I wrote this some time ago and I'm going to write it again. There are a
number of studies in Medline which show mercury amalgam as a major cause of
oral lichenoid lesions. Such lesions are often pre-cancerous. These
studies have mostly been done in the last few years so perhaps dentistry
schools aren't teaching it yet.
The conclusion is inescapable. Mercury amalgam in a significant cause of
such lesions and may well be a significant cause of oral cancer.
Furthermore, the repeated statements of the American Dental Association that
there have been fewer than 100 cases of mercury hypersensitivity in the
medical literature are false and the fact that they continue such statements
are irresponsible and dangerous.
Here are some of the studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9145263&form=6&db=m&Dopt=bhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=8705594&form=6&db=m&Dopt=bhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=8731663&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
Hans Lennros wrote:
> Hi Zugumba,
>> Been gone a while. Here's my reply:
>> You wrote:
> >Ha, dead wrong. "Taught in dental schools" is not the issue (dental
> >schools are inherently conservative and should be; their most important
> >role is not only teaching clinical and technical understanding and
> >skills, but also to teach students to critically evaluate research and
> >see through marketing hype).
>> Sounds nice (almost like an dental school ad) - but do they?
> My point was also that they are conservative and never will take a lead
> position in many fields of dentistry.
>> >What is "cutting edge" should not mean (because it is unethical,
> >potentially harmful, and fraudulent) is that you are rendering
> >treatment based on anecdotal evidence or what you *feel* is right.
> >Judgement in treatment decisions should have at its basis sound,
> >research using the scientific method. That's the best protection for
> >our patients and for us.
>> What is research? In many areas research is ordered. The results
> are predicted and paid for even before the scientists have gotten
> their test tubes labeled. Especially within dentistry.
>> The thing here is that Joel said: "Sorry Hans. No profession works
> that way. Medical doctors do not "make up their own minds"
> irrespective of research!"
>> and now you say something similar: "what you *feel* is right"
>> My gosh. I stopped being a robot ten years ago. Every day I do
> something dentalwise on a gut feeling. Wouldn't stand practicing
> if I had to go by the book all the time. And it for sure wouldn't
> benefit the patients one bit. Everyday I do at least some
> experiments hitherto unheard of . All to the benefit of teeth.
> My last idéa is to try to find out a way to bond ProTec CEM.
> Heck, I think I am on to something. Tomorrow I will contact their
> research team to exchange thoughts. I will send you and Joel
> a kind thought even if you are sitting there rammin' in amalgam.
>> Hi for now,
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Smart Alec El Hanso wroto:
>> Hi Joel,
>> You said:
> >we are to believe the Centers for Disease Control, the
> >U.S. Public Health Service and 53 U.S. dental schools.
> >So far, no diseases are caused by "mercury fillings."
>> Why not make up your own mind instead of listening to
> what you have heard others say. Isn't that hearsay?
> As for your information the Centers for Disease Control, the
> U.S. Public Health Service and 53 U.S. dental schools
> are probably the last bodies to change.
> BTW; have you ever wondered why the Centers for Disease Control, the
>> >U.S. Public Health Service have some sort of disclaimers when
> >they talk about the safety of dental amalgam?
>> Hans
