Department of Chemistry University of Kentucky
http://www.uky.edu /
The ADA, through state dental boards stacked with ADA members, has
instigated a "gag order" preventing dentists from even mentioning to their
patients that amalgams are 50% mercury. Dentists cannot state that mercury
is neurotoxic and emits from amalgams and that the dental patient should
consider this as they select the tooth filling material they want used. If a
dentist informs a patient of these very truthful facts, he will be consider
not to be practicing good dentistry and his license will be in jeopardy.
Attacking a person's freedom of speech because he is telling the truth
and causing serious questions to be asked about the protocols pushed by a
bureaucracy (the ADA), makes me seriously question the commitment the ADA
has for the health of the American people.
The negative stand taken by many state dental boards against even
informing the patients about the mercury content of amalgams and the other
filling choices they have does not speak well for the organized dental
profession. What medical group would give a treatment to a patient without
telling them of the risks involved?
"Issued late in 1997, the FDI World Dental Federation and the World
Health Organization consensus statement on dental amalgam stated: "No
controlled studies have been published demonstrating systemic adverse
effects from amalgam restorations.""
My first comment would be to question, "Who staffed these committees,
and what percentage were connected to the ADA though the NIDCR or the FDA
dental materials branch or other relationships?" We appear to have the
foxes guarding the henhouse! Then I would again point out that "absence of
proof is not proof of absence".
I would then ask, 'Have any controlled studies been done and if not,
why not?' If the ADA dentists insist on placing amalgams in the mouth, are
they not required to show it is safe, not the other way around?
Should not the ADA and others concerned push to require the FDA to
prove amalgams are safe instead of totally ducking this issue. Go to the FDA
dental materials web-site and try to find any evaluation of amalgam
safety -- you will not succeed. The dental branch of the FDA refuses to do a
safety study on amalgams, and this is shame on our government.
"The small amount of mercury released from amalgam restorations,
especially during placement and removal, has not been shown to cause any
adverse effects."
This increase in mercury exposure has also not been shown to be safe
by proving it does not cause any adverse effects!
Are we to believe this elevated exposure to a toxic metal is good for
us?
If one were in a building that caused the rise in blood/urine mercury
that appears after dental amalgam removal, then OSHA would shut the building
down.
In fact, no study by the ADA or NIDCR has been completed that
specifically and accurately addresses this issue. Yet, the ADA leads us to
believe that additional exposure to toxic mercury from these procedures is
not dangerous to our health.
Mercury toxicity is a retention toxicity that builds up during years
of exposure. The toxicity of a singular level of mercury is greatly
increased by current or subsequent, low exposures to lead or other toxic
heavy metals (12).
Therefore, the damage caused by amalgams could occur years after
initial placement and at mercury levels now deemed safe by the ADA.
Our ability to protect ourselves from the toxic damage caused by
exposure to mercury depends on the level of protective natural biochemical
compounds (e.g. glutathione, metallothionine) in our cells, and the levels
of these protecting agents is dependent upon our health and age.
If we become ill, or as we age, the cellular levels of glutathione
drop and our protection against the toxic effects of mercury decreases and
damage will be done.
This is strongly supported by numerous studies where rodents have been
chemically treated to decrease their cellular levels of protective
glutathione and then treated with mercury, always with dramatic injurious
effects when compared to controls. Therefore, published science indicates
that mercury toxicity is much more pronounced in infants, the very old and
the very ill.
A recent NIH study on 1127 military men showed the major contributor
to human mercury body burden was dental amalgams. The amount of mercury in
the urine increased about 4.5 fold in soldiers with the average number of
amalgams versus the controls with no amalgams. (6)
In extreme cases it was over 8 fold higher. Since the total mercury
included that from diet and industrial pollution, are we to expect that this
4.5 to 8 fold average increase in mercury is not detrimental to our health?
Does this indicate that amalgams are a "safe and effective restorative
material"? Is the public and Congress expected to be so naïve as to believe
that increased exposure above environmental exposure levels is not damaging?
Then why are pregnant mothers told to limit seafood intake when
mercury exposure from amalgams is much greater? Then why is the EPA pushing
regulations to force the chloro-alkali plants and fossil fuel plants to
clean up their mercury contributions to our environment?
Obviously, from this study most of the human exposure to mercury is
from dental amalgams, not fossil fuel plants. Yet, the FDA lets the dental
profession continue to expose American citizens to even greater amounts of
mercury.
They do this by refusing to test amalgam fillings as a source of
mercury exposure. Also, remember that the amalgam using ADA dentists are a
major contributor to mercury in our water and air through mercury leaving
the dental offices, and even when we are cremated.
"The ADA's Council on Scientific Affairs 1998 report on its review of
the recent scientific literature on amalgam states: "The Council concludes
that, based on available scientific information, amalgam continues to be a
safe and effective restorative material." and "There currently appears to be
no justification for discontinuing the use of dental amalgam."
What would you expect an ADA Council to say? The ADA, as evidenced in
the current letter by the President of the ADA, only quotes and considers
valid the published research that supports their desire to continue placing
mercury containing amalgam fillings in American citizens. When were dentists
trained to evaluate neurological and toxicological data and manuscripts?
What is needed is an international conference where both the pro- and
anti-amalgam researchers show up and present their data in front of a
world-class scientific committee. I would challenge the ADA to line up their
scientists and supporters to participate in such a conference. This could be
held in Washington, D.C., so the FDA officials could easily attend. Perhaps
we could persuade the FDA to sponsor such a conference.
However, this is unlikely since a recent written request to have a
conference to evaluate the safety of amalgams was rejected in a letter from
the FDA and signed by three FDA/ADA dentists who presented the ADA line on
this issue. Doesn't it seem a bit fraudulent to have FDA/ADA dentists
deciding on whether or not a safety study should be done on mercury emitting
amalgams being placed in human mouths with the blessing of the ADA? This
does seem like a conflict in interest that Congress should address.
"In an article published in the February 1999 issue of the Journal of
the American Dental Association, researchers report finding "no significant
association of Alzheimer's disease with the number, surface area or history
of having dental amalgam restorations."
This research was lead by a dentist, Dr. Sax. It was submitted to the
J. of the American Medical Association and rejected. It was then submitted
to the New England Journal of Medicine and rejected. It was then published
in the ADA trade journal, JADA, that is not a refereed, scientific journal.
JADA is loaded with commercial advertisements for dental products.
They even called a "press conference" announcing the release of this
article! Calling a press conference for a twice-rejected publication that is
to appear in a trade journal is playing politics with science at its worst!
At this press conference, two of the authors made unbelievable
statements that were not supported by any of the data in the article and
conflicted with numerous major scientific reports, including the 1998 NIH
study (6). Some of these were high-lighted in the side-bars of the ADA
publication.
I would suggest that those concerned with this article visit Medline
and look at the publication records of the two individuals who made these
statements. Also, look at the three earlier excellent publications in
refereed journals by some of the other authors showing significant mercury
levels in the brains of AD subjects compared to controls (14a,b, 15).
However, put a dentist in charge of the project, and the data gets reversed!
Apply some common sense. The ancillary comments by some of the authors
and the results of the JADA publication are in total disagreement with the
vast majority of research published that looks at elevated mercury levels in
subjects with amalgam fillings.
For example, the NIH study on military men discussed above showed a
very significant elevation of mercury in the blood that correlated with
number of dental amalgams (6).
Another recent publication demonstrated elevated mercury in the blood
of living AD patients in comparison to age-matched controls (10). These
studies clearly show that there should be increased mercury in your blood if
you have amalgams and especially if you have AD and amalgams (6,10).
Does not the brain have blood in it? This makes it a total mystery as
to how could the authors of the JADA article not find elevated brain mercury
levels in patient with existing amalgams and/or AD. Even cadavers have brain
mercury levels that correlate with the number of amalgam fillings they had
on death.
Further, if you are addressing the contribution of amalgams to brain
mercury and AD, wouldn't it be important to divide the AD and control
subjects into those with and without existing amalgams on death? In the JADA
article this was not done, and represents a major research flaw! That this
was not done also arouses suspicion.
I participated in submitting a letter pointing out this flaw to
editors of JADA but they refused to acknowledge the letter and did not
publish our comments. It is my opinion that the entire situation around this
singular supportive publication of the ADA position on amalgams, brain
mercury levels and AD represents a weak attempt at controlling the mind-set
of well-meaning dentists, scientists, physicians and medical research
administrators.
It definitely impedes honest scientific debate. It also explains the
cavalier attitude of the ADA and NIDCR about elemental mercury exposure and
toxicity, when compared to the more serious approaches taken by the EPA and
OSHA.
With regards to the JADA article summary that "no statistically
significant differences in brain mercury levels between subjects with
Alzheimer's disease and control subjects." Here I must quote Mark Twain on
honesty, "There are liars, damned liars and statisticians."
Comparing the level of mercury in the AD versus control alone using
straight-forward statistics previously showed a significant difference on
mercury levels in AD versus control subjects (14a,b, 15). However, there
are anomalies, confounders and other factors that can be considered in this
situation, especially if you don't like the initial results.
This allows one to invoke a Bon-Feroni statistical manipulation. With
Bon-Feroni you include the comparison of one pair of data (that may be
statistically significantly different taken alone, e.g. mercury levels in
the brains of AD versus control subjects) with several other pairs of data,
rendering the difference statistically insignificant.
One known weakness of the Bon-Feroni treatment of several coupled
pairs of comparisons is that one very likely will miss a single comparison
that is significantly different, and clever people know this. It is my
opinion that application of the Bon-Feroni manipulation is what happened in
this JADA study that reversed the previous significance of the mercury
levels in AD versus control brain previously reported.
Research previously reported by some of the very same researchers
involved in the JADA study consistently indicated that mercury levels were
higher in AD versus age-matched control brains (14a,b, 15).
Only when an ADA dentist became involved, did the results change to
being insignificant.
I think the data used in this JADA article and funded by NIH needs to
be re-evaluated by a different statistician, if we are to ever really know
if the mercury levels in the AD brains differed significantly from controls.
The letter from the ADA President then lists four publications as
proof of amalgams having no statistically significant negative effects. Two
of these were published in Scandinavian Journals, another was a review of
the literature in a Dental Journal, and one was the JADA article mentioned
above.
Sweden is well known to have led the world in the restriction and
replacement of dental amalgams with non-mercury containing materials.
Forces are pushing hard to get the use of amalgams accepted again in
Sweden to eliminate this embarrassment to our ADA. The current situation in
Sweden and some other European countries, Canada and Japan seriously
questions the ADA contention of amalgam safety. What if people in Sweden
become healthier without amalgams?
Additionally, the studies quoted by the ADA President were
epidemiological studies. These are very complex ,as many confounders are
included which make finding a statistically significant difference very
difficult.
So the results are negative, nothing found, and not surprising.
However, they are in disagreement with numerous other similar reports and
appear to be hand-selected to support the ADA position. One has to wonder,
since the ADA President seemed to visit Swedish journals to support the ADA
position, how he missed the research of the Nylander group in Sweden that
showed increased mercury content in brains and kidneys of humans in
relationship to exposure to dental amalgams (17,18).
Also, the referenced studies in the ADA letter did not involve
neurotoxicity, autism or neurological disease -- which is the question at
hand. Rather, they addressed fertility, reproduction and other systemic
illnesses. Could not the ADA find references to focus on neurotoxiological
studies?
What about the 1989 study that showed elevated levels of mercury in 54
individuals with Parkinson's disease when compared to 95 matched controls
(16)? Further, one ought to consider who was doing these touted ADA studies
and any vested interest they may have in the outcome.
I am also aware of studies done in the U.S.A. by major research
universities that would disagree with the conclusions drawn by the ADA on
this subject, yet these articles are not considered in the ADA letter.
At the end of the last publication the quote "Conclusions: No
statistically significant correlation was observed between dental amalgam
and the incidence of diabetes, myocardial infarction, stroke, or cancer."
How does this relate to an article published in the J. of the American
College of Cardiology where the mercury levels in the heart tissue of
individuals who died from Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy (IDCM) contained
mercury levels 22,000 times that of individuals who died of other forms of
heart disease? Where did this tremendous amount of mercury come from?
Even a Bon-Feroni manipulation could not make this difference
insignificant! Many who die of IDCM are well-conditioned, young athletes who
drop dead during sporting events -- and they live in locations and in
economic environments where sea-food is not a dietary mainstay. Perhaps the
victims of IDCM are within the ADA Presidents "handful of individuals who
are allergic to one of its components."
"The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research is
currently supporting two very large clinical trials on the health effects of
dental amalgam. Studies underway for several years each in Portugal and the
Northeastern United States involve not only direct neurophysiological
measures but also cognitive and functional assessments."
Do we really think that the NIDCR and associated ADA personnel are
going to deliver up a conclusion to American parents saying "we put a
mercury containing toxic material in your child's mouth that lowered his/her
I.Q. and made him more susceptible to neurological problems in comparison to
the children whom we selected to not get exposed to this toxic material"?
It is my opinion that most bureaucracies don't have a brain or a
heart, but they do have a very strong survival instinct. Therefore, the
results presented from this study will likely follow previously ADA
supported research, i.e. no significant results.
Since the NIDCR started this project only 4 years ago, one has to ask
why it took so long for them to get involved since the "amalgam wars" have
been going on for scores of years? Was it the overwhelming amount of modern
science showing mercury from amalgams being a major part of the daily
exposure that forced their hand, and they had to develop a defense?
Would I trust the conclusions of this study without knowing who put it
together and who did the statistics? Not any more than I trust the
conclusions of the JADA article mentioned in the ADA letter that
stupendously concludes that mercury from dental amalgams does not get into
the brain.
As was proven by the tobacco situation, trying to find any significant
negative effect of one product (amalgams) related to any disease through
epidemiological studies is very difficult and complex. To do this with
mercury would be difficult because of the synergistic effect two or more
toxic metals or compounds (e.g. cadmium from smoking) may have on the
toxicity of the mercury emitted from amalgams.
For example, one publication showed that combining mercury and lead
both at LD1 levels caused the killing rate to go to 100% or to an LD100
level (12). An LD1 level is where, due to the low concentrations, the
mercury or the lead alone was not very toxic alone (i.e., killed less than
1% of rats exposed when metal were used alone).
The 100% killing, when addition of 1% plus 1% we would expect 2%,
represents synergistic toxicity. Therefore, mixing to non-lethal levels of
mercury plus lead gave an extremely toxic mixture! What this proves is that
one cannot define a "safe level of mercury" unless you absolutely know what
others toxicants the individual is being exposed to.
The combined toxicity of various materials, such as mercury,
thimerosal, lead, aluminum, formaldehyde, etc., is unknown. The effects
various combinations of these toxicants would have is also not defined,
except that we know they would be much worse than any one of the toxicants
alone.
So, how could the ADA take any exception, based on intellectual
considerations, to my contention that combinations of thimerosal and mercury
could exacerbate the neurological conditions identified with autism and AD?
Autism and AD have clinical and biological markers that correspond to
those observed in patients with toxic mercury exposure.
Why would the ADA take this position? I personally feel like I have
been in a ten year argument with the town drunk on this issue. Facts don't
count, and data is only valid if it meets the pro-amalgam agenda.
The ADA was founded on the basis that mercury-containing amalgams are
safe and useful for dental fillings. This may have been an acceptable
position in 1850. However, modern science has proven that amalgams
constantly emit unacceptable levels of mercury.
Especially, as the average life span has increased from 50 to 75-78
years of age, where AD and Parkinson's become prevalent diseases. The ADA
can try to verify its position, using selected epidemiological studies. But
the bottom line is that amalgams emit significant levels of neurotoxic
mercury that are injurious to human health and would exacerbate the medical
condition of those individuals with neurological diseases such as ALS, MS,
Parkinson's, autism and AD.
I am hoping that the ADA sent this letter to your committee and also
placed it on the ADA web-site to indicate that they are now willing for a
wide-open discussion to take place on the issue of dental amalgams.
I, for one, would welcome a major scientific conference on this issue.
The ADA should feel free to post my letter in response and address any issue
they feel that I am mistaken about.
However, in closing, I urge your Committee to push forward on the
study of the potential dangers of mercury in our dentistry and medicines.
This includes mercury exposures from amalgams, vaccines and other
medicaments containing thimerosal. The synergistic effects of mercury with
many of the toxicants commonly found in our environment make the danger
unpredictable and possibly quite severe, especially any mixture containing
elemental mercury, organic mercury and other heavy metal toxicants, such as
aluminum.
Sincerely, Boyd E. Haley Professor and Chair
Department of Chemistry University of Kentucky
http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/9/amalgam_safety3.htm
References: (Part 1, Part 2)
1. a. Duhr, E.F., Pendergrass, J. C., Slevin, J.T., and Haley, B.
HgEDTA Complex Inhibits GTP Interactions
With The E-Site of Brain b-Tubulin
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 122, 273-288 (1993).;
b. Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E. Mercury-EDTA Complex
Specifically Blocks Brain b-Tubulin-GTP Interactions:
Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer's Disease.
p 98-105 in Status Quo and Perspective of
Amalgam and Other Dental Materials
(International Symposium Proceedings ed. by L. T. Friberg and
G. N. Schrauzer) Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart-New York (1995).;
c. Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E. Inhibition of Brain
Tubulin-Guanosine 5'-Triphosphate Interactions by Mercury:
Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer's Diseased Brain.
In Metal Ions in Biological Systems V34, pp 461-478.
Mercury and Its Effects on Environment and Biology, Chapter 16.
Edited by H. Sigel and A. Sigel. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 270 Madison Ave.,
N.Y., N.Y. 10016 (1996).
2. Pendergrass, J. C., Haley, B.E., Vimy, M. J., Winfield, S.A. and
Lorscheider, F.L. Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits Binding of GTP to
Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarity to a Molecular Lesion
in Alzheimer's Disease Brain.
Neurotoxicology 18(2), 315-324 (1997).
3. David, S., Shoemaker, M., and Haley, B. Abnormal Properties of
Creatine kinase in Alzheimer's Diseased Brain:
Correlation of Reduced Enzyme Activity and Active Site
Photolabeling with Aberrant Cytosol-Membrane Partitioning.
Molecular Brain Research 54, 276-287 (1998).
4. Leong, CCW, Syed, N.I., and Lorscheider, F.L.
Retrograde Degeneration of Neurite Membrane Structural Integrity
and Formation of Neurofibillary Tangles
at Nerve Growth Cones Following In Vitro Exposure to Mercury.
NeuroReports 2 (4): 733-737, 2001.
5. Olivieri, G., Brack, Ch., Muller-Spahn, F., Stahelin, H.B.,
Herrmann,
M., Renard, P; Brockhaus, M. and Hock, C.
Mercury Induces Cell Cytotoxicity and Oxidative Stress and
Increases b-amyloid Secretion and Tau Phosphorylation
in SHSY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells. J. Neurochemistry 74, 231-231, 2000.
6. Kingman, A., Albertini, T. and Brown, L.J.
Mercury Concentrations in Urine and Whole-Blood Associated
with Amalgam Exposure in a U.S. Military Population.
J. Dental Research 77(3) 461-71, 1998.
7. Chew, C. L., Soh, G., Lee, A. S. and Yeoh, T. S.
Long-term Dissolution of Mercury from a
Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam.
Clinical Preventive Dentistry 13(3): 5-7, May-June (1991).
8. Hahn, L.J., Kloiber, R., Vimy, M. J., Takahashi, Y. and
Lorscheider,
F.L.
Dental "Silver" Tooth Fillings: A Source of Mercury Exposure
Revealed by Whole-Body Image Scan and Tissue Analysis.
FASEB J. 3, 2641-2646, 1989.
9. Hahn, L.J., Kloiber, R., Leininger, R.W., Vimy, M. J., and
Lorscheider, F.L.
Whole-body Imaging of the Distribution of Mercury Released from Dental
Filling Into Monkey Tissues. FASEB F. 4, 3256-3260, 1990.
10. Hock, C., Drasch, G., Golombowski, S., Muller-Span, F.,
Willerhausen-Zonnchen, B., Schwarz, P., Hock, U., Growdon, J.H., and
Nitsch, R.M. Increased Blood Mercury Levels in Patients
with Alzheimer's Disease.
J. of Neural Transmission v105(1) 59-68, 1998.
11. Frustaci, A., Magnavita, N., Chimenti, C., Caldarulo, M.,
Sabbioni,
E., Pietra, R., Cellini. C., Possati, G. F. and Maseri, A.
Marked Elevation of Myocardial Trace Elements in Idiopathic
Dilated Cardiomyopathy Compared With Secondary Dysfunction.
J. of the American College Cardiology v33(6) 1578-1583, 1999.
12. Schubert, J., Riley, E.J., and Tyler, S.A.
Combined Effects in Toxicology-- A Rapid Systemic
Testing Procedure: Cadmium, Mercury and Lead.
J. of Toxicology and Environmental Health v4, 763-776,1978.
13. Wataha, J. C., Nakajima, H., Hanks, C. T., and Okabe, T.
Correlation of Cytotoxicity with Element Release from Mercury
and Gallium-based Dental Alloys in vitro.
Dental Materials 10(5) 298-303, Sept. (1994)
14. a. Ehmann, W., Markesbery, W., and Alauddin, T., Hossain, E. and
Brubaker, E.,
Brain Trace Elements in Alzheimer's Disease.
Neurotoxicology 7(1) p197-206, 1986.
b. Thompson, C. M., Markesbery, W.R., Ehmann, W.D.,
Mao, Y-X, and Vance, D.E.
Regional Brain Trace-Element Studies in Alzheimer's Disease.
Neurotoxicology 9, 1-8 (1988).
15. Wenstrup, D., Ehmann, W., and Markesbery, W.
Brain Research, 533, 125-131, 1990.
16. Ngim, C.H., Devathasan, G.
Epidemiologic Study on the Assocaiation Between Body
Burden Mercury Level and Idiopathic Parkinson's Disease.
Neuroepidemiology, 8, 128-141, 1989.
17. Nylander, M., Friberg, L. and Lind, B.
Mercury Concentrations in the Human Brain and Kidneys in
Relation to Exposure from Dental Amalgam Fillings.
Swedish Dentistry J. 11:179-187, 1987.
18. Nylander, M., Friberg, L., Eggleston, D., Bjorkman, L.
Mercury Accumulation in Tissues from Dental Staff and
Controls in Relation to Exposure.
Swedish Dental J. 13, 235-243, 1989
19. Heintze, U. Edwardsson, S., Derand, T. and Birkhed, D.
Methylation of Mercury from Dental Amalgam and Mercuric
Chloride by Oral Streptococci in vitro.
Scand. J. Dental Research 91(2) 150-152, 1983.
http://www.mercola.com/2001/jun/9/amalgam_safety.htm
Part 1/2
*********************************************************
DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:
Dr. Boyd Haley is clearly one of the top US researchers in the area of
scientifically documenting the dangers of mercury. His letter refutes
the American Dental Association (ADA) response
to his April 25, 2001 congressional testimony on mercury.
Related Articles:
http://www.mercola.com/article/mercury /
Mercury Detoxification Protocol
http://www.mercola.com/2001/apr/7/vaccine_mercury.htm
First Mercury Poisoning/Vaccine Law Suit Filed
If you find this newsletter interesting and valuable,
help support it by recommending it to some friends by using
this button.
©Copyright 1997-2001 by Joseph M. Mercola, DO. All Rights Reserved.
This content may be copied in full, with copyright; contact; creation;
and information intact, without specific permission,
when used only in a not-for-profit format. If any other use is
desired,
permission in writing from Dr. Mercola is required.
Disclaimer - Newsletters are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola.
They are not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a
qualified health care professional and they are not intended as
medical
advice. They are intended as a sharing of knowledge and
information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his
community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care
decisions based upon your research and in partnership
with a qualified health care professional.
**************************************************************