The Sanitization of Mercury - Cyanide Bracelets The Sanitization of Mercury - Cyanide Bracelets
The Sanitization of Mercury - Cyanid... 
Aharleygyrl
17 y
8,827
|
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
i don't think that is the only issue, whether what leaks out is enough to be toxic. the general public are not scientists and are basically sheep, in so much as, they are led by others who have the means and money to lead them. meaning, the corporations are able to collude with the government and produce products for consumers, and the consumers have a blind faith in those products. the government sets up entities like the FDA to make the general public think that everything out there within their jurisdiction, is safe. the problem is that corporations pay off the FDA and other agenies in order to get a product on the market or keep certain products out there. mercury amalgam and fluoride are two such examples. so the public is already at a disadvantage with brainwashing. then, the issue of the general public not knowing how really toxic mercury is, really becomes the issue.
i believe it isn't a question of how much comes off the teeth that is the hurdle the mercury opponents face, i believe it is the fact that most humans do not understand how minute an amount of mercury it takes to damage cells and destroy health. one BIG reason for this is because a filling is relatively small within the scale of our bodies. humans think that a small amount of something is not harmful. they are just not educated in detail on the most toxic substances on the planet. scientists who do know, isolate the general public from those things. so, by allowing mercury into fillings, it sends the message that a little bit of mercury doesn't hurt people. a perfect example of this also, is all the kids who were given mercury to play with as a kid, and all those who have taken thermometers apart and played with the little balls of mercury. when mercury from a thermometer is dumped in a lake, our govenment knows to shut down the lake, but when someone breaks open a thermometer, it isn't viewed by the average person, as toxic. now, i realize there are different forms of mercury, and that is how they are still able to get away with placing one kind in the mouth and saying oh, it is the kind that doesn't hurt you. well, it mixes with bacteria in the mouth and DOES form the more deadly type. but, then, that goes back to what i said before, in that, the general public are not scientists.
Torrie
Re: The Sanitization of Mercury - Cy... Aharleygyrl
17 y
7,823
Internet Troll / Forum Troll He (and in 90% of cases it is he) tries to start arguments and upset people. Excerpts from the article What is an Internet Troll?
"Netiquette Guidelines"
What is an Internet Troll/ Forum troll?
A classic CureZone troll is trying to make us believe that he is a skeptic. He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude, "searching for the truth", flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him. Troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them.
While he tries to present himself as a skeptic looking for truth ... his messages usually sound as if it is the responsibility of other forum members to provide evidence that what forum is all about is legitimate science.
I will give you few examples of classic troll messages & discussion threads:
Sometimes, he is skeptical, trying to scare people, trying to plant fear in their hearts. Many curezone trolls are people trying to promote Quackwatch / ratbags agenda.
Sometimes, Internet troll is trying to spin conflicting information, is questioning in an insincere manner, flaming discussion, insulting people, turning people against each other, harassing forum members, ignoring warnings from forum moderators.
Trolling is a form of harassment that can take over a discussion. Well meaning defenders can create chaos by responding to trolls. The best response is to ignore it, or to report a message to a forum moderator. CureZone moderators usually delete troll messages or block trolls. Negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.
Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.
When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed. Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a webmaster is deciding whether to take steps against a troll that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, the webmaster has to decide if the troll actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one -- himself.
Next time you are on a message board and you see a post by somebody whom you think is a troll, and you feel you must reply, simply write a follow-up message entitled "Troll Alert" and type only this:
The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction and not to respond to rolling messages. It is well known that most people don't read messages that nobody responds to, while 99% of forum visitors first read the longest and the largest threads with the most answers.
Once upon a time, evil dwarfs were living in hills, forests and mounds. They were stumpy, misshapen, humpbacked, with a long nose, long hair and a long tail. Trolls were inclined to thieving, and fond of carrying off children. They would substitute one of their own offspring for that of a human mother. They were called "hill-people", and they were especially averse to noise, from a recollection of the time when god Thor used to fling his hammer after them. Not all trolls were evil!. Some trolls were helping people. Some trolls were only playing games. But, evil trolls were the one that kids were most afraid of. Some trolls were small, other were giants.
"Internet Trolls"
Copyright © 2001 by Timothy Campbell
July 13 2001 Edition
http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm
An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.
Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.
Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.
Why does it Matter?
Some people -- particularly those who have been online for years -- are not upset by trolls and consider them an inevitable hazard of using the net. As the saying goes, "You can't have a picnic without ants."
It would be nice if everybody was so easy-going, but the sad fact is that trolls do discourage people. Established posters may leave a message board because of the arguments that trolls ignite, and lurkers (people who read but do not post) may decide that they do not want to expose themselves to abuse and thus never get involved.
Another problem is that the negative emotions stirred up by trolls leak over into other discussions. Normally affable people can become bitter after reading an angry interchange between a troll and his victims, and this can poison previously friendly interactions between long-time users.
Finally, trolls create a paranoid environment, such that a casual criticism by a new arrival can elicit a ferocious and inappropriate backlash.
The Internet is a wonderful resource which is breaking down barriers and stripping away prejudice. Trolls threaten our continued enjoyment of this beautiful forum for ideas.
<...snip...>
The Webmaster's Challenge
When trolls are ignored they step up their attacks, desperately seeking the attention they crave. Their messages become more and more foul, and they post ever more of them. Alternatively, they may protest that their right to free speech is being curtailed -- more on this later.
The moderator of a message board may not be able to delete a troll's messages right away, but their job is made much harder if they also have to read numerous replies to trolls. They are also forced to decide whether or not to delete posts from well-meaning folks which have the unintended effect of encouraging the troll.
Some webmasters have to endure conscientious users telling them that they are "acting like dictators" and should never delete a single message. These people may be misinformed: they may have arrived at their opinion about a troll based on the messages they see, never realizing that the webmaster has already deleted his most horrific material. Please remember that a troll does have an alternative if he has something of value to say: there are services on the net that provide messaging systems free of charge. So the troll can set up his own message board, where he can make his own decisions about the kind of content he will tolerate.
Just how much can we expect of a webmaster when it comes to preserving the principles of free speech? Some trolls find sport in determining what the breaking point is for a particular message board operator. They might post a dozen messages, each of which contains 400 lines of the letter "J". That is a form of expression, to be sure, but would you consider it your duty to play host to such a person?
Perhaps the most difficult challenge for a webmaster is deciding whether to take steps against a troll that a few people find entertaining. Some trolls do have a creative spark and have chosen to squander it on being disruptive. There is a certain perverse pleasure in watching some of them. Ultimately, though, the webmaster has to decide if the troll actually cares about putting on a good show for the regular participants, or is simply playing to an audience of one -- himself.
What about Free Speech?
When trolls find that their efforts are being successfully resisted, they often complain that their right to free speech is being infringed. Let us examine that claim.
While most people on the Internet are ardent defenders of free speech, it is not an absolute right; there are practical limitations. For example, you may not scream out "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you may not make jokes about bombs while waiting to board an airplane. We accept these limitations because we recognize that they serve a greater good.
Another useful example is the control of the radio frequency spectrum. You might wish to set up a powerful radio station to broadcast your ideas, but you cannot do so without applying for a license. Again, this is a practical limitation: if everybody broadcasted without restriction, the repercussions would be annoying at best and life-threatening at worst.
The radio example is helpful for another reason: with countless people having a legitimate need to use radio communications, it is important to ensure that nobody is 'monopolizing the channel'. There are only so many clear channels available in each frequency band and these must be shared.
When a troll attacks a message board, he generally posts a lot of messages. Even if his messages are not particularly inflammatory, they can be so numerous that they drown out the regular conversations (this is known as 'flooding'). Needless to say, no one person's opinions can be allowed to monopolize a channel.
The ultimate response to the 'free speech' argument is this: while we may have the right to say more or less whatever we want, we do not have the right to say it wherever we want. You may feel strongly about the fact that your neighbor has not mowed his lawn for two months, but you do not have the right to berate him in his own living room. Similarly, if a webmaster tells a troll that he is not welcome, the troll has no "right" to remain. This is particularly true on the numerous free communications services offered on the net. (On pay systems, the troll might be justified in asking for a refund.)
Conclusion
Next time you are on a message board and you see a post by somebody whom you think is a troll, and you feel you must reply, simply write a follow-up message entitled "Troll Alert" and type only this:
The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.
By posting such a message, you let the troll know that you know what he is, and that you are not going to get dragged into his twisted little hobby.
