Mercury used in dental fillings comes into the dental office with the poisonous cross and bones symbol on the product information insert. Legally when the mercury is taken out of someone’s mouth it is considered a toxic waste that needed to be treated in a very specific way. Thus once planted in the mouth we could identify the mercury deposits as legalized toxic waste dumps.
But nothing about the toxicity of mercury seems to penetrate the dental profession. The federal government and the major dental organizations pretend some form of magic takes over turning a neurological poison into a safe thing once it is put in the mouth by a trusted dentist. The official position is: Silver fillings used to patch cavities aren’t dangerous even though they expose dental patients to the toxic metal mercury, federal health researchers said in August of 2006. The Food and Drug Administration reviewed 34 recent research studies and found “no significant new information” that would change its determination that mercury-based fillings don’t harm patients, except in rare cases where they have allergic reactions. This statement comes despite the fact that mercury is a powerful toxin that can have serious neurological effects, especially in kids. It is known to directly harm the nervous systems of children, causing birth defects and other maladies.
Many dentists and all of the associations that back them say the fillings are safe though. But some medical practitioners, holistic adherents and even the World Health Organization say mercury shouldn’t be considered totally safe under any conditions. Exposure to mercury is known to cause brain and kidney disorders. Women of childbearing age are particularly at risk because mercury exposure during pregnancy can cause neurological birth defects.
The greatest health danger from elemental mercury is breathing mercury vapor. Mercury is unique in that, at room temperature, it is liquid and can vaporize like water. Mercury vapors are invisible and odorless to humans. With amalgam fillings, mercury vapor is released through tooth-brushing and chewing.
“In 2001 I suffered from an acute case of mercury poisoning due to the unsafe removal of a “silver” filling by my dentist. It was very difficult to find the cause of my sudden illness, because few health care professionals are aware of the symptoms. Now I dedicate part of my time to warning others about “silver” mercury amalgam dental fillings.” The governments report on mercury fillings certainly does not cover the reality of this person whose story is not that uncommon.
Public health officials and their respective medical establishments in the United States and United Kingdom will not accept this kind of evidence with regard to just about every poison the public is being exposed to. This is true despite the fact that the FDA believes that even a single well-documented case report can be viewed as a signal of causation. As we are going to see in this book is that research that the government uses to reassure parents about the safety of toxic chemicals is often terribly wrong.
Virginia Pritchett remembers getting her teeth filled when she was 7 years old. Now, decades later, she cannot forget the health problems she suffered for years until the symptoms were linked to the mercury in her fillings. “I was 43 when I was correctly diagnosed,” Pritchett said. “I was having severe neurological problems and going into seizures.” In 1999, Pritchett had the five mercury fillings removed and replaced with composite materials. “If those were not taken out, I would be dead now,” said Pritchett, who lives in Mineral Wells.
Only well-designed, randomized controlled
trials (RCTs) produce medical evidence that
can meet the scientific standard of proof.
The medical world can be divided along the lines of belief or disbelief in this notion about scientific standards and what is considered proof or not. Most medical evidence actually does not meet the scientific standard of proof; and, as in law, it should be judged by a standard of proof appropriate to the point in question. Consumers should be wary of governmental officials at the FDA or CDC when they use science to shore up their medical positions for more often than not what they are spouting is nothing more than manipulated statistics from epidemiologic studies.
An anecdotal case report can provide evidence of probative value, just like eyewitness testimony in a murder trial. And it can be similarly tested, by second opinions, re-examination, laboratory tests, and follow-up. A single case report can prove that a drug causes an adverse reaction. Three events related to administration of the drug prove specific causation: 1) .the reaction occurs after the drug is given; 2) .it resolves when the drug is discontinued; and 3) .the adverse event recurs when the drug is given a second time. Causation is judged to be certain owing to this double hit.
The weight of currently available scientific evidence does not support the hypothesis that potent neurological poisons like mercury injected in children or implanted in their mouths will cause any harm. So there are no warnings given to families who live near coal fired energy plants, chlorine plants or medical and municipal incinerators.
It really does not matter to these officials what the truth actually is it’s the weight of currently available evidence even if that evidence is biased by the financial interests that pay for such research. You see for these officials only epidemiologic evidence is sufficiently scientific. But epidemiologic evidence, as an application of statistics, is open to manipulation and bias. Since it does not meet the scientific standard of irrefutability, it is not per se really scientific.
The FDA says and thinks and applies the same attitude about many poisonous substances including fluoride, aspartame, MSG, mercury in vaccines, and thousands of other “safe” chemicals and drugs that provoke disease and quick death at doses much lower than the government will ever admit.
“If substantial scientific evidence showed that dental amalgam posed a threat to the health of dental patients, we would advise dentists to stop using it. But the best and latest available scientific evidence indicates that dental amalgam is safe,” Dr. Ronald Zentz, senior director of the American Dental Association’s council on scientific affairs, said in prepared remarks to be delivered Wednesday to the joint meeting of FDA experts on dental products and neurology.