This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

systematic review and meta analysis. the stats can tell you if more data is needed, or when no further study is needed on the subject.
even so, the shadow of bias looms over the authors' inclusion criteria...

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 not recommend having amalgams removed unless you have a dentist qualified to do so. If proper procedures are not followed you can get very sick from the release of mercury. It is a good thing that many dentist are changing due to the information. Dr. Huggins believes that the incident of MS increase in 1976 due to the composition of the amalgam fillings releasing a higher level of mercury. If that is not the case and the incident of MS went up in that year it needs to be explained. I do not believe amalgam fillings are the only reason for MS. There are many toxins we are exposed to that can effect our nervous system and give us MS or any number of diseases. For someone with MS or any other serious illness I do not believe it is wise to wait on a study. Waiting for the FDA to figure it out may be too late. We should take every precaution to stay away from these toxins. Avoidance of toxins along with good nutrition is a good place to start in healing.

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

You say there are studies showing amalgams are safe? 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. 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. 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. 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. None of the studies show 100% but I feel the 80% were very good odds. The studies done overseas does not support the position of the ADA and FDA and they do not want this information to get out. There is no study I know of showing amalgams are safe. 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? Dr. McGuire explains the allergic reaction to mercury.

http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Produ ... 171094.htm

http://www.dentalwellness4u.com/mercury ... drome.html

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

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!

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.

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.

want2bike wrote:You say there are studies showing amalgams are safe?

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]

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.

And if someone says they are a danger to everyone it also does not make it so either!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

The studies done overseas does not support the position of the ADA and FDA and they do not want this information to get out.

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.

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?

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?

HarryZ wrote:

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

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!
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.

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

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?

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

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.
My main objection to one poster's opinions in all of this is that he states that the FDA and its employees are all criminals because they offer information that he does not accept or like. He also says that doctors are liars and want to keep us sick with their lies, again because his opinions differ. I have and never have had objected to different points of view on this forum. Different opinions encourage dialogue. But there has to be a level of civility to the dialogue regardless of the views presented.

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?

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.

If you can't rely on a doctor or dentist because you think they have other objectives, then I feel sorry for you and your state of total distrust in medical professionals. You got burned big time by your doctor and that was very unfortunate but again, you can't paint everyone with the same brush. If you feel that you alone can obtain the medical information you need to keep you healthy then the best of luck to you. That's your decision. But please don't tell everyone that doctors are liars and want to keep us sick and not to trust them at all.

w2b, i'd like a link to that calgary study via a journal database as opposed to a youtube video, if you can track it down, and harry, i think it would be great if you provided a couple links to articles that support your position too.

jimmylegs wrote: harry, i think it would be great if you provided a couple links to articles that support your position too.

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.
Personally when I look at the science, and apply some common sense, I think the position that amalgam fillings cause disease is groundless. But that is my opinion, its for each person to decide themselves. And honestly what someone on the internet chooses to believe does not affect my life in the slightest.
What does bother me is an individual spreading fear by saying that the FDA, Dentists, and Doctors are in a global conspiracy to poison the population of the earth. Bothers me in that it is ridiculous and has no place on a forum inhabited by intelligent people.

yep, not a news flash though. let me remind all:

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 you really have to get something off your chest, please send that person a Private Message-- there is no need to have a long argument in public.

I did not say to necessarily to ask your dentist either. The point is whether you want to trust his opinion without support, and what such tendencies say about our mindsets towards expertise. It is not a new experience for me to hear from those who tend to support the conventional views to have various programs to avoid objective discussion. Even this do it yourself personal decision making process avoids objectivity, since objectivity requires a comparison with the opinions of others. Also it's great that those who cannot debate in the light of day continue to throw out innuendo about the experts they do not agree with before reclining back to their privately gathered opinions

Also in regard to the idea that just doing a Google search will bring up anything meaningful. Maybe, but my experience shows that certain sources tend to dominate such searches. Cochrane group and the Townsend letters seem like good starting points for opinions and analysis outside of the dominant frame