This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

i'd like to see links to some science supporting either position here.

Here is a study showing good results when having the amalgams removed.

http://www.lichtenberg.dk/experience_af ... emoval.htm

want2bike wrote:Apricot seeds and laetrile are banned in the USA but I am able to order them online.

Last time I checked, one could go to the grocery store and buy apricots that had seeds in them!!

The FDA is suppose to be there to protect us from bad food and bad drugs. They have been taken over by the drug companies and big money corporations. The science they use is that of the drug companies.

So if someone else wants to challenge the science of the drug companies, then that's all they have to do is provide their opposing legitimate science to the FDA.

You cannot believe the science of the FDA or drug companies because their motive is money.

The FDA does not create science...they review what is presented to them. But I will agree that drug company science can be manipulated to look good when in fact it isn't.

The apricot seeds is one of the hidden cancer cures. I saw it work with my mother when she had a lesion on her lip.

Well if apricot seeds worked for your mother then that's all the science that the FDA and anyone would need to approve the seeds as a proven cancer cure!!!

We are not free to choose the treatment we want after they make us sick with their policies. We have to go to some other country to get treatment because they do not want us to get better. They want to put us on their drugs and leave us on them until we die.

But you just stated that your mother chose to use an alternative treatment. Was she not free to make her own decision?

Fortunately we have people which tell us the real truth on how to get our health back.

Like Dr. Mercola who has to place a legal disclaimer for every article on his website because of its inaccurate information!

We should all have the freedom to choose the treatment we want without the FDA telling us you can't do it.

But didn't your mother choose a different treatment?

If the FDA were interested in our health they would not let them poison our water, poison our food, and poison us with their drugs.

One of these days someone from the FDA is going to read some of your nonsense and come knocking on your door. Hope you have a good lawyer!

i appreciate the attempt, w2b - thanks.

all the same.. that is not a link to a research database.

i hunted down the first title given using scholar.google.com, and although there it is, published in j ortho med, at first reading i'm afraid if it was turned in to me as an assignment, it wouldn't be getting top marks.

also, when you read google scholar results you get a sense of academic merit, based on the number of citations each paper has received in other authors' publications. the titles you have provided are coming up pretty short in that department.

there is plenty of creditable science out there to help support your position. from my perspective, the kinds of sources you currently favour actually detract from rather than bolster your argument. try searching scholar.google.ca for studies of interest, that might help anyway thank you again for making the effort.

harry, where's the scientific support for your side of the debate?

What do you think of the paper by Bernard Windham. He references all of his statements to scientific articles. He list these articles at the end of the paper.

http://www.cfspages.com/bernie.html

harry, where's the scientific support for your side of the debate?

What part of the debate are you referring?

@ harry - anything where you challenge an unsupported opinion, with your own unsupported opinion

@ w2b - heya i'll check it out.. let's see...

re "References 1-67 are from the Paper 'Scientifically proven Facts About Mercury & Dental Amalgam' by the Australasian Society of Oral Medicine and Toxicology"
this document is referred to in a few places but doesn't appear to be hosted on the ASOMAT web site. have you got a link to that paper and its refs handy?

"Psychomotor testing of dentists with chronic low level mercury exposure" doesn't show up on its own anywhere. just as a reference on non academic web sites.

"Uninary mercury, porphyrins, and neurobehavioral changes of dental worker in Monterey, Mexico"
typos aside, i can't find this article anywhere :S with spelling corrected, i get one mention of this title in a single book result

"Behavioral effects of low-level exposure to Hg∘ among dentists"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 629400049J
is real.. the citation appears to be incorrect though:
Echeverria, D., Heyer, N. J., Martin, M. D., Naleway, C. A., Woods, J. S., & Bittner Jr, A. C. (1995). Behavioral effects of low-level exposure to Hg0 among dentists. Neurotoxicology and teratology, 17(2), 161-168.

i think in general it's far better, when you post an assertion, to support it through one or more links straight to readily available original academic peer-reviewed publications, rather than non-refereed opinion pieces citing sources that can't be checked (here's hoping the rest of the reference list is a bit more legit). there is so much original science out there - i think scholar.google.com would be a really great place to find your research links.. it's not *perfect* at screening out non academic pages, but it helps a LOT!!

I believe I had seen some studies, which were demographic in nature, where they compared some disease rates with those having a lot of amalgams with those who did not. Of course this is problematic since individuals with a lot of fillings can be indication of someone with poor health habits to begin with, therefore skewing the results. Evidence can be tough to come by in some of these things

yep i think we have general recognition that more amalgam is likely to be indicative of problematic background health. and on the flip side, w2b specifically mentioned the therapeutic nutrition regimen that accompanied amalgam removal.
personally i suspect the worse the individual's nutritional status, the worse off they'll be in terms of dental health, and at the same time the less capable they'll be of handling mercury toxicity.
would be interesting if we could find a study that only addressed nutrition status without removing the amalgam, and measured effects on symptoms. not that i think i'll have much luck finding one!!

nothing to do with amalgam but still interesting:

Caries Reduction in Rats by Phosphate, Magnesium and Fluoride Additions to Diet with Modifications of Dental Calculus and Calcium of the Kidneys and Aorta
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/260256

HarryZ wrote:People have a choice but let's not use fear to try and influence them.

Thanks Harry, this single point is why I feel like I am constantly playing devils advocate.

I appreciate the facts behind the issues, but to state opinion as fact is wrong. Quoting opinions of "experts" who also have nothing to back up an argument is no better. That is where we get the fear of things like vaccines. No proof, but a whole lot of formerly educated people stating opinion to boost their popularity. Stick to the facts, any issue will have facts on both sides, or else it isn't an issue.

jimmylegs wrote:@ harry - anything where you challenge an unsupported opinion, with your own unsupported opinion

Jimmy...you have to be more specific than that. In some cases, links supporting a comment aren't required...ie: the FDA does not conduct trials or studies but they evaluate the science that is given to them. The poster stated that the FDA developed the science for us but that is not the case.

As well, I do not spend a lot of time going from website to website to look for links on certain items. Over the years I have read tons of comments and information about MS and related medical stuff but often just post what I remembered reading. People have a choice of believing what I say or not. But one thing I have NEVER done on any of the forums that I have participated in and that is make up information to suit my opinion. As well, my wife spent 30 years in the critical care area of medicine and I learned a lot of information from her and her friends over the years.

Kronk wrote:

HarryZ wrote:People have a choice but let's not use fear to try and influence them.

Thanks Harry, this single point is why I feel like I am constantly playing devils advocate.

You are just using common sense to reply to the nonsense that a particular poster continues to spew.

I appreciate the facts behind the issues, but to state opinion as fact is wrong. Quoting opinions of "experts" who also have nothing to back up an argument is no better. That is where we get the fear of things like vaccines. No proof, but a whole lot of formerly educated people stating opinion to boost their popularity. Stick to the facts, any issue will have facts on both sides, or else it isn't an issue.

Absolutely true. There is a ton of so called "experts" who make comments on the internet, quite often for personal and monetary gain. Look at Mercola...makes a ton of money from his website with his less than accurate information and in order to do this has to place a disclaimer on each article so he doesn't get his pants sued off or prosecuted by the FDA or other government agencies. And one comment you see in all the disclaimers is for the reader to consult his/her physician in matters of health. Can you believe that Mercola is suggesting his readers consult those lying doctors who are trying to keep us all sick?!!

when the state of the debate is down to one person's common sense against another person's common sense, i think we're firmly into 'agree to disagree' territory.

Rules of the Board
http://www.thisisms.com/forum/general-d ... html#p1639
"If you disagree with someone, please succinctly state why and let it go at that. Point, counterpoint, counter-counter point, etc. is not useful-- the reality is that after the first disagreement, you will rarely convince another of something they feel strongly about unless you have shocking new information to share."

if members are expected to read your posts, make their own decision about the merits of the content, and move on, surely you can do the same?

failing that, if you're going to debate, why would you expect others to keep to a higher standard than you're prepared to provide yourself?

fyi.. searching google scholar for:
FDA conducted a study
yielded this for starters...

US Food and Drug Administration's Total Diet Study: Dietary intake of perchlorate and iodine
http://www.nature.com/jes/journal/v18/n ... 0648a.html

kronk this one's for you:

Is the mercury in dental amalgam the same as the mercury in some types of fish?
http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/produ ... 171094.htm
No. There are several different chemical forms of mercury: elemental mercury, inorganic mercury, and methylmercury. The form of mercury associated with dental amalgam is elemental mercury, which releases mercury vapor. The form of mercury found in fish is methylmercury, a type of organic mercury. Mercury vapor is mainly absorbed by the lungs. Methylmercury is mainly absorbed through the digestive tract. The body processes these forms of mercury differently and has different levels of tolerance for mercury vapor and methylmercury. Methylmercury is more toxic than mercury vapor.

Environmental Mercury and Its Toxic Effects
http://synapse.koreamed.org/DOIx.php?id ... 14.47.2.74
Fish appear to be the primary source of MeHg poisoning in humans. Through mechanisms which are not yet known, various species of fish tend to have higher rates of MeHg bioaccumulation (Table 1) [14]. The gastrointestinal tract absorbs approximately ninety five percent of ingested MeHg where it can then enter the red blood cells and the brain by binding covalently to glutathione and cysteine protein groups [15,16]. Because urinary excretion of MeHg is negligible, MeHg is primarily eliminated from the body in an inorganic form through the action of the biliary system at the rate of 1% of the body burden per day.