Chaotic Immune System

Wishful

Senior Member
Messages
1,222
Likes
1,712
Would you feel comfortable about handling mercury fillings
In a proper safe manner, yes. I've cleaned up mercury spills (thermometers) by hand before, without excessive safety precautions, and without excessive worry either. I've also applied calomel (mercurous chloride) ointment to my skin. It was an over-the-counter health product bought in I think it was the 1980's. Short-term minor exposure is not the same as long-term excessive exposure. Exposure should certainly be minimized, but excessive worry about minor exposure might be more of a detriment to health than the actual mercury. There's a difference between reasonable concern and excessive fanatical concern.
 

Wishful

Senior Member
Messages
1,222
Likes
1,712
I didn't say that mercury was totally safe. The process of putting a filling in does cause a noticeable amount of mercury absorption; far more than an old filling sitting in a tooth. The initial mixture has free mercury (and vapour). Once it's had time to set, the mercury is mostly locked in, and doesn't wear (release mercury) very quickly.

If I was to get a molar filled today, I'd research the available filling materials (and ask the dentist too), and then decide. If the alternative materials have problems that I consider equal to or worse than amalgam, I'd probably go with amalgam.

Keep in mind that for most of the 150 years that amalgam fillings have been in use, there weren't any better options. While it may not be totally 100.000% safe for completely 100.000% of patients, its safety record seems pretty good.
 

prioris

Senior Member
Messages
606
Likes
399
The ADA said it is ok to put mercury fillings in people's mouth but the ADA warns dentists about handling the mercury fillings ... it's ok to have them in mouth but not hanfle them ... hmmmmm!

oh yeah, the ADA has rules forbidding dentists advising their customers against mercury and will take away their licenses if they warn their customers about toxicity ... hmmmm

The powers that be fluoridate the water supply and say it is good for you but dentists and product boxes will warn against swallowing products containing flouride ... hmmmmm!

health care system is perverted
 
Messages
76
Likes
172
thanks for link ... i noticed they also say glyphosate is ok ... clearly an inductry PR site but still very useful
I would suggest checking out this group's disclosures before simply writing them off as a "industry" PR shill.

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/mission-financials-governorship/

The reason I like reading their articles is because they are science based, debunk the claims of activists and back up their opinions with actual studies. I am always skeptical of absolutes unless proven. Too many activist groups and indeed industry groups do use propaganda. The truth is usually found in the science and thus in the middle ground. It is too easy to dismiss things we may not agree with as propaganda due to our biases. Finding factual data in this age of instant experts, activism and fake news is harder and harder to do, and we tend to close our minds and take sides as a result. I try my best not to fall into that trap.
 

Wishful

Senior Member
Messages
1,222
Likes
1,712
The ADA said it is ok to put mercury fillings in people's mouth but the ADA warns dentists about handling the mercury fillings ... it's ok to have them in mouth but not hanfle them ... hmmmmm!
Yes, that's quite logical. Having one filling put in gives the patient a single dose of probably a few mcg, and once it's set properly, it's probably fractional mcg/day. That's considered a safe level. Not perfectly safe, but well within a typical healthy body's ability to handle without significant ill effects. Amalgam fillings have other properties that overall make it a good choice for fillings.

Dentists who install and remove multiple fillings each day face a much higher total exposure to mercury. It's probably tens or more times the exposure one patient receives at a time, and maybe thousands or more times the daily exposure the patient with an existing filling receives. So yes, it is wise to warn dentists (and assistants) about that level of exposure. It's a totally different situation from having a filling.

I'm sure the same situation applies to patients and technicians involving radiation sources. It's considered statistically safe for a patient to receive an x-ray or PET scan, but the technician deals with maybe thousands of patients a year, so it wouldn't be safe for the technician to receive the same doses that each patient receives.

As for fluoride, I would guess that the level in tap water is much lower than the amount in a squeeze of toothpaste. Toxicity depends on dosage. A small amount may provide health benefits; an excessive amount may provide a health risk.
 

prioris

Senior Member
Messages
606
Likes
399
not one dose ... mercury fumes are still released over lifetime of mercury fillings
i guess you have no need for fluoride filters and can save money so you got that going for you
 
Messages
76
Likes
172
I did. I get no warm and fuzzy feeling.
Can you be more specific in terms of what you disagree with in their mission statment or funding sources? They are simply separating the science from the political and the mythology. That standard seems to me to be exactly what most of us with ME/CFS want and need. Too bad there are not more organizations out there doing the same. I suspect you might have your ox gored by such non political, science based information but at least you can rest assured that this not an industry PR site. It’s up to you to agree or disagree and it is up to you to decide if your views are sinpmply based in emotion or have real data and science backing them up.
 

prioris

Senior Member
Messages
606
Likes
399
Nina Fedoroff, emeritus professor in molecular biology, Penn State University, former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

President Bill Clinton appointed Fedoroff to the National Science Board, which oversees the National Science Foundation.

----------------

i picked out the first name and checked her background. The above credentials alone show she can't be trusted. The people on the NSF have a long history of going along with grand scientific lies. They have played in major role in suppression of science in the US. The NSF show zero integrity and are nothing more than political appointees who are there to forward covert political agendas and not science. Wouldn't surprise me she works for the CIA. The grand scientific lies have be integrated in the education system. They have brainwashed the public with these monumental lies.

The fundamentals of astronomy, geology, meteorology and physics are just a few of the sciences that will need to be rewritten from ground up. Mainstream astronomy will be first domino to fall. All the space probe data is disproving mainstream astronomy. It will eventually be replaced with the Electric Universe model which the space probe data is proving. Even NASA is taking tiny steps toward the plasma universe direction while still maintaining lies. The lies were apparent many decades ago. There is so much to write on this topic.
 

roller

wiggle jiggle
Messages
539
Likes
300
i agree with @prioris

would add archeology, psychology to the list. which still wouldnt be complete.

to be wrong or imprecise with a hypotheses or an analysis or a measurement is normal, probably essential. it may serve other fields. its part of the human/natures design. in addition, new advances from other techno-fields (should) give better data and help improving theories.

there should be a "timeline" with every event, discovery.
if there was reasonable logic applied.

though, totally gross is, for how long false believes are followed by "science". no timeline.

hypotheses are ridiculous, hold less and less water, though go uncontested for centuries.
unquestionied.

imo, this is reason for "diseases" like mecfs, alzheimers, cancer...

till today, they have not understand how the "body" works.
they are unable to make a full and clear body model, with its substances, building blocks, function ...
moreover, they should be able, to analyze all this from every patient with technology.
if they could, wouldnt it be easy to set up a full body model, individual ones?

but hey, search for a metabolic trap.
in 2019 they aint ashamed to pose for pics, shaking colorful glass tubes, like 500 years ago.

im not often at doctors offices. but when, i feel beamed back hundreds of years. e.g. eye doctor, ENT.
gross. embarrassing.

the others are like staffis that just wont let go their odd bacteria and viruses theories.

we just let it happen.
 
Last edited:

prioris

Senior Member
Messages
606
Likes
399
they covered up ancient history and archaeology too because they don't want the public to be aware that global catastrophes happen like clock work on earth and are more frequent than people think. Earth has reset events. This is relevant to us. they have spent many centuries carrying out the suppression of ancient history. Plus they have way more advanced technology behind the scenes.

The Egyptian pyramid has wood built into it. That was proven in 1993. Wood was also found at a much earlier time but mysteriously disappeared. That means it can be dated. They have disallowed any small samples of the wood to be taken for dating because it would prove the main pyramid was built more than 13000+ years ago. It's apparent to most truthers that the main pyramid was built with advanced technology. That would prove that official history was a lie and require them to rewrite the history books. They don't want the truth to be known.

Anybody connected to the NSF can't be trusted
 

JES

Senior Member
Messages
780
Likes
1,550
The Egyptian pyramid has wood built into it. That was proven in 1993. Wood was also found at a much earlier time but mysteriously disappeared. That means it can be dated. They have disallowed any small samples of the wood to be taken for dating because it would prove the main pyramid was built more than 13000+ years ago. It's apparent to most truthers that the main pyramid was built with advanced technology. That would prove that official history was a lie and require them to rewrite the history books. They don't want the truth to be known.
Who are you exactly referring to by "they"? It sounds to me like your worldview is that no one with authority in any field of subject can be trusted and that every official story we are ever told is a lie. What is the methodology you used to determine what is a lie and not and who are the people we should trust according to you?
 

roller

wiggle jiggle
Messages
539
Likes
300
"they"
there are so huge numbers of groups that have an interest in "history" and its "modifications", "adjustments".
religious, cultural groups, and even historians - just as n the medical field - push some theory out.

its astounding how unverified, undebated this all goes by and for how long.

the average joe wouldnt expect that this is how "science" works.
so, excuse the outrage..
 

prioris

Senior Member
Messages
606
Likes
399
Who are you exactly referring to by "they"? It sounds to me like your worldview is that no one with authority in any field of subject can be trusted and that every official story we are ever told is a lie. What is the methodology you used to determine what is a lie and not and who are the people we should trust according to you?
Anyone with authority involved in the NSF ... nope ... they are political hacks

who "they" is is a complex question because your dealing with many compartmentalized levels. people are only told what they need to know to carry out their jobs. most people can easily be brainwashed. you add in the denial, ignorance and sociopath behavior, you get a complex situation which the upper levels manipulate. the most powerful "they" are a highly advanced and sophisticated hidden global power structure that operate secretly for thousands of years. you have alien involvement in this group also. the group that controls it need to have much longer lifespans than humans.
 

JES

Senior Member
Messages
780
Likes
1,550
"they" are a highly advanced and sophisticated hidden global power structure that operate secretly for thousands of years. you have alien involvement in this group also. the group that controls it need to have much longer lifespans than humans.
But the more global the structure gets, the more people need to be involved in keeping the secret. And the more people you add into a "secret group", the more likely the secret is to one day leak out. There was a study done (source) that found you can only employ 1257 co-conspirators to keep something secret for a decade. And for a century, the number goes down to a mere 125 people. These numbers rule out most global conspiracies, because they would require such a large number of people involved that the secret would leak out sooner rather than later.

Science can be wrong, but the likelihood that some secret agenda on global scale is maintained for decades is rather small. For example, within medicine there was a time when the tobacco industry managed to promote science that claimed smoking is safe, but eventually they could no longer suppress the evidence despite the millions of money they put into supporting their own agenda.
 

prioris

Senior Member
Messages
606
Likes
399
@roller
most people at the grassroots level go along with suppression because their sociopaths ...
outside their personal relationships in life, they don't care about the truth or will live the lie for some carrots ... most people have little problem living the lie ... they do it thru denial, ignorance or intentionally or just plain corrupt ...

the powers that be could never be successful without cooperation from below... suppression comes from above and below ... the truth seekers are in very small numbers with in the population ... way less than 5% of population
 

prioris

Senior Member
Messages
606
Likes
399
But the more global the structure gets, the more people need to be involved in keeping the secret. And the more people you add into a "secret group", the more likely the secret is to one day leak out. There was a study done (source) that found you can only employ 1257 co-conspirators to keep something secret for a decade. And for a century, the number goes down to a mere 125 people. These numbers rule out most global conspiracies, because they would require such a large number of people involved that the secret would leak out sooner rather than later.

Science can be wrong, but the likelihood that some secret agenda on global scale is maintained for decades is rather small. For example, within medicine there was a time when the tobacco industry managed to promote science that claimed smoking is safe, but eventually they could no longer suppress the evidence despite the millions of money they put into supporting their own agenda.
I won't waste my time trying to convince a person of the obvious. It's like proving the sun exists.

99% of the secrets are OPEN secrets. they can be found in public sources. the people who are driven to know will know. the vast majority of people don't want to know or care to know ... this is why most secrets of this planet are self keeping... only ones who want to know will know ...
everything is compartmentalized at many layers. each layer gets told different lies. you add in disinformation and misinformation ... it's a complex situation one needs to traverse thru .. most people get derailed because they still live in the matrix and they just want to feel good.
 
Last edited:

JES

Senior Member
Messages
780
Likes
1,550
I won't waste my time trying to convince a person of the obvious. It's like proving the sun exists.
Ok. This is a nice way to dodge the issue.

Regarding the fact that most people don't want to or don't care to know, I don't any see evidence for this. But even if we assume this is true, there are still instances who have an interest in exposing anything they can to bring more clicks to their web site. There has never been as many independent press sources as there is today on the Internet and social media. Any big news headline is almost guaranteed to have a large propagation and the bigger the news, the more money is to be made from clicks. There are click-based sites that are literally fishing for the trendiest and most shocking headline, so if any large cover-up is exposed, there is almost guaranteed exposure and money. We live in a day and age where keeping secrets is the most difficult it has ever been in history of humankind.