 |
 |
>Have a look at the archives, it has been discussed before. >I think the conclusion was that to have them removed you have to inhale more >mercury than if they are left in situ >maryse Hi Maryse. To the best of my knowledge, the conclusion you note is not supported by sound evidence, but the dangers of improper amalgam removal certainly are a consideration. Here's a quote from the final paragraphs of what seems to me to be an informational page with lots of respectable references. The last paragraph is key: "...Obviously, not everyone experiences acute toxicity effects from the mercury in amalgam fillings. However, virtually everyone does have mercury build up in their bodies from implantation of such fillings. The large increase in mercury exposure from the newer non-gamma-2 mercury fillings means that only time will tell how much damage has been caused by daily exposure to mercury to such fillings. "I do not recommend that people assume automatically that they will be healed by the removal of amalgam fillings. Many people are helped tremendously and some are healed. The 80% figure (mentioned earlier on this page--S.A.) for people showing improvement within a year likely refers to people who had good reason to suspect that they were being significantly effected by the fillings. The percentage of people in the general population who might experience health improvement within one year after removal is probably much lower than 80%. I recommend going into the mercury amalgam removal procedure knowing that, at the very least, you will have removed yourself from a regular exposure to an extremely toxic material such that it will not build up in your organs and possibly cause significant health problems at a later date. "Mercury amalgam fillings should be removed only by dentists with experience using the IOAMT mercury amalgam removal protocol (presented with the permission of the excellent Preventive Dental Association web page). Such dentists are often experienced with proper evaluation and placement of composite fillings, both of which can be crucial for the success of the treatment. Biocompatability tests are often important in determining which composite materials can be safely used. I believe that composite (plastic) fillings are a better replacement than metal (e.g., gold) fillings even in chemically-sensitive individuals. They are, however, not without safety questions, but are still likely to be much less toxic than mercury amalgam fillings. Proper placement of composites should be left to experienced amalgam removal dentists as the average well-meaning dentist may not be aware of the newer placement techniques." http://www.holisticmed.com/dental/amalgam/ For what it's worth. Be well. Scott Scott E. Antes Northern Arizona University Department of Anthropology PO Box 15200 Flagstaff, AZ 86011 ________________________________________ From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of schild.m [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 12:34 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Amalgam fillings > Does anyone know whether there have been any studies of amalgam fillings > and PD? Have a look at the archives, it has been discussed before. I think the conclusion was that to have them removed you have to inhale more mercury than if they are left in situ maryse ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkins ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn