The Mercury Filling Controversy

The Mercury Filling Controversy Mercury wordle 2Mercury dental fillings are “officially” called amalgam fillings. They are often referred to as “silver” fillings presumably because of their shiny silvery colour when new or, when older, their gray or blackened colour of tarnished silver. Amalgam means mixture. It is a mixture of very fine particles of silver, tin, copper, zinc (usually) and some other metals all dissolved in liquid mercury. They are about 50% mercury and 25-35% silver. The mercury filling controversy involves much more that just how the things should be named. It involves how safe (or unsafe) and how effective (or ineffective) they are. In the interest of informed consent, please pursue the following links, which present opposing viewpoints on the issue of mercury fillings: 1. Policy Statement of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario. (a .pdf file) Now, keeping these claims and arguments of the powers-that-be in mind, let’s check out a differing perspective. 2. International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. This “Smoking Tooth” video shows information that the above .pdf does not find “relevant.” I fail to understand why peer-reviewed journals of neuroscience and toxicology are not relevant. Here’s an “addendum” to the “Smoking Tooth” video which responds to some criticisms it has received. I am amazed and disappointed that the press and the public, universally it seems, ask only dental authorities when seeking information about the mercury filling controversy. Surely it is reasonable in addition (or instead?) to seek the advice of biochemists and toxicologists. One such individual is Dr. Boyd Haley, Professor and former Chair of the Department of Chemistry at the University of Kentucky at Lexington. This link is to a 24 minute interview with Dr. Haley. He discusses several aspects of mercury toxicity and the science behind it. In the USA, the FDA has been the target of those who seek to curtail or ban the use of mercury fillings. So far (2015) they have unfortunately met with little success, but not for want of trying! Here is a moving appeal from Mrs. Stacy Case, a TV journalist and MS sufferer. She is introduced by Dr. David Kennedy, who made the “Smoking Tooth” video you saw above. Stacy Case and the FDA (7 minutes) (Here’s Stacy Case’s website.) This is hardly a new controversy. Way back in 1990 the ABC show “60 minutes” aired this piece on mercury-based fillings. Apparently it caused such fierce protest from the powers-that-be that it was never aired again in normal “repeats.” Watch as Canadian journalist Morley Safer does his thing: (24 minutes.) If you are confused by this contradictory advise from experts, what are you to do? Please see the post Confused by Conflicting Healthcare Advice? Related Posts: + Edit this post Posted in: General Leave a Comment: (0) → Leave a Comment Read More at: http://www.dentistrywithoutmercury.com/the-mercury-filling-controversy/Mercury dental fillings are “officially” called amalgam fillings. They are often referred to as “silver” fillings presumably because of their shiny silvery colour when new or, when older, their gray or blackened colour of tarnished silver. Amalgam means mixture. It is a mixture of very fine particles of silver, tin, copper, zinc (usually) and some other metals all dissolved in liquid mercury. They are about 50% mercury and 25-35% silver. The mercury filling controversy involves much more that just how the things should be named.  It involves how safe  (or unsafe) and how effective (or ineffective) they are.

In the interest of informed consent, please pursue the following links, which present opposing viewpoints on the issue of mercury fillings:

1. Policy Statement of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario. (a .pdf file) Now, keeping these claims and arguments of the powers-that-be in mind, let’s check out a differing perspective.

2. International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. This “Smoking Tooth” video shows information that the above .pdf does not find “relevant.” I fail to understand why peer-reviewed journals of neuroscience and toxicology are not relevant.

Here’s an “addendum” to the “Smoking Tooth” video which responds to some criticisms it has received.

I am amazed and disappointed that the press and the public, universally it seems, ask only dental authorities when seeking information about the mercury filling controversy.  Surely it is reasonable in addition (or instead?) to seek the advice of biochemists and toxicologists. One such individual is Dr. Boyd Haley, Professor and former Chair of the Department of Chemistry at the University of Kentucky at Lexington. This link is to a 24 minute interview with Dr. Haley. He discusses several aspects of mercury toxicity and the science behind it.

In the USA, the FDA has been the target of those who seek to curtail or ban the use of mercury fillings.  So far (2015) they have unfortunately met with little success, but not for want of trying!  Here is a moving appeal from Mrs. Stacy Case, a TV journalist and MS sufferer. She is introduced by Dr. David Kennedy, who made the “Smoking Tooth” video you saw above.

Stacy Case and the FDA (7 minutes)

(Here’s Stacy Case’s website.)

This is hardly a new controversy. Way back in 1990 the ABC show “60 minutes” aired this piece on mercury-based fillings. Apparently it caused such fierce protest from the powers-that-be that it was never aired again in normal “repeats.”  Watch as Canadian journalist Morley Safer does his thing: (24 minutes.)

 If you are confused by this contradictory advise from experts, what are you to do?  Please see the post Confused by Conflicting Healthcare Advice?

 

Related Posts:

Posted in: General

Leave a Comment (0) ↓

Leave a Comment