[sorry folks, this is going to be long, but is necessary to refut the many lies and misleading info. I will snip Peter's dancing and asking me questions becasue he know he hasn't answered mine].
$529 MILLION IN HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH GRANTS
Disclaimer Disclaimer information for users of the National Medical Health and Medical Research Council website
NH&MRC
There is a lack of convincing evidence of a link between dental amalgam restorations and specific diseases and symptoms" and "Nor is there any evidence of improvements in health upon removal of dental amalgam fillings. Further, no studies have been conducted comparing the health outcomes of people with and without dental amalgam fillings".
FASEB J. 1995 Apr;9(7):504-8.Related Articles, Links
Comment in: FASEB J. 1995 Nov;9(14):1499-500.
Mercury exposure from "silver" tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions a traditional dental paradigm.
Lorscheider FL, Vimy MJ, Summers AO.
Department of Medical Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
For more than 160 years dentistry has used silver amalgam, which contains approximately 50% Hg metal, as the preferred tooth filling material. During the past decade medical research has demonstrated that this Hg is continuously released as vapor into mouth air; then it is inhaled, absorbed into body tissues, oxidized to ionic Hg, and finally covalently bound to cell proteins. Animal and human experiments demonstrate that the uptake, tissue distribution, and excretion of amalgam Hg is significant, and that dental amalgam is the major contributing source to Hg body burden in humans. Current research on the pathophysiological effects of amalgam Hg has focused upon the immune system, renal system, oral and intestinal bacteria, reproductive system, and the central nervous system. Research evidence does not support the notion of amalgam safety.
Publication Types PMID: 7737458 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
1: Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 1993 Apr;100(4):179-82.Related Articles, Links
[Amalgam. IV. Metabolism of mercury]
[Article in Dutch]
Gladys S, van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G, Lambrechts P.
Afdeling Conserverende Tandheelkunde en Tandheelkundige Materialen, School voor Tandheelkunde, Mondziekten en Kaakchirurgie, Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven, Belgie.
After absorption in the body by four ways, each type of mercury undergoes a specific metabolism. Elementary mercury as mercury vapour becomes rapidly oxidized to Hg2+ and, afterwards, is metabolized as an inorganic mercurial compound. From the blood circulation mercury reaches target organs like the kidneys, the central nervous system, the liver and the hypophysis, in which mercury accumulates. The retention time varies by organ and is longest in the brain. Mercury is mainly eliminated with urine and faeces, to a lesser degree with transpiration and mother's milk and sometimes by respiration.
Salivary mercury levels in healthy donors with and without amalgam fillings.
Pizzichini M, Fonzi M, Gasparoni A, Fonzi L.
Department of Biomedical Science, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
Dental amalgam (AMG) is the most diffused dental filling material. Since it is constituted for at least 40-45% of Hg, many questions have raised about its safe use. Hg particles from dental amalgam dissolve in saliva and, being ingested, they reach the blood stream through the intestinal mucosa. It has been demonstrated that amalgam fillings continuously release Hg vapour and that there is detectable Hg in expired and inspired air of amalgam owners. It is not yet fully accepted that AMG fillings represent the principal source of Hg for man and the aim of this study was to evaluate if the mercury level in saliva: 1) was higher within people bearing dental amalgam restorations than in people with no restorations; 2) was different between males or females; 3) increased in relation to the surface of amalgam restorations. The results showed a correlation between number of fillings and salivary Hg, between amalgam surface and salivary Hg. The Authors could finally assert that AMG fillings represented the principal source of salivary Hg in the subjects studied.
In vitro neurotoxic evaluation of root-end-filling materials.
Asrari M, Lobner D.
Department of Endodontics, Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee, WI 53233, USA. masr...@wi.rr.com
Root-end-filling materials have been tested for toxicity on several cell types, but their toxicity has not been tested on neurons. In this study we evaluated the neurotoxicity in murine cerebral cortical cell cultures of four commonly used root-end-filling materials: mineral trioxide aggregate, amalgam, Super EBA, and Diaket. Standardized amounts of each material were placed on culture-well inserts, allowing the material to be exposed to the culture bathing media without causing physical disruption of the cells. Cell death was quantified by assaying release of the cytosolic enzyme lactate dehydrogenase. Exposure of cortical cultures to freshly mixed or 7-day-old MTA did not cause significant neuronal death, whereas exposure to freshly mixed or 7-day-old amalgam, Super EBA, and Diaket resulted in significant neuronal death (p < .05). Thus, each material, except for mineral trioxide aggregate, can induce neurotoxicity, even when allowed to set thoroughly.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003 Jun;31(3):200-6.Related Articles, Links
Reporting on adverse reactions to dental materials--intraoral observations at a clinical follow-up.
Lygre GB, Gjerdet NR, Gronningsaeter AG, Bjorkman L.
Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit, University of Bergen, Norway. Gunvor.Ly...@odont.uib.no
OBJECTIVES: A national reporting system designed to monitor adverse reactions to dental materials was established in Norway in 1993. The activities have also included clinical examination of patients with suspected reactions to dental materials. The ongoing activities are coordinated by the Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit at the University of Bergen. The reporting procedure is based on voluntary spontaneous reporting by dentists and physicians. The reports could be based on subjective symptoms or objective findings, or both. The aim of the present study was to compare reported objective intraoral findings with those found during examination at the unit. METHODS: Reported reactions were compared with clinical findings obtained following dental and medical examination at the unit. From 1993 to 1999, a total of 899 reports were received while 253 patients were referred and examined at the unit. RESULTS: The reports on patients who were examined at the unit involved mainly reactions related to amalgam fillings (84%), metals in fixed dentures (11%), resin-based materials and cements (4%), materials used in removable dentures (2%), and endodontic materials (2%). Edema, lichenoid reactions, ulcers/vesicles, erythema, and atrophy were found in 80 patients during the examination at the unit. For 35 of these patients, the intraoral findings at the unit were also given in the reports. For another 45 patients, objective intraoral signs of reactions were found upon examination at the unit, but these findings had not been reported. CONCLUSION: A spontaneous reporting system is a cost-effective method for monitoring intraoral reactions associated with dental materials. Considering the increasing number and complexity of these materials, there appears to be a need for continuous validation of reports by a speciality unit. In order to receive more accurate information about the adverse reactions, it would be advisable that the reporting forms include more detailed guidance regarding signs of reactions that practitioners should be on the look out for and consider.
> [sorry folks, this is going to be long, but is necessary to refut the many > lies > and misleading info. I will snip Peter's dancing and asking me questions > becasue he know he hasn't answered mine].
> $529 MILLION IN HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH GRANTS
> Disclaimer > Disclaimer information for users of the National Medical Health and > Medical Research Council website
> NH&MRC
> There is a lack of convincing evidence of a link between dental amalgam > restorations and specific diseases and symptoms" and "Nor is there any > evidence of improvements in health upon removal of dental amalgam > fillings. Further, no studies have been conducted comparing the health > outcomes of people with and without dental amalgam fillings".
> FASEB J. 1995 Apr;9(7):504-8.Related Articles, Links
> Comment in: > FASEB J. 1995 Nov;9(14):1499-500.
> Mercury exposure from "silver" tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions > a traditional dental paradigm.
> Lorscheider FL, Vimy MJ, Summers AO.
> Department of Medical Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of > Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
> For more than 160 years dentistry has used silver amalgam, which contains > approximately 50% Hg metal, as the preferred tooth filling material. > During the past decade medical research has demonstrated that this Hg is > continuously released as vapor into mouth air; then it is inhaled, > absorbed into body tissues, oxidized to ionic Hg, and finally covalently > bound to cell proteins. Animal and human experiments demonstrate that the > uptake, tissue distribution, and excretion of amalgam Hg is significant, > and that dental amalgam is the major contributing source to Hg body burden > in humans. Current research on the pathophysiological effects of amalgam > Hg has focused upon the immune system, renal system, oral and intestinal > bacteria, reproductive system, and the central nervous system. Research > evidence does not support the notion of amalgam safety.
> 1: Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 1993 Apr;100(4):179-82.Related Articles, Links
> [Amalgam. IV. Metabolism of mercury]
> [Article in Dutch]
> Gladys S, van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G, Lambrechts P.
> Afdeling Conserverende Tandheelkunde en Tandheelkundige Materialen, School > voor Tandheelkunde, Mondziekten en Kaakchirurgie, Katholieke Universiteit > te Leuven, Belgie.
> After absorption in the body by four ways, each type of mercury undergoes > a specific metabolism. Elementary mercury as mercury vapour becomes > rapidly oxidized to Hg2+ and, afterwards, is metabolized as an inorganic > mercurial compound. From the blood circulation mercury reaches target > organs like the kidneys, the central nervous system, the liver and the > hypophysis, in which mercury accumulates. The retention time varies by > organ and is longest in the brain. Mercury is mainly eliminated with urine > and faeces, to a lesser degree with transpiration and mother's milk and > sometimes by respiration.
> .2 How are we exposed to mercury? > The main source of elemental mercury vapour is dental amalgam (a tooth > filling). > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&... > 1: Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol. 2000 > May-Dec;42(2-3):88-93.Related Articles, Links
> Salivary mercury levels in healthy donors with and without amalgam > fillings.
> Pizzichini M, Fonzi M, Gasparoni A, Fonzi L.
> Department of Biomedical Science, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
> Dental amalgam (AMG) is the most diffused dental filling material. Since > it is constituted for at least 40-45% of Hg, many questions have raised > about its safe use. Hg particles from dental amalgam dissolve in saliva > and, being ingested, they reach the blood stream through the intestinal > mucosa. It has been demonstrated that amalgam fillings continuously > release Hg vapour and that there is detectable Hg in expired and inspired > air of amalgam owners. It is not yet fully accepted that AMG fillings > represent the principal source of Hg for man and the aim of this study was > to evaluate if the mercury level in saliva: 1) was higher within people > bearing dental amalgam restorations than in people with no restorations; > 2) was different between males or females; 3) increased in relation to the > surface of amalgam restorations. The results showed a correlation between > number of fillings and salivary Hg, between amalgam surface and salivary > Hg. The Authors could finally assert that AMG fillings represented the > principal source of salivary Hg in the subjects studied.
> In vitro neurotoxic evaluation of root-end-filling materials.
> Asrari M, Lobner D.
> Department of Endodontics, Marquette University School of Dentistry, > Milwaukee, WI 53233, USA. masr...@wi.rr.com
> Root-end-filling materials have been tested for toxicity on several cell > types, but their toxicity has not been tested on neurons. In this study we > evaluated the neurotoxicity in murine cerebral cortical cell cultures of > four commonly used root-end-filling materials: mineral trioxide aggregate, > amalgam, Super EBA, and Diaket. Standardized amounts of each material were > placed on culture-well inserts, allowing the material to be exposed to the > culture bathing media without causing physical disruption of the cells. > Cell death was quantified by assaying release of the cytosolic enzyme > lactate dehydrogenase. Exposure of cortical cultures to freshly mixed or > 7-day-old MTA did not cause significant neuronal death, whereas exposure > to freshly mixed or 7-day-old amalgam, Super EBA, and Diaket resulted in > significant neuronal death (p < .05). Thus, each material, except for > mineral trioxide aggregate, can induce neurotoxicity, even when allowed to > set thoroughly.
> Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003 Jun;31(3):200-6.Related Articles, > Links
> Reporting on adverse reactions to dental materials--intraoral observations > at a clinical follow-up.
> Lygre GB, Gjerdet NR, Gronningsaeter AG, Bjorkman L.
> Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit, University of Bergen, Norway. > Gunvor.Ly...@odont.uib.no
> OBJECTIVES: A national reporting system designed to monitor adverse > reactions to dental materials was established in Norway in 1993. The > activities have also included clinical examination of patients with > suspected reactions to dental materials. The ongoing activities are > coordinated by the Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit at the > University of Bergen. The reporting procedure is based on voluntary > spontaneous reporting by dentists and physicians. The reports could be > based on subjective symptoms or objective findings, or both. The aim of > the present study was to compare reported objective intraoral findings > with those found during examination at the unit. METHODS: Reported > reactions were compared with clinical findings obtained following dental > and medical examination at the unit. From 1993 to 1999, a total of 899 > reports were received while 253 patients were referred and examined at the > unit. RESULTS: The reports on patients who were examined at the unit > involved mainly reactions related to amalgam fillings (84%), metals in > fixed dentures (11%), resin-based materials and cements (4%), materials > used in removable dentures (2%), and endodontic materials (2%). Edema, > lichenoid reactions, ulcers/vesicles, erythema, and atrophy were found in > 80 patients during the examination at the unit. For 35 of these patients, > the intraoral findings at the unit were also given in the reports. For > another 45 patients, objective intraoral signs of reactions were found > upon examination at the unit, but these findings had not been reported. > CONCLUSION: A spontaneous reporting system is a cost-effective method for > monitoring intraoral reactions associated with dental materials. > Considering the increasing number and complexity of these materials, there > appears to be a need for continuous validation of reports by a speciality > unit. In order to receive more accurate information about the adverse > reactions, it would be advisable that the reporting
> [sorry folks, this is going to be long, but is necessary to refut the many > lies > and misleading info. I will snip Peter's dancing and asking me questions > becasue he know he hasn't answered mine].
> $529 MILLION IN HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH GRANTS
> Disclaimer > Disclaimer information for users of the National Medical Health and > Medical Research Council website
> NH&MRC
> There is a lack of convincing evidence of a link between dental amalgam > restorations and specific diseases and symptoms" and "Nor is there any > evidence of improvements in health upon removal of dental amalgam > fillings. Further, no studies have been conducted comparing the health > outcomes of people with and without dental amalgam fillings".
> FASEB J. 1995 Apr;9(7):504-8.Related Articles, Links
> Comment in: > FASEB J. 1995 Nov;9(14):1499-500.
> Mercury exposure from "silver" tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions > a traditional dental paradigm.
> Lorscheider FL, Vimy MJ, Summers AO.
> Department of Medical Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of > Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
> For more than 160 years dentistry has used silver amalgam, which contains > approximately 50% Hg metal, as the preferred tooth filling material. > During the past decade medical research has demonstrated that this Hg is > continuously released as vapor into mouth air; then it is inhaled, > absorbed into body tissues, oxidized to ionic Hg, and finally covalently > bound to cell proteins. Animal and human experiments demonstrate that the > uptake, tissue distribution, and excretion of amalgam Hg is significant, > and that dental amalgam is the major contributing source to Hg body burden > in humans. Current research on the pathophysiological effects of amalgam > Hg has focused upon the immune system, renal system, oral and intestinal > bacteria, reproductive system, and the central nervous system. Research > evidence does not support the notion of amalgam safety.
> 1: Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 1993 Apr;100(4):179-82.Related Articles, Links
> [Amalgam. IV. Metabolism of mercury]
> [Article in Dutch]
> Gladys S, van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G, Lambrechts P.
> Afdeling Conserverende Tandheelkunde en Tandheelkundige Materialen, School > voor Tandheelkunde, Mondziekten en Kaakchirurgie, Katholieke Universiteit > te Leuven, Belgie.
> After absorption in the body by four ways, each type of mercury undergoes > a specific metabolism. Elementary mercury as mercury vapour becomes > rapidly oxidized to Hg2+ and, afterwards, is metabolized as an inorganic > mercurial compound. From the blood circulation mercury reaches target > organs like the kidneys, the central nervous system, the liver and the > hypophysis, in which mercury accumulates. The retention time varies by > organ and is longest in the brain. Mercury is mainly eliminated with urine > and faeces, to a lesser degree with transpiration and mother's milk and > sometimes by respiration.
> .2 How are we exposed to mercury? > The main source of elemental mercury vapour is dental amalgam (a tooth > filling). > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&... > 1: Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol. 2000 > May-Dec;42(2-3):88-93.Related Articles, Links
> Salivary mercury levels in healthy donors with and without amalgam > fillings.
> Pizzichini M, Fonzi M, Gasparoni A, Fonzi L.
> Department of Biomedical Science, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
> Dental amalgam (AMG) is the most diffused dental filling material. Since > it is constituted for at least 40-45% of Hg, many questions have raised > about its safe use. Hg particles from dental amalgam dissolve in saliva > and, being ingested, they reach the blood stream through the intestinal > mucosa. It has been demonstrated that amalgam fillings continuously > release Hg vapour and that there is detectable Hg in expired and inspired > air of amalgam owners. It is not yet fully accepted that AMG fillings > represent the principal source of Hg for man and the aim of this study was > to evaluate if the mercury level in saliva: 1) was higher within people > bearing dental amalgam restorations than in people with no restorations; > 2) was different between males or females; 3) increased in relation to the > surface of amalgam restorations. The results showed a correlation between > number of fillings and salivary Hg, between amalgam surface and salivary > Hg. The Authors could finally assert that AMG fillings represented the > principal source of salivary Hg in the subjects studied.
> In vitro neurotoxic evaluation of root-end-filling materials.
> Asrari M, Lobner D.
> Department of Endodontics, Marquette University School of Dentistry, > Milwaukee, WI 53233, USA. masr...@wi.rr.com
> Root-end-filling materials have been tested for toxicity on several cell > types, but their toxicity has not been tested on neurons. In this study we > evaluated the neurotoxicity in murine cerebral cortical cell cultures of > four commonly used root-end-filling materials: mineral trioxide aggregate, > amalgam, Super EBA, and Diaket. Standardized amounts of each material were > placed on culture-well inserts, allowing the material to be exposed to the > culture bathing media without causing physical disruption of the cells. > Cell death was quantified by assaying release of the cytosolic enzyme > lactate dehydrogenase. Exposure of cortical cultures to freshly mixed or > 7-day-old MTA did not cause significant neuronal death, whereas exposure > to freshly mixed or 7-day-old amalgam, Super EBA, and Diaket resulted in > significant neuronal death (p < .05). Thus, each material, except for > mineral trioxide aggregate, can induce neurotoxicity, even when allowed to > set thoroughly.
> Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003 Jun;31(3):200-6.Related Articles, > Links
> Reporting on adverse reactions to dental materials--intraoral observations > at a clinical follow-up.
> Lygre GB, Gjerdet NR, Gronningsaeter AG, Bjorkman L.
> Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit, University of Bergen, Norway. > Gunvor.Ly...@odont.uib.no
> OBJECTIVES: A national reporting system designed to monitor adverse > reactions to dental materials was established in Norway in 1993. The > activities have also included clinical examination of patients with > suspected reactions to dental materials. The ongoing activities are > coordinated by the Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit at the > University of Bergen. The reporting procedure is based on voluntary > spontaneous reporting by dentists and physicians. The reports could be > based on subjective symptoms or objective findings, or both. The aim of > the present study was to compare reported objective intraoral findings > with those found during examination at the unit. METHODS: Reported > reactions were compared with clinical findings obtained following dental > and medical examination at the unit. From 1993 to 1999, a total of 899 > reports were received while 253 patients were referred and examined at the > unit. RESULTS: The reports on patients who were examined at the unit > involved mainly reactions related to amalgam fillings (84%), metals in > fixed dentures (11%), resin-based materials and cements (4%), materials > used in removable dentures (2%), and endodontic materials (2%). Edema, > lichenoid reactions, ulcers/vesicles, erythema, and atrophy were found in > 80 patients during the examination at the unit. For 35 of these patients, > the intraoral findings at the unit were also given in the reports. For > another 45 patients, objective intraoral signs of reactions were found > upon examination at the unit, but these findings had not been reported. > CONCLUSION: A spontaneous reporting system is a cost-effective method for > monitoring intraoral reactions associated with dental materials. > Considering the increasing number and complexity of these materials, there > appears to be a need for continuous validation of reports by a speciality > unit. In order to receive more accurate information about the adverse > reactions, it would be advisable that the reporting forms include more
> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:aqu0h.17125$TV3.16363@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... >> [sorry folks, this is going to be long, but is necessary to refut the >> many lies >> and misleading info. I will snip Peter's dancing and asking me questions >> becasue he know he hasn't answered mine].
>> $529 MILLION IN HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH GRANTS
>> Disclaimer >> Disclaimer information for users of the National Medical Health and >> Medical Research Council website
>> NH&MRC
>> There is a lack of convincing evidence of a link between dental amalgam >> restorations and specific diseases and symptoms" and "Nor is there any >> evidence of improvements in health upon removal of dental amalgam >> fillings. Further, no studies have been conducted comparing the health >> outcomes of people with and without dental amalgam fillings".
>> FASEB J. 1995 Apr;9(7):504-8.Related Articles, Links
>> Comment in: >> FASEB J. 1995 Nov;9(14):1499-500.
>> Mercury exposure from "silver" tooth fillings: emerging evidence >> questions a traditional dental paradigm.
>> Lorscheider FL, Vimy MJ, Summers AO.
>> Department of Medical Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of >> Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
>> For more than 160 years dentistry has used silver amalgam, which contains >> approximately 50% Hg metal, as the preferred tooth filling material. >> During the past decade medical research has demonstrated that this Hg is >> continuously released as vapor into mouth air; then it is inhaled, >> absorbed into body tissues, oxidized to ionic Hg, and finally covalently >> bound to cell proteins. Animal and human experiments demonstrate that the >> uptake, tissue distribution, and excretion of amalgam Hg is significant, >> and that dental amalgam is the major contributing source to Hg body >> burden in humans. Current research on the pathophysiological effects of >> amalgam Hg has focused upon the immune system, renal system, oral and >> intestinal bacteria, reproductive system, and the central nervous system. >> Research evidence does not support the notion of amalgam safety.
>> 1: Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 1993 Apr;100(4):179-82.Related Articles, >> Links
>> [Amalgam. IV. Metabolism of mercury]
>> [Article in Dutch]
>> Gladys S, van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G, Lambrechts P.
>> Afdeling Conserverende Tandheelkunde en Tandheelkundige Materialen, >> School voor Tandheelkunde, Mondziekten en Kaakchirurgie, Katholieke >> Universiteit te Leuven, Belgie.
>> After absorption in the body by four ways, each type of mercury undergoes >> a specific metabolism. Elementary mercury as mercury vapour becomes >> rapidly oxidized to Hg2+ and, afterwards, is metabolized as an inorganic >> mercurial compound. From the blood circulation mercury reaches target >> organs like the kidneys, the central nervous system, the liver and the >> hypophysis, in which mercury accumulates. The retention time varies by >> organ and is longest in the brain. Mercury is mainly eliminated with >> urine and faeces, to a lesser degree with transpiration and mother's milk >> and sometimes by respiration.
>> .2 How are we exposed to mercury? >> The main source of elemental mercury vapour is dental amalgam (a tooth >> filling). >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&... >> 1: Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol. 2000 >> May-Dec;42(2-3):88-93.Related Articles, Links
>> Salivary mercury levels in healthy donors with and without amalgam >> fillings.
>> Pizzichini M, Fonzi M, Gasparoni A, Fonzi L.
>> Department of Biomedical Science, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
>> Dental amalgam (AMG) is the most diffused dental filling material. Since >> it is constituted for at least 40-45% of Hg, many questions have raised >> about its safe use. Hg particles from dental amalgam dissolve in saliva >> and, being ingested, they reach the blood stream through the intestinal >> mucosa. It has been demonstrated that amalgam fillings continuously >> release Hg vapour and that there is detectable Hg in expired and inspired >> air of amalgam owners. It is not yet fully accepted that AMG fillings >> represent the principal source of Hg for man and the aim of this study >> was to evaluate if the mercury level in saliva: 1) was higher within >> people bearing dental amalgam restorations than in people with no >> restorations; 2) was different between males or females; 3) increased in >> relation to the surface of amalgam restorations. The results showed a >> correlation between number of fillings and salivary Hg, between amalgam >> surface and salivary Hg. The Authors could finally assert that AMG >> fillings represented the principal source of salivary Hg in the subjects >> studied.
>> In vitro neurotoxic evaluation of root-end-filling materials.
>> Asrari M, Lobner D.
>> Department of Endodontics, Marquette University School of Dentistry, >> Milwaukee, WI 53233, USA. masr...@wi.rr.com
>> Root-end-filling materials have been tested for toxicity on several cell >> types, but their toxicity has not been tested on neurons. In this study >> we evaluated the neurotoxicity in murine cerebral cortical cell cultures >> of four commonly used root-end-filling materials: mineral trioxide >> aggregate, amalgam, Super EBA, and Diaket. Standardized amounts of each >> material were placed on culture-well inserts, allowing the material to be >> exposed to the culture bathing media without causing physical disruption >> of the cells. Cell death was quantified by assaying release of the >> cytosolic enzyme lactate dehydrogenase. Exposure of cortical cultures to >> freshly mixed or 7-day-old MTA did not cause significant neuronal death, >> whereas exposure to freshly mixed or 7-day-old amalgam, Super EBA, and >> Diaket resulted in significant neuronal death (p < .05). Thus, each >> material, except for mineral trioxide aggregate, can induce >> neurotoxicity, even when allowed to set thoroughly.
>> Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003 Jun;31(3):200-6.Related Articles, >> Links
>> Reporting on adverse reactions to dental materials--intraoral >> observations at a clinical follow-up.
>> Lygre GB, Gjerdet NR, Gronningsaeter AG, Bjorkman L.
>> Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit, University of Bergen, Norway. >> Gunvor.Ly...@odont.uib.no
>> OBJECTIVES: A national reporting system designed to monitor adverse >> reactions to dental materials was established in Norway in 1993. The >> activities have also included clinical examination of patients with >> suspected reactions to dental materials. The ongoing activities are >> coordinated by the Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit at the >> University of Bergen. The reporting procedure is based on voluntary >> spontaneous reporting by dentists and physicians. The reports could be >> based on subjective symptoms or objective findings, or both. The aim of >> the present study was to compare reported objective intraoral findings >> with those found during examination at the unit. METHODS: Reported >> reactions were compared with clinical findings obtained following dental >> and medical examination at the unit. From 1993 to 1999, a total of 899 >> reports were received while 253 patients were referred and examined at >> the unit. RESULTS: The reports on patients who were examined at the unit >> involved mainly reactions related to amalgam fillings (84%), metals in >> fixed dentures (11%), resin-based materials and cements (4%), materials >> used in removable dentures (2%), and endodontic materials (2%). Edema, >> lichenoid reactions, ulcers/vesicles, erythema, and atrophy were found in >> 80 patients during the examination at the unit. For 35 of these patients, >> the intraoral findings at the unit were also given in the reports. For >> another 45 patients, objective intraoral signs of reactions were found >> upon examination at the unit, but these findings had not been reported. >> CONCLUSION: A spontaneous reporting system is a
"Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote: >Jan, NOBODY is going to read all that crap, including, I'll wager, Peter >Bowditch.
You won the bet.
Until Jan addresses my original post by responding to it in a civilised and proper manner, I will not be debating the issue with her. -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
> [sorry folks, this is going to be long, but is necessary to refut the many > lies > and misleading info. I will snip Peter's dancing and asking me questions > becasue he know he hasn't answered mine].
> $529 MILLION IN HEALTH AND MEDICAL RESEARCH GRANTS
> Disclaimer > Disclaimer information for users of the National Medical Health and > Medical Research Council website
> NH&MRC
> There is a lack of convincing evidence of a link between dental amalgam > restorations and specific diseases and symptoms" and "Nor is there any > evidence of improvements in health upon removal of dental amalgam > fillings. Further, no studies have been conducted comparing the health > outcomes of people with and without dental amalgam fillings".
> FASEB J. 1995 Apr;9(7):504-8.Related Articles, Links
> Comment in: > FASEB J. 1995 Nov;9(14):1499-500.
> Mercury exposure from "silver" tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions > a traditional dental paradigm.
> Lorscheider FL, Vimy MJ, Summers AO.
> Department of Medical Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of > Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
> For more than 160 years dentistry has used silver amalgam, which contains > approximately 50% Hg metal, as the preferred tooth filling material. > During the past decade medical research has demonstrated that this Hg is > continuously released as vapor into mouth air; then it is inhaled, > absorbed into body tissues, oxidized to ionic Hg, and finally covalently > bound to cell proteins. Animal and human experiments demonstrate that the > uptake, tissue distribution, and excretion of amalgam Hg is significant, > and that dental amalgam is the major contributing source to Hg body burden > in humans. Current research on the pathophysiological effects of amalgam > Hg has focused upon the immune system, renal system, oral and intestinal > bacteria, reproductive system, and the central nervous system. Research > evidence does not support the notion of amalgam safety.
> 1: Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 1993 Apr;100(4):179-82.Related Articles, Links
> [Amalgam. IV. Metabolism of mercury]
> [Article in Dutch]
> Gladys S, van Meerbeek B, Vanherle G, Lambrechts P.
> Afdeling Conserverende Tandheelkunde en Tandheelkundige Materialen, School > voor Tandheelkunde, Mondziekten en Kaakchirurgie, Katholieke Universiteit > te Leuven, Belgie.
> After absorption in the body by four ways, each type of mercury undergoes > a specific metabolism. Elementary mercury as mercury vapour becomes > rapidly oxidized to Hg2+ and, afterwards, is metabolized as an inorganic > mercurial compound. From the blood circulation mercury reaches target > organs like the kidneys, the central nervous system, the liver and the > hypophysis, in which mercury accumulates. The retention time varies by > organ and is longest in the brain. Mercury is mainly eliminated with urine > and faeces, to a lesser degree with transpiration and mother's milk and > sometimes by respiration.
> .2 How are we exposed to mercury? > The main source of elemental mercury vapour is dental amalgam (a tooth > filling). > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&... > 1: Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol. 2000 > May-Dec;42(2-3):88-93.Related Articles, Links
> Salivary mercury levels in healthy donors with and without amalgam > fillings.
> Pizzichini M, Fonzi M, Gasparoni A, Fonzi L.
> Department of Biomedical Science, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
> Dental amalgam (AMG) is the most diffused dental filling material. Since > it is constituted for at least 40-45% of Hg, many questions have raised > about its safe use. Hg particles from dental amalgam dissolve in saliva > and, being ingested, they reach the blood stream through the intestinal > mucosa. It has been demonstrated that amalgam fillings continuously > release Hg vapour and that there is detectable Hg in expired and inspired > air of amalgam owners. It is not yet fully accepted that AMG fillings > represent the principal source of Hg for man and the aim of this study was > to evaluate if the mercury level in saliva: 1) was higher within people > bearing dental amalgam restorations than in people with no restorations; > 2) was different between males or females; 3) increased in relation to the > surface of amalgam restorations. The results showed a correlation between > number of fillings and salivary Hg, between amalgam surface and salivary > Hg. The Authors could finally assert that AMG fillings represented the > principal source of salivary Hg in the subjects studied.
> In vitro neurotoxic evaluation of root-end-filling materials.
> Asrari M, Lobner D.
> Department of Endodontics, Marquette University School of Dentistry, > Milwaukee, WI 53233, USA. masr...@wi.rr.com
> Root-end-filling materials have been tested for toxicity on several cell > types, but their toxicity has not been tested on neurons. In this study we > evaluated the neurotoxicity in murine cerebral cortical cell cultures of > four commonly used root-end-filling materials: mineral trioxide aggregate, > amalgam, Super EBA, and Diaket. Standardized amounts of each material were > placed on culture-well inserts, allowing the material to be exposed to the > culture bathing media without causing physical disruption of the cells. > Cell death was quantified by assaying release of the cytosolic enzyme > lactate dehydrogenase. Exposure of cortical cultures to freshly mixed or > 7-day-old MTA did not cause significant neuronal death, whereas exposure > to freshly mixed or 7-day-old amalgam, Super EBA, and Diaket resulted in > significant neuronal death (p < .05). Thus, each material, except for > mineral trioxide aggregate, can induce neurotoxicity, even when allowed to > set thoroughly.
> Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003 Jun;31(3):200-6.Related Articles, > Links
> Reporting on adverse reactions to dental materials--intraoral observations > at a clinical follow-up.
> Lygre GB, Gjerdet NR, Gronningsaeter AG, Bjorkman L.
> Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit, University of Bergen, Norway. > Gunvor.Ly...@odont.uib.no
> OBJECTIVES: A national reporting system designed to monitor adverse > reactions to dental materials was established in Norway in 1993. The > activities have also included clinical examination of patients with > suspected reactions to dental materials. The ongoing activities are > coordinated by the Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit at the > University of Bergen. The reporting procedure is based on voluntary > spontaneous reporting by dentists and physicians. The reports could be > based on subjective symptoms or objective findings, or both. The aim of > the present study was to compare reported objective intraoral findings > with those found during examination at the unit. METHODS: Reported > reactions were compared with clinical findings obtained following dental > and medical examination at the unit. From 1993 to 1999, a total of 899 > reports were received while 253 patients were referred and examined at the > unit. RESULTS: The reports on patients who were examined at the unit > involved mainly reactions related to amalgam fillings (84%), metals in > fixed dentures (11%), resin-based materials and cements (4%), materials > used in removable dentures (2%), and endodontic materials (2%). Edema, > lichenoid reactions, ulcers/vesicles, erythema, and atrophy were found in > 80 patients during the examination at the unit. For 35 of these patients, > the intraoral findings at the unit were also given in the reports. For > another 45 patients, objective intraoral signs of reactions were found > upon examination at the unit, but these findings had not been reported. > CONCLUSION: A spontaneous reporting system is a cost-effective method for > monitoring intraoral reactions associated with dental materials. > Considering the increasing number and complexity of these materials, there > appears to be a need for continuous validation of reports by a speciality > unit. In order to receive more accurate information about the adverse > reactions, it would be advisable that the reporting forms include more > detailed guidance regarding signs of reactions that practitioners should > be on the look out for and consider.
>LOL!! Do post his lying websites again, including the SPAM.
Which lying websites would those be, Jan? I am still waiting for you to point out a single lie on any of my sites. Remember that I am always ready to correct mistakes, and I do so whenever someone politely points one out (which is rare). I even made a correction to something I had written about Tim Bolen once because a member of his family wrote to me with some information which was not publicly available.
Try not to refer to other places where you have made the "lying websites" claim. Just list the URLs of the pages containing lies, quote the words of the lies, and provide a brief description of the reasoning behind calling the words "lies".
Here are some pages to start with. What are the lies on these pages?
And where is this spam you keep talking about? Surely you can't be abusing the language to complain about the fact that I sell books and ask for donations. You constantly post links to sites which do both of them and even to sites which are obviously just commercial sites selling products and services, so whining about me could be seen as hypocrisy on your part.
>Poor Richey, the *I don't give a damn if Peter lies to you,this newsgroup, >his mother,or the pope.
Jan, sweetie, you just posted I-don't-know-how-many lines of shit that no one is going to read because the way you randomly cut 'n' paste makes no sense.
If you really have a point to make, please crawl out of your bottle long enough to sober up and make a coherent post, mmm-kay?
Better yet, why don't you make an argument concerning an alternative health topic instead of posting God knows how large reams of gibberish attempting to attack an individual person... Granted, I have engaged in attacking you on occasion, but that was primarily due to your own actions (ask me, and I'll elaborate), but those were actions/words that were malicious on your part and had nothing to do with the discussion of alternative health.
Mark, MD
P.S. Who wants to talk about glyconutrients?
(...as he gags at the thought of his dying patient's Mom spending hundreds of dollars a month on this nonsense...)
"Mark" <mlow...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >P.S. Who wants to talk about glyconutrients?
I've just received an email from a Mannacreep telling me of all the situations in which Mannatech has been the only company to do something - appearing before Congress, being mentioned in journals, etc. If half of it is true I can see the Nobel committees all getting together and awarding all of the 2007 prizes to the man at the top of Mannatech. Yes, even the Peace Prize (which was not won by Dr Blobel for his work which had nothing to do with Mannatech),
It will take me a week or so identify all the lies and half-truths in it, but when I do the results will be published here. -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: >"Mark" <mlow...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>P.S. Who wants to talk about glyconutrients?
>I've just received an email from a Mannacreep telling me of all the >situations in which Mannatech has been the only company to do >something - appearing before Congress, being mentioned in journals, >etc. If half of it is true I can see the Nobel committees all getting >together and awarding all of the 2007 prizes to the man at the top of >Mannatech. Yes, even the Peace Prize (which was not won by Dr Blobel >for his work which had nothing to do with Mannatech),
>It will take me a week or so identify all the lies and half-truths in >it, but when I do the results will be published here.
When I said "here", I of course did not mean the newsgroups alt.support.breast-implant or misc.headlines. I only initiate threads in places where what I am writing is on-topic.
(In-joke for $cientology watchers - I lurk in alt.religion.scientology, where "OT" might mean "off topic". Or it might not.)
Searched all groups Results 1 - 10 of 70 for otters fuck jan drew (0.33 seconds) -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
>> Is that supposed to be an answer to my request for evidence?
>Peter. why even reply to these a-holes?
I have just sent my last reply, unless Jan wants to debate in a civilised fashion. -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
>>> Is that supposed to be an answer to my request for evidence?
>>Peter. why even reply to these a-holes?
> I have just sent my last reply, unless Jan wants to debate in a > civilised fashion.
> Peter Bowditch
Oooh, gosh Peter.....Hell WILL freeze over sooner than Jan will be able to debate in a civilized fashion. Historically, she just moves on to harass new people to whom she will yelp: 'Liar, Liar'. (Perhaps from her many years with ill behaved toddlers at her day care, her abilities to interact with functional adults are permanently tainted).
I know some docs that act like that when you want some vikes. I have even had some not accept my money and refer me to the highest price asshole they can find.
> I know this stuff has been discussed in here before, but I'm really > interested in trying some. Has anyone here ever bought any over the > internet and tried it? I'd like to hear some experiences. I thought > with the holidays rolling around this might be kind of fun. I would > like to get the glasses and the funky little slotted spoon for the > sugar cubes and the whole bit. Anyway, if you've bought some off of > the web and would like to share your experience, I would be most > obliged.
> =A9=AE=A9@=AE.=A9=AE=A9 wrote: > > "projectile vomit chick" <projectile_vomit_ch...@msn.com> wrote: > > > I know this stuff has been discussed in here before, but I'm really > > > interested in trying some. Has anyone here ever bought any over the > > > internet and tried it? I'd like to hear some experiences. I thought > > > with the holidays rolling around this might be kind of fun. I would > > > like to get the glasses and the funky little slotted spoon for the > > > sugar cubes and the whole bit. Anyway, if you've bought some off of > > > the web and would like to share your experience, I would be most > > > obliged. > > /\_\ > > / / /_ > > / /_/\ \ > > _\ \/ \ \ > > /\ \ /\ \_\ > > \ \/ \ \/_/ > > \ /\ \_\ > > \/_/ / / > > / / / > > \/_/ > >=20 > > --=20 > > . > are you having an ascii-tantrum?
"Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >Troll motherfucker. >No wonder you're such a cunt.
Was this necessary, Jan? I assume that they are your words, as there was no indication that you were quoting anyone. -- Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
> Good post, I would like to see more positive things posted about different > things too. But shouldn't the title be different then having a name of a > person in it? I took the name out. UM MOM Susan
lol. Proving you are once again a proven*gang* member. Leaving my name in........................
Original groups restored.
> "Max C." <maxc...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1161984014.955775.125520@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >>I know I can't be the only one thinking this... so I'm just going to go >> ahead and say it. These threads that have been started for the sole >> purpose of attacking another poster are getting old. It detracts from >> the credibility of this group and from the credibility of the poster. >> It's one thing to debate something someone said in the context of the >> original thread. It's quite another to start threads that are >> specifically designed to attack another person.
>> I know both "sides" are doing it, and I think both "sides" need to >> stop. Jan, you are helping the pharma guys ruin the credibility of >> this group when you play their games like this. When you want to post >> something like this, ask yourself "If someone looking for alternative >> health information were to come to this group for the first time, what >> would they think of this post?" When I first came to this group, I saw >> a lot of these. My first thought was, jeez, what a bunch a bickering >> hens. I now understand that the bickering is here by design. Its >> purpose is to drive away new comers so that they don't learn what we >> have to offer. I stuck around, but only because I wan't here looking >> for specific information. I wanted to share the info I have. Those >> who come here looking will be put off by these posts.
>> I know it's easy to think of groups like this as a sort of home. We >> have to remember, though, that it is NOT *our* group. This group >> belongs to anyone who comes here. We should keep it nice for everyone >> else.
>> My point is, if you continue to play this game the way you are, they >> win. You're doing exactly what they want you to do... ruining the >> credibility of this group.
|
