Mercury Safety Is Different from Amalgam Safety

After 3 hospitalizations, 8 different medications including oral and intravenous chemotherapy, slurred speech, loss of vision for 1 month and dying I discovered my amalgams contained 50% mercury. My DDS’s NEVER told me.

I had my 16 amalgams removed contrary to the American Dental Association’s reccommendation of SAFETY and ALL SYMPTOMS GRADUALLY BEGAN TO DISAPPEAR TWO WEEKS AFTER ALL AMALGAMS WERE REMOVED. NO MEDICATION, NO RELAPSES, NO HOSPITALIZATIONS FOR MS SINCE 1989.

NO ONE CAN TELL ME I WAS NOT “MERCURY POISONED”.

Linda Brocato
DAMS-IL
Consumers for Dental Choice

When will rank and file dentists recognize that they’ve never received even an hour’s worth of lecture on mercury, the most toxic, naturally-occurring substance on the planet?

When will they recognize that the material does not become inert in the mouth when combined with saliva, and that the scrap they produce in a neurotoxin?

The safe removal of mercury, especially in a medically-compromised patient requires the use of a highly specific protocol to keep the patient, the doctor/assistant, and the environment safe. The safe removal from a medically compromised patient involves the chelation of the mercury from the patient, supervised by an MD who is educated in these procedures.

Tom McGuire is a hero. He has the balls to speak out (and the smarts to stop practicing lest the ADA try to wrest his license from him for speaking the truth and not the diatribe). Remember that this all started with Dr. Maury Vimy, a wet-fingered dentist like me, who designed a protocol to prove that mercury was safe and did not distribute throughout the body. He proved the opposite, was shocked, and became a leading spokesperson for the anti-mercury side.

This is not being done because someone has a product or lecture to sell. This is being done to pull dentists who believe that their fillings are perfectly safe, and are quite cavalier about the disposal of scrap mercury, to try to get their heads out of their asses. Based on what I read here in the commentary Jim, there are a lot whose heads have swelled to such an extent that they can’t absorb even the smallest scintilla of new information, and certainly can’t get their sphincters expanded to a point where they’d be able to get that concrete block they call their cranium out to learn there are other facts they’re missing.

Our dental office offers ag removal with the safety guidelines recommended by IAOMT. We have the information on our website so that patients who want or need this can find a place to go. We never tell anyone that they “need” to have their fillings replaced and we do not increase our fees for this service. We only discuss mercury with our regular patients when they bring it up.

Offering this service has allowed us to witness people becoming more healthy. We do not take credit for this.
Our patients are often referred by doctors, psychiatrists, and holistic practitioners. Many doctors recommend mercury removal for illness that are difficult to diagnose as a process for eliminating challenges to their systems. Perhaps some people are more sensitive to it than others. We do not know, but we have definitely seen some dramatic results over the years.

It is not cheating patients or being cruel when you offer what their doctor has recommended or what they want for themselves.

Bob B., DDS says he is going to fly two hours to attend Dr. McGuire’s seminar on amalgam removal. How do we know that Bob B., DDS is not a fictional dentist created by Dr. McGuire to drum up advertising for the seminar? Why does Bob B. not tell us his last name, his city, his year of graduation, his experience and his alma mater? I might be more inclined to believe that there really is a dentist writing that comment (and not an advertising gimmick for the amalgam removal seminar) if I were to believe that there is a real dentist backing the statement. It would be even more credible if Bob B., DDS were to report AFTER attending the seminar whether it was worth the “two hour flight.” It all just sounds a little to hokey for me. I was born at night, but not last night.

So much for intelligent conversation.

Exactly, Sam Writer. Well said. I like you.

Linda Brocato cannot be held accountable for what she suggests. Linda and I have discussed this topic before, haven’t we Linda. I was signing “Darrell K. Pruitt DDS” a few years ago when you were spilling the same harmful garbage you are sharing here today on Jim DuMolin’s blog. I believe you and I left off our discussion over the issue of whether you can be held accountable if the parent of an autistic child reads what you say and spends money they don’t have for invasive treatment the child does not need.

Do you know how difficult dental treatment can be for autistic children, Linda? Do you even care?

Now do you remember me? We met several times, and each time before hiding, you managed to call others names. If I remember correctly, you called me the devil.

Go home. The community does not need your help on the amalgam issue. Find another cause where you are less likely to hurt people without incurring personal risk.

D. Kellus Pruitt DDS

Linda wrote:
“After 3 hospitalizations, 8 different medications including oral and intravenous chemotherapy, slurred speech, loss of vision for 1 month and dying I discovered my amalgams contained 50% mercury. My DDS’s NEVER told me.”

You wrote, ” . . . and dying??”

Then who the heck wrote your comment above?

Dr. McGuire’s advertisements for “safe amalgam removal” are clearly guided more by profit than science. Regardless of the hoopla, thank goodness dentists are mostly a pragmatic and stubborn assortment of individuals. That means our patients not only can afford more of our services when we don’t waste their healthcare dollars, but our learned skepticism protects those who trust us from egregious harm caused by vendors who cannot be held accountable.

So far, the verdict of marketability of fringe products, like those pushed by Dr. McGuire, invariably depends on empirical evidence rather than questionable science, and thank goodness the FDA steered clear of the mess. Everyone surely recognizes that dentists are pragmatists, and the number of dental patients harmed by removal of amalgam without expensive, dubious precautions has not been noticed in private dental practices. Even though amalgams are not as pretty as plastic fillings, and even though McGuire can make removal of silver-mercury alloy sound oh so yucky, it should not be discounted that amalgams containing mercury have been removed “carelessly” for more than a century without empirical connection to harmful effects. Wouldn’t that be called a safe track record? I don’t think we need Dr. McGuire’s help in this area. He should devote his life to something meaningful.

Dentists treat family members in the same way they treat their other patients. Believe me when I say, we have no intent to cause harm. Let’s not allow smooth-talking stakeholders make us do silly, expensive things that force children go to bed with toothaches.

D. Kellus Pruitt DDS

As usual, the Wealthy Dentist offered up another gem for discussion. The topic “Minimizing Occupational Exposure to Mercury at the Dental Office” is important and I felt this forum would be a great opportunity to clearly make the distinction between occupation exposure to mercury at the office and amalgam fillings in teeth. But it seems that whenever mercury and amalgams are mentioned in the same breath the amalgam supporters come out with guns blazing. Based on my experience their goal has always been to kill the messenger and in doing so, hopefully kill the message. Of course it hasn’t worked but they keep trying. The fact is that these two topics are as different as night is to day and it is unbelievable to me that the amalgam supporters can’t see that.

No matter what the topic is, these ardent supporters of amalgam fillings always bring it back to the fillings. Yet when it comes to occupational safety, it has absolutely nothing to do with the fillings being safe or unsafe. In regard to amalgam fillings the only person being exposed to mercury is the person who has them in his or her teeth. We know mercury comes off of an amalgam during stimulation, such as brushing and tooth grinding, even the ADA admits this. The debate or controversy isn’t about is it released or not, but about whether or not enough is released to affect a person’s health. That debate will probably rage until amalgams are banned.

Regarding occupational exposure to mercury the picture is very different. When an amalgam filling is unsafely removed it isn’t just the patient that is being unnecessarily exposed to high levels of mercury vapor, but the dentist, the assistant and the environment. These levels can be 50 times or more higher than what is allowed by the regulatory agencies, including OSHA, in the workplace. These levels can dramatically exceed what is released from amalgams while in someone’s teeth.

No scientist or regulatory agency considers mercury safe. Consider the fact that it has been removed from paint because of health concerns, mercury thermometers are no longer made and EVERY business using mercury is regulated because it is considered to be toxic. It is insane to think that somehow the mercury released from amalgam fillings during their removal is somehow safe just because the dental office has not yet been regulated.

Chronic mercury poisoning isn’t a disease that can be isolated and defined but because of how it affects the body, it can directly, or indirectly, contribute to or make worse every health issue we experience. I suggest that before anyone makes a statement that chronic mercury exposure due to unsafe removal of amalgams can’t have a harmful effect take a look at their own health histories. Then compare the list of symptoms and diseases to the known health issues related to chronic mercury poisoning. The science and studies proving this relationship are there and just saying something is so doesn’t make it so.

So for those who would like an open, science based discussion I’d like to offer some suggestions. First, there are thousands of studies that prove beyond a shadow of doubt that mercury is an extraordinarily powerful poison and in extraordinarily small amounts. There are NO studies that even suggest that mercury is safe and I hope Jim takes note of that. There are also hundreds of studies that demonstrate that mercury released from amalgams negatively affects health and that relationship cannot be dismissed out of hand. However, there isn’t ONE study in existence that proves that the mercury released from amalgam fillings is safe.

I have compiled the largest referenced studies relating to mercury and health and mercury and amalgam fillings. There are over 1100 studies, 150 pages, fully organized with a Table of Contents. I’ve abstracted each article, or abstract, to highlight the focus of the study and make it easier to determine if you want to pursue it further. In addition, I’ve included the PubMed Reference number so you can easily find it on PubMed. These are for sale on my website for researches who want to save time searching for this information. However, I’m offering free access to members and readers of thewealthydentist.com. To access these articles link to: http://www.dentalwellness4u.com/mercury/ref.html. USER NAME: mercury and PASSWORD: references. I encourage any dentist who would like to see the science behind our approach to mercury safe dentistry to explore the reference.

I’m sure the Wealthy Dentist was hoping for a thoughtful and intelligent discussion about his important subject and so was I. But it is simply impossible to have such a discussion when those supporting amalgams resort to character assassination, intimidation, distortion and lies to support their position. What it really takes to have a meaningful and educational discussion is science, fact, logic and reason, with some civility thrown in for good measure.

I’d also like to appeal to Jim and D. Kellus to show me the science behind their unsupported comments that mercury isn’t toxic and isn’t a concern when unsafely removing amalgam fillings. Please show me the studies that prove that the amount of mercury released during unsafe amalgam removal is not an occupational health hazard for any of those involved in the removal process. That would also include Jim’s consistent, but very unscientific comment comparing salt to mercury. Salt does not emit chlorine gas during normal use, nor does it release sodium during heating or any other form of stimulation, including the process of digestion. If it did it would be banned. However mercury is released by heating and by numerous other common forms of stimulation. His comparison and it has absolutely no basis in science. It is so easy to make unsubstantiated statements about these issues but saying it is so, doesn’t make it so.

Tom McGuire, DDS

Again Dr. McGuire continues the inuendos and name calling: “amalgam supporters come out with guns blazing”. Dr. McGuire is the one who is confounding these issues by name calling. He labels anyone who does not follow his protocol as a “pro-amalgam dentist”. Follow the link to his article. This is the demeaning attitude that I don’t like at all. I do not use amalgam, but I remove it all the time. Just because I did not go to his seminar and follow all of his recommendations he is calling me a “pro-amalgam dentist”. How could I sit through a lecture of his when he insults me from the git-go?

Since we all must agree that it is debatable that alloy fillings cause significant harm in the population – regardless whether it is patients or providers – is it possible that in carelessly bringing attention to the virtually harmless medical device we cause more harm to society than the very real exposure to mercury? When it concerns medical devices, at what point does prudent warning become harmful rumor? Should we, as caring dentists, even be discussing this issue on The Wealthy Dentist or any other public venue?

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that health studies of hundreds of thousands of people with and without silver fillings reveal no reason to suspect the alloy causes any significant harm.

Now let’s consider the harm we have caused just this week, on this forum. There are parents of autistic children among our readers who far too easily blame themselves for their children’s disabilities – making them easy targets for not only insensitive dentists who go out of their way to capitalize on these feelings of guilt, but also dentists who allow desperate parents to talk them into doing unnecessary dentistry. I’ve been around a while. I know how rationalization of malpractice works in dentists’ minds when times are slow. The doctor, facing a mom who is grasping at straws, weighs the situation. Even though autistic kids can be difficult to manage, and even though the procedures can be terribly traumatic for both the child and parent, some doctors callously consent to treat. Here is the all-too-common silent debate deep in such a dentist’s soul: “I don’t believe there is a link between this child’s autism and the fillings, but if I don’t replace them, she’ll just go down the street to the next dentist.” Am I right, dentists?

But when the removal of metal from the child’s mouth does nothing to improve the disorder, which it won’t, how good will that money feel in the dentist’s pocket? And what about the welfare of autistic children’s parents? How much harm are we causing them today, both emotionally and financially, by belaboring a health-irrelevant component of a successful and inexpensive medical device?

This is cruelty, friends. But there’s more. Suppose the anti-mercury activists win on popularity because mercury is yucky, and we are forced to purchase their useless products? How much will compliance raise the cost of dentistry? Don’t we owe it to our patients to keep costs down so that they can afford our care? I personally think there are far too many stakeholders today in the dental industry.

No medical device has ever been challenged for as long as amalgam fillings. That is a track record, and it simply has to be good enough. We don’t have time to wait on perfection, so why raise false hopes?

D. Kellus Pruitt DDS

Yours is an uphill battle, Tom.

Oh my God

I just went to the link from Dr. McGuire and read an article on “Biological Dentistry”. They state flat out that fluoride does not work and question whether endodontic therapy is of value. Now I understand where our patients come up with their nonsense. The internet can be a very bad thing for human beings that follow links and swallow up all that huey !!!! (But good for the dentists who reel them in !)

Dear Dr. Markus:

I don’t know if you are insulting me by the “DentalTown” comment, but your remarks say something about YOUR level of “science background”.

Preventing cancer with SPF 50 vs preventing caries with systemic fluoride is an absolutely riduculous comparison. You would flunk elementary debate class with that kind of logic.

You can’t expect to convince anyone of anything by starting of with what I consider to be personal insult !