The Mercury Cover-Up
Amazing ! ! ! ! !
In just a few minutes I can present the “facts” to most lay people, and they can immediately grasp the significance that a poison has been implanted in their mouth without their knowledge or consent. Naturally, they are unhappy about this and would like to see the practice stopped.
Why is it then, that trained, educated professionals still ignore and discount these “facts” and even go so far as to place paid advertisements in the newspapers to assure the public of the safety of this poison??? The legal opinions right now seem to be indicating that this is frank negligent misrepresentation, possibly consumer fraud, and this action may have serious consequences.
What are some of the “facts” I tell my patients?
q Mercury comprises over 50% of the “silver” dental filling.
q Researchers from all over the world have measured mercury vapor coming off the filling, particularly after stimulation through chewing, bruxism, hot and/or acidic food and tooth brushing. [1, 2, 3, 4] (For many years the American Dental Association maintained that once mercury was placed with the other ingredients of the dental filling – silver, tin, zinc, copper – it was tightly bound and did not escape.) In the face of voluminous research, they were forced to change their position and admitted that, although mercury does come out of the filling, the amount is “insignificant.”
q Everyone knows that mercury is a poison. It is, in fact, as Sharma and Obersteiner stated, “ a strong protoplasmic poison that penetrates all living cells of the human body. Mercury is a powerful biological poison with no necessary biological function.” [5]
q Mercury is extremely toxic. Sharm and Obersteiner at Utah State University discovered that mercury is the single most toxic metal that they investigated (even in such minute concentrations as 3.47 x 10.7 moles). Mercury is even more toxic than lead, cadmium and arsenic. [5] It has been stated by world regulatory agencies that the smallest amount of mercury that will not cause damage is UNKNOWN! How, then, can we be so certain that the amount coming out of our dental fillings is insignificant?
q The world’s foremost researchers on mercury toxicity, Drs. Thomas Clarkson and John Hursh of the University of Rochester School of Medicine, Department of Toxicology, and Drs. Magnus Nylander and Lars Friberg of Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, concluded from the research [6] that “the release of mercury from dental amalgams makes the predominant contribution to human exposure to inorganic mercury including mercury vapor in the general population.”
q The International Conference on Biocompatibility of Materials was held in November 1988 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Many of the world authorities on mercury met to discuss the issue of dental amalgams and other materials commonly used in dentistry. Life Sciences Press in Tacoma, Washington (206/272-0530) published the proceedings of this meeting and audio-visual tapes are available through Huggins Diagnostic Center, Colorado Springs, Colorado (1-800/334-2303). On the last day of the meeting, the doctors in attendance drafted and signed their official conclusion, which read: “Based on the known toxic potentials of mercury and its documented release from dental amalgams, usage of mercury-containing amalgam increased the health risk of the patients, the dentists, and dental personnel.”
q Autopsy studies show a positive correlation between the number of occlusal surfaces of dental amalgam and mercury levels in the brain [8] and kidney cortex [9].
q Research has shown mercury dental amalgam to have an adverse effect on the T-lymphocyte count, a very important part of our immune system. In one patient, Dr. David Eggleston of the University of California found a T-lymphocyte count of 47% (ideal levels are between 70-80%). After removal of the amalgams, the T-lymphocyte count rose to 73%. Reinsertion of four amalgam restorations on top of the composite fillings, not even in direct contact with the teeth, resulted in a decrease to 55%. The amalgams were removed and the T-lymphocyte count measured 72%. [10] Dr. Eggleston’s important research is ongoing and even more startling results are being published now. With all the concern about the immune system diseases of today, does it make sense to continue using a dental material that might have such a drastic effect on one’s defense system?
q Multiple Sclerosis patients have been found to have 8 times higher levels of mercury in the cerebrospinal fluid compared to neurologically healthy controls. [11] Inorganic mercury is capable of producing symptoms, which are indistinguishable from those of multiple sclerosis.
q In 1988, scrap dental amalgam was declared a hazardous waste material by the Environmental Protection Agency. [12] Scrap amalgam, the portion that remains after placing a filling in your mouth, must be handled with great care. According to the Materials Safety Data Sheet for mercury, which OSHA mandates be present in every dental office, the dentist is told to handle scrap amalgam in the following manner:
1. Store in unbreakable, tightly sealed containers, away from heat.
2. Use a no-touch technique for handling amalgam.
3. Store under liquid, preferably glycerin or photographic fixer solution.
Once a doctor removes an amalgam filling from your mouth and places it on the tray, it once gain becomes a hazardous waste material and must be handled in the same manner described above. If this scrap amalgam should find its way into the ground, one may be fined a sizable amount. [12] I ask the reader: What is it about the mouth that makes this same item non-toxic? Or is it possible that the mouths of some 80% of Americans with amalgam fillings are in actuality “toxic waste dumps?”
In Alaska, during April and May 1989, the state dental association appropriated money for a paid advertisement entitled, “Straight Talk About Dental Amalgam.” Let’s compare facts.
“FACT”: The fillings in your teeth are safe. For more than 100 years, dentists have used, observed, and tested amalgam-filling materials, and we have found them to be both safe and effective. No other material has been so thoroughly tested, nor found to be as cost effective as dental amalgams.
This statement is very misleading. Amalgam fillings have been tested for their strength but not for their safety. Although asked several times to do so, the ADA cannot produce these “studies” showing safety. On the other hand, the research pointing out its toxicity is voluminous. Prior to the use of mercury fillings, lead fillings had been customary for many years, and had been considered safe. For years, radiation was considered safe. Remember the days of shoe fluoroscopy? Does the routine use of pesticides for many years reduce their toxicity?
“FACT”: The dental profession has complete confidence in the safety of dental amalgam. The members of the dental team, who work with amalgam everyday, are as healthy as their peers in the general population; and most of us have – and would accept – amalgam fillings in our own mouths. Over 100 million Americans have amalgam fillings.
If this statement is true, as the Alaska Dental Association would have us believe, then why do dentists have the highest suicide and divorce rate among professionals? Why was neuropsychological dysfunction present in 90% of dentists tested by Joe Butler, Ph.D, Professor of Psychology, University of North Texas? This information was presented at the International Conference on Biocompatibility of Materials in November 1988. His abstract reads, “Areas of suboptimal function were evident in shifting tasks – attention span, ability to concentrate – recent memory deficits – visual recall, control dyspraxia – tremor and perceptual accuracy in judgement.
Psychological problems were concentrated in the areas of irritability, impatience, tension, frustration, and conflict. Notably absent was calmness. Observation of data suggests that the longer a dentist practices, the less ability he would have to pass the entrance exams into dental school. Dr. Butler is alarmed at the implications of his studies and wants to inform dentists of the damage that is undermining their personalities and motor skills. [7]
If the above “FACT” is true, why then do female dental personnel have a higher spontaneous abortion rate, a raised incidence of premature labor, and an elevated perinatal mortality? [13] This has been substantiated by the Environmental Protection Agency to be characteristic of women chronically exposed to mercury vapor. [14] Recent studies in pregnant women indicate that elemental mercury does cross the placenta and incorporate into the fetus. “…the placenta, the choriallantoic membrane, the amniotic membrane, and the neonatal blood of women who were exposed to mercury while working in dental offices were found to contain significantly higher mercury levels than in control women with no occupational exposure to mercury.” [15] Sikorsky’s work in Poland studied 91 females (45 dentists and 36 dental assistants). Sikorsky found hair mercury levels much greater than in 34 non-exposed controls. There was significant positive correlation between total mercury levels and reproductive failures and also with a prevalence of menstrual cycle disorders. [16] This is a very recent and significant study. There was a high incidence of spina bifida births that occurred in the Sikorsky study population (5 out of 117 pregnancies). The normal ratio of occurrence is 1 in 1000 births. Folic acid deficiency has been associated with spina bifida and mercury is known to block the function of folic acid in the body. Other articles with similar information abound in the literature. {17, 18, 10, 20, 21] I also encourage the reader to get Sam and Michael Ziff’s book, Infertility and Birth Defects – Is Mercury From Silver Dental Fillings An Unsuspected Cause? [22]
If dentists and dental personnel are so “healthy,” why do dentists, according to the insurance industry, have one of the highest utilization rates of medical insurance? Another reason to consider why more dental personnel are not diagnosed as mercury toxic may be explained by an incident reported by MacDonald [23] who stated, “Since symptoms vary greatly, improper diagnosis may result. Failure to consider mercury as a causative factor in digital numbness resulted in two exploratory surgical procedures for a 40-year old dentist. He was treated in several prestigious medical facilities for 16 years before a ‘long shot’ test of urine mercury was taken.” One must also remember that the diagnosis of mercury intoxication is extremely difficult because of the insidious nature of the onset and because of most physicians’ unfamiliarity with proper testing techniques.
Most physicians would like to be able to diagnose mercury toxicity by finding a high urinary level of mercury. High levels may be found in acute exposures (macromercurialism). However, they are rarely present in the chronic low-dose exposures (micromercurialism). The chapter on mercury in the fifth edition of Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products by Robert Gosselin, M.D., Ph.D, Roger Smith, Ph.D., and Harold Hodge, Ph.D., D.Sc., makes this clear. “Urinary mercury levels are characteristically low in chronic exposure suggesting a hypersensitivity reaction.” Another article by L. J. Goldwater, The Toxicology of Inorganic Mercury” [25] says that urinary mercury levels may give some indication of the degree of exposure. They are, however, of limited value in the diagnosis of poisoning. High levels can be found in human subjects who are symptom free, and low levels in those exhibiting marked evidence of micromercurialism. It has been suggested that, in some cases, failure to excrete mercury is a factor in the development of poisoning. T. W. Clarkson in Biological Monitoring of Toxic Metals [6] discusses the significance of urine mercury values. “Urinary excretion of mercury is used widely in monitoring workers exposed to mercury vapor (see U.S. EPA, 1984). However, the relationship between urinary excretion and absorbed dose is not well understood; urinary excretion may be directly related to the kidney burden of mercury unless renal damage has occurred.” This point was also made by Lamm and Pratt in their 1985 study when they discovered a clear, negative, and significant correlation between time on the job and the level of mercury in the urine. These researchers found that the longer a worker was on the job, the less mercury is excreted in his urine.
Blood levels are not helpful in the diagnosis of mercury poisoning since mercury only remains in the blood for a few minutes. Mercury quickly finds its way into the various tissues of the body, depositing in the brain, adrenals, thyroid, and other organ systems. Only at high levels of exposure will this parameter be of any value.
Another point to be considered is Dr. Magnus Nylander’s report, which appeared in Lancet describing the increased uptake of mercury in the pituitary gland of dentists. [27]
There are not enough words to describe the dentists and dental assistants I have seen whose lives have been devastated by the effects of chorionic mercury exposure. It is truly heartbreaking – and preventable!
The last part of the above “FACT” indicates that since over 100 million people have mercury fillings in their mouth, it must be right. The majority is not always right. Reports indicated that every one of us has measurable residual amounts of pesticides in our body. Does that reduce the degree of toxicity?
“FACT”: Any dentist who encourages you to remove amalgam filings in order to “remove toxic substances from the body” is guilty of a breach of ethics. In addition to the ADA, the United States Public Health Services, the National Institute of Dental Research and the Consumers union have all investigated the allegations about amalgam – and have found them to be useless.
Remember, the ADA formerly maintained that mercury did not come out of the filling. It may interest you to know that the same dentist, subject to breach of ethics for suggesting toxicity, may remove the fillings for cosmetic reasons without threat of disapproval, censure, or removal of his license. If it is unethical to remove a documented, biologically-known poison from the mouth, are we to assume that it is ethical to place this poison in the mouth? Is it proper ethics to be allowed to replace an amalgam for cosmetic reasons, but to be reprimanded because replacement of amalgam for any other purpose may jeopardize the health of the tooth? Is it considered proper ethics to withhold the information that mercury is present in the restoration and to use amalgam indiscriminately? In the American legal system, the judge always directs the jury that it cannot return a verdict of guilty if there is any reasonable doubt.
Former Alaska State Senate majority leader, Pat Rodey, has recently stated, “there is enough evidence to establish REASONABLE DOUBT as to the safety of dental amalgams in any prudent person’s mind. Senator Rodey followed his words with action by introducing a senate resolution, which will be voted on in the next session. It reads thus:
“SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 12 IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA SIXTEENTH LEGISLATURE FIRST SESSION relating to the use of informed consent by dentists when they insert dental fillings that contain mercury.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE:
WHEREAS it is a common dental practice in the state to use an amalgam of materials for dental fillings, and
WHEREAS this dental amalgam is thought by most persons to be made only of silver, but its composition is actually 50 percent mercury; and
WHEREAS some studies have shown that toxic mercury vapors can leak from the fillings into a patient’s blood system and lead to mercury poisoning, particularly in chemically sensitive or allergic persons; and
WHEREAS dental patients should have the right to choose which materials are used for their dental fillings but they often lack basic information from the dentist that would help them make an informed choice;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Senate respectfully requests the Governor to direct the Board of Dental Examiners to report to the legislature by the 10th day of the Second Session of the Sixteenth Alaska State Legislature its recommendations on the manner in which dentists should inform their patients that:
(1) mercury is contained in most dental filling material;
(2) mercury in fillings can have toxic effects on some persons;
(3) there are alternative materials that could be used for dental fillings that could have other effects on the person; and
(4) they have the right to insist that an alternative material be used.
It is hoped that other states will follow this recommendation in passing similar legislation.”
In a “Concept Paper” the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services on January 17, 1989 stated: “Those persons who have had a large number of amalgam fillings, who have experienced symptoms commensurate with chronic low level mercury exposure, and who have tried traditional treatments, may wish to consider replacement therapy.” The Alaska Public Interest Research Group investigated information presented in this paper and is now supporting efforts to introduce legislation that will mandate the provision of full information about these potential health effects from mercury amalgams. The group is also supporting additional legislation to “hold harmless” dentists who provide this information (in rejection of ADA guidelines which prohibit even telling patients about these concerns).
“FACT”: The Board of Dental Examiners of the State of Alaska supports the position of the American Dental Association that “there is no scientifically documented evidence of a cure or improvement of a specific disease due to the removal of (silver) amalgam restorations from a non-allergenic patient.”
This is true because poisoning is not a specific disease. Nonetheless, I have documented cases of seizure disorders, chronic fatigue, memory loss, menstrual disturbances, depression, neurological symptoms, various eye problems, headaches, muscle tremors, joint pains, intestinal problems, irregular heart beats and/or unexplained chest pains, agitation and irritability, suicidal thought and many, many more conditions disappearing after amalgam removal.
The Alaska paid advertisement goes on to say, “Decisions about fillings, like all decisions about your dental health, should be made in your dentist’s office within the bounds of the doctor/patient relationship.” This may be somewhat difficult if the reader experiences what many of my patients tell me happens when they either inquire as to what material is being placed in their mouth or, if they should request non-mercury fillings to placed in their mouths or, that of their children. In many cases, the dentist has gone into an absolute rage and stormed out of the office. In several other documented instances, the dentist, despite the request for non-mercury fillings, deliberately placed mercury amalgam fillings. What does that do for the doctor/patient trust and relationship????
If the dentists of Alaska, or any dentist, care about our health, as the advertisement claims, they would give serious consideration to the evidence that is mounting at an alarming rate proving mercury is detrimental to our health and well being. When the report appeared in a Swedish newspaper in May of 1987 stating that the Swedish government health board declares amalgam toxic and unsuitable as dental filling material, it was quickly disregarded. Headlines in the ADA literature read, “Amalgam ban reports are bogus.” I think it is quite significant that public hearings occurred in Sweden toward the end of 1988 and the previous ruling was upheld and reinforced.
Fortunately, there are dentists who have seriously questioned the information being propagated by the establishment. They can no longer, with a clear conscience, continue placing a poison in unsuspecting patients who trust their dentist, especially now that we have suitable alternatives, which, according to pro-amalgam dentist Dr. George Freedman, may be stronger than amalgam. (Dentistry Today, Feb. 1989). These concerned dentists are attending meetings to learn more about the materials they are using and how to properly remove unsuitable ones.
Clinical observation seems to indicate that serum biocompatibility testing through Huggins Diagnostic Center in Seattle is very valuable. Immunologic reactions to various dental materials are identified and quantified, providing guidance in determining the need for removal and replacement with appropriate materials. For information about this test, call (1-800/331-2303). Some patients who have not had the benefit of this test have had to replace their dental materials a second or third time before finding compatible restorations.
An excellent reference text for the health professional and victim interested in learning more about mercury toxicity is, “Chronic Mercury Toxicity – New Hope Against an Endemic Disease, Doctor’s Guide for Lifestyle Counseling” by H. L. Queen (1988). The book describes the insidiousness of the problem and, more importantly, outlines protocols for proper use of intravenous vitamin C and other treatment modalities.
Originally published in Health Consciousness Magazine in June 1989, I feel most of the following information is as important today as it was then. Thankfully, great strides have been made in developing new materials for amalgams, and the dental profession, for the most part, recognizes the danger of mercury in dental amalgams and is using alternative materials. S.D.
In 1988, scrap dental amalgam was declared a hazardous waste material by the Environmental Protection Agency…Once a doctor removes an amalgam filling from your mouth and places it on the tray, it once again becomes a hazardous waste material…I ask the reader – what is it about the mouth that makes this same item non-toxic?
By Sandra C. Denton, M.D.
(For a copy of the Bibliography for this article, please contact Alaska Alternative Medicine Clinic.)
