In sci.med.dentistry arie_ at hotmail.com wrote:
: On Mon, 27 Sep 1999 22:14:07 GMT, Brian Sandle
: <bsandle at southern.co.nz> wrote:
:>> > the tolerable levels were especially often exceeded.
:>> >: This can be explained by the fact that the number of fillings in
:>> >: group is especially high with 9-11 fillings, compared to a mean o
:>> >: in the general German population.
:>> >So 8 fillings are safe.
:>>:>> Who said this?
:>:>They are saying that 9 to 11 makes the difference in that group compared
:>to 8 in the general population.
: So what, what then makes your conclusion valid that 8 would be safe?
It says that the tolerable levels were being exceeded in the 9 to 11
group compared to the general population of 8, giving the difference.
::> And even if, then only on average. The interpersonal
:>> variability is very large, so I wouldn't say even 1 is safe.
: Indeed, but who said that 1 filling is dangerous?
We both agree 1 could be a trouble for some people, as with any treament
some have trouble with it.
:>> >: than with any other available method. Hg can be present in both t
:>> >: oral cavity and the gastrointestinal tract without being detectab
:>> >: blood or urine. It is clear that blood and urine do not reflect t
:>> >: Hg-concentration in the oral cavity/upper airways and in the
:>> >: gastrointestinal tract.
:>> >From that some conclusions might be hypothesised.
:>> >a. that the mercury is not absorbed from either and or airways and
:>> >gastrointestinal tract.
:>>:>> Can you explain the reasoning behind this conclusion? I think it's
:>> wrong, the mercury can be deposited in the organs before you
:>:>How did it get there except by the blood?
: Please read: "the mercury can be deposited in the organs before you
You have brought the other organs into this, they are not in the original
:> You also will have to take account for the bilary
:>> excretion of mercury in the feces.
:>>:>> >b. that mercury does not stay long in the blood but gets irreversib
:>> >stored in the body. That could be found from autopsies.
:>>:>> It is.
:>:>So how much is found in a person who has not had amalgams to one who has?
: You know... that's one of the problems. Almost every dentist is
: shouting that it's completely safe to use amalgams, but there's almost
: no single study that has researched it very well. But it has been
: posted here again and again that in autopsies there was especially
: much mercury found in people with amalgam fillings, compared to pple
: without. You can find that in the archives.
There is disagreement.
:>> >c. that mercury is excreted via the intestinal tract through the bile
:>> >other pathway.
:>:>Therefore it is not building up.
: What a funny conclusion. Why couldn't (for example) half of it being
: stored, the other half excreted?
In some it might be, depending on metabolism and other nutrition. Better
check those first.
:>> >For a start, with a very large sample, as in this study, significan
:>> >be claimed for only a tiny increase in symptoms.
:>>:>> Why is that?
:>:>If you go out in the street and see 10 males and 11 females that does
:>not show more females than males with much significance. It might be just
:>chance. Say you saw 103 females and 100 males, still not great
:>significance that there are more females than males. But once you see
:>1025 females to 1000 males you can claim some significance that there
:>are more females than males.
: Yes. Meaning?
Significance does not mean large difference. It just means that any
difference is unlikely to be the result of chance.
So say that amalgam is significantly related to illness in 1% of the
population. In what percentage is abscesses related to illness - heart
valve involvement and brain abscesses?
:>> >therefore increasing
:>> >the mercury in the saliva. If your correlation were any other than
:>> >I am sure you would be reporting it rather than leaving it to the
:>>:>> There was no mention of 'very low', only of 'significant'.
:>> I'm not reporting anything, just copied the text.
:>:>`Significant' does not mean `appreciable.' It means that there is only
:>some 1 to 5 chances in 100 that it is occurring by chance. It could be a
:>very tiny difference, just not likely to be the result of chance.
: 99 in 100 cases is also significant.
Not in the technical meaning of the term.
:>This paper does support that fish is a more
:>important source of mercury than amalgam fillings, as seen in the blood
:>cell mercury rather than the plasma mercury. Of course the methyl mercury,
:>the culprit, of possible danger especially to a developing embryo, DOES NOT
:>SHOW UP IN THE URINE TEST.
: Interesting, have they also measured methyl mercury from amalgam
Maybe a little is converted by the bacteria in the mouth.
: Then why would dentist associations in Germany advise against amalgam
: treatment in pregnant women?
Playing safe, possibly. Maybe polishing produces some vapour.
:>The Science of the Total Environment paper (kept in Engineering Library at
:>the university here) gives a diagram with some correlation between plasma
:>mercury and number of teeth with fillings. 0 to 4 teeth with fillings would
:>give a figure of 0.5 to 1.2 ng/g plasma Hg, while 18 filled teeth would
:>give about 0.5 to 3 ng/g.
: Could be about right.
That is the plasma level, not the blood cell level.
:>It gives also a table which includes the following:
:>:>Fish meals/week 0 <1 1 2 3 >3
:>:>Plasma Hg (ng/g) 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.9 0.4
:> to to to to to to
:> 1.8 2.5 2.4 4.9 3.8 2.6
:>Average 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.6 2.1 1.2
:>Hg (ng/g) 1.4 3.3 2.6 4.2 2.8
:> to to to to to
:> 3.0 18 42 22 22
:>Average 2.1 8.4 11.9 11.3 8.3
:>:>Urinary 0.4 0.4 0.2 1.0 0.9 0.4
:>Hg (ug/g) to to to to to to
:> 3.9 5.2 10 6.2 3.1 3.4
:>Average 1.8 2.5 2.8 2.7 1.7 1.3
:>:>The group with the highest fish consumption (more than 3 fish meals per
:>week) have unexpectedly low levels of mercury in blood and blood cells.
:>However the 13 members of this group all caught fish off shore (salmon and
:>herring) which has low levels of mercury compared to the fish from local
:>lakes and coastal areas consumed by substantial parts of the groups with 2
:>and 3 fish meals per week.
:>:>So did they cite this study? It showed a long time
:>ago that mercury intake of the methyl type - from fish does not appear
:>in the urine.
:>:>Did they check plasma and blood cell mercury?
: It was just a study to the mercury content in saliva.
They were saying the saliva mercury is not related to blood or urine
mercury. Whole blood, plasma or blood cell?
:>:>> >For a start give us the level of correlation.
:>>:>> I would if I had.
:>:>So it might be 1 in a hundred being affected, or 1 in 1,000, just that
:>the number is unlikely to be just chance.
: Yes, or 900 in 1000.
So say what it was, do not leave us guessing.
:>> >Just by what per centage were the symptoms increased?
:>>:>> Who's talking about 'increase'???
:>:>It is quite possible to have those symptoms without having had amalgam
:>> >false conclusion.
:>> >If the alternatives lead to more abscesses then that may be a worse
:>>:>> Does it? (composites)
:>:>I have tried to find out from you how your composite replacements fared.
:>:>As I said my dentist said it is said in the trade that composite is the
:>endodentists' best friend because it kills so many teeth pulps
:>necessitating endodontic treatment.
:: Ah, that abscesses.
So what is the abscess effect on the health compared to amalgam?
I have reported how I was even having trouble with reading out aloud
when I had root infection.
: thanks for the quotes.
::>> >: under the name SALIVAGAM a dental metal test. This can be mediate
:>> >: all pharmacies.
:>> >Sales ploy.