Sorry but I am not clear on the bottom line. Are you saying there is just no knowing or hard evidence to have a conclusion in the clinical study process. Is there any other evidence to use?
HarryZ wrote:Sorry but I am not clear on the bottom line. Are you saying there is just no knowing or hard evidence to have a conclusion in the clinical study process. Is there any other evidence to use?
What I am saying is that when it comes to studies on amalgam use in fillings, there are studies which state they are a danger and just as many studies that state they are not.
I asked my dentist about amalgam fillings a couple of years ago and he basically said the same thing. He has read studies on both sides of the fence and isn't convinced they are a danger. But he told me he advises his patients who ask about them that if they feel unsafe about them and want them out, he will remove them. But the removal process can be a challenge since you are disturbing the very small amount of mercury and it could better to leave them alone.
Like I said, no definitive answers!
I would say your dentist should let you know where the studies are and you should decide for yourself. Or you should be able to show them to us It seems like you are asking the rest of us here to trust in your dentists opinion of the studies to be credible as some final answer. And by the way saying there are no definitive answers, is in fact, a definitive answer
This is what I recently wrote: "What I am saying is that when it comes to studies on amalgam use in fillings, there are studies which state they are a danger and just as many studies that state they are not.[/quote]want2bike wrote:You say there are studies showing amalgams are safe?
And if someone says they are a danger to everyone it also does not make it so either!The only thing I have seen showing they are not a danger is the opinion of the ADA and FDA. Just because some dentist or the FDA says they are safe does not make it so.
I said that I had 17 amalgam fillings put into my mouth 42 years ago and my health today is excellent for someone who is 65. So I can state with some degree of accuracy that amalgam fillings did not effect me adversely. And there are very likely others out there like me under that same situation.Is there an actual study where they put 17 amalgams in the mouth of people and studied them to see the effect over a number of years. I haven't seen any studies like that.
Just like they have done studies on mice that show medications can stop and reverse mouse MS. What is found in animals doesn't always translate to humans. It can be an indicator but as we know it certainly isn't full proof.There is a study showing where they put amalgams in sheep and monkeys and observed the accumulation of mercury in the various body organs. If these animals accumulate mercury in their body organs we can assume we will accumulate mercury in our bodies organs.
You made a decision based on a study that you read. That was one study. You had your bad teeth removed and presumably felt better for it. With 11 root canals, you certainly had bad teeth and getting rid of them was the right decision. But what actually was the reason for the bad teeth?Most of the studies I have seen were done overseas. Before I had my work done I ran across a study done in Germany. It showed people with MS who had their amalgams removed had a 15% recovery rate. The same studied showed that when people had their teeth with amalgams removed they had a 80% recovery rate. That study was the reason I had my bad teeth removed.
How can you say studies done overseas and not supported by the ADA and FDA is these organizations not wanting the information to get out?! Most countries have health organizations that approve medical procedures and medications. In order to obtain approval, the study group has to submit their work and data to the country's organization to obtain approval. The data must comply with the rules and regulations of the organization. One country may approve something and many others will not because the submission does not comply properly. Because a country does not approve doesn't mean it is trying to "hide" anything. Unfortunately that is your take on it but I feel that is very wrong.The studies done overseas does not support the position of the ADA and FDA and they do not want this information to get out.
Of course some people will be allergic to amalgams. Some people are deathly allergic to peanut butter and fish! But you can't go out and paint everyone with the same brush and say the FDA are hiding information from us when it comes to amalgam fillings. Would you also have peanut butter banned because some people can die from eating it?Even the ADA and FDA will tell you some people are allergic to amalgams. That means they are toxic to some people. Maybe MS is an allergy to mercury?
HarryZ wrote:If I choose a particular dentist to work on my teeth then I have given him my trust in doing so. If he gives me information on studies that he has read about amalgam fillings then I trust that he is giving me accurate information based on his knowledge. I think it is kind of ridiculous to expect from a casual conversation that my dentist is going to start giving me study references to prove his comments!I would say your dentist should let you know where the studies are and you should decide for yourself. Or you should be able to show them to us It seems like you are asking the rest of us here to trust in your dentists opinion of the studies to be credible as some final answer. And by the way saying there are no definitive answers, is in fact, a definitive answer
What other professional do you go to where you are worried about bothering them about the evidence for the services they provide? Should garden-nursery people refuse to show the customer the science in Sunset Magazine for the claims of the nurseryperson?
Having said that, if I didn't trust his opinion, I would then go searching on my own. Over the past number of years I have seen debates on various MS websites about amalgam fillings. Some of the debates got quite nasty due to differences of opinion. These debates contained study references which I read and thus my comment about the differences in the conclusions.
I am not asking anyone here to trust in my dentist's opinion. If that's what you perceived then it is incorrect. I merely related what he told me and like I said in an earlier post, you can either believe what I have said or not. I also said that I don't make up information to suit my opinion but repeat what I have been told or read.
Sorry, but if you do not think your dentists opinion has relevance or importance, why did you mention it?
Has someone questioned whether you are truthful in your accounts of anything?
As far as what is or isn't a "definitive answer", you can choose to play semantics with words but I'm not into that kind of communication. If you want to check on what studies have been done on amalgam fillings, Google will give you a list a mile long.
Whoa there partner...., I have never said the amalgam filling debate is clear and unarguable. It is exactly the opposite and that there are two camps here with a big difference in what they believe. One side says their studies are correct and the other says pretty much the opposite. And of course both sides state they are correct. The debate among the professionals involved here has been going on for many years without any final answers that can be proven. And because it involves health, the passion on both sides is high and at times nasty. I'm not sure if I can make my opinion any clearer at this point.Pardon, but I am not playing semantics. If you are saying it is a clear and unarguable point, that the evidence is hopelessly ambivalent, then that is clear definitive statement about the condition of the evidence. If you are saying the studies are, up to this point, not conclusive, but that you are interested in trying to get to the bottom of it, then that is an important difference IMHO
If you want to read studies that show different conclusions on amalgam fillings simply go to Google and type in the request. You will get a lot of options.want2bike wrote:I am not saying to ask your dentist for the studies. I am asking you to produce a study showing mercury will not harm you. Each of us are responsible for our own health. We should not rely on the doctor or dentist who may have other objectives. We should get the information and make our own decision based on the fact as we see them. There was a study done in Calgary showing the effects of mercury on the brain. Can anyone find any problem with this study?
I think Harry's position is that you will find countless studies for both sides of the fence. You can post hundreds studies, or studies based on studies, or crap from Mercola that mis-quotes and twists studies to support his position. But what do you get in the end? A decision on which side of the fence you sit on, or ride it out until hundreds more studies come in.jimmylegs wrote: harry, i think it would be great if you provided a couple links to articles that support your position too.
Users browsing this forum: grandsons4