Teeth, Amalgams

Amalgams

Author	Message
Dr Karen Anderso #1 / 19	Amalgams I'd like an official stance from the anti-amalgam representatives as to what they consider are the suitable alternatives. As I've said I prefer composites/ceramics for aesthetic reasons alone ... what do the rest of you prefer (I'd particularly like a response from Jan and Ilena). If you wish to criticise you _MUST_ be able to present a better alternative ... I don't think you want to just extract teeth so what do you want to replace the amalgams with exactly?? .... let's tighten up this discussion a little if you are confident enough to stand by your convictions :) ... oh and if you don't reply you can be sure Joel will constantly remind you that you couldn't come up with a practical solution when asked LOL!! Dr Karen Anderson BDSc(WA)
Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:15:46 GMT

JDrew639 #2 / 19	Amalgams Quote: >Date: 4/24/01 5:15 AM US Eastern Standard Time >I'd like an official stance from the anti-amalgam representatives as to what >they consider are the suitable alternatives. As I've said I prefer >composites/ceramics for aesthetic reasons alone ... what do the rest of you >prefer (I'd particularly like a response from Jan and Ilena). If you wish to >criticise you _MUST_ be able to present a better alternative ... I don't >think you want to just extract teeth so what do you want to replace the >amalgams with exactly?? .... let's tighten up this discussion a little if >you are confident enough to stand by your convictions :) ... oh and if you >don't reply you can be sure Joel will constantly remind you that you >couldn't come up with a practical solution when asked LOL!! >Dr Karen Anderson BDSc(WA) Karen, You are new here, I have answered previously as to what my dentist uses. It is Visofil. He has checked it out it has never had a single negative report. Quote: >f you wish to >criticise you _MUST_ be able to present a better alternative ... First of all this is not true. Everyone seems to think I am here to criticize. I am here to tell others what happened to me. I spent two years* AND $20,000* searching for an answer to my hrealth problem. In the meantime my health was deteriorating rapidly. Because the establishment refuses to believe that mercury amalgams can cause mercury poisoning, they couldn't find my problem. I even went to the Florida Institute of Health (alternative), they found that my immune system was so weakened I was receiving no benefit from my food. My bowels nearly shut down. I had to take{filter}s. I nearly died. They were aware of the danger of mercury amalgams to some people. I was also reading books that suggested the possibility. That's when I started putting things together. I already knew I had peripheral neuropathy and I kept reading that mercury attacks the central nervous system. I then made the decision to get the metal removed. When I found my dentist Dr Frabnk Jerome, he also knew of people who had the same problems that I had. Now back to your statement. There are people who know other people who have regained their health AFTER the metal was removed. Certainly one can be concerned about the dangers of mercury in the mouth. They DO NOT have to have an alternative to what you call criticize. I could criticize the Ford company because I bought a lemon, I don't need to know how other cars are made. Quote: >. let's tighten up this discussion a little if >you are confident enough to stand by your convictions :) Again you are new here. I have stood by my convicitions through thick and thin. I have been called everything in the books,,,,,,,,,and a few new ones. You see I was on the misc health alt newsgroup, BEFORE I had the metal removed. I had layed problems, and was still very ill. I took a{filter}ing and kept on ticking. I know without any doubt that my old fillings were my problem. My mercury level keeps dropping and I am still working on chelation. I truly have no desire to criticize any one dentist, why does make me mad is those that absolutely refuse to believe that mercury does release vapors and leaks into the body getting deeply inbedded in tissue. This is many people's problem. AND THEY ARE STILL SEARCHING.................because of the ADA lies. I hope and pray that I may be able to help someone and pray that they will NEVER EVER suffer as I did. I am so very thankful that I found my problem and am alive and well today!!!! Quote: >oh and if you >don't reply you can be sure Joel will constantly remind you that you >couldn't come up with a practical solution when asked LOL!! Speaking of Joel, he is obsessed with me. I really have no ill feelings for him, I truly believe he is showing very bad signs of mercruy in the brain. For his own sake I wish he would get it checked out. This is NOT a big win or lose game to me. It is in the hopes that I can save someone/anyone from what I went through. Please understand that. BTW, I still believe you owe me an opology for your unkind words. You were quick to judge, without knowing the facts. I will have to say that when I first came to the other newsgroup the debunkers were denying that mercury could come from amalgams. That has now changed. They had done no research just believed whatever the ADA said. They now have looked into it and know a bit more than in the beginning. I don't know how this all got turned around. I have stated if you have an unanswered health problem CHECK THE TEETH. What part of that do you find fault with? Sincerely, Jan (who was bed fast for several months praying that God would just let me die.............now I am alive and well and hope to help others)
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:13:09 GMT

Ilena Ro #3 / 19	Amalgams If you wish to **criticise you _MUST_ be able to present a better alternative ... says who? thou? that's an absurd comment. however, you've actually come to the crux of the problem, Karen ... because dentists do not believe there is a viable alternative, they have lied to themselves and hired PR firms to lie to the public that amalgam is "safe" ... when in fact, they decided it was "safe enough since we don't believe we have anything better." people deserve to have the information Ms. Drew and others are posting ... whether or not we have "a better alternative." people can not make informed decisions when the true evidence is covered up and/or denied by the Dental Industry and their PR teams.
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:37:02 GMT

Ilena Ro #4 / 19	Amalgams Jan (who was bed fast for several months praying that God would just let me die.............now I am alive and well and hope to help others) Jan, thank you for your generosity of spirit and information ... especially speaking against a multi Billion dollar dental industry with enormous resources for PR to try to silence your message.
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:39:20 GMT

Steven Bornfel #5 / 19	Amalgams I really don't get it. I think you are setting up a straw dog. I know no dentist who doesn't have alternatives to amalgam. Eliminating amalgam will not negatively impact any dentist. Why would we engage in this alleged PR campaign? In other words, we have plenty of alternatives (not necessarily better or worse). We know why some dentists want to remove amalgams. Tell us what our motivation is for this alleged mass {filter}. Steve Quote: > If you wish to > **criticise you _MUST_ be able to present a better alternative ... > says who? > thou? > that's an absurd comment. > however, you've actually come to the crux of the problem, Karen ... > because dentists do not believe there is a viable alternative, they have > lied to themselves and hired PR firms to lie to the public that amalgam is > "safe" ... when in fact, they decided it was "safe enough since we don't > believe we have anything better." > people deserve to have the information Ms. Drew and others are posting ... > whether or not we have "a better alternative." > people can not make informed decisions when the true evidence is covered > up and/or denied by the Dental Industry and their PR teams.
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:45:52 GMT

JDrew639 #6 / 19	Amalgams Quote: >Date: 4/24/01 7:39 PM US Eastern Standard Time >Jan > >(who was bed fast for several months praying that God would just let me >die.............now I am alive and well and hope to help others) >Jan, >thank you for your generosity of spirit and information ... especially >speaking against a multi Billion dollar dental industry with enormous >resources for PR to try to silence your message. You are welcome. No one will ever silence me. I have helped many people by telling my experience and will continue to do so. Once you are near death and you have regained your health it puts a whole new prespective on life and how precious life is. There are so many many people still searching to find their health problem, when it could be the teeth. I hope and pray that conventional medicine will soon recognize this and prevent people from all the searching and suffering. Jan
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:13:44 GMT

Ilena Ro #7 / 19	Amalgams I really don't get it. I think you are setting up a straw dog. I know no dentist who doesn't have alternatives to amalgam. Eliminating amalgam will **not negatively impact any dentist. really ... i disagree there are untold millions of amalgam fillings put in over the years and they very probably don't want to admit the harm they have done.
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:54:45 GMT

Nelso #8 / 19	Amalgams I also haven't placed an amalgam for over 15 years and have done better and better each year and my patients are healthier and healthier and their restorations are lasting longer AND they are happier AND I have rarely hear a patient ask for an amalgam. This is an old issue for a dentist who is willing to accept mercury is not good for you period ( for some reason, it is different when in a filling???) Maybe better bound, but study after study shows mercury vapors released (in minute amounts agreed, but radiation in minute amounts for long enough time, can cause cancer) both facts are undisputed by reasonable research, yet we still avoid the issue. fmn -- Practice win-win or no deal. (Stephen R. Covey) Quote: > I really don't get it. I think you are setting up a straw dog. I know no > dentist who doesn't have alternatives to amalgam. Eliminating amalgam will > not negatively impact any dentist. Why would we engage in this alleged PR > campaign? In other words, we have plenty of alternatives (not necessarily > better or worse). We know why some dentists want to remove amalgams. Tell us > what our motivation is for this alleged mass {filter}. > Steve > > If you wish to > > **criticise you _MUST_ be able to present a better alternative ... > > says who? > > thou? > > that's an absurd comment. > > however, you've actually come to the crux of the problem, Karen ... > > because dentists do not believe there is a viable alternative, they have > > lied to themselves and hired PR firms to lie to the public that amalgam is > > "safe" ... when in fact, they decided it was "safe enough since we don't > > believe we have anything better." > > people deserve to have the information Ms. Drew and others are posting ... > > whether or not we have "a better alternative." > > people can not make informed decisions when the true evidence is covered > > up and/or denied by the Dental Industry and their PR teams.
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:04:07 GMT

Nelso #9 / 19	Amalgams Ilena, don't be so {filter} us. If you would like, lets talk and study any demographic group and see how many are still doing amalgam. I bet it is smaller than you think especially in the under 50 group and the enlightened professionals over 50. The materials have gotten better and the excuses are gone. When I got out of dental school in 1982 there was a significant difference in wear of silver mercury fillings and resins. If the doc is careful (resins are still harder to do and more technique sensitive), the differences are almost not existent now that the materials are better. fmn -- Practice win-win or no deal. (Stephen R. Covey) Quote: > Jan > > (who was bed fast for several months praying that God would just let me > die.............now I am alive and well and hope to help others) > Jan, > thank you for your generosity of spirit and information ... especially > speaking against a multi Billion dollar dental industry with enormous > resources for PR to try to silence your message.
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:07:03 GMT

Ilena Ro #10 / 19	Amalgams Ilena, don't be so {filter} us. unfortunately, your SpokesDentist, Joel M. Eichen, denies there is any evidence showing the harm of amalgam. because he has chosen to be "the" authority ... he hurts the credibility of dentists who are open to the truth and harms your profession. thanks for your sound words.
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:12:45 GMT

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DD #11 / 19	Amalgams Nelson-- Quote: > Maybe better bound, but study after study shows mercury vapors released (in > minute amounts agreed, but radiation in minute amounts for long enough time, > can cause cancer) both facts are undisputed by reasonable research, yet we > still avoid the issue. Have you given up x-rays as well? Steve Quote: > fmn > -- > Practice win-win or no deal. (Stephen R. Covey) > > I really don't get it. I think you are setting up a straw dog. I > know no > > dentist who doesn't have alternatives to amalgam. Eliminating amalgam > will > > not negatively impact any dentist. Why would we engage in this alleged PR > > campaign? In other words, we have plenty of alternatives (not necessarily > > better or worse). We know why some dentists want to remove amalgams. > Tell us > > what our motivation is for this alleged mass {filter}. > > Steve > > > If you wish to > > > **criticise you _MUST_ be able to present a better alternative ... > > > says who? > > > thou? > > > that's an absurd comment. > > > however, you've actually come to the crux of the problem, Karen ... > > > because dentists do not believe there is a viable alternative, they have > > > lied to themselves and hired PR firms to lie to the public that amalgam > is > > > "safe" ... when in fact, they decided it was "safe enough since we don't > > > believe we have anything better." > > > people deserve to have the information Ms. Drew and others are posting > ... > > > whether or not we have "a better alternative." > > > people can not make informed decisions when the true evidence is covered > > > up and/or denied by the Dental Industry and their PR teams. -- Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 http://www.dentaltwins.com
Mon, 13 Oct 2003 03:18:38 GMT

Dr. Frank from AZ, US #12 / 19	Amalgams No, but I am positive that the amount of radiation I have to expose the patient to is way below the threshold for radiation cancer (usually). As you know all radiation damage is cumulative and so we constantly have to make a cost benefit analysis of what would or could happen if we didn't take the x-ray. Will amalgam, (unlike radiographs) there are MANY alternatives. I can do proper repairs on a patients teeth without ever one time using Amalgam. Are you saying you can say the same about x-rays? Can you properly take care of a person without radiographs? (A question in the same ilk as yours to me. The answer is obvious.) Are you saying there is no danger at all from mercury from silver fillings? (sincere question) fmn -- Get up in the morning, do the best you can, go to bed at night. (Gordon B. Hinckley, President, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) Quote: > Nelson-- > > Maybe better bound, but study after study shows mercury vapors released (in > > minute amounts agreed, but radiation in minute amounts for long enough time, > > can cause cancer) both facts are undisputed by reasonable research, yet we > > still avoid the issue. > Have you given up x-rays as well? > Steve > > fmn > > -- > > Practice win-win or no deal. (Stephen R. Covey) > > > I really don't get it. I think you are setting up a straw dog. I > > know no > > > dentist who doesn't have alternatives to amalgam. Eliminating amalgam > > will > > > not negatively impact any dentist. Why would we engage in this alleged PR > > > campaign? In other words, we have plenty of alternatives (not necessarily > > > better or worse). We know why some dentists want to remove amalgams. > > Tell us > > > what our motivation is for this alleged mass {filter}. > > > Steve Anderson" > > > > If you wish to > > > > **criticise you _MUST_ be able to present a better alternative ... > > > > says who? > > > > thou? > > > > that's an absurd comment. > > > > however, you've actually come to the crux of the problem, Karen ... > > > > because dentists do not believe there is a viable alternative, they have > > > > lied to themselves and hired PR firms to lie to the public that amalgam > > is > > > > "safe" ... when in fact, they decided it was "safe enough since we don't > > > > believe we have anything better." > > > > people deserve to have the information Ms. Drew and others are posting > > ... > > > > whether or not we have "a better alternative." > > > > people can not make informed decisions when the true evidence is covered > > > > up and/or denied by the Dental Industry and their PR teams. > -- > Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS > Brooklyn, NY > 718-258-5001 > http://www.dentaltwins.com
Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:04:30 GMT

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DD #13 / 19	Amalgams Your point is well taken, and for the most part I agree. I certainly can't discount mercury toxicity, esp. occupational. There are certainly good (but not excellent, IMO) substitutes for amalgam. All restorative materials in use have advantages and disadvantages. Composite resins have been in use about 40 years, and haven't been subjected to the kind of toxicological analysis being demanded of amalgam. As you know, it is now being discovered that these materials are not biologically inert, either. I certainly will grant you that intuitively, it seems unlikely composites pose the environmental hazard that mercury does. While I believe amalgam use will continue to decline, even a cursory look at a PDR will tell anyone that no therapeutic modality is totally safe. BTW, there is not believed to be a threshold radiation level for carcinogenesis or leukemogenesis--as you say, the risk is cumulative. Some radiation effects, such as cataract formation, appear to have a single exposure threshold. Steve Quote: > No, but I am positive that the amount of radiation I have to expose the > patient to is way below the threshold for radiation cancer (usually). As > you know all radiation damage is cumulative and so we constantly have to > make a cost benefit analysis of what would or could happen if we didn't take > the x-ray. > Will amalgam, (unlike radiographs) there are MANY alternatives. I can do > proper repairs on a patients teeth without ever one time using Amalgam. Are > you saying you can say the same about x-rays? Can you properly take care of > a person without radiographs? (A question in the same ilk as yours to me. > The answer is obvious.) > Are you saying there is no danger at all from mercury from silver fillings? > (sincere question) > fmn > -- > Get up in the morning, do the best you can, go to bed at night. (Gordon B. > Hinckley, President, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) > > Nelson-- > > > Maybe better bound, but study after study shows mercury vapors released > (in > > > minute amounts agreed, but radiation in minute amounts for long enough > time, > > > can cause cancer) both facts are undisputed by reasonable research, yet > we > > > still avoid the issue. > > Have you given up x-rays as well? > > Steve > > > fmn > > > -- > > > Practice win-win or no deal. (Stephen R. Covey) > > > > I really don't get it. I think you are setting up a straw dog. I > > > know no > > > > dentist who doesn't have alternatives to amalgam. Eliminating amalgam > > > will > > > > not negatively impact any dentist. Why would we engage in this > alleged PR > > > > campaign? In other words, we have plenty of alternatives (not > necessarily > > > > better or worse). We know why some dentists want to remove amalgams. > > > Tell us > > > > what our motivation is for this alleged mass {filter}. > > > > Steve > Anderson" > > > > > If you wish to > > > > > **criticise you _MUST_ be able to present a better alternative ... > > > > > says who? > > > > > thou? > > > > > that's an absurd comment. > > > > > however, you've actually come to the crux of the problem, Karen ... > > > > > because dentists do not believe there is a viable alternative, they > have > > > > > lied to themselves and hired PR firms to lie to the public that > amalgam > > > is > > > > > "safe" ... when in fact, they decided it was "safe enough since we > don't > > > > > believe we have anything better." > > > > > people deserve to have the information Ms. Drew and others are > posting > > > ... > > > > > whether or not we have "a better alternative." > > > > > people can not make informed decisions when the true evidence is > covered > > > > > up and/or denied by the Dental Industry and their PR teams. > > -- > > Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS > > Brooklyn, NY > > 718-258-5001 > > http://www.dentaltwins.com -- Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 http://www.dentaltwins.com
Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:25:05 GMT

Dr. Frank from AZ, US #14 / 19	Amalgams Sounds like your explanation here I can buy into and state that we are about at the same level. I didn't elaborate, but my real point was that materials such as gold are not talked about enough for those that would accept them. You bring up some very good points about the possible unresearched potential risks of these materials (besides gold) that we use. As you acknowledge, my main puzzlement is how many docs won't at least acknowledge that mercury is a real issue. Well said. fmn -- Get up in the morning, do the best you can, go to bed at night. (Gordon B. Hinckley, President, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) Quote: > Your point is well taken, and for the most part I agree. I certainly can't > discount mercury toxicity, esp. occupational. There are certainly good (but not > excellent, IMO) substitutes for amalgam. All restorative materials in use have > advantages and disadvantages. Composite resins have been in use about 40 years, > and haven't been subjected to the kind of toxicological analysis being demanded > of amalgam. As you know, it is now being discovered that these materials are > not biologically inert, either. I certainly will grant you that intuitively, it > seems unlikely composites pose the environmental hazard that mercury does. > While I believe amalgam use will continue to decline, even a cursory look at > a PDR will tell anyone that no therapeutic modality is totally safe. > BTW, there is not believed to be a threshold radiation level for > carcinogenesis or leukemogenesis--as you say, the risk is cumulative. Some > radiation effects, such as cataract formation, appear to have a single exposure > threshold. > Steve > > No, but I am positive that the amount of radiation I have to expose the > > patient to is way below the threshold for radiation cancer (usually). As > > you know all radiation damage is cumulative and so we constantly have to > > make a cost benefit analysis of what would or could happen if we didn't take > > the x-ray. > > Will amalgam, (unlike radiographs) there are MANY alternatives. I can do > > proper repairs on a patients teeth without ever one time using Amalgam. Are > > you saying you can say the same about x-rays? Can you properly take care of > > a person without radiographs? (A question in the same ilk as yours to me. > > The answer is obvious.) > > Are you saying there is no danger at all from mercury from silver fillings? > > (sincere question) > > fmn > > -- > > Get up in the morning, do the best you can, go to bed at night. (Gordon B. > > Hinckley, President, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) > > > Nelson-- > > > > Maybe better bound, but study after study shows mercury vapors released > > (in > > > > minute amounts agreed, but radiation in minute amounts for long enough > > time, > > > > can cause cancer) both facts are undisputed by reasonable research, yet > > we > > > > still avoid the issue. > > > Have you given up x-rays as well? > > > Steve > > > > fmn > > > > -- > > > > Practice win-win or no deal. (Stephen R. Covey) > > > > > I really don't get it. I think you are setting up a straw dog. I > > > > know no > > > > > dentist who doesn't have alternatives to amalgam. Eliminating amalgam > > > > will > > > > > not negatively impact any dentist. Why would we engage in this > > alleged PR > > > > > campaign? In other words, we have plenty of alternatives (not > > necessarily > > > > > better or worse). We know why some dentists want to remove amalgams. > > > > Tell us > > > > > what our motivation is for this alleged mass {filter}. > > > > > Steve > > Anderson" > > > > > > If you wish to > > > > > > **criticise you _MUST_ be able to present a better alternative ... > > > > > > says who? > > > > > > thou? > > > > > > that's an absurd comment. > > > > > > however, you've actually come to the crux of the problem, Karen ... > > > > > > because dentists do not believe there is a viable alternative, they > > have > > > > > > lied to themselves and hired PR firms to lie to the public that > > amalgam > > > > is > > > > > > "safe" ... when in fact, they decided it was "safe enough since we > > don't > > > > > > believe we have anything better." > > > > > > people deserve to have the information Ms. Drew and others are > > posting > > > > ... > > > > > > whether or not we have "a better alternative." > > > > > > people can not make informed decisions when the true evidence is > > covered > > > > > > up and/or denied by the Dental Industry and their PR teams. > > > -- > > > Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS > > > Brooklyn, NY > > > 718-258-5001 > > > http://www.dentaltwins.com > -- > Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS > Brooklyn, NY > 718-258-5001 > http://www.dentaltwins.com
Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:29:07 GMT

Steven Fawk #15 / 19	Amalgams They are really a "hoot"! I haven't used amalgam since 1985, and I'm sure not getting paid for writing anything on this ng! Yet, somehow I'm involved in a {filter}. Wow, SWF DDS Quote: > I really don't get it. I think you are setting up a straw dog. I know no > dentist who doesn't have alternatives to amalgam. Eliminating amalgam will > not negatively impact any dentist. Why would we engage in this alleged PR > campaign? In other words, we have plenty of alternatives (not necessarily > better or worse). We know why some dentists want to remove amalgams. Tell us > what our motivation is for this alleged mass {filter}. > Steve > > people can not make informed decisions when the true evidence is covered > > up and/or denied by the Dental Industry and their PR teams.
Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:12:25 GMT

Page 1 of 2

[ 19 post ]

Go to page: [1] [2]