It is no longer possible to support the notion that mercury, in any form, can be anything but injurious to your health. It certainly has no business being used in any pharmaceutical preparation, medicine, lotion, potion, or salve which could then be prescribed by a health care practitioner under the mistaken premise that it will "help" you. By the way, the pharmaceutical industry apparently also recognizes this by virtue of having already removed it from all products that they manufacture including thimerosal which has been used as a preservative in many products in "minute" amounts. The last holdout and at this point occupying an almost laughable position in the face of a scientific community which has become unified in opposition to medical use of mercury is our precious ADA.
The ADA (The American Dental Association) has never wavered in it's Mantra that mercury amalgam silver fillings (which by definition are 51% mercury) are completely safe when placed in the mouth. This is a very interesting position to cling to in these enlightened times. Lets' take a look at why: When a dentist prepares amalgam for placement in the mouth he actually adds the mercury to the other ingredients himself just prior to placing the amalgam in the newly prepared tooth. Now if it happens to be you sitting in the dental chair awaiting the arrival of this mixture to fill your newly "drilled out" tooth. Take note in this scenario:
Knowing these very real possibilities that your dentist faces daily does shed some valuable and much need light on the mercury issue. It also may bring you to a point in the mercury controversy where you may begin to question why mercury continues to be used in the mouth. Mercury is dangerous to your health. The EPA knows it. The medical profession knows it. And guess what?? In my opinion the FDA and the ADA both know it. Yet, as a matter of policy neither have been responsible enough to finally admit that they have been wrong. Mercury isn't safe when place in the mouth. The mantra that continues to proport that mercury amalgam is safe doesn't pass the smell test of common sense. It is clear that a substance that must be treated as a hazardous material before it's placed in the mouth and after it's taken out of the mouth is equally hazardous while its in the mouth. The public when given the correct and accurate information will ultimately make the necessary decisions for their own health care needs. When given all the options with the negatives and positives of each. Yes it is a shame that the institutions entrusted with the responsibility to assure public safety continue to demonstrate that they are not deserving of that trust. Even if there was a legitimate doubt about the safety of mercury being used in the human body, these official agencies like the FDA and ADA should at least error on the side of safety by prohibiting the use of mercury until any lingering doubts can be removed. In choosing not to they postpone the inevitable day of reckoning into the future. That day is not too far away. When it finally arrives the public trust in those organizations, in my opinion, will be irrevocably harmed and as a result financially crippled from a myriad of lawsuits by those who have been injured from mercury exposure of silver mercury amalgam. Your Dentist: The most logical source of information - I don't think so! Now let's agree from the "get go" on a couple of things regarding your family dentist. By the way this is coming from an individual that has a father-in-law who is a retired dentist of some 30 years of practice (he has his share of health problems - I wonder why) and a brother -in-law that is on the upsurge of his dental career and is in "full swing" as they say. It goes with out saying that your dentist is a nice person and a competent practitioner. All dentists have worked hard to get where they are today. They preform a vital function in your overall heath and dental care. They would never purposely harm you. They are scientifically oriented craftsmen able to do miraculous things inside a very small space with meticulous accuracy. They are however a bit of an oxymoron in that they are the last of the healthcare professionals to actually still handle and use mercury, a known harmful substance. Now when you visit this friend of the family with the anticipation of having a frank discussion on the dangers of mercury amalgams you should not be surprised if you encounter a very unfriendly interaction with him.
In fact it's a little more definitive than that. Due to the accepted belief that mercury amalgam is a safe material the ADA has been quite clear that any discussion to the contrary is unethical and potential grounds for revocation of licensure by dental boards within the states. I think you would agree after all that has been mentioned here that even though you would think otherwise the last place you can expect to get clear and accurate information regarding mercury amalgam is from your dentist. It is that rare dental professional that can feel comfortable enough with you to risk his professional life by a discussion of this type. Do not abrogate your own responsibility here. You are responsible for your own health care choices. Given the available information you should decide how you want your health and dental care to be managed. The ADA, FDA or any other A can't force you to receive care that you personally disagree with. It may mean, and usually does mean, that you will have to change dentists or doctors but they are available and identifiable and there are numerous resources available to assist you in that endeavor. Hidden Secret - A VERY INTERESTING AND LITTLE KNOWN FACT: I have been at the same point where many of you may be now in terms of trying to understand how could mercury - and amalgam be used by the dental profession if it is potentially so harmful. It won't be my full intention to explain why others may choose to do the indefensible. It does start to take on different dimensions as you begin to reduce things to "the basics". When basics come into the picture we see evidence everyday of how poor decisions can be made. There should be no doubt that economic gain is one of what I call "the basics". Introducing money into decision making for which economic gain of enormous proportions begins making things even more understandable. Even when those decisions involve ethics, and duty, and responsibility and the public trust. The fact of the matter is that the ADA holds the patents on mercury amalgam. This is a fact that is little known even by the dental community. It goes without saying that if you are in control of dental education curriculum, and also hold the patent on a material used throughout the nation as the staple item to be used in dental restoration you have at a minimum one hell of a conflict of interest. Even if your decision making is pure and based solely on integrity those decisions will always be questioned when you benefit financially from a decision and would stand to loose millions of dollars in revenue if you decided to the contrary. Now I can't say why we have an ADA that appears to be acting contrary to what I would expect a responsible organization of the public trust to do but I can understand it a whole lot better when I know that they can benefit financially from what I personally feel are inappropriate decisions with respect to the use of mercury amalgam. The Sanitization of mercury - Cyanide Bracelets I have had many discussions with dentists to be able to comment on responses that I have found to be representative of the group. When it comes to a discussion of mercury amalgam, one response which I frequently get is usually quite emotional with a raised voice level as if to suggest emphasis. I expect that you might get the same response if you were to confront your own dentist on this subject. Allow me to share an observation when the volume of a conversation suddenly becomes elevated and notably tense. By raising your voice you invariably telegraph that an issue is extremely sensitive to you because you either know a lot about it or that you know absolutely nothing about it. I assure you that with respect to the mercury issue a raised voice is usually indicative of the latter. Please keep this rule in mind should you ever decide to enter into a discussion about mercury with your dentist even though I contend that it would be ill advised.
We just have to get one thing straight and crystal clear and I suppose to do so it would be best to use indisputable. |
||||||
FACTS:
This list of mercury information could go on and on but they and many others are found on the mercury fact sheet found at another location at this site. The point is any mercury in the body is harmful even when the individual who is harboring the mercury is feeling well. I refer to these patients as "the walking wounded". I consider myself in that category and realize that although I feel fine today I won't be feeling fine forever. The mercury that leeches from my filling are being taken up by all of my tissues and organs. The price I will pay for that will be my diseases of the future. Some other individuals are not so lucky. They have a heightened sensitivity to mercury that affects them now and profoundly. To support this sensitivity concept are my own personal observations of these mercury afflicted. They are sensitive to everything. They constantly complain about smells and food and spices and you name it. Mercury is not their only sensitivity. It is safe to say though that it is their most serious sensitivity. It is also reassuring to note that when they are relieved of their mercury burden they improve markedly. The academic discussion of mercury by dentists is only that - academic. You cannot sanitize mercury. You cannot minimize the harm that comes from it. It must be removed from dentistry on that basis and no other. To offer debate and study as an acceptable way to solve the mercury mystery portends that there is a mystery. Folks there is no mystery. Let me offer a parallel. It is universally accepted that cyanide is deadly. This is indisputable and an undeniable fact. If you tried to sell cyanide jewelry such as a bracelet or a necklace I think that there would be many that could wear the bracelet with little to no effect. and would continue to feel healthy. This could not be construed that cyanide jewelry is healthy only that in certain individuals the toxic effects of cyanide jewelry can go unnoticed for a while. It is safe to assume that the moment any one of these individuals were to suddenly get sick that their doctors would blame the sickness in some part to the cyanide jewelry that they were wearing. There would be those that would become extremely ill immediately from the jewelry. It would not be appropriate to make or sell cyanide jewelry under any circumstance by using he premise that some people can tolerate the jewelry well. Instead you would immediately arrest anyone attempting to do so. You can't sanitize cyanide and you can't sanitize mercury. Both are deadly. Whether or not you suffer from the consequences now or later. So the argument meant to mystify mercury is illogically placed. It is not an argument it is an absurdity.
This appears to be the price to pay for the safety margin required by the public and owed to them by the dental profession. It should be mentioned that when you get down to it no dental material is really inert. When we replace mercury amalgam fillings in our center we submit a blood sample to the lab so that compatibility studies can be conducted to determine the best replacement material for that specific patient. In almost every case the patient does show some degree of immunologic incompatibility. We therefore have to choose the most compatible material and rarely if ever find a material that is completely inert.
Toxicity VS. Compatibility I have had dentists say to me, "look, according to "you guys" there really is no dental material that is safe to put in the mouth. When I hear this I usually perceive that this is somehow a justification that mercury amalgam should equally be considered as a replacement material on the basis that there is a problem with all dental materials. Here is another instance where distinctions must be drawn in order to denote acceptable dental replacement materials in contrast to the unacceptable. For this reason an understanding of the difference between toxic materials and compatible materials is in order. In the case of mercury amalgam we are truly talking about a toxic material which can accumulate in the body over time. The accumulation of the material leads to gradual and steady deterioration of the health status of the individual. Toxic substances like mercury, lead, cadmium, and arsenic should never be used in the body for any reason and most assuredly not as a filling material in the teeth. Toxic materials are never inconsequential there is always a price to pay for their presence in the body even though the price can be payed more rapidly in some and more delayed in others. Compatibility is much different than toxic. Compatibility is conferred on a substance based on its ability to provoke and immunological reaction with the formation of antibodies which attempt to attack the substance and the tissues within which it resides. When a substance is highly reactive or incompatible in an individual is should not be utilized as a replacement material. This however does not preclude that same substance from being used in another individual without harm. Without testing it is impossible to know which materials would or would not be compatible for a patient. The important way to conclude this issue is to make you aware that this type of testing is available and in sensitive patients it would be wise to utilize the testing as a basis for making replacement material decisions.
Insurance Reimbursement
Another very real obstacle to safe dentistry has to do with insurance plans which have grown to become a part of health care coverage that is bought through group plans attached to a patients job. Most insurance plans only cover mercury amalgam fillings as a replacement material and for this reason don't even mention the option of composite materials. There is not a great difference in cost between the two but there is a difference. It would be beneficial for you to discuss the use of "white fillings" instead of "silver" ones with your dentist and your preference for the former. You could also consider a rider to your existing plan when that is possible. The fact of the matter is that once you have decided that mercury amalgam is a health hazard that you want to avoid you will arrange for the safer material to be placed by whatever means that is necessary even if that means that you will have to pay a little more for composites. Legislation to the rescue
State legislation although promising is a slow process and has to be done over and over 50 different times. In October of 2001 Diane Watson a democratic legislator from California was able to introduce a bill in the U.S. Congress that effectively phases out the use of all mercury amalgam in dentistry by the year 2005. Now this bill if it passes it will do the job of 50 different state legislatures all in one stroke and effectively removes the FDA and ADA from the equation. It's sad to think that it should have to come to this. The public must be protected and waiting around for the appropriate organizations and agencies to do so has proven futile |
http://www.dennisjcourtney.com/mama.php
CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with https://www.netatlantic.com
Contact Us - Advertise - Stats
0.078 sec, (15)