Amalgam Tooth Fillings cause of ME ?

[u&iraok]

Supposedly, the most at risk population for Mercury poisoning are dentist. Don't know if they're any studies showing an increase amount of illnesses for dentists.

www.mercurypoisoned.com/dental_personnel.html

Your body should be able to get rid of excess Mercury and other toxins and if it doesn't may warrant a look at your kidneys and liver. I am not talking about true toxic poisoning here such as industrial poisonings or events like Chernobyl.

That's the problem with many of us with ME/CFS, we have issues with our detoxification systems and we store toxins. As for the population at large, how do you know if you're one of the ones with genetic errors in detoxification or other detox issues? Some people smoke and drink and eat junk and live to be 100. But some don't.

The problem with chelation is that it gets rid of the good and bad stuff, kind of like ABs. People have died from this procedure. It's a matter of positives vs. the negatives.

You have to be careful with chelation, best done under doctor's supervision.

Here's a good reference article about the mercury and teeth issue.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/mercury-must-be-bad-if-not-in-vaccines-in-teeth/

The gist of this article, at least how I saw it, is that small amounts of mercury are released and so the people that cry "Mercury is bad" are overreacting. But it depends on how well your body detoxes, how much you absorb, how many fillings you have, other toxins you're exposed to, any toxins incl heavy metals that you received from your mother in the womb, other sources of mercury, lifetime accumulation.

Also, when mercury comes in contact with bacteria, it turns into methyl-mercury, a dangerous form of mercury. This can happen in the environment or with the bacteria in saliva:

Methylmercury, Amalgams, and Childrens Health

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392265/

 

[sianrecovery]

I had repeated dental infections and abcesses. Eventually, one way or another, all the metal went. I think both amalgam and long term infections of root fillings can contribute to CFS, as can any inflamatory, toxic, or infective challenge to the immune system. Well done to the moderator on this thread - surely we can respect each others views without pouring disdain on them? Dont we all get enough of that anyway?

 

[barbc56]

The gist of this article, at least how I saw it, is that small amounts of mercury are released and so the people that cry "Mercury is bad" are overreacting. But it depends on how well your body detoxes, how much you absorb, how many fillings you have, other toxins you're exposed to, any toxins incl heavy metals that you received from your mother in the womb, other sources of mercury, lifetime accumulation.

The first sentence about what the article says is correct. Ater that it is your personal opinion which has not been backed up by any credible science and this statement is not included in the article.

www.mercurypoisoned.com/dental_personnel.html

This is an agenda generated site that starts with the premise that we are poisoned from mercury and then fits the science around that premiss. Lots of ancedotal reports.

That's the problem with many of us with ME/CFS, we have issues with our detoxification systems and we store toxins. As for the population at large, how do you know if you're one of the ones with genetic errors in detoxification or other detox issues? Some people smoke and drink and eat junk and live to be 100. But some don't.

Do you have any studies that show this?

You have to be careful with chelation, best done under doctor's supervision.

Absolutely, but it needs to be done by a mainstream doctor and only in cases of extreme poisoning. Many naturopaths use tests/labs which are not validated.

Also, when mercury comes in contact with bacteria, it turns into methyl-mercury, a dangerous form of mercury. This can happen in the environment or with the bacteria in saliva:

Methylmercury, Amalgams, and Childrens Health

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1392265/

This is an opinion editorial.

I guess it depends what source you use. My personal choice are articles and citations that use science based medicine. :>)

 

[barbc56]

Maybe this thread should be under "alternative" treatments?

 

[Mark]

I want to thank everyone for maintaining the respectful tone in this discussion, it's much appreciated.

Maybe this thread should be under "alternative" treatments?

You could be right there. It's not particularly news, as such. General ME/CFS News tends to be used as a bit of a catch-all bucket, I think, and I sometimes wonder whether we need one or two new categories...suggestions on this would be welcome...

Do you have any studies that show this?...I guess it depends what source you use. My personal choice are articles and citations that use science based medicine. :>)

I'd like to throw my oar in here for a change, if I may...I don't often do so, as a moderator, but it's nice to be able to comment in a purely personal capacity occasionally...and what I'd like to say does seem to me to go to the heart of the difficult arguments we sometimes have here when we discuss 'alternative' and unproven treatments.

The problem I have with this approach, Barb, is that it appears that most of what counts as "science-based medicine" in the UK, based on criteria like NICE guidelines and the UK psychiatrists' own Oxford Criteria, is not even studying ME, or even CFS, but 'chronic fatigue', and so it certainly has very little if any relevance to me, and probably isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Then you have other studies, using proper criteria, which good though some of them are, are mostly un-replicated because seemingly nobody can be bothered to try, and themselves are too poorly-funded to be counted by the UK as "science-based medicine", and while their findings are relevant and interesting, there are far too few of them and their practical implications for treatment are minimal.

So in the absence of almost any decent science studying my illness which is recognised as "science-based medicine" by the authorities here, and in the absence of any credible treatments on offer from the mainstream, and with little to no apparent prospect of any reasonable level of scientific study of my illness happening in my lifetime, how can I rationally restrict my treatment options to "science-based medicine"?

If there was any significant level of science to point to, then of course I would prefer to follow that. But with the state of the science so distorted in this country, the definitions of my illness so mangled by a cynical game of Russian Dolls, and with nothing on offer from mainstream medicine, my only choice is either to sit back and accept that nobody gives a damn and there's nothing I can do but rot away, or to seek out the most plausible alternatives.

So after more than 10 years of illness, that's what I did, and after studying the terrain I opted for Dr Myhill's methods through a local physician - and after a year or so of detox saunas, targeted chemical avoidance, supplementation with B12, CoQ10, Omega3, L-Carnitine, etc. I had recovered so dramatically that I'm still able to sit here writing this 5 years later.

These 'detox' treatments are often maligned as having an insufficient scientific base - purely because there's not been enough high quality research into them, of course - but do I give a stuff about that? No, because I tried a wide variety of (to me) the most plausible 'alternatives', with an open mind, followed the evidence of what many other people told me had worked for them, took a gamble on something that wasn't yet scientifically proven, judged the success of each treatment protocol based on my own experience, and experienced the same dramatic results that I had heard and read about.

Waiting for 'science-based medicine' is all very well, but for most of us, a decade or two of (at best) useless advice from the mainstream system is enough to prompt us to consider alternatives. Yes, many of us spend a huge amount of money and get nowhere, and that is a very bad thing and yes, quite often exploitational - and it sometimes leaves those who didn't yet find a solution that worked for them with a lot of bitterness and anger at having wasted so much time and money for no return. But unless and until the mainstream "science-based" world pulls its finger out and starts studying us seriously, using proper criteria, and with real money and intent to understand and solve our problems, then the "science-based" world is completely unrealistic and hypocritical if it expects us to stick only with what it has to tell us. If you are offering less than nothing, you can't expect your customers to continue to accept that you are the only voice you should ever listen to. We turn our backs on the mainstream with great reluctance and desperation, and the world of mainstream medical science has nobody to blame for this rejection but itself.

I'm still only partially recovered, and left with bizarre immune symptoms and permanent elevated lymphocyte counts which nobody can explain. I'd love to be able to sleep in a bed again, or wear normal clothes, but nobody from the NHS has a thing to offer me. So maybe, if I can scrape the money together, I'll try the next set of recommendations from the doctor who made such a huge difference to my life - which included getting my mouthful of mercury fillings taken out and replaced. Her advice may not all be entirely science-based, but in its favour, it does seem to actually work for a whole lot of people, including myself, and these days I consider that to be as good a quality of evidence as anything else that's on offer to me.

 

[globalpilot]

Thank you Mark for this well written post which reflects my view exactly. I could never have said it so well. I am very thankful for all of those who do go ahead and do alternative treatments and report their results so we can all get a sense of what may be worth pursuing even though there is no scientific evidence.

One example that comes to mind is the parent reported effective treatments for autism. The #1 most effective treatment for autism is chelation. THis is based on reports by a large number of patients. As far as I know there are no studies backing up chelation yet these parents are saying it is effective. It caught my attention.

 

[barbc56]

Mark

I think we probably agree more than disagree on this as a general issue it's just that we have made different choices from what we consider the evidence. We are all in this together when it comes to this DD.

I absolutely agree with you that we need more studies. That being said, for me, I want to wait for the scientific studies or at least, theories that consider a priori, (plausibility) from medical knowledge about how the body works. As for the above issue, IMHO, the science isn't there to support it. Others are free to disagree.

There is a good site called http://whatstheharm.net/ but it's more about alternative medicine in general than specifically me/cfs. Just another look of this issue as it is important to look at all sides to become informaed consumers.

It's a personal choice. :>)

 

[u&iraok]

I'll second what Mark said (better than I could say it). I understand the desire to have science-backed information, but there are financial and politicial and other issues involved.

One thing I've learned is how little is known about the human body. It's incredibly complex and it's taken for granted until things go wrong. ME/CFS is an example of this, besides whatever reasons have kept scientists from studying it more than they have. I'm glad for the efforts and how much they're learning all the time, but we can't always wait.

It's also about doctoring, not just science. Part of doctoring is science but part is observation and experience. A good doctor who has experience in treating people is invaluable and can be more important than studies. I know fear comes into play because you're stepping outside the comfort zone of studies and studies only.

I was heavy-metal poisoned which of course to you is anectodal but for me was reality and for my doctor, another case experience. I am interested in prevention because there's a point when the damage is too great to repair, so I have to say something.

Most dentists are not using amalgams and they're banned in Sweden. Power plants in the U.S. are being required to install scrubbers to keep mercury (and other toxic emissions) from going into the atmosphere. There's the Faroe Islands study about the danger of eating mercury-laden fish, the Mad Hatters, Minimata Disease and other cases of groups and invidiuals being mercury poisoned. Of course, mercury thermometers were banned. And yet there's a debate in the health arena about whether mercury is safe. It sounds so strange to me, doesn't everyone know a little bit of mercury is dangerous? But it does seem to have come up at the same time that another issue involving mercury came up--which I won't mention, it'll start another heated debate!

 

[barbc56]

u&iraok

Here is a good definition/example of science based medicine which is sometimes also called evidence based medicine. As you can see it includes both studies and doctor's clinical experience. One enhances the other.

Evidence based medicine is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research. By individual clinical expertise we mean the proficiency and judgment that individual clinicians acquire through clinical experience and clinical practice. Increased expertise is reflected in many ways, but especially in more effective and efficient diagnosis and in the more thoughtful identification and compassionate use of individual patients' predicaments, rights, and preferences in making clinical decisions about their care. By best available external clinical evidence we mean clinically relevant research, often from the basic sciences of medicine, but especially from patient centred clinical research into the accuracy and precision of diagnostic tests (including the clinical examination), the power of prognostic markers, and the efficacy and safety of therapeutic, rehabilitative, and preventive regimens. External clinical evidence both invalidates previously accepted diagnostic tests and treatments and replaces them with new ones that are more powerful, more accurate, more efficacious, and safer.

Many people think science based medicine is a cookie cutter approach to diagnosis and based only on studies. It's not as you can see from the above. It involves judgment, clinical skills but it also is based on the best available knowledge about how the body works.

I've said my piece, so take from it what you want. :>)

 

[u&iraok]

Hi, Barb. Thanks for being so pleasant. I'm excerpting this from your quote above:

The practice of evidence based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research. By individual clinical expertise we mean the proficiency and judgment that individual clinicians acquire through clinical experience and clinical practice.

How is 'individual clinical expertise' defined? If I'm seeing a Naturopath who has 20 or 30years experience and does research and lab work and uses tests not used by the AMA but has success in treating patients, does that count, or does it not because it's an N.D. and not an M.D.? Or what if it's an Integrative Medicine doctor? There are M.D.s, though, who do talk about amalgams and mercury and have mercury removal protocols, one being Dr. Klinghardt. Does that count? Where do you draw the line since that definition about Evidence Based Medicine doesn't specify.

If there is individual clinical expertise but no studies, what then?

If you have mercury toxicity and you have amalgams or had them taken out incorrectly, could you actually prove that your mercury toxicity came from the amalgams? Or would you go with what your doctor says who has experience in treating mercury toxicity? The doctor might say that in his 20 years he has had many patients who have amalgams or amalgams taken out incorrectly who develop problems with mercury. Would you go with that?

There have been many lawsuits against companies who are accused of causing cancer by dumping hazardous wastes and creating poisoned places. They often get out of it because technically it cannot be proved that though the rates of cancer are much higher in these poisoned places, that the cancers came from the hazardous wastes.

So when are you allowed to use reasonableness and not direct irrefutable evidence? It doesn't mean that you won't sometimes be wrong or need to tweak things as you learn more. Studies are often wrong or based on wrong conclusions, or tampered with or lied about.

It just seems to me a prudent person would be cautious regarding any sources of mercury. What if we put the onus on those who say it won't hurt you to prove that it won't and in the meantime, we'll try to avoid it until we know for sure?

 

[Mark]

I'll echo that again: thanks everyone for keeping the conversation civil, it's turned out to be an interesting discussion I think.

Many people think science based medicine is a cookie cutter approach to diagnosis and based only on studies. It's not as you can see from the above. It involves judgment, clinical skills but it also is based on the best available knowledge about how the body works.

That's a helpful definition of evidence/science based medicine. I think that's a quite reasonable approach. Perhaps the problem comes partly from some people who seem to interpret 'evidence based' more strictly. I think there are much more bullish approaches to this issue out there, and in the UK in particular there are people who want to reinforce the standard NICE view of things more aggressively and rigorously. With something like the hopeless NICE view of ME/CFS, that's a big enough problem regarding NHS treatment alone, but going further and trying to stamp out alternative approaches in the private sector really is a step too far IMO. There needs to be some flexibility here, not a monolithic approach.

The case made against Dr Myhill seems to be a case in point. As the hearings eventually confirmed, once she had presented her evidence, although some of her treatments and recommendations are not necessarily in line with mainstream NICE 'best practice', what she's saying and doing is backed by some scientific evidence (albeit disputed evidence) and on her extensive clinical experience - so although some see her practice as not being evidence based, it is in fact evidence based according to the definition Barb provided above. I was particularly struck, during the course of my treatment, by the strength of the biomedical basis for the mitochondrial and enzyme deficiency analysis - tracking vitamin deficiencies and the pathways that were disrupted - and since I came to this treatment with a pretty sceptical attitude, actually, I discussed the science in some detail with my doctors, and looked it up in textbooks, and I found that it does indeed have a sound (if currently somewhat experimental) basis in human biology.

So it seems to me that science/evidence based medicine does not have to be a cookie cutter approach, and properly applied it should not be like that, but there are those who do apply those principles too strictly, and persecute anybody who is deviating from the 'party line' in these matters...and that can have a severe impact on patients like ourselves and the physicians who treat us.

To get back on topic re: amalgams, I should add that I haven't had my own fillings replaced despite that recommendation from the physician who helped me so much in other ways, and I've weighed it up myself and decided that it's not a high priority right now - but it's something I would definitely try if I had unlimited resources.

 

[Ian]

Graeme is the dentist that basically saved my life from the chronic bone infections I had in my jaw. Thanks to him I actually have a future now. I didn't specifically name him as the dentist I saw because it sort of undermines the validity of the source of the information when its tied to clinic X or Y. But these two single handedly probably cure more people of CFS than anyone else, at least in Europe anyway.

I just saw a show featuring Graeme & Lilian Munro-Hall and they were discussing the dangers of amalgam fillings, and specifically the illness they cause.......

 

[SickOfSickness]

Good friend with CFS/ME has no fillings.

I did not get worse when I had more amalgam fillings added.

1 healthy and 1 CFS person I know got a cold sore and felt bad when their amalgam fillings broke. I never thought I felt worse when I broke a filling. Maybe once.

I think it can add to the load of stressors on the body, making a person a little more likely to get CFS/ME. IMO it varies from person to person, just like other toxins. Some of us might be bedridden for a week if exposed to a certain toxin, others might feel bad for half a day, others would be bothered but barely impacted.

 

[SickOfSickness]

Supposedly you get really exposed to the mercury when you get one drilled out. The pressure and speed directly on it. I had a filling drilled a bunch of times because a bunch broke. They have to drill the remaining bits out before they can re-fill. I don't recall having any bad effects afterwards, and I'm chemically sensitive.

(Getting one drilled out by a removal expert doesn't count.)

However I don't get amalgam anymore - even though the other cost more and are less durable. Except in certain places it's difficult for them to do the other kind.

 

[Foggy]

Amalgam fillings have been linked to everything over the years.

I don't doubt that there are a few thick dental assistants and/or dentists out there who can't mix the filling ingredients properly and as a result has caused health problems in their patients, but how long have amalgam fillings been around? Yeeeeeeaaaars!

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Amalgam fillings have been linked to everything over the years.

I don't doubt that there are a few thick dental assistants and/or dentists out there who can't mix the filling ingredients properly and as a result has caused health problems in their patients, but how long have amalgam fillings been around? Yeeeeeeaaaars!

Mercury is one of the most terrible poisons know, far out of proportion for it's actual "conventional lethality" per se (it's an elemental poison, to start with, so it is eternally deadly)

one reason it's so terrible is that in a lot of chronic poisoning, the symptoms can be very varied, and mistaken for other things, and thus is often not diagnosed until far too late or never at all and may show up many years later in forensic/archaelogical examinations

It should be banned from use completely there is NO safe limit for mercury

Most metals from stable alloys, mercury does not, hence it was decided by scientists to keep it's archaic name for it's peculiar alloys: "amalgams"
(Amalgam is NOT a specific name, it's the name for mercury alloys in general)
chemical, physical electrochemically etc, it's unstable, it breaks down, recombines
it gives of vapour at room temperature, mercury vapour is about 1/10 to 1/30th (depends on which figures you go by) as deadly as Sarin nerve gas...that's not a joking matter
you heat mercury up as is/was done in some stupid gold mining methods etc, you'll eventually die
if you have neough weight and lower level unventilated room, you'll die in an appallingly nasty way within hours (that's killed idiots trying to melt silver out of sotlen mercury fillings, case in the US, killed the thief and two other innocents in the building, they had to compeltey demolish the building the fumes were so persistant and invasive).

It's gawd awful stuff that should have been left locked in the Earth's crust.

 

[Wayne]

Mercury Vapor From Amalgam Filling Video - Amalgam Removal Story

This 5-minute video might be helpful for anybody concerned about the release of mercury vapors from amalgam fillings:

Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas

I also found the following story (below) quite interesting, especially the final paragraph. Here's a link.

Amalgam and metal crown removal was a huge benefit to me. I have my doubts I would be alive to day had I not had this done about 12 years ago.

Thanks Mr. Kite, Mark and others for your insightful posts on this thread.

Best Regards, Wayne

..........................................................................

My Mercury Story
Introduction

In the mid 90s, despite being athletic and energetic, I began experiencing various health ailments. These ailments worsened and grew in number year-by-year.

By 2000, I had acquired 17 specific physical ailments ranging from fatigue to immune weakness to constant ringing in my ears. I could only work about 4 hours per day and had to take daily naps. I knew that something was seriously wrong.

I finally stumbed upon the cause of my problems while speaking to a friend about her health issues. She told me she had Chronic Fatigue and had healed herself after 5 years of visiting doctors and getting nowhere. She told me that she had her amalgam ("silver") dental fillings removed one-by-one, as she could afford it, and it had changed her from a bed-ridden state to a normal, working person. She told me something no dentist ever had:

Amalgam dental fillings contain mercury, the world's most toxic, non-radioactive metal.

I started conducting research on the Internet and found that I was not alone. Many other people were suffering just as I was and they had determined the problem was their dental fillings as well.

After spending numerous hours researching this issue, I had my amalgam fillings removed in couple weeks and my life changed forever, and it happened virtually overnight. A few years later, I realized that not only had my physical symptoms gone away, but a number of phobias vanished as well. My relationships improved, I became more social, my memory improved dramatically, and I realized how life is supposed to be lived.

Now, looking back, I realize that I lived most of my life with a number of negative personality traits and emotional ailments that were actually caused by mercury. My bad memory, extreme shyness, very low self esteem, fear of commitments (especially in relationships), history of suicidal thoughts and fear of confrontations is now gone, not to mention horrible depression, and all of these changes have dramatically improved the quality of my life.

 

[August59]

I have 3 or 4 metal crowns, but i asked my dentist about porcelain over metal was told by the actual dental lab that there is no mercury used porcelain over metal crown. I don't know about an all metal crown though.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

August
what's dangerous is, if they put a crown into a tooth that HAD an amalgam filling prior and use a "Post" (a steel peg to support/strengthen the tooth/crown)
if they leave any amalgam at all, it will react with the metal of the "post" used in most crowns
this is nastier than just the amalgam itself from what I recall.
As said, mercury is an incredibly reactive metal (hence it's banned form airplanes, if it ever gets in contact with the aluminium alloys used in much of the airframe, it sets of a sort of never ending reaction that eats way at the aluminium!)

not a worry though if the tooth never had an amalgam filling though

 

[Wayne]

Metal Crown Removal - Decay under Amalgam Fillings

I have 3 or 4 metal crowns, but i asked my dentist about porcelain over metal was told by the actual dental lab that there is no mercury used porcelain over metal crown. I don't know about an all metal crown though.

Hi August,

I had about 5-6 metal crowns removed after I had all my amalgams removed. I noticed more significant improvement after the metal crown removal (and the amalgam underneath most of them) than I did after completing the removal of about 12 amalgams. My partner mentioned several times in the following weeks after this crown removal that my brain was functioning so much better.

I might just mention also that when I had my amalgams removed, there was decay underneath almost all of them. I can see where if that decay had not been cleaned out at the same time, a number of these teeth could have eventually necessitated some very expensive crown and/or root canal and/or bridge procedures.

Best, Wayne