
REFERENCES
1. “Waren die Schwangeren beim Zahnarzt?”, V. Hackenbroch, 20.09.19 2. https://www.zwp-online.info/zwpnews/dental-news/wissenschaft-und-forschung/schwangerschaft-und-amalgam-risiken-bei-hohen-mengen 3. https://www.dzw.de/amalgam-ausstieg-ngo 4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29320025/
5. Prof. Eschenhagen, Toxicology Hamburg-Eppendorf in personal correspondence dated 23.01.2020 6. Comment dated 05.07. https://onkelmichael.blog/2021/07/03/ist-eine-entfernung-bestehender- amalgam-restaurationen-problemlos-und-bedenkenlos-durchfuhrbar/comment-page-1/? unapproved=4000&moderation-hash=d5b63e66f5045bfa12d829a88eddf1b0#comment- 4000 7. Prof. E. Ernst: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-myth-health-diet-science-ignorance 8. http://scienceblogs.de/kritisch-gedacht/2012/02/08/insider-bericht/
9. Prof. Jutta Hübner (Oncology, Jena) in personal correspondence dated 21.01.2020
10. Sylvia Gabel in personal correspondence dated 18.06.21
38 Responses to Dental Amalgam
Leave a Reply to kat Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Clusters of cases can be important in highlighting a previously unknown problem, as here. However, it is important to remember that random events also cluster – if they were evenly distributed they wouldn’t be random.
QUOTE
The clustering illusion is the tendency to erroneously consider the inevitable “streaks” or “clusters” arising in small samples from random distributions to be non-random. The illusion is caused by a human tendency to underpredict the amount of variability likely to appear in a small sample of random or semi-random data.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion
END of QUOTE
QUOTE
Poisson clumping, or Poisson bursts,[1] is the phenomenon wherein random events may appear to have a tendency to occur in clusters, clumps, or bursts.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_clumping
END of QUOTE
See also
http://skepdic.com/clustering.html
Dentists still use mercury amalgam? I would need to check but I thought that here in Canada we had stopped use it it back in the 1970’s.
And as Dr Julian Money-Kyrle says “random events also cluster”. We had a number of cancer clusters near high-voltage power lines in the1980’s that eventually seemed random, though I suppose, concievable there were other environmental factors that come with high voltage power lines. For example few wealthy neighbourhoods have them in the backyards.
There should of course be safeguards for those working with mercury amalgams, however banning mercury fillings would be a retrograde step for several reasons: (1) it is not based on sound science – studies linking mercury fillings to disease are weak and sporadic; (2) it would prevent the use of what is the most cost-effective and durable form of filling available; and (3) -worst of all- it would be playing into the hands of ‘altmed’ enthusiasts, who in my experience harbour a near-universal hatred on these types of tooth filling. Ban mercury amalgams and it would allow and inspire ‘altmed’ types to persuade many more people to go and get all their fillings removed – a folly which is not only a waste of patients’ time and money, it is also, ironically enough, a process that’s likely to give them their highest doses of mercury vapour that they’ll ever encounter.
You can`t ignore the risks of inhalation. Before we have convincing data: No drilling procedures in women of child-bearing age for ethical reasons so as to exclude the risk of deformities.
“Though direct health risks from amalgam are still uncertain, mercury is known to cause damage to the brain and nervous system of developing fetuses, infants and young children.”
http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/12/europe-to-decide-on-use-of-mercury-in-dentistry/
Mercury amalgam fillings are more expensive than other fillings because:-
a] the fillings contain precious metals
b]there is a cost to try and stop the elemental mercury escaping into the environment
c] the mercury that does escape is causing damage to the environment
d]the cost of reducing the amount of mercury in the environment
e]the damage to the health of dental personnel and patients.
The fillings are not durable because:-
a] the mercury leaks out due to corrosion
b]a battery is created in the mouth with the different metals in the filling with saliva as the electrolyte and the electric current releases the mercury
c] the mercury leaks out when the patient chews food or has hot drinks or smokes or chews gum or brushes teeth.
iIf the mercury is not safe in the environment how can it be safe accumulating inside the body with bio 1/2 life of 27 yrs in some parts of the brain??
With hot food or drinks or smoking the mercury expands and can crack the teeth.This is usually repaired by adding more amalgam so the amalgam industry falsely claim the filling has not failed.
The ADA was set up by the mercury amalgam industry and is still funded by them.
Last year the FDA finally admitted the amalgam is not safe after Margaret Hamberg [chief of FDA for about 25 years] was forced to resign after it was discovered she was sitting on the board of directors of Shein, the main mercury amalgam company and receiving $250,000 ayear for 3 hours work.
Recent research by the WHO has shown the human body can detect 1 atom of elemental mercury and cause clinical symptoms. There is no safe limit of the mercury, only zero level. Over 300 studies have conclusively proved the mercvury is causing serious disease. Nearly every country has either banned the amalgam or phasing out its use.
In Sweden it was phased out from 1999 to 2009. Mercury was banned in all fillings, in all medicines, all vaccines and all medical equipment. If a thermometer broke in a hospital the whole hospital had to be evacuated.
The other components of the filling are also toxic allergens and can be polluted with over 40 other toxic elements including thallium [ even more dangerous than mercury].
MRI scans also release dangerous amounts of the elemental mercury vapor which is much more toxic than natural mercury. There are bacteria in the environment and in the human body which convert the mercury to the 100 times toxic methyl mercury.
Kat
I refer you to my old post below:
“Historically, those most exposed to mercury vapour were those in the dental surgery involved in the placement and removal of amalgam restorations. During the 60s and 70s when the advent of the Borden air rotor meant that cavity preparation became faster and easier, amalgams were placed worldwide in their billions. Amalgam was then not triturated in capsules but manually by nurses using a pestle and mortar to mix the alloy powder and liquid mercury, often finishing by “mulling” the amalgam paste in the palm of their hand. The resultant amalgam had a much higher free mercury content than modern amalgams. Millions were placed in the teeth of pregnant mothers in the U.K. who were encouraged to visit the dentist because NHS dentistry was provided at no charge to them.
The number of fillings placed dropped dramatically during the 70s and 80s as the use of fluoride toothpastes became the norm.
To my knowledge, there was no alteration in the frequency of birth defects during this shift and no evidence of harm to those working in the dental surgery or higher rate of birth defects has ever been conclusively demonstrated.
The risks of dental amalgam – other than the environmental ones – remain largely theoretical.”
In Norway dental nurses mixing the mercury amalgam successfully sued their government for damages to themselves and for birth defects in their children. whale.to/a/mercdental.html
If you agree the elemental mercury is not safe in the vast expanse of the environment how can it be safe accumulating inside the brain and body??
Kat
Posting links to whale.to pieces will only get you laughed at.
Can you give an answer to the question.
If the elemental mercury is not safe escaping into the vast expanse of the environment, how can it be safe accumulating in the brain and body??
No one so far who is pro mercury amalgam has given any plausible answer .
Yes the have, Kat. You just haven’t wanted to read it.
Elemental mercury is not particularly toxic but it is converted to methylmercury – which is way more toxic – by microorganisms in oceanic sediments. These micoorrganisms and the associated methylmercury pass up the food chain and eventually accumulate in the apex predators – oily fish and sharks. We eat those fish and the associated toxic methylmercury.
Mercury exposure from fish consumption is vastly greater than that from amalgam restorations.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25709298/
So please stop banging your cracked drum, Kat
The micro organisms are also present in the human body and convert the hg to methyl mercury.
The mercury amalgam industry have previously made a statement saying that the patient with an average number of amalgam fillings gets no more mercury from the fillings than from the food they eat.
But the WHO state that the amount of mercury from the fillings is about six times more than claimed by the mercury amalgam industry. Some patients have several times more than the average number of fillings.
Some patients are much more sensitive or become more sensitive to the mercury which they are exposed to 24hrs a day for maybe 60 yrs or more. The immune system never gets a break. Some patients smoke which releases more mercury. If a patient has a gold filling this doubles the size of the electric current created by the battery in the oral cavity which releases more mercury vapor.
The mercury amalgam industry have also claimed in the past that the mercury has an antibiotic effect.
However mercury has long been discarded as an antibiotic due to the horrendous side effects.
We note in passing that the mercury amalgam industry is guilty of mass medication without the knowledge or consent of the patient.
That’s an awful lot of unevidenced assertions, Kat.
Elemental mercury vapor is about 85% as toxic as plutonium.
Ooh look! There’s another one!
What a weird comparison. Plutonium has a completely different hazard profile than mercury, and most of its detrimental effects stem from its radioactivity, especially when particles are inhaled and lodge in the lungs, slowly causing increasing damage and hugely increasing the chances of lung cancer.
Plutonium is not converted into organic compounds comparable to organomercury compounds, and when ingested, it is hardly taken up by the body at all.
The last nail in the coffin for the mercury amalgam industry is the fact that the FDA, after over 100yrs, on
24/9/20, finally admitted the amalgam was not safe for many groups of patients.
And this confirms everything i have been saying.
Kat
Let’s see what the FDA said, shall we?
So where do they say that amalgam isn’t safe for some groups? They say there is a possible risk. Here in the UK we’ve avoided using amalgam in these groups for over 20 years for the same reason – it’s called being sensible.
What else do they say?
Remember what it says at the top of the page, Kat. Evidence. The FDA are NOT saying what you claim.
You really need to check that there’s water in the pool before jumping in.
Some of the mercury in the food we eat originally comes from amalgam fillings
@kat
You appear to be a bit (ahum) preoccupied with amalgam …
The biggest human-made source of environmental mercury by far is coal-fired power plants. IIRC, several dozen tons of elemental mercury end up in the environment this way each year – or 100 mg per US citizen per year. Luckily, only a minute fraction of this ends up in food, otherwise we’d face a daily mercury load of ~250 micrograms, which of course would be very unhealthy.
OTOH, there are some ‘hot spots’ where agriculture is undesirable due to high local mercury emissions.
And oh, please realize that coal = carbon from ancient plants, so this mercury in fact stems from completely natural, 350-million-year-old sources. Which of course is still another reason why we must abandon fossil fuels ASAP.
Anyway, dental amalgam does not play any significant role in this respect.
In the UK the NHS have refused to answer questions about mercury amalgam for many years.
Even using the freedom of info act the NHS break the law and refuse to answer. Instead you are referred to a website which refers to info 10- 20 yrs out of date and full of misleading info.
So what do you think is going on here?
kat,
You say:
“Last year the FDA finally admitted the amalgam is not safe after Margaret Hamberg [chief of FDA for about 25 years] was forced to resign after it was discovered she was sitting on the board of directors of Shein, the main mercury amalgam company and receiving $250,000 ayear for 3 hours work.”
Can you please provide a FDA reference for this “admission” last year about mercury amalgam not being safe? It is six years since Margaret Hamburg ceased to be Commisioner of the FDA, which she was for six years.
The most recent FDA statement I can find says:
“The FDA does not recommend anyone remove or replace existing amalgam fillings in good condition unless it is considered medically necessary by a health care professional (for example, documented hypersensitivity to the amalgam material). Removing intact amalgam fillings results in unnecessary loss of healthy tooth structure and a temporary increase in exposure due to additional mercury vapor released during the removal process.”
02/18/2021
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/dental-devices/dental-amalgam-fillings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioner_of_Food_and_Drugs
Do you agree with the FDA statement regarding the dangers of removing or replacing amalgam fillings?
The FDA issued a statement on 24/9/20 admitting that many groups of patients should not be receiving mercury amalgam fillings, including young children, those hypersensitive to the amalgam or its components and many patients with serious health conditions. I read about the Hamberg scandal many years ago and thought she was chief for 5yrs but typed 25 yrs by mistake.
When a tooth with amalgam is extracted the mercury is considered to be dangerous escaping into the environment, yet safe, by some health authorities, inside the mouth. So at what point in this extraction process
does the amalgam transform itself from being safe to be dangerous??
When replacing amalgam fillings with safer alternatives supplements of NAC and other natural products can be used which make the mercury much less toxic and easier to excrete.
It is much better to replace the mercury fillings than to leave them in as the accumulation of mercury in the brain and body will depress the immune system and may cause irreversible damage to health.
I had my own amalgam removed in 1985 by an alternative dentist in the UK who treated the royal family. The royal family did not get poisoned with mercury!
A link to the statement would be useful – otherwise I only have your word for it.
You say the FDA says certain groups should not “receive” mercury amalgam fillings. You appear to accept this statement.
FDA statements are based on science.
You appear not to not accept what the FDA says with respect to the replacement of mercury fillings.
Why accept one and not the other?
It is not for me to explain or challenge the findings of the FDA. I am not qualified to do so. It is for you to explain exactly why you do not accept them.
Your relevant scientific qualifications and publications please.
Which “Royal Family”?
Either way they are funny families.
@kat
I don’t know what you consider durable, but I the amalgam fillings that I have are 45 years old, and are still in perfect condition. Not a single one has had to be repaired or removed. And no, I don’t suffer from mercury poisoning or its associated symptoms.
And has this resulted in Swedish children being significantly healthier or smarter?
I think that you are making this up. I can’t find any evidence or news for this kind of radical measure (and yes, I did search in the Swedish language as well). There are some stories about one hospital ward with a handful of patients being evacuated in order to clean up a mercury spill, but absolutely not complete hospitals.
And this too is complete nonsense. We all have mercury in our bodies, as it is part of our natural environment. Every day, we ingest between 2 and 20 micrograms of mercury, simply because it is present in everything we eat and drink. And oh, 2 micrograms of mercury translates to 6E23 x 2E-6 / 200 = 6 times 10 to the power of 15 atoms, or 6 billion million atoms. And we even get a a lot more if we eat a serving of tuna or mackerel.
Don’t get me wrong: mercury is a nasty, toxic substance that should be avoided and phased out as much as possible, and I think that the Swedish people are being sensible.
But please stick with scientifically proven information, and, even better, find links to support the claims that you make. It is no use trying to scare people with fairy tales such as the above.
The lifetime of the amalgam fillings depend on where the filling is and whether it is subject to mechanical pressure when chewing. I had natural composite fillings in 1985 most of which are still in place.
It is not possible to accurately measure health, especially between 50% to !00%. Does anyone believe the
two state health theory; there are an infinite number of levels of health and everyone is biologically different.
It is possible to lose much of your health without symptoms especially with elemental mercury vapor which is much more dangerous than natural mercury which is combined with other elements. And how would you know whether or not you are being sub clinically poisoned?
I have read elsewhere many years ago that the human body is capable of detecting 1 atom of a substance and patients allergic to elemental mercury may have body cells which respond in some way, although the patient may not be concious of it.
“Mercury entering water bodies can contaminate fish and other animals, further exposing consumers to dangerous levels of secondary poisoning.
Though direct health risks from amalgam are still uncertain, mercury is known to cause damage to the brain and nervous system of developing fetuses, infants and young children.”
http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/12/europe-to-decide-on-use-of-mercury-in-dentistry/
I’m fascinated. What made these composites “natural”?
You are aware that composite resins of this era leach out comparitavely large amounts of bisphenol-A, aren’t you?
Bitumen is a natural(ly derived) substance that has be used to fill cavities?
@kat
How can you tell that there is a loss of health if there are no symptoms?
Subclinical means that there are no clinical signs of a condition. As long as a substance has no measurable effects, I don’t think that you can speak of poisoning – so I am inclined to say that there is no such thing as ‘subclinical poisoning’. As soon as you can measure unhealthy mercury levels and/or other signs of damage, it is a clinical presentation, and yes, then you can talk about poisoning (cf. ‘the dose makes the poison’).
As I explained, it is completely normal and natural to have a bit of mercury in the body, and the mere presence of, say, 1 μg/L of mercury in the blood cannot be considered poisoning.
Then there is the fact that in all of human history, the general health in (western) populations has never been better than it is now, with any detractors being almost exclusively lifestyle-related diseases. There are no signs of widespread poisoning at all.
I would be very interested to read this too. As I explained earlier, billions of atoms and molecules of mercury (and lots of other potentially toxic substances, e.g. arsenic) enter our body every day, without any ill effects(*). Also, the mechanism by which mercury expresses its toxicity is by binding to proteins, rendering them useless. This means that one mercury atom can destroy one protein molecule at a time. I find it very hard to believe that this is something that can trigger any response on a macroscopic scale (read: allergies or other symptoms). Proteins in our body naturally degrade and get replaced all the time, and in huge amounts, without any problems whatsoever.
The most potent toxin that I know of is botulinum toxin, just 100 nanograms of which can kill an adult human, an amount that is completely invisible with the naked eye. Yet even this tiny amount is still equivalent to ~500 billion molecules.
About children being healthier after completely banning mercury: I was thinking about thimerosal(**): antivaccine groups in the US blamed this vaccine preservative for health problems in children, and more specifically attributed the increasing number of autism diagnoses from 1975 onwards to this ingredient.
As a result, the US discontinued the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines in 2001. The result? None whatsoever. There was not a single health metric in children that showed any change or trend break from 2001. And no, nothing changed with regard to autism either. (As could be expected, these antivaccine groups never even admitted that they were wrong – they just started barking up another tree, i.e. aluminium-based adjuvants.)
*: This also implies that normally, mercury is excreted at the same rate as it enters the body, and does not accumulate. Only when the load increases beyond approximately 0.1 mg/day, it starts accumulating faster than the body can get rid of it, and from then onward, a risk of slow poisoning emerges.
Then there is also an interesting theory based on the hormesis effect, whereby low levels of harmful substances could actually have beneficial effects, by stimulating the various mechanisms by which our body gets rid of these things.
**: Many vaccines contained some 50 micrograms of this mercury compound per dose, which is 20 times the average daily mercury load of an adult. Yet in all 75 years of its use, no evidence for any detrimental effects was found, not even in the youngest children. This may be due to the fact that thimerosal does not persist in the body, but is excreted relatively rapidly, usually within 7-10 days.
Perhaps some interesting reading: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4724159/
Maybe it is also useful to explain my comments: I am working on a book about all sorts of beliefs (both justified and unjustified) in ‘alternative’ topics, among which ‘toxins’ and ‘detox’. In the course of trying to separate fact from fiction, I am doing a lot of research into the (hugely interesting) field of toxicology. So I am absolutely interested in what you say about these things, but I am also quite sceptical about claims that e.g. someone could noticeably respond to just one atom or molecule of a substance. So any criticism is certainly not directed at you personally, but merely meant to increase my knowledge by asking for further explanation.
I have also read that the human eye can detect 1 photon of light.
Scientists at CERN can detect atoms and even sub-atomic particles.
Atoms are about 98% free space.
It could be that the human body can detect the electronic “signature” of a substance and that it can remember these signatures.
If the body is accumulating toxins it might not cause any symptoms until a certain point is reached when it might be triggered into some reaction by an extra tiny amount of the toxin.
The human body can dispense hormones from endocrine glands more accurately than any man made device.
It is not so easy to explain sub-clinical disease.
when I was at university in 1970 the class was asked to measure the electric current at different parts of a circuit using an avometer and write down the results. For one part of the circuit all the class concluded there
was no current. However there was a tiny current but the avometer was not sensitive enough to measure it.
This kind of problem is involved with medical testing except it is grossly inflated. Doctors nearly always see sick patients with symptoms of disease but not patients in optimum health.
I have made mathematical calculations and used iron logic to prove that probably no one in the UK, where I
live, is in optimum health and very few are anywhere near optimum health. In terms of testing i estimate there is no difference between a patient about 50% healthy and 100% healthy. This is why I consider that you can lose about 50% of your health without any symptoms.
So when research is done and the researchers talk about healthy patients how do they know they are healthy? This is important because it means most research is flawed.
Historically, those most exposed to mercury vapour were those in the dental surgery involved in the placement and removal of amalgam restorations. During the 60s and 70s when the advent of the Borden air rotor meant that cavity preparation became faster and easier, amalgams were placed worldwide in their billions. Amalgam was then not triturated in capsules but manually by nurses using a pestle and mortar to mix the alloy powder and liquid mercury, often finishing by “mulling” the amalgam paste in the palm of their hand. The resultant amalgam had a much higher free mercury content than modern amalgams. Millions were placed in the teeth of pregnant mothers in the U.K. who were encouraged to visit the dentist because NHS dentistry was provided at no charge to them.
The number of fillings placed dropped dramatically during the 70s and 80s as the use of fluoride toothpastes became the norm.
To my knowledge, there was no alteration in the frequency of birth defects during this shift and no evidence of harm to those working in the dental surgery or higher rate of birth defects has ever been conclusively demonstrated.
The risks of dental amalgam – other than the environmental ones – remain largely theoretical.
(It is a material I now use very rarely. Not through any health fears but because I think that modern composite resins are the better materials)
A dear friend of mine with multiple sclerosis had his mercury amalgam fillings removed for a dear price. He and his wife asked me beforehand what I thought of the handout offering the treatment. My heart sank as I read it. I knew of their desperation. I simply said that they should do what they thought best. He died 15 years ago.
I am a general dentist working in The Netherlands for 10 years. I never place an amalgaam filling , I was teached only composite technique in patients but I have removed a lot of them in 10 years onder the rubber Dam . I see a lot of patients going to a biological dentist and having fear to the amalgaam .My clinical experience is that replacing a diep amalgaam filling has in common cases sensitieve or irreversibles púlpitis. So I do not advice to remove all of them due to this argument.Nice blog I am really happy that I found it !
thanks
“Three trials investigated possible harms of dental restorations. Higher urinary mercury levels were reported amongst children with amalgam restorations in two trials, but the levels were lower than what is known to be toxic. Some differences between amalgam and composite resin groups were observed on certain measures of renal, neuropsychological, and psychosocial function, physical development, and postoperative sensitivity; however, no consistent or clinically important harms were found.”
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005620.pub3/full