 |
Recommendations for Safe Dental Care
On June 12th, 2008, the FDA finally admitted on its website that silver fillings in our teeth are toxic and harmful to our
health, and that they "may have neuro-toxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses."
ARI asked Dr. Donald Robbins for his recommendations for safe dentistry.
THE NEED FOR SAFE, BIOCOMPATIBLE DENTAL CARE
Dr. Donald Robbins, DMD
Bryan is six years old, and autistic. The clinically observed statistics cited by authorities claim one in 120 to 150 children
have an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In point of fact, how many “normal” children have a cognitive disorder
that either has not yet been expressed, or is thought minor enough to be overlooked by the conventional medical community?
The number of children estimated to have a cognitive disorder has been put at three times the ASD figures--that is a huge
number! The percentage cited by “experts” depends on the study, and who is collecting and tabulating data. Either
way, we know these disorders can be caused by a significant toxic exposure to mercury.
Bryan developed autistic symptoms two weeks after being injected with a vaccine containing thimerosal, which is 49% mercury.
Why was he cognitively affected, when so many other children show no effects from a single exposure to mercury? And why do
some children need two or more vaccinations to be negatively affected? There are many causes, but there are clues that have
become apparent in my biologic dental practice.
Bryan’s parents sought out my practice because they both had “silver” (mercury amalgam) fillings in their
teeth. Through their own reading and Internet research once their son was affected, they realized the risk of mercury exposure
people have from these old-fashioned fillings. (All silver-colored fillings in teeth are 50% elemental mercury, and all off-gas
mercury vapor into the mouth nonstop). They also understood that simply removing mercury fillings without precautions was
dangerous. They wanted the mercury removed as safely as possible, according to the biologic protocols that exist to protect
patients from the incidental mercury vapor and particles released during removal of mercury dental fillings.
The parents’ oral-vapor mercury levels, both at rest and after chewing, were measured and recorded before treatment.
Their pretreatment levels unsafely exceeded maximum permissible exposure levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA): 9 micrograms mercury per cubic meter, established after evaluating health and industry data and observing toxic health
effects. Yet as Bryan’s parents and many of my patients find out, their oral levels are above those toxic limits.
Bryan’s parents’ treatment was performed and completed in several visits. They were protected as much as possible
with biologic protocols, including oral supplementation and physical barriers specifically designed to minimize mercury absorption
during the procedures. Usually this is successful, and no immediate or long-term health effects are noted. However, with
both these patients, post-treatment mercury exposure symptoms appeared during the two weeks after each visit:
* Headaches
* Flu-like achy feeling; muscle aches
* Personality changes, e.g., aggressive temper and mood swings
These symptoms disappeared during the ensuing two weeks.
My evaluation of the parents’ responses indicated that BOTH parents had difficulty excreting mercury. Even with hygienic
and nutritionally supportive help during the removal process of their dental fillings, they experienced toxic symptoms. In
my opinion, Bryan had little chance of avoiding mercury toxicity and its health effects because he inherited a lack of efficient
excretion of the toxic mercury from both parents. That may be why he only needed a little mercury exposure to react so badly.
Men and women of childbearing age do themselves and their future children a service by having mercury fillings removed safely
before conceiving a child. Women with many of these in their mouths pass the vapor absorbed from the fillings to the child
they are carrying at a relative rate of ten times what the mother is exposed to. Add to that the extreme vaccination protocol
followed for newborns and young children in this country, and you understand how mercury exposures and absorption add up.
To protect yourself and your family from exposure to mercury and its associated potential risks and side effects, make sure
that neither you nor your children have mercury “silver” fillings. You should also confirm that the dental office
you want to use observes strict protocols to prevent mercury contamination from all sources.
TOXIC EXPOSURES IN A TYPICAL DENTAL OFFICE
While most of us are aware of mercury exposure from dental amalgam fillings, many are not aware that about half the dentists
in the United States still use them. For most people, concern ends there, because most people are not aware of exposure to
other toxins caused by simply walking into an average dental office.
Let’s explore what kinds of chemicals are used--and not controlled--in these offices. For instance, a dental office
might advertise proudly that they do not use mercury dental fillings, but instead replace old silver fillings with the newest
white bonded ones, while they in fact are exposing their patients, their staff, and themselves to mercury vapor in their office
every minute. Mercury vapor is released in extremely high concentrations when the silver filling is heated incidentally during
the drilling procedure. Unless specific precautions are taken to control the mercury vapor released every time an old “silver”
filling is drilled out, that vapor is contaminating everything in the office. In addition to the vapor, minute toxic particles
are sprayed into the air during filling removal.
Many office buildings now are “closed” systems where windows cannot be opened and external air is not brought
in. Any chemicals released into the office air recirculate through the heating/air conditioning systems until they are either
inhaled or deposited on surfaces in the office environment. Specific precautions and equipment are needed to capture and
contain toxic chemicals used every day in these offices. Every person in the office is at risk; the condition of children
with ASDs, whose immune and detoxification systems are already compromised, can be seriously threatened from even minimal
exposure.
Consider this too: When a treatment room is cleaned up and made ready for the next patient, disinfectant sprays and sterilant
chemicals are used on all surfaces in the room. Some are allowed to remain on surfaces until they evaporate, and some must
be wiped dry after a period of time. Either way, these chemical vapors find their way into office air. Some of them are
not kind to our bodies. Topical antiseptic agents used on the skin and in the mouth include:
* Alcohol based products
* Chlorhexidine
* Hexachlorophene
* Iodine and iodophors
* Quaternary ammonium compounds
* Triclosan
Although used topically, these antiseptics have the potential to be absorbed through skin or mucosa contact.
Consider what these disinfectant agents can do:
* Iodophors: Stain plastic and corrode metal, difficult to use safely in dental offices, and poisonous.
* Chlorine-based products: Extreme vapor and odor, highly corrosive, toxic to mucous membranes, respiratory tract, and skin,
causing irritation to all. Included in this category are chlorine dioxide and sodium hypochlorite (bleach).
* Synthetic phenols: EPA warning of respiratory and mucous membrane reactions, headaches and sinus inflammation; ventilation
required.
* Alcohol-based: No significant health risks, and not effective for killing microorganisms.
* Quaternary ammonium: Colorless and odorless chemicals that require long periods of contact to effectively kill microorganisms.
* Aldehydes (glutaraldehyde): Very toxic to mucous membranes; as an antiseptic they can cause respiratory irritation and have
low exposure limits for human tissues, due to their toxicity.
We need to protect our treatment and operating rooms by killing or removing as many pathogens as possible. So how can dentists
keep from exposing themselves, their staffs, and their patients to the same fate?
One of the major requirements for precautions that must be taken in all dental offices is the use of high-efficiency medical-grade
air cleaners. These are not readily available like the home-use air cleaners that remove some bacteria or viruses from the
air. Professional air cleaners are needed, like the IQAir units (SMARTAir Solutions 800-9779-AIR), which are sophisticated
Swiss-made units; different models are available to remove specific chemical vapors, metals, toxins, or pathogens from the
office air. Their unit for removal of mercury vapor in the dental treatment room is used chair-side, while the mercury fillings
are drilled out. It is the best unit made, because it removes 99.6% of the mercury in the air the first time the air moves
through the unit (first pass). Read on in articles to follow for more information about these remarkable IQAir cleaner units.
IS IT SAFER TO LEAVE MERCURY DENTAL FILLINGS IN, OR TO REMOVE THEM?
I am frequently asked this question by my patients and at conferences. Available information indicates that when a mercury
amalgam filling is being placed or removed (drilled out), the oral mercury vapor levels rise significantly, sometimes reaching
levels fifty times the resting level. Mercury vapor in the mouth is inhaled and absorbed from the lungs into the bloodstream
in a matter of minutes. Even the American Dental Association, which stonewalls the overwhelming scientific literature establishing
that these fillings are toxic, agrees that mercury vapor levels are their highest during placement and removal. But why not
“let sleeping dogs lie”? The answer is not simple.
The average mercury exposure for a person with a typical number of amalgam fillings is 17 micrograms of mercury per day (World
Health Organization 1991). The average mercury (ethyl mercury) from thimerosal in one vaccination is 20 to 25 micrograms,
injected into the body tissues. Thimerosal is the preservative used in multi-dose vials, for injectable vaccines. These
exposures carry significant health risks; they should of course be avoided when possible. Those of you familiar with vaccinations
know that not all vaccines available in the United States are listed on the FDA website. The FDA website currently lists
all pediatric vaccines as NOT containing thimerosal, overlooking that more than half of the flu vaccines still contain mercury.
Because of the large mercury exposure that occurs while drilling out mercury amalgam fillings, I avoid removing them from
female patients who are pregnant or nursing. In fact, whether female or male, if the patient is of childbearing years or
trying to get pregnant, I advise safe removal of amalgam dental restorations as soon as possible. So why remove these fillings
in a child or adolescent with an autistic spectrum disorder (ASD), when conception is not an issue?
For the last five years I have measured the oral mercury-vapor levels in all my new patients and in patients in for their
routine checkups. I use a very accurate atomic spectrometer (used in high-tech diagnostic laboratories), which records mercury
vapor readings directly, in the mouth. Patients receive a record of their oral mercury-vapor levels, comparison with government
regulations, and a list of websites that provide information about mercury levels. All patients with more than a few fillings
show mercury vapor levels above the maximum level permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). By definition, these high oral mercury-vapor levels mean that these individuals
are chronically toxic.
All mercury dental fillings give off (“off-gas”) mercury vapor twenty-four hours per day, seven days a week. Allowing
this constant toxic exposure in ASD children is unacceptable. The long-term absorption of mercury from their fillings can
only add to their dysfunction. I recommend removal of any mercury dental fillings as soon a possible, but with precautions.
You don’t want to make the child’s condition worse by exposing them, unprotected, to a “cloud” of
toxic vapor. My office protocols minimize the patient’s toxic exposure during removal. These precautions also limit
mercury exposure for me and my staff.
I advise a consultation with a physician well versed in chelation procedures; keep in mind that most physicians are not aware
of the effective protocols. A knowledgeable practitioner will place the child on transdermal or sublingual supplements such
as reduced glutathione, oral supplementation with vitamin C, and perhaps intravenous chelation immediately following the dental
procedure. Informed practitioners recommend the best protection for the patient (both adult and child) to minimize absorption
of the toxic metals.
As far as I am aware, there are almost no pedodontists (dentists treating children only) practicing in a complete biologic
manner. Most do not take all the precautions, nor use only the biocompatible materials that are necessary to protect the
patient. Many children with ASDs need to be treated as general anesthesia cases, possibly in hospital operating rooms or
outpatient surgical centers. These facilities have no equipment for capturing mercury released during the removal of fillings,
nor do they filter the room air to remove the released vapors from earlier procedures. If you are faced with this situation
and cannot find a biologic pedodontist, protect the child with everything else you can (as outlined above), find a pedodontist
who does not use mercury–containing fillings, and trust a knowledgeable physician to help you.
PROTECTING THE PATIENT FROM MERCURY
How to avoid exposure when mercury fillings are removed
We previously reviewed how patients are generally exposed to huge amounts of mercury vapor while their old fillings are being
drilled out. At rest, patients with an average of six “silver” fillings have constant off-gassing of mercury
vapor at levels over six times that of an average daily consumption of fish (World Health Organization 1991). Routine drilling
of a mercury amalgam filling with air-and-water spray increases the toxic vapor 10 to 100 times the patient’s resting
vapor level. Not only is the patient at risk of inhaling and absorbing mercury, but the dentist and the office staff are
also exposed, and are at increased risk of toxicity.
These are some of the reasons why it’s important to have your “silver” mercury dental fillings removed only
by a biologic dentist knowledgeable in the precautions necessary to minimize that toxic exposure. Simply going to a dentist
who claims never to use mercury in the office is NOT safe enough to keep you, your family, or your unborn child safe from
vapor exposure and consequent neurologic damage. Those dentists who place only white bonded fillings may do so very expertly
- but their removal procedures still are a great health hazard to the patient, and the dental office staff itself.
What precautions are needed to keep mercury exposure to a minimum during these procedures? Although they will vary with the
overall health and the needs of each patient, certain basic precautions are universally taken to safeguard against metal toxicity.
During the safe removal of mercury fillings, wet drapes are placed over the patient’s exposed skin on head, face and
neck, since mercury (released in the aerosol spray) can be absorbed through the skin. Protective eyeglasses with side shields
also keep spray out of the eyes and the sensitive surrounding skin. Importantly, the high-speed evacuation system used by
the office to suck out the debris, water, and particles from the mouth MUST be exhausted to the outside of the building.
This is also true of the suction from the saliva ejector that’s placed in the floor of your mouth, under your tongue,
during dental procedures. Many offices are in buildings where the windows and corridors cannot be opened to the outside.
In these buildings, the air is constantly recirculating. Unless the mercury that’s removed while a “silver”
filling is being drilled out is vented and captured outside the dental office, the contaminated air is recirculated, and represents
a threat to everyone involved, as well as others in the building.
To help protect the dentist and staff during the safe removal of mercury fillings, high efficiency mercury air cleaners are
used, with a flexible vacuum tube opening right at the patient’s mouth. The IQAir unit we use is the best mercury-capture
air cleaner available, capturing 99.6% of the mercury vapor coming out of the filling area being drilled. This efficient
capture of mercury vapor keeps the patient from having to rebreathe the contaminated air.
In our office we also use a different IQAir unit to filter all volatile organic compounds (VOC’s), formaldehydes, chemical
agents and any residual mercury from the office air. These units run 24 hours, 7 days a week to remove the chemical agents
listed above. These IQAir units also remove odors, pollens and allergens, vapors released (off-gassing) from office machines
and equipment, molds, yeast, bacteria, and viruses. You can tell if an office is clean as soon as you walk into the waiting
room, by the lack of any “dental” odors.
Depending on the patient’s general condition and sensitivity to toxic materials, we evaluate each for oral nutritional
supplementation. A short-term supplement recommendation may be prescribed for the general physical wellbeing of the patient,
or to support their defenses against the toxic vapor that will be released when fillings are removed. These supplements are
a very important part of protecting the patient from incidental exposure to mercury during the process. Extremely debilitated
patients require a consultation with a physician knowledgeable in heavy metal toxicity and detoxification techniques. We
will occasionally remove the fillings and immediately send the patient to a physician’s office for intravenous administration
of detoxifying supplements.
Remember, mercury can have serious negative short-term impact on your health. People who cannot excrete mercury efficiently
(like young children with ASDs from thimerosal in vaccines, or from another source of mercury) are at a higher risk for bad
reactions. But mercury also has insidious long-term effects that progress slowly, such as Alzheimer’s disease or cardiovascular
damage. Children who already have been injured by mercury exposure have demonstrated an inability to adequately excrete this
metal. Any small addition of mercury will have a magnified effect, and may cause a relapse of negative health symptoms.
You must take control of your health decisions. Know the facts, and know about the treatment practices of any medical or
dental office you use.
Donald Robbins, DMD, FAGD, AIAOMT, is a bio-safe dentist protecting patients’ overall health, practicing in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Visit Dr. Robbmins Web site
Source: http://www.autism.com/ari/dental.htm
********************
EVIDENCE OF FLUORIDE'S ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS
The US Government's conflict of interest and its motive to prove fluoride safe in the furious debate over water fluoridation
since the 1950's has only now been made clear to the general public, let alone to civilian researchers, health professionals
and journalists. The declassified documents resonate with a growing body of scientific evidence and a chorus of questions
about the health effects of fluoride in the environment.
Human exposure to fluoride has mushroomed since World War II, due not only to fluoridated water and toothpaste but to
environmental pollution by major industries, from aluminium to pesticides, where fluoride is a critical industrial chemical
as well as a waste by-product.
The impact can be seen literally in the smiles of our children. Large numbers (up to 80 per cent in some cities) of young
Americans now have dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of excessive fluoride exposure according to the US National Research
Council. (The signs are whitish flecks or spots, particularly on the front teeth, or dark spots or stripes in more severe
cases.)
Less known to the public is that fluoride also accumulates in bones. "The teeth are windows to what's happening in
the bones," explained Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St Lawrence University, New York, to these reporters. In
recent years, paediatric bone specialists have expressed alarm about an increase in stress fractures among young people in
the US. Connett and other scientists are concerned that fluoride-linked to bone damage in studies since the 1930's-may be
a contributing factor.
The declassified documents add urgency: much of the original 'proof ' that low-dose fluoride is safe for children's bones
came from US bomb program scientists, according to this investigation.
Now, researchers who have reviewed these declassified documents fear that Cold War national security considerations may
have prevented objective scientific evaluation of vital public health questions concerning fluoride.
"Information was buried," concludes Dr Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center
in Boston and now a critic of fluoridation. Animal studies which Mullenix and co-workers conducted at Forsyth in the early
1990's indicated that fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin and might adversely affect human brain functioning
even at low doses. (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride
exposure and diminished IQ in children.) Mullenix's results were published in 1995 in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific
journal.
During her investigation, Mullenix was astonished to discover there had been virtually no previous US studies of fluoride's
effects on the human brain. Then, her application for a grant to continue her CNS research was turned down by the US National
Institutes of Health (NIH), when an NIH panel flatly told her that "fluoride does not have central nervous system effects".
+++++++++++++++++++++
Michael R. Meuser,
Environmental Sociologist
meuser@mapcruzin.com
********************
Source:
http://thewinds.org/archive/medical/fluoride01-98.html
DID GOVERNMENT APPROVE CITIZENS AS TOXIC WASTE SITES?
ARE WE BEING POISONED?
"Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened."
- Winston Churchill -
It has been a long established joke about not drinking the water in Third World countries. Now it is here in America that
the water has been declared unsafe to drink, and it is no joke. Whereas the greatest problem with water in the underdeveloped
nations is usually such as amoebic dysentery, serious but reversible, in the U.S. it is rat poison one gets in the drinking
water--and it is no accident.
Extensive studies, ignored with a yawn by those who believe they are being served well by the media and various dental
associations, have shown that the consumption of fluoride in drinking water and prescription doses is extremely harmful and
deleterious in a number of ways.
Reputable researchers from such as Harvard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and numerable other research
investigators, have shown that fluoridation of drinking water can result in brain and other physiological damage producing
such abnormalities as:
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
Hyperactivity or passive malaise -- depending on whether exposure is pre or postnatal
Alzheimer's disease or senile dementia
The death of brain cells directly involved in the decision making processes;
Cracked, pitted and brittle teeth and bones not being considered as a potential leading cause of osteoporosis;
Higher hip fracture rates;
Reduction in intelligence and increased learning disability
The list goes on of primary and ancillary defects and damage caused by the addition of a substance used in rat poison.
In a 1997 copyrighted article once seriously considered for publication by The New York Times Magazine, investigative
reporter Joel Griffiths followed a convoluted trail of once-secret documents stretching as far back as the Manhattan Project.
In a subsequent article entitled, "Fluoride,Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb" Griffiths collaborated with journalist Christopher
Bryson to piece together not only the origin of water fluoridation, but its secret rationale and the insidious reasoning behind
the introduction into the drinking water of two-thirds of American cities of what is nothing more than a toxic waste product.
Griffiths told The WINDS that The New York Times Magazine had shown great interest in his original article to the point
of suggesting specific rewrites resulting even in the submission of a final working draft. Then, according to Griffiths, their
interested suddenly disappeared. Later when
Bryson joined with Griffiths the two journalists had a similar experience with The Christian Science Monitor who had actually
accepted their final co-authored work for publication but never put it in print and finally canceled.
The authors, who have worked for such as the BBC, New York Public Television, The Christian Science Monitor and others,
boldly introduced their work by stating, "The following article exposes the biggest ongoing medical experiment ever carried
out by the United States government on an unsuspecting population," and continues with meticulously verified sources
derived largely from documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
"One of the most toxic chemicals known," they claim, "fluoride rapidly emerged as the leading chemical
health hazard of the U.S. atomic bomb program -- both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents reveal."
Other revelations include:
"Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists,
who had been secretly ordered to provide 'evidence useful in litigation' against defense contractors for fluoride injury to
citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents
show."
Dr. John R. Lee, MD, was chairman of the Environmental Health Committee of his local medical association in Marin County,
California when he came head-to-head with the fluoride issue. According to Dr. Lee, the county had continually pushed water
fluoridation on the local ballot until it passed by a slim one per cent.
"The medical society was receiving a lot of phone calls from people who were wondering what the truth was about the
benefit, or lack of benefit, of fluoride. As a result, they turned it over to the Environmental Health Committee."
Dr. Lee was the perfect, unbiased investigator because, "Up until then," he told The WINDS, "I didn't know
anything about fluoride, so our committee got the scientific references from both sides of the issue. We studied the references
that led to more references--and we tracked it all down and found that the fluoride literature is mostly hogwash.
"Then," he continues, "we asked the medical society if we could do a study to determine how much fluoride
there already was in the food--because in Canada they had been monitoring that and found that there was a lot of fluoride
in their food chain due to, among other things, processing with fluoridated water.
"Our study of the food that children eat determined that there was plenty of fluoride in it and there was really
no reason to add more to the water because it already exceeded what the public health department determined was the maximum
daily dose.
"That's when I became aware of what was going on and went to testify at the State Board of Health. It was amazing
to see these guys come out with their references that really aren't references--statements taken out of someone else's paper
that wasn't based on anything--a kind of circular, self-referencing research. ["Joe said it so now I can quote Joe, even
though Joe was just quoting me."] They would take statements made in textbooks that were published before there was any
fluoridation and food was not being processed with fluoridated water--and they would just change the dates. We found all these
tricks being played with the data. It was then that I discovered that it was not a scientific dispute but dishonest trickery.
It was all a sham."
When The WINDS asked Dr. Lee why, according to his research into the controversy, he thought there was so much political
force driving the fluoridation movement, the physician/scientist said, "It's a toxic waste product of many types of industry;
for instance, glass production, phosphate fertilizer production and many others. They would have no way to dispose of the
tons of fluoride waste they produce unless they could find some use for it, so they made up this story about it being good
for dental health. Then they can pass it through everyone's bodies and into the sewer." [A novel approach to toxic waste
disposal--just feed it to the people and let their bodies "detoxify" it]. "It is a well coordinated effort,"
Dr. Lee added, "to keep it from being declared for what it is--a toxic waste."
This could cause one to wonder if the public were not already aware of the dangers of radioactive plutonium waste, what
means the government would use to dispose of it.
Dr. Lee's argument carries considerable credibility in light of the revelations proceeding from Griffiths' and Bryson's
research into the previously classified documents. That research shows, as mentioned previously, that the idea of fluoride
being good for people's teeth originated with the atomic bomb's Manhattan Project. That "fact" that fluoride was
beneficial constituted the government's cardinal defense against lawsuits stemming from an environmental contamination that
took place from the Du Pont chemical factory in Deepwater, New Jersey in 1944."The factory was then producing millions
of pounds of fluoride for the Manhattan Project, the ultra-secret U.S. military program racing to produce the world's first
atomic bomb."
It should be noted here that, without exception, all scientists interviewed during the course of researching this article
agreed upon one overwhelming motivation for the government's vigorous promotion of water fluoridation and other dental applications
of fluoride--though they've known since the mid 30's of the highly toxic nature of the substance. That unanimous opinion was
that it ultimately posed a very tidy solution to the disposal of a very nasty toxic waste. One EPA scientist quoted previously,
Dr. William Hirzy, went so far as to conjecture that the red ink that would be produced by the fertilizer industry alone,
if it were required to properly dispose of fluoride as a waste product, would exceed $100 million a year. As the legendary
New York City Police Detective, Frank Serpico, was once warned, "With that kind of money you don't [mess] around."
The WINDS has obtained a copy of a letter dated March, 1983 on EPA letterhead, written by then U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer. In that document Ms. Hanmer frankly admits that:
In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency [the EPA] regards such
use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product [read that: toxic waste-product]
fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost
source of fluoride available to them.
Keeping in mind that the EPA considers a spill of more than twenty-five pounds of common table salt an environmental hazard
or "incident", in fairness it must be asked, first, is fluoride really effective in reducing tooth decay and, secondly,
at the same time is it safe for drinking water?
The answer to the first question: not according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
...Investigators have failed to show a consistent correlation between anticaries [cavities] activity and the specific
amounts of fluoride incorporated into enamel.
...Since the 1970's, caries scores have been declining in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in Europe,
the United States, and elsewhere.
...National decreases have not occurred in all countries, notably Brazil and France where the caries scores have not changed,
and Japan, Nigeria, and Thailand where the scores have increased." [Japan & Thailand report high dietary fluoride
levels].
A TRAIL OF CASUALTIES
The political and financial forces surrounding the fluoride industry, according to Dr. Lee and others, are vicious and
unrelenting in their assaults upon anyone daring to place themselves at odds with it. Dr. Lee briefly outlined cases with
which he is personally acquainted where reputable doctors and scientists have had their careers either ruined or severely
crippled as the result of trying to introduce truth into this darkness-shrouded global enterprise. Cases in point:
During the time of the election [to decide on whether or not to fluoridate the county's water supply], Lee said the head
of the Marin County Public Health Department was claiming "it was beneficial and perfectly safe. After the election,
when I discovered all these things, I presented them to her, showing her all the tricks that had been used. She then asked
the state public health department if she had the power to stop the fluoridation, realizing she had been mistaken. The next
thing I knew," Lee continued, "she had taken early retirement and left for New Orleans to take care of her mother.
She told me that if she made any statement about it at all she would have lost all her retirement benefits."
Dr. Allan S. Gray, a British Columbia health officer, did a study of all school children's teeth in that province, which
is only about 15% fluoridated. He found that the teeth of those children in British Columbia where there was no fluoridation
were in much better condition than in the fluoridated areas. His findings were published in the Journal of the Canadian Dental
Association, entitled, "Time for a New Baseline?" So the message was that fluoridation did not provide any benefit
to children and for publishing that research the top public health dentist in British Columbia was demoted and sent to Ottawa
where he was put in a basement office and ordered to never speak to anybody about the matter again. If he did, he would lose
his standing in the public health department of Canada and very likely all of his retirement benefits.
Dr. John Colquhon, an Aukland, New Zealand dental researcher with a prominent university, performed studies on children's
teeth and the neighboring towns that were not fluoridated and discovered the children had no difference in cavity rate--they
just all had fluorosed teeth [damage done by the presence of fluoride in their drinking water]. When he published his findings
he was demoted and lost all of his retirement benefits and was forced to retire. As a Ph.D. he had to take a teaching position--all
of the people he had considered his colleagues for thirty years suddenly didn't recognize him any more."
Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., formerly of Harvard University experienced the wrath of the industry when she walked blindly
into the fluoride fray as part of her research program with Harvard's Department of Neuropathology and Psychiatry. While holding
a dual appointment to Harvard and the Forsyth Dental Research Institute, Dr. Mullenix established the Department of Toxicology
at Forsyth for the purpose of investigating the environmental impact of substances that were used in dentistry. During that
undertaking she was also directed by the institute's head to investigate fluoride toxicity. That's where, as she puts it,
"things got weird."
THE DARK ODYSSEY OF DR. PHYLLIS MULLENIX
While conducting interviews and gathering the data contained in this writing, this office was repeatedly referred by EPA
scientists, university professors and physicians to Dr. Mullenix's research at the Forsyth Dental Institute as a primary and
seminal source of reliable scientific research on fluoride toxicity.
The Forsyth Dental Center is a highly respected research institution established in 1910 for the purpose of providing
free dental care for the children of Boston. It is the largest and, considered by many, the most highly respected dental research
institution in the world. All Harvard dental students are required to take a portion of their training at Forsyth.
It is interesting to note that the, then, director of the institute, Dr. Jack Hein, who was responsible for her assignment
to fluoride toxicology studies was, according to Mullenix, instrumental in some of the original research that led to the introduction
of fluoride into toothpaste while he was working for Colgate.
"I wasn't too excited about studying fluoride," Mullenix told this reporter, "because, quite frankly, it
was 'good for your teeth' and all that, and I thought the studies would be basically just another control and I had no interest
in fluoride." However, because it was part of what she was hired to do, she said, and because she had just astounded
the institute by achieving the unattainable--securing a grant from the National Cancer Institute to study the neurotoxicity
of the treatments used for childhoodleukemia--she decided to incorporate the fluoride studies into that research milieu. In
fact, Mullenix claimed, "I was in the top four per cent in the country" for such funding. "The institute was
tickled pink, but I really had no idea what a quagmire I was getting into."
For her toxicology studies Dr. Mullenix designed a computer pattern recognition system that has been described by other
scientists as nothing short of elegant in its ability to study fluoride's effects on the neuromotor functions of rats.
THE "MIRACLE OF FLUORIDE" -or- A DIRTY INDUSTRY?
"By about 1990 I had gathered enough data from the test and control animals," Mullenix continues, "to realize
that fluoride doesn't look clean." When she reviewed that data she realized that something was seriously affecting her
test animals. They had all (except the control group) been administered doses of fluoride sufficient to bring their blood
levels up to the same as those that had caused dental fluorosis [a brittleness and staining of the teeth] in thousands of
children. Up to this point, Mullenix explained, fluorosis was widely thought to be the only effect of excessive fluoridation.
The scientist's first hint that she may not be navigating friendly waters came when she was ordered to present her findings
to the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) [a division of NIH, the National Institute of Health]. "That's when
the 'fun' started," she said, "I had no idea what I was getting into. I walked into the main corridors there and
all over the walls was 'The Miracle of Fluoride'. That was my first real kick-in-the-pants as to what was actually going on."
The NIH display, she said, actually made fun of and ridiculed those that were against fluoridation. "I thought, 'Oh great!'
Here's the main NIH hospital talking about the 'Miracle of Fluoride' and I'm giving a seminar to the NIDR telling them that
fluoride is neurotoxic!"
What Dr. Mullenix presented at the seminar that, in reality, sounded the death knell of her career was that:
"The fluoride pattern of behavioral problems matches up with the same results of administering radiation and chemotherapy
[to cancer patients]. All of these really nasty treatments that are used clinically in cancer therapy are well known to cause
I.Q. deficits in children. That's one of the best studied effects they know of. The behavioral pattern that results from the
use of fluoride matches that produced by cancer treatment that causes a reduction in intelligence."
At a meeting with dental industry representatives immediately following her presentation, Mullenix was bluntly asked if
she was saying that their company's products were lowering the I.Q. of children? "And I told them, 'basically, yes.'"
The documents obtained by authors Griffiths and Bryson seem to add yet another voice of corroboration to the reduced intelligence
effects of fluoride. "New epidemiological evidence from China adds support," the writers claim, "showing a
correlation between low dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children."
Then in 1994, after refining her research and findings, Dr. Mullenix presented her results to the Journal of Neurotoxicology
and Teratology, considered probably the world's most respected publication in that field. Three days after she joyfully announced
to the Forsyth Institute that she had been accepted for publication by the journal, she was dismissed from her position. What
followed was a complete evaporation of all grants and funding for any of Mullenix's research. What that means in the left-brain
world of scientific research, which is fueled by grants of government and corporate capital, is the equivalent to an academic
burial. Her letter of dismissal from the Forsyth Institute stated as their reason for that action that her work was not "dentally
related." [Fluoride research--not dentally related?] The institute's director stated, according to Mullenix, "they
didn't consider the safety or the toxicity of fluoride as being their kind of science." Of course, a logical question
begs itself at this last statement:
Why was Dr. Mullenix assigned the study of fluoride toxicity in the first place if it was not "their kind of science"?
Subsequently, she was continually hounded by both Forsyth and the NIH as to the identity of the journal in which her research
was to be published. She told The WINDS that she refused to disclose that information because she knew the purpose of this
continual interrogation was so that they could attempt to quash its publication.
Almost immediately following her dismissal, Dr. Mullenix said, the Forsyth Institute received a quarter-million dollar
grant from the Colgate company. Coincidence or reward?
Her findings clearly detailed the developmental effects of fluoride, pre and postnatal. Doses administered before birth
produced marked hyperactivity in offspring. Postnatal administration caused the infant rats to exhibit what Dr. Mullenix calls
the "couch potato syndrome"--a malaise or absence of initiative and activity. One need only observe the numerous
children being dosed with Ritalin as treatment for their hyperactivity to draw logical correlations.
Following her dismissal, the scientist's equipment and computers, designed specifically for the studies, were mysteriously
damaged and destroyed by water leakage before she could remove them from Forsyth. Coincidence?
Dr. Mullenix was then given an unfunded research position at Children's Hospital in Boston, but with no equipment and
no money--what for? "The people at Children's Hospital, for heaven's sake, came right out and said they were scared because
they knew how important the fluoride issue was," Mullenix said. "Even at Forsyth they told me I was endangering
funds for the institution if I published that information." It has become clear to such as Dr. Mullenix et al, that money,
not truth, drives science--even at the expense of the health and lives of the nation's citizens.
"I got into science because it was fun," she said, "and I would like to go back and do further studies,
but I no longer have any faith in the integrity of the system. I find research is utterly controlled." If one harbors
any doubt that large sums of corporate money and political clout can really provide sufficient influence to induce scientists
and respected physicians to endorse potentially harmful treatment for their patients, consider the results published in a
January 8th article of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM. The Journal revealed their survey of doctors in favor of,
and against, a particular drug that has been proven harmful (in this case calcium blockers shown to significantly increase
the risk of breast cancer in older women). "Our results," the Journal said, "demonstrate a strong association
between authors' published positions on the safety of calcium-channel antagonists and their financial relationships with pharmaceutical
manufacturers."
When The WINDS asked Dr. Mullenix where she planned to take her research, she said that she is not hopeful that any place
exists that isn't "afraid of fluoride or printing the truth."
The end result of the dark odyssey of Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., and her journey through the nightmare of the fluoride industry
is, essentially, a ruined career of a brilliant scientist because her's was not "their kind of
science".
PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
It has become evident, as the result of the once-secret documents obtained by Griffiths and Bryson that Dr. Mullenix's
research was not the first to discover the dangers of fluoride. "The original secret version -- obtained by these reporters
-- of a 1948 study published by Program F [the code name given fluoride studies] scientists in the Journal of the American
Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC)- considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies - for reasons of national security." One would necessarily have
to ask what the perceived threat was to national security if fluoride was found to be toxic by the American Dental Association.
Did they perhaps perceive a potential threat as proceeding from the American people?
"...Up to eighty percent," the Griffiths/Bryson article continues, "in some cities -- now have dental fluorosis,
the first visible sign of excessive fluoride exposure, according to the U.S. National Research Council. (The signs are whitish
flecks or spots, particularly on the front teeth, or dark spots or stripes in more severe cases)."
Dr. William Hirzy, an organic chemist and a senior scientist in Environmental Risk Assessment with EPA originally became
involved in the fluoride issue "as a matter of professional ethics when one of the EPA scientists came to us and complained
that he was being asked to write a Federal Register notice with which he has substantial ethical problems." The scientist
protested that "the agency wants me to write this notice that says it's alright to have teeth that look like you've been
chewing on rocks and tar balls. I have a real problem with that," he told Hirzy.
To issue a notice of intended regulation in the Federal Register means that after a specified period of time the notice
essentially becomes law and is entered into either the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or the United States Code (USC).
This process is a much used manner of creating law by circumventing the constitutional process of legislation. It becomes
what is called "administrative law."
"At that time," Hirzy said, "EPA was revising its drinking water standards for fluoride and was about to
issue a notice that four milligrams per liter was an acceptable level of fluoride for drinking water." The great problem
with that, Hirzy explained, "indicated that a substantial number of people who were exposed to that concentration would
have teeth suffering from severe dental fluorosis eroded, cracked and pitted and stained....The agency [EPA] was saying that
it was not a health effect, it was only cosmetic. Frankly," Hirzy remonstrated, "it doesn't seem to be a very ethical
stance for us to say that if your teeth don't work--if they're cracked and pitted and falling out--that it's not a health
effect.
"The agency," Hirzy told The WINDS, "was taking that position because of the peculiar wording of the Safe
Drinking Water Act which says that EPA has to set standards that protect against adverse health effects with an adequate margin
of safety." So they wanted to say,according to Dr. Hirzy,that "severe dental fluorosis is not an adverse health
effect." If, in essence, you just say it is not an adverse health effect, you then effectively comply with the law by
juggling the definition.
The great problem with the system, Hirzy explained, is that the EPA is not a constitutionally mandated organization and
therefore cannot [or is not supposed to] make law but can only advise the executive branch of government. The dilemma arises
when whatever administration is in office comes to the agency and says, "We want you to write that the science supports
this particular decision, whatever it may be, that's where I draw the line and say 'no dice, we're not going to do that....You
can't make us lie about the science.' It makes us complicit in deception. We do not want to have to invoke the Nuremberg defense,"
(i.e., I was just doing what I was told).
Hirzy said that the EPA, in fact, got away with imposing a standard that effectually ruins the teeth of very many who
drink fluoridated water because, though "widely known to cause severe fluorosis at four milligrams per liter, that is
the standard in effect to this day."
Of even more ominous portent, Hirzy said, is that, far from being merely cosmetic in effect, "what's going on in
the teeth is a window to what's going on in the bones. What fluoride does in the hydroxy-epitite structure in teeth it does
to the same structure in bone. It is well known now that fluoride produces faulty bone, more brittle, basically mimicking
in the bone what is clearly visible in the teeth." A kind of artificial osteoporosis.
"It's an outrageous situation," the EPA scientist claims, when you have fluoridated household drinking water
in such concentration that the agency must inform parents that they "should not be allowing their children to drink four
milligrams per liter of fluoride, and if they have that in their water supply they should go to an alternative source."
Does it not seem a little strange that the government authorizes the addition of a chemical to ostensibly help children's
teeth and then tells parents not to allow their children to drink it? We are most certainly not in Kansas anymore, Toto!
So toxic is the fluoride added to drinking water that, according to Hirzy, if one were to take a dose of it about half
the size of that "500 mg vitamin C tablet you take in the morning, you'd be dead long before the sun went down. When
you're talking about something with that kind of potent toxicity," he says, "it's unrealistic to think that the
only adverse effect it has is death. It must be doing something intracellularly to cause these effects."
As evidence that the government has known for over sixty years that fluoride is a health hazard, Hirzy quoted from an
article, "clear back in 1934 in which the American Dental Association plainly treats the subject very matter-of-factly.
It calls fluoride a general protoplasmic poison."
Robert Carton, Ph.D., twenty years with EPA and now employed as a scientist with the Army, claims that, on "July
7, 1997 the EPA scientists, engineers and attorneys who assess the scientific data for the Safe Drinking Water Act standards
and other EPA regulations have gone on record against the practice of adding fluoride to public drinking water.
Question: if the Environmental Protection Agency possesses the clout to virtually confiscate a man's land because some
of it is a little soggy--calling it wetlands--why do they not exercise that power to enforce de-fluoridation of drinking water,
which they have declared unsafe? Does money play any role in this?
Dr. Carton informed this office that fluoride itself is not the only major hazard stemming from its introduction into
city water supplies. "A very real danger lies in the fact that fluosilicic acid leaches lead from plumbing. "There
are a couple of places in the country," Dr. Carton said, "Seattle being one and Thermont, Maryland...that when they
stopped adding fluoride to their water the lead levels dropped in half."
The problem with the data used to determine the safety of fluoride, Carton said, is that it is all based on the original
figures presented by the chief scientist in charge of the Manhattan Project's fluoride safety, Dr. Harold Hodge. He falsified
or "cooked the numbers," as Carton put it, to make his data fit what the government wanted.
In addition to the dental and skeletal damage caused by fluoride, Dr. Carton also cites research that claims that a specific
antibody (immunoglobulin - IgM) that is missing from patients with certain types of brain tumors is also missing from the
blood of those tested with elevated blood fluoride levels. This is leading many to theorize that such brain tumors are much
more likely among individuals consuming fluoride compounds in their diet. Since most juice concentrates and food stuffs are
processed with fluoridated water, such blood elevations are becoming much more common.
ENOUGH ALREADY? NOPE, THERE'S MORE--
In a study published last October in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Dr. Robert L. Isaacson makes a number
of astounding revelations about this toxic waste in our water.
"Probably the most startling observation from our first experiment," Isaacson states, "was the high mortality
rate in the group of animals that received the lowest dose of AlF 3 [aluminum fluoride]. Different groups of rats had been
given one of three levels of AlF3 in double distilled drinking water: 0.5 ppm, 5 ppm, and 50 ppm starting at about four months
of age. A fourth group received only the distilled water." The experiment lasted only 45 weeks but, Isaacson stated,
"Eighty per cent of the rats in the [lowest concentration group] died before the end of the experiment" which was
the highest mortality rate of all. "Not only did the rats in the lowest dose group die more often during the experiment,
they looked poorly well before their deaths. Even the rats in the low dose group that managed to survive until the end of
the 45 weeks looked to be in poor health. They had much thinner hair than those in the other groups and the exposed skin was
bronzed, mottled and flaky. Their teeth and toe nails were excessively dark." Follow-up studies, the scientist said,
"showed the same high level of mortality." The study goes on to say that, in subsequent research, low levels of
the same kind of fluoride that is added to city drinking water "also allows the enhancement of brain levels of Al."
Another prominent finding by Isaacson's group was the significant reduction on the cells of the hippocampus, that part
of the brain that acts like a central processing unit in a computer, telling other parts what to do and how to function. The
hippocampus is the primary decision making part of the brain, damage to which causes the victim to become more submissive
and less challenging to his environment. One could logically question if this is not a pivotal reason for the government's
push for universal fluoridation.
In the brain of his low dose test animals, Isaacson observed a tangling of capillary blood vessels, reduced oxygen uptake
along with the peculiar crystalline structures, all of which are identical to those found in Alzheimer's victims. Dr. Isaacson's
research indicates that the Alzheimer's-like effects result from the transport of aluminum to the brain and the high death
rates from the toxicity of the fluorine.
Aluminum has previously to this, of course, been implicated in Alzheimer's, but how is the link made between fluoridation
of human drinking water and the presence of aluminum fluoride? According to Drs. Carton and Burgstahler, fluoride being the
most electrochemically active of all the elements, it has a strong propensity to create metallic compounds with itself whenever
fluoridated water comes into contact with such things as aluminum cooking vessels. Ergo: there is created aluminum fluoride
from cooking with such vessels using fluoridated water and not incidentally, according to Dr. Robert Carton, former EPA scientist,
aluminum is used in city water treatment.
"An incidental observation of possible importance must be mentioned," the research paper adds. "Pathologic
changes were found in the kidneys of animals in both the AlF 3 and NaF [sodium fluoride] groups." If all this weren't
enough, the research team observed a "general impairment in the immune capacities of the treated subjects." They
also found that the death rate increased among those animals treated with the aluminum fluoride where stress was elevated
due to a training regime.
The research clearly indicates that not only does the presence of fluoride reduce the body's ability to utilize oxygen
and nutrients, but actively inhibits the system's ability to rid itself of waste. This creates an apparent synergistic assault
upon the health by poisoning the body with its own toxic waste while impairing its effectiveness to use the nutrients that
would help in the detoxification process.
In the face of overwhelming data proving that fluoride is not only not beneficial but extremely harmful; the reliable
evidence that the government has known of this for over sixty years; the continuing press for fluoridation in the drinking
water of American cities, makes all the more believable the portentous claim set forth in the Protocols:
"...We now appear on the scene as apparent saviors of the common worker, saving him from this oppression by enrolling
him in the ranks of our various forces fighting for imaginary civil liberties. The upper class, which enjoyed by law the labor
of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy and strong. We are interested in just the
opposite-in the diminishment, the killing out of the nations. Our power is in the chronic, physical and mental weakness of
the worker. What that results in is his being made the slave of our will, and he will not find in the authorities of his own
society either the strength or energy to oppose us."
REFERENCES:
1. "Fluoride, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb", Griffiths & Bryson, 1997. Author Griffiths indicated that this
URL contains an accurate reproduction of their article.
2. John R. Lee, MD, article: "The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation", April 15, 1995.
3. "Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks", Department of Health and Human Services, February 1991, p. 7 &
p. 31.
4. The Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, Vol. 53, pp 763-765, 1987.
5. "Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats", Mullenix, P. Neurotoxicology and Teratology", 17(2), 1995.
6. The New England Journal of Medicine -- January 8, 1998 -- Volume 338, Number 2 [SPECIAL ARTICLE] "Conflict of
Interest in the Debate over Calcium-Channel Antagonists", Henry Thomas Stelfox, Grace Chua, Keith O'Rourke, Allan S.
Detsky.
7. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Volume 825 "Neuroprotective Agents, Third International Conference."
Title: "Toxin-Induced Blood Vessel Inclusion caused by the Chronic Administration of Aluminum and Sodium Fluoride and
their Implication for Dementia." Robert. L. Isaacson, et al, p. 152-166.
Further reading:
FLUORIDE: Protected Pollutant or Panacea? A very extensive source for scientific papers published on fluoridation
Robert J. Carton, Ph.D., Former EPA scientist. Article: "Corruption and Fraud at the EPA"
The following resources appear valid but The WINDS was unable to fully verify their authenticity and therefore make no
claims for such, with the exception that this office has ascertained that Dr. William L. Marcus is currently employed by the
EPA.
Richard G. Foulkes, M.D., Article:"Celebration or Shame? Fifty Years of Fluoridation (1945-1995)"
William L. Marcus, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor, Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Letter.
Written 1/30/98. ***Updated 11/13/98 to correct and clarify historicity
Copyright © 1998 The WINDS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
http://www.thewinds.org/
********************
THIS DENTIST VISIT IS ANYTHING BUT ROUTINE
Source: http://www.newsadvance.com/MGBZFP77SNC.html
Jun 9, 2001
By Cynthia T. Pegram
The News & Advance
CHARLOTTESVILLE - Kim Shrum, hungry and thirsty, offers no resistance when asked to drink the small amount of what looks
like Kool-Aid in a paper cup.The drink contains a sedative that makes people drowsy, compliant and creates amnesia of the
time period while it's effective.
This is how the 34-year-old Shrum makes it through a visit to the dentist. The tiny woman is mentally retarded, autistic
and virtually mute. Her anxiety in the presence of doctors and dentists means she has to be sedated before her teeth can be
cleaned or filled. So, in what's become a yearly event, her mother Bettie Jo Shrum helps her daughter get dressed and ready
for the dentist and a four-hour round trip to Charlottesville.
For Bettie Jo Shrum, Kim's routine dental services are almost unaffordable. The more than $300 and the four-hour round
trip are a bargain. In Lynchburg,if she could find a dentist willing to take a morning away from the office, Kim would have
to have the work done in the hospital, which costs in the $1,200 to $1,400 range. As a mentally retarded adult, Kim gets many
services under Medicaid. But the public insurance program only covers dental services for children, not adults. Kim is not
alone in her need.
Tim Shepherd, executive director of the ARC of Central Virginia, estimates that Central Virginia has some 400 mentally
retarded adults who need routine dental care but can't get it. It's a problem now being discussed by dentists from the Lynchburg
Dental Society and Centra Health. The first meeting is likely to be this month. But until an answer comes along, mother and
daughter will follow the routine that they did on a recent spring day.
They left their Campbell County home before 7 a.m. for the 8:30 a.m. appointment with pediatric dentist Dr. Kathryn Cook
in Charlottesville. Because of the upcoming sedation, Kim had to miss breakfast, her favorite meal. She has a kind of bleakness
about her as she rides in silence in the backseat.
As she drives, Shrum talks a little about their routine dental care. This time, before the appointment, Shrum had to find
a pharmacy to fill the prescription. Because drug abusers, and those with "date rape" intent seek the amnesiac,
it's closely monitored and hard to get. Finally, a Charlottesville pharmacy was willing to deliver the drug to the dentist's
office. It costs upwards of $75 per dose.
Dr. Cook's office has a small waiting room where the sign-in desk is watched over by a soft-sculpture tooth fairy. A giant
plastic bumblebee sits on the window sill. Cook, dressed informally, has a gentle low-key style. During her treatment, Kim
is the only patient, for it takes just about everyone in the office. About 15 minutes after taking the sedative, Kim begins
to get wobbly and tries to walk, but Shrum puts her arms around her daughter, holding her close, persuading her to sit down.
It takes about the same amount of time before she is anesthetized enough to begin the work on her teeth. As a precaution,
Kim's heart rate, oxygen saturation and breathing will be monitored electronically while her teeth are cleaned and two tiny
gum-line cavities are filled.
"It is a conscious sedation," says Cook. "It gives an amnesiac effect. "They don't remember the health
procedure at all." Cook has training in general anesthesia, and in conscious sedation, which Kim is undergoing. "It
reduces their anxiety and allows them to be comfortable in a dental setting where otherwise they wouldn't be," said Cook.
"I believe any dentist can do sedation, but they have to have a special training course that they would get in a residency
program or a dental school," said Cook, who graduated from the Medical College of Virginia's Dental school. She did her
residency at St. Christopher's Hospital in Philadelphia, Pa.
When she does a lengthy procedure, in which she has hours of working time, she has an anesthesiologist who assists her.
An anesthesiologist is a medical doctor. "I do sedate a few special needs children, mostly autistic children that can't
be handled in a regular dental setting where we do a conscious sedation like this, or general anesthesia," said Cook.
Cook has patients who travel further than Kim, some traveling three hours each way. With her training, and the precautions
she takes, however, for her, the risk is minimal though the patients can be difficult. She sometimes takes adult patients
like Kim. "I feel like I'm able to do it," she said. "I'm trained to do it. I should do it."
One of the rewards is to develop a rapport with longtime patients. "Eventually, some people we'll sedate for a while,
and they get so used to coming, they don't need sedation," Cook said. Older handicapped people often have a very hard
time cleaning their teeth.
Some for example have other complicating factors. Kim, for example, can't spit. Kim's in the chair for more than an hour.
Then it takes another 30 minutes or so for her to regain enough steadiness to be helped to the car. Kim soon tilts sideways,
head on pillow, and quickly falls fast asleep. Shrum has found a way to get her daughter the dental care she needs.
The more common problem, however, is a mentally retarded adult who doesn't have severe anxiety but can't find a dentist
willing to accept him. "It's extremely frustrating," said Jane Harris, of DePaul Family Services, an agency that
serves about 60 mental retarded adults living in family foster care. Dental care is available, "but the foster family
has to pay for it," said Harris. Some dentists have been willing to let the patient pay. Medicaid waiver allows $30 a
month personal spending money, and some dentists let the patient pay $5 or $10 until the cost is covered. "It's difficult,"
she said. "People are still intimidated by the population.
Some refuse to see people with MR." Some do, however, like Dr. Kyle Wheeler, a Lynchburg dentist and immediate past
president of the Lynchburg Dental Society. "There are some patients we can handle, and most dentists can handle in their
offices adequately," he said. But if the patients' understanding is below a certain level, or if they develop behavior
problems, they have to be sedated to give them care, said Wheeler. "That leaves most of us in the dust," he said.
"I don't feel comfortable handling that."
According to Shepherd of The Arc, the best solution is to get legislation to require Medicaid coverage for adults who
are covered under the program for home and community-based services. That means that when care is available,the clients will
have the money to pay for it. That process is now under way, he said, and the hope is that it will be passed in the next legislative
session. But many people also think the answer lies in a hospital-based dental clinic.
Dr. Ed Overman, a dentist at the Central Virginia Training Center, is active in trying to get that accomplished in Lynchburg,
as it has been done in Roanoke. "This clinic would serve more than just mentally retarded people. It would serve people
in the community who need a hospital setting," said Overman. That can include a wide range of people who have medical
problems, such as breathing difficulties,which make routine dental care more risky than for the general population. And it
would include the mentally retarded who need sedation for dental care.
"We need the expertise of hospital people," said Overman. He believes a community clinic is a realistic goal.
"I am very hopeful, and more and more optimistic all the time," said Overman. "What we really need to assist
Centra is a change in the Medicaid waiver that would include funds for dental service and especially for hospital-required
settings. "There is no question that we in Central Virginia need this facility. It's going to be one busy place."
********************
source url: http://www.autism.com/ari/dental.html
Dental Anesthesia for the Autistic Child
I am a member of the anesthesiology faculty at Stanford University Hospital, writing in response to the question of autistic
children requiring anesthesia for dental procedures.
There are no data that any anesthetic drug(s) cause or worsen autism, nor are there any published data on preferred drugs
for anesthetizing autistic children.
Dental anesthesia is usually performed in the dentists office. The mandatory requirements are: (1) that an M.D. (or sometimes
a D.D.S.) anesthesiologist experienced in dental and in pediatric anesthesia does the anesthesia care, and (2) that standard
hospital operating room monitoring instruments (e.g., pulse oximetry, ECG, and blood pressure), and resuscitation equipment
(including a defibrillator) are present in the dental suite.
If the child has serious medical problems (e.g., heart problems, breathing problems, seizures, or airway problems) it
is sometimes unsafe to give anesthesia care in the dental office, and the dentist will need to do the procedure in a hospital
room setting. This decision is made by the anesthesiologist.
Our standard of care is to make a preoperative phone call to the parent(s), both to obtain information on the childs medical
history, and also to describe the anesthetic planned for the child.
The preferred technique for dental office anesthesia is deep sedation, where the child is asleep, without awareness of
pain, is breathing spontaneously, and has stable vital signs. The anesthesiologist is in constant attendance.
The anesthetic begins by sedating the child so that an intravenous (IV) can be inserted. There are two common ways to
do this:
(1) If the child is cooperative, oral midazolam (Versed), a Valium-like sedative, is given. The child will become relaxed,
sleepy, and will separate from the parents with minimal distress. The IV is then started in the operating suite, using a small
amount of local anesthetic injected into the skin.
(2) If the child is emotionally uncooperative, an injection is given into the muscle of the shoulder or thigh. We use
a combination of midazolam, ketamine, and atropine. This combination reliably produces a sleeping child in 5 - 10 minutes.
At this point, the child is separated from his parents, and the IV is started in the operating suite.
The monitors of vital signs are applied to the child, including the pulse oximeter, the electrocardiogram, the blood pressure
cuff, and a stethoscope. Additional sedation is added via the IV as needed to maintain the deep sedation state safely. Typically
we add narcotic pain relievers such as meperidine (Demerol), or the short acting sedative propofol. Local anesthetic is sometimes
injected by the dentist.
When the dental procedure is finished, the child stays at the facility until safely aware. This usually requires a minimum
of 30 minutes.
Post-anesthesia side effects are sleepiness, sometimes nausea, and in some children, aggressive behavior or agitation.
When dental sedation is done by an experienced anesthesiologist with modern monitoring equipment and medications, the
rate of major complications should be low. The risk of driving in the car to the dental office should exceed the anesthetic
risk.
Please refer to our anesthesia website at http://www.aamgpaloalto.com, particularly the sections on dental anesthesia
and pediatric anesthesia. Email response is provided.
Richard John Novak, M.D.
Clinical Associate Professor
Stanford Department of Anesthesiology
Source:
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2001/may2001_report_mercury_1.html
Toxicity - Your next visit to the dentist may not be as innocent as you think by Jim O'Brien
The pervasive lack of public awareness about this very serious issue is an obstacle to progress. Even scientists and physicians
tend to be relatively uninformed. Jordan Davis, M.D.
In case anyone still wants to defend the safety record of mercury dentists and dental personnel who work with amalgam
are chronically exposed to mercury vapor. Mercury levels in urine of dental personnal average about two times that of controls.
Jordan Davis, M.D.
When they go to dental hygienists, mercury amalgams should not be polished. We also recommend against dental appliances
such as braces. Charles Williamson, M.D.
The list of problems mercury vapor can cause is endless. Charles Williamson, M.D.
* * * * * * * *
Charles Williamson, M.D., co-director of the Toxic Studies Institute in Boca Raton, Florida and colleague, Jordan Davis,
M.D., sat down with Life Extension magazine for an in-depth interview on the problem of mercury toxicity caused by dental
fillings. Unlike past treatments of this subject, the two physicians spoke from a clinical, medical and scientific not a dental
perspective.
The issue of mercury toxicity is a delicate one. For decades, most people have seen a visit to the dentist and subsequent
cavity filling as a necessary and regular procedure. Side effects have not routinely been brought to light, so few have challenged
the status quo. Evidence suggests, however, that such an apparently harmless procedure can have detrimental effects.
I envision something along the lines of the backlash against tobacco, or drunk driving. Imagine a mercury amalgam protest
group patterned after M.A.D.D.Mothers Against Drunk Driving. When that organization came about, we saw results. Thats what
we desperately need now. Charles Williamson, M.D.
Charles Williamson, M.D., co-director of the Toxic Studies Institute in Boca Raton, Florida, takes the matter very seriously.
Once mothers realize the fillings in their teeth damage the development of their babies brains while theyre in the womb, and
once these women understand this damage can result in low IQ, learning and behavioral problems after birth, then we'll see
a public outcry against the use of mercury amalgam.
I envision something along the lines of the backlash against tobacco, or drunk driving. Imagine a mercury amalgam protest
group patterned after M.A.D.D.Mothers Against Drunk Driving. When that organization came about, we saw results. Thats what
we desperately need now. Perhaps we could call it M.A.M.A.Mothers Against Mercury Amalgams.
Dr. Williamson continues: One of these days, theres going to be a mammoth lawsuit about mercury fillings, similar to one
thats already been filed in Canada. Its going to be bigger than what weve seen over tobacco. Its going to hit people like
a Mack truck that putting mercury amalgam in their teeth amounts to putting poison in their mouths. Once they realize that
in no uncertain terms, theyre going to be angry. Part of our job is to educate, inform and disturb them so theyll do something
about it.
Mercury vapor is toxic, period, Dr. Williamson goes on. The fetus is especially vulnerable to that toxicity, which can
cause brain damage. Specifically, mercury vapor can cause learning disabilities, autism and attention deficit disorder in
unborn children. How will parents feel when they grasp that?
Dr. Williamson and his colleague, Jordan Davis, M.D., say toxicity due to mercury amalgams is pandemic in our societyyet
hardly anybody understands or appreciates that fact. As it turns out, mercury toxicity could provide a significant explanation
for the explosion in learning and behavioral problems, autism and a whole host of other conditions since World War IIthat
55-year period corresponds to the introduction and widespread use of mercury amalgam.
Its an enormous problem, explains Dr. Davis.
There are the medical consequences, the symptoms. Mercury is toxic and it harms people. We'll get into the science behind
that statement latertheres a ton of evidence to substantiate it. Dr. Williamson says that the toxicity results in disorders
primarily of the central nervous system; the head, neck and oral cavity; the gastrointestinal tract; the cardiovascular, renal
and immune systems. Exposure to mercury fillings results in a chronic toxicity, not acute poisoning, he noted as an aside.
According to Dr. Williamson, the toxicity can manifest in irritability and anxiety, restlessness and emotional instability,
loss of memory, inability to concentrate, mental confusion, depression, anti-social behavior, suicidal tendencies, muscle
weakness and loss of coordination; bleeding gums and loosening of teeth; abdominal cramps, chronic diarrhea and/or constipation;
abnormal heart rhythms and blood pressure (high or low) and unexplained elevations of cholesterol and triglycerides; repeated
infections or cancer; and generalized complaints such as chronic headaches, allergies, dermatitis, cold and clammy skin or
excessive perspiration, ringing in the ears, joint and muscle pain, unsteady gait, wheezing, heart palpitations, sinus congestion,
allergies, loss of appetite or chronic obesity.
Dr. Davis explains that these symptoms have inexplicably been on the rise in the past 50 years, without any unifying explanation.
But findings in the past 10 years indicate that mercury toxicity may be the common link between these seemingly unrelated
symptoms.
There are specific treatment protocols to detoxify individuals and rid them of their mercury burden. Removing mercury
fillings is an obvious step in that process, but surprisingly, its not the first one. It must be preceeded and followed by
systemic detoxification. We'll detail the clinical treatment process later, said Dr. Davis.
The Mercury amalgam problem also works on the level of society as a public health probleman unrecognized one, at that.
The pervasive lack of public awareness about this very serious issue is an obstacle to progress. Even scientists and physicians
tend to be relatively uninformed, says Dr. Davis.
And there is even organized resistance on the part of dentists who use mercury amalgams. There has been for a very long
time because they have a lot to lose. Dentists have pride, reputation, money and liability on the line. To admit that they
have mistakenly been using a harmful substance to treat tooth decay for many years is a very difficult confession to makeand
its fraught with extremely serious consequences.
Dr. Williamson is most outspoken about the scientific and ethical issues of the mercury question. When will dentists reach
the point where theyll say, Were not going to put poison in peoples mouths any longer? The science is blatantly overwhelming
that mercury amalgams leak toxic vapors. The irony is that dentists who place the compound in peoples mouths do not treat
it like a toxic substance. In fact, leftover amalgam must be disposed of according to strict EPA guidelines.
More importantly, says Dr. Williamson, there are studies from world renowned institutions that categorically show a cause-and-effect
relationship between mercury and disease; this is particularly true of Alzheimers disease. Mercury is a cytotoxini.e. it poisons
cells. Why wouldn't it make you sick?
Many researchers have reasoned as much over the years but they never had the scientific ammunition to overcome the arguments
of organized dentistry in favor of mercury amalgam. But in 1991, Boyd Haley, Ph.D., a research toxicologist at the University
of Kentucky in Lexington discovered some hard evidence that changed the mercury debate for good.
It was almost accidental, Dr. Haley told Life Extension. I found out how damaging mercury amalgam is to the brain while
studying tissue affected by Alzheimers disease.
The basic research I conducted shows the difference between normal and diseased tissue. My own examination of Alzheimers
affected cells told me there had to be a toxicanta toxic substance that causes it. So I went searching for one. I identified
two environmental sources that could be responsible: Cadmium, mainly found in cigarette smoke, and mercury. Dr. Haley published
his results. Then, the anti-amalgam lobby got in touch with him and told him that dentists were putting stuff in peoples mouths
that leaks mercury.
Frankly, I thought they were nuts, says Dr. Haley. No way would anybody, let alone responsible health care professionals,
put people at serious risk by putting a toxic substance in their bodies, I reasoned.
But I did an experiment. I put mercury amalgam in water. Then, I placed a sample of brain tissue in that water and checked
on it over time. After a period of several weeks, I noticed that the exposure to mercury had suppressed the secretion from
the brain tissue of tubulina major enzyme that performs critical functions in the brain. This finding was consistent both
with mercury toxicity and with brain tissue as affected by Alzheimers disease.
Dr. Haley continues: From that, I concluded that theres clearly leakage from mercury amalgamand that theres a strong probability
that people who have such fillings in their teeth are being exposed to chronic, low-dose mercury leakage. According to Dr.
Haley, having a mouthful of mercury from age 14 until age 65 and beyond would greatly increase risk in anyone susceptible
to Alzheimers disease.
Needless to say, dentists do not welcome Dr. Haleys views. They insist mercury amalgam is safe, non-toxic and that it
doesnt leak. [But the fact of the matter is that] mercury is a neurotoxin. It leeches out of dental fillings, of that there
is no doubt. Anybody can measure it. It heightens the risk of Alzheimers and Parkinsons disease as well as other neurolgical
disorders. Dentists defend their use of mercury amalgam, but its unjustifiable. I feel like I've been arguing with the town
drunk for eight or nine years. My conclusion is simple and direct: mercury is the toxicant behind Alzheimers disease. It may
not be the only one, but mercurys role in the development of Alzheimers disease is clear.
Dr. Williamson applauds Prof. Haleys impeccable science and says his findings establish a straight cause-and-effect relationship.
But from his perspective as a clinician, he believes the Alzheimers disease connection is only the tip of the iceberg.
The list of problems mercury vapor can cause is endless. There is an extremely high incidence of depression, memory loss
and behavioral problems including violent outbursts that can be explained by exposure to mercury vapor, Dr. Williamson told
Life Extension.
He says that mercury toxicity also produces systemic effects, from foul breath and ringing in the ears to general fatigue
or unexplained numbness or burning sensations that may be related. Most disturbingly, Dr. Williamson points out, is the evidence
linking mercury vapor exposure to the development of chronic kidney disease and autoimmune disorders such as arthritis, lupus
erythematosus (LE), multiple sclerosis (MS), scleroderma, amyotropic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and hypothyroidism.
The real point is this: mercury is toxic. And that statement is now beyond debate. According to Dr. Williamson, The World
Health Organization (WHO) states that there is no safe level of mercury in humans that does not kills cells and harm body
processes. Floridas environmental regulatory agency notes that one mercury filling from one tooth thrown into a lake is enough
to contaminate that lake for fishing and swimming. Dentists have consistently denied that mercury amalgam is dangerous, but,
says Dr. Williamson, that position is simply wrong. We wont spend a lot of time analyzing why dentists have maintained this
mistaken position, but mistaken it is.
The American Dental Association, which for so long has promoted the use of mercury amalgams, has recently divested itself
of any culpability with regard to mercury. In a case before the Superior Court of the State of California, lawyers for The
ADA and others stated: The ADA owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from allegedly dangerous products used by
dentists. The ADA did not manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing amalgams. The ADA does not control
those who do. The ADAs only alleged involvement in the product was to provide information regarding its use. Dissemination
of information relating to the practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the public from potential injury.
Dr. Williamson goes on to make an observation: Now, an obvious question arises: if mercury were safe, as the dental profession
has insisted for years, why would the American Dental Association feel obligated to claim nobody can hold it responsible for
the harm it has caused? Their statement is just a way of saying, the stuff's dangerous, but don't blame us if it hurts you.
In their practice at the Toxic Studies Institute, Drs. Williamson and Davis see every day the ways in which mercury makes
people sick. And responsible individuals and organizations are catching on to this fact.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has called for a moratorium on the use of mercury (Thimerosal) in vaccines, says Dr.
Williamson. The Academys action is laudable. One local gynecologist is counseling her patients about eating fish during pregnancy.
She is rightly concerned about mercury intake from fish, which goes directly to the fetus, and we applaud her for recognizing
the hazards mercury poses to the developing fetus. However, mercury-contaminated fish and Thimerosal in vaccinations barely
scratch the surface of the overall problem. The great majority of the body-burden of mercury 87% comes from dental amalgams,
which continuously give off mercury vapor.
According to Dr. Williamson, themercury accumulates in the tissue and leads to increased oxidative damage, mitochondrial
dysfunction and cell death. This is toxic to anyone, he says, but especially to mothers-to-be and most of all to the developing
fetus via rapid placental transfer. The fetal pituitary glandwhich affects development of the endocrine, immune and reproductive
systemsconcentrates mercury.
Dr. Williamson says that, most notably, mercury decreases transport to the fetus of oxygen and essential nutrients, including
amino acids, glucose, magnesium, zinc and vitamin B12. It also depresses the enzyme Isocitric Dehydrogenase in the fetus.
This suppression in turn causes reduced iodine uptake and hypothyroidism, learning disabilities and impairment and reduction
in IQ. Mercury is also strongly associated with behavioral disorders, autism and autistic spectrum disorders, including attention
deficit disorder. Further, mercury exposure affects levels of nerve growth factor in the brain, impairs astrocyte function
and causes brain developmental imbalances.
All of these problems and events can be compounded 10-fold, he says, if a pregnant woman should have mercury amalgam placed
in her teeth or removed from them during the first trimester of pregnancy. And dental work of any kind is worse in the first
trimester than in the second or third. The level of mercury in the tissue of the fetus, newborn and young children is directly
proportional to the number of amalgam surfaces in the mothers mouth. Inorganic mercury methylated in the mouth by microorganisms
to organic mercury is the most acutely neurotoxic form.
Dr. Williamson adds that mercury from dental amalgams is often stored in breast milk in much greater concentrations than
in the mothers tissuesand the amount of mercury in breast milk is likewise directly proportional to the number of amalgams
the mother has in her mouth. Heavy metal toxicity in general, and mercury toxicity in particular, can have a very damaging
effect on fertility. Mercury amalgams in teeth have been associated with a host of female complaints, but especially difficulty
conceiving, outright sterility and spontaneous abortions (miscarriages). Likewise, sperm count and motility in males can be
greatly lowered.
Again, Dr. Williamson: Think of it like this: mercury amalgams are a mere two centimeters away from the pituitary gland.
Vapor from these amalgams has an affinity for this gland in high concentrations. The effect of these vapors on this gland
can bring about hormonal disruptions and menstrual cycle disorders. When mercury burdens are decreased or eliminated, menstrual
cycles normalize and spontaneous pregnancies notably increase.
Dr. Williamson suggests that people who already have mercury amalgams should avoid hot beverages and chewing gumboth of
which stimulate the release of mercury vapor. Anybody who has mercury fillings and suffers from bruxismgrinding their teeth
in their sleepshould be evaluated for treatment.
When they go to dental hygienists, mercury amalgams should not be polished. We also recommend against dental appliances
such as braces when patients have mercury amalgams in their teeth.
In addition to intensive detoxification and mercury amalgam removal, there is another protective step people can take,
Dr. Williamson noted. Since we know that mercury is an extremely potent oxidant and serves to damage and kill cells, we recommend
individuals make it a point to have high levels of natural mercury chelators or detoxifiers in their bodies. Two very important
substances are vitamin C and glutathione: we give these to our patients in very high doses to assist with mercury detoxification.
And we also use mercury-free, organic Chlorella.
On a preventive basis, they strongly urge parents not to have mercury amalgams placed in their childrens teeth. Many safe,
bio-compatible materials are available to use for filling cavities in place of mercury amalgams.
In case anyone still wants to defend the safety record of mercury, lets consider the harmful effects in has on dentists,
dental office personnel and their familiesits overwhelming, said Dr. Davis.
Dentists and dental personnel who work with amalgam are chronically exposed to mercury vapor. Mercury levels in urine
of dental personnal average about two times that of controls. Walking into the average dental office can result in a mercury
exposure thats approximately equivalent to having 19 amalgam fillings.
Dr. Davis points out that mercurys burden on the body increases with age, and older dentists have median mercury urine
levels about four times those of controls, as well as higher brain burdens. Dentists and dental personnel experience significantly
higher levels of neurological, memory, mood and behavioral problems, which increase with years of exposure. Female dental
technicians who work with amalgam have significantly reduced fertility and lowered probability of conceptionand their children
have significantly lower average IQ compared to the general population.
Further, the homes of many dentists have been found to have high levels of mercury contamination, probably caused by the
dentists bringing it home on shoes and clothes. Autopsies of former dental staff have found levels of mercury in the pituitary
gland that averaged more than 10 times greater than that of controlsand also found higher levels in the occipital cortex,
renal cortex and thyroid.
And it gets even more grim. Dentists have the highest rate of suicide of any profession. They also suffer a high incidence
of depression and memory disorders. According to Dr. Davis, A large number of dentists wind up being placed on permanent disabilityand
frequently carry a nebulous diagnosis of non-specific neurological disorder, which we believe is mercury toxicity, plain and
simple.
The scientific truth is beginning to register with governments around the world and in the United States. In Sweden, it
is against the law to use mercury amalgams. In Canada, Health Canadathe national health insurance systemhas urged the nations
dentists to stop giving mercury amalgam to children, pregnant woman and people with kidney disorders.
In late 1999, the California Dental Boardthe largest in the country termed the mercury in amalgam hazardous, and advised
dentists to issue warnings about the reproductive toxicity of mercury and other adverse reactions. And in the summer of 2000,
a judge in Maryland ruled that the state agency that regulates dentistry violated the law by prohibiting dentists from discussing
the risks of amalgam with their patients.
Finally, if you have mercury fillings and are worried about mercury poisoning, what should you do? The first thing you
have to recognize is that you have a medical problem. Says Dr. Davis: You may carry a traditional diagnosis for your health
problem(s) but the diganosis or diagnoses may have a strong non-traditional link to the mercury in your mouth.
The bottom line is that multiple signs and symptoms may be present in multiple organs, the manifestations of which can
be overt or occult. This is why a trained medical doctor with special knowledge in heavy metals toxicity should be consulted
to thoroughly evaluate your history and each of your bodys organ systems.
Eventually, you will need a dentist to remove your fillings, but first, you need a medical evaluation to see how much
mercury is stored in your tissues, and how much toxicity youre suffering. You will need to know how well your kidneys are
functioning before any treatments or mercury removal may safely take place.
Dr. Davis points to some of the tests medical doctors use in cases like this, which include The DMPS challenge, which
stimulates the binding and elimination of a portion of stored mercury, which is then measured by a urinary excretion count;
the creatinine clearance test, to measure kidney function (which mercury can severely compromise). This test can help determine
which substances can be safely used for mercury detoxification, or even to tell if the kidneys can safely tolerate mercury
detoxification. Other tests commonly employed are the H-Scan, which measures visual reaction time, vibrotactile sensitivity,
muscle movement time, decision-making ability and memory function.
Dr. Davis states, After those tests, you may require a medical detoxification of heavy metals generally, and mercury specifically,
both before and after having your mercury amalgams removed. Medical doctors, not dentists, administer medicinal compounds
that bind heavy metals and cause them to be eliminated from the body via the renal or fecal routes, separately or together.
We use DMPS intravenously and oral DMSA.
Finding a dentist to perform the procedure can be trying. Chances are your family dentist will volunteer, but odds are
he or she will not be suited for the job. Removing amalgams has become a speciality unto itself. Dentists who perform this
work often bear the qualifiers, Mercury-Free, or Biologic Dentist. They have had special formal training in mercury amalgam
removal and have special equipment on hand in their offices to reduce dangerous mercury vapor exposure during the removal
process for patients, themselves and other dental personnel. Simply yanking out fillings can release extremely high levels
of mercury vapor, which goes directly into tissue, and is stored, or sequestered.
During the removal process, a certain amount of vapor contamination is going to take place. But a properly trained biologic
dentist can keep this hazard to a minimum.
MERCURY DETOXIFICATION PROTOCOL
To treat patients for mercury overload, doctors prescribe a variety of nutrients and drugs to chelate mercury out of the
body and protect cells from the effects of the large amounts of free mercury being released into the bloodstream for urinary
excretion. It is especially important to initiate this protocol at least two weeks before mercury dental fillings (amalgams)
are to be removed.
What follows is a 33-day mercury detoxification protocol used by many alternative medicine doctors.
For weeks one and two, the following nutrients should be taken:
NUTRIENT DOSE
N-Acetyl-Cysteine (NAC) 600 mg twice a day
Alpha Lipoic Acid 250 mg two times a day
Glutathione 250 mg twice a day
Glycine 500 mg twice a day
Vitamin C 5,000 to 10,000 mg a day
Vitamin E 400 to 800 IU a day
MSM (methylsulphonyl methane) 1000 mg twice a day
Garlic (high-allicin form such as Pure Gar) Avoid if offensive odor becomes a social problem. 900 mg a day
Cilantro (Chinese parsley)Stop using Cilantro after two weeks or on the day that mercury chelation therapy begins during
the third week. 1 drop, rubbed on to the wrist two times a day
Chlorella - may cause diarrhea, so starting off at the lower dose is important. 1500 to 3000 mg a day for the first 14
days. On days 13-33 increase to 7000 to 8000 mg a day.
Selenium - Avoid selenium for the 19 days of Chemet therapy that begins in the third week. 200 mcg
Multi-vitamin - If Life Extension Mix were used, it would provide some of the individual nutrients recommended above.
Note: Health conscious people are already taking many of these natural mercury chelating and glutathione-enhancing nutrients.
Starting at week three, continue taking all of the above nutrients except selenium and cilantro and initiate treatment
with the drug Chemet using the following dose:
First five days Days six through nineteen
Chemet (DMSA)(meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid)100 mg every eight hours 100 mg every twelve hours
Chemet (DMSA) is a sulfhydryl-containing, water-soluble, non-toxic, orally-administered metal chelator which has been
in use as an antidote to heavy metal toxicity since the 1950s. More recent clinical use and research substantiates this compounds
efficacy and safety, and establishes it as the premier metal chelation compound, based on oral dosing, urinary excretion,
and its safety characteristics compared to other chelating substances. Chemet is a prescription drug.
In lieu of oral Chemet therapy, some doctors prefer to use intravenous mercury chelation therapy which is described later
in the protocol.
Blood and urine testing
Before initiating this 33-day mercury detoxification protocol, doctors suggest that a CBC-Chemistry blood test be performed
that includes kidney-liver-thyroid function, lipids and magnesium. Of greatest concern is potential kidney toxicity that can
occur when the body releases its mercury stores for excretion through the kidneys. Those with underlying kidney disease may
not be able to undergo aggressive mercury detoxification therapy.
The only proven method of diagnosing mercury overload in the body is a 24 hour urine collection. This involves a laboratory
sending you a urine collection bag for you to urinate in over a 24 hour period. If urine mercury levels are elevated, the
33-day protocol is advised. At the end of the 33-days, another 24-hour urine collection is recommended to verify that sufficient
mercury detoxification has really occurred.
Intravenous mercury chelation therapy
Some doctors aggressively treat mercury overload with intravenous therapy designed to specifically chelate mercury from
the body. The chelating agent used to remove mercury from the body is called DMPS (dimercapto-propanyl-sulfate). In addition
to DMPS, doctors often add ten grams of vitamin C and other nutrients to further help detoxify the body and protect cells
during this mercury removal process.
It is important to note that while standard chelation therapy using EDTA (ethylene diamine tetra acidic acid) removes
calcium and lead, it does not adequately bind to and remove mercury.
Intravenous therapy using DMPS may involve six monthly visits to the doctors office until a urine test shows that mercury
levels have dropped to the safest possible level.
Drug and supplement availability
Intravenous therapies are available from physicians who specialize in mercury detoxification therapy. Chemet is a prescription
drug sold at most pharmacies. Nutrients such as cilantro, chlorella, alpha lipoic acid, etc. are available from The Life Extension
Buyers Club.
The need for professional expertise
When undergoing mercury detoxification therapy, using a doctor with particular expertise in this field provides the greatest
assurance of a safe and effective outcome. At the end of this article, we have provided contact information for Dr. Williamsons
clinic in Boca Raton, Florida. Dr. Williamson expects to practice at the new Life Extension Medical Center (Institute of Anti-Aging
Medicine) in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. (1-888-710-5433).
For a list of alternative physicians in your area that may be knowledgeable about mercury detoxification, refer to the
Innovative Physician section on The Foundation's Home Page at www.lef.org. It is important to note that not all of these doctors
have expertise in mercury detoxification.
Undergoing complete mercury detoxification requires strict adherence to an individualized regimen of diet modification,
supplements, drugs, multiple physician visits, blood-urine tests, etc. For more detailed information about what is involved
in mercury detoxification, refer to the Life Extension Abstracts section.
  |
