Any comments on this explanation for allergy? (yes, of course :)
Joel M. Eichen
joele at earthlink.net
Sun Jun 13 18:48:32 EST 1999
acepgmr <acepgmr at best.com> wrote:
>The conclusion is inescapable. Mercury amalgam in a significant cause of
>such lesions and may well be a significant cause of oral cancer.
>Furthermore, the repeated statements of the American Dental Association that
>there have been fewer than 100 cases of mercury hypersensitivity in the
>medical literature are false and the fact that they continue such statements
>are irresponsible and dangerous.
>Here are some of the studies:
The replacement of dental fillings was carried out in 62/80
PT-positive and 15/38 PT-negative patients. 28 out of 62 (45.2%)
PT-positive and 3/15 (20%) PT-negative patients showed complete
healing of OLL after a mean follow-up time of 16 months.
In other words, replacing the fillings cured the problem twice as well
in the group which was mercury sensitive as in the group which was
Could it be that there is a third factor? Some confounding factor
which is yet undiscovered?
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
PS- When N=118, you got a lot more work to establish a rule of
More information about the Toxicol