Mercury Toxicity and Systemic Elimination Agents

[Guest guest]

http://www.mercola.com/article/mercury/mercury_elimination.htm

Mercury Toxicity and Systemic Elimination Agents

ph Mercola, DO.

Abstract

This paper reviews the published evidence supporting amalgam

toxicity and describes practical and effective clinical techniques that

facilitate mercury elimination. A literature review is provided which

documents effective mercury elimination strategies to reduce mercury

toxicity syndromes.

Considering the weight of evidence supporting mercury toxicity, it would

seem prudent to select alternate dental restoration materials and

consider effective mercury elimination strategies if mercury toxicity is

present.

Key Words: amalgam and mercury toxicity; DMPS;

DMSA; chlorella; cilantro

Mercury Exposure And Toxicity Is A

Prevalent And Significant Public Health Threat.

Chronic mercury exposure from occupational, environmental,

dental amalgam, and contaminated food exposure is

a significant threat to public

health.

Those with amalgam fillings exceed all

occupational exposure allowances of mercury exposure of all

European and North American countries. Adults with four or more amalgams

run a significant risk from the amalgam, while in children as few as two

amalgams will contribute to health problems. In most children, the

largest source of mercury is that received from immunizations or that

transferred to them in utero from their mother.

Dental Amalgams Are A Major Source Of

Mercury Toxicity

A single dental amalgam filling with a surface area of only

0.4 sq.cm is estimated to release as much as 15 micrograms of mercury per

day primarily through mechanical wear and evaporation.1

The average individual has eight amalgam fillings and could absorb up to

120 micrograms of

mercury per day from their amalgams. These levels are

consistent with reports of 60 micrograms of mercury per day collected in

human feces. By way of contrast, estimates of the daily absorption of all

forms of mercury from fish and seafood is 2.3 micrograms and from all

other foods, air and water is 0.3 micrograms per day. Currently, Germany,

Sweden and Denmark severely restrict the use of amalgams.1

A " silver " filling, or dental amalgam, is not a true alloy.

Amalgams are made up of 50%

mercury. The amalgam also consists of 35% silver, 9% tin, 6%

copper and a trace of zinc.6 More than 100 million mercury fillings are

placed each year in the U.S. as over

90% of dentists use

them for restoring posterior teeth.

The mercury vapor from the amalgams is lipid soluble and passes readily

through cell membranes and across the blood brain barrier. The vapor

serves as the primary route of mercury from amalgams into the body. It is

clear that amalgam mercury transfers to human tissues, accumulates with

time, and presents a

potential health threat.

The mercury escapes continuously during the entire life of the filling

primarily in the form of vapor, ions but also abraded particles. Chewing,

brushing, and the intake of hot fluids stimulates this release.

Statements made by dental authorities which claim that the amount of

mercury exposure encountered by patients from dental amalgams is too

small to be harmful, are contradicted by the literature.

Animal studies show that radioactively labeled mercury released from

ideally placed amalgam fillings appear quickly in the kidneys , brain and

wall of the intestines. The fact that mercury amalgam fillings are

banned in some European

countries is strong evidence of the clinical toxicity of this

material.

Any metal tooth restoration placed in the mouth will also produce

electrogalvanic effects. When dissimilar metals are placed in the oral

cavity they exert a battery-like effect because of the

electroconductivity of the saliva. The electrical current causes metal

ions go into solution at a much higher rate, thereby increasing the

exposure to mercury vapor and mercury ions manyfold. Gold placed in the

vicinity of an amalgam restoration produces a 10-fold increase in the

release of mercury.

Mercury's Long Half-Life In The Central

Nervous System

Mercury in the central nervous system (CNS) causes

psychological, neurological, and immunological problems in humans.

Mercury bonds very firmly to structures in the CNS through its affinity

for sulfhydryl groups on amino acids. Other studies have shown that

mercury is taken up in the periphery by all nerve endings and rapidly

transported inside the axon of the nerves (axonal transport) to the

spinal cord and brainstem. Unless actively removed, mercury has an

extremely long half--life of somewhere between 15 and 30

years in the CNS.1

Mercury Toxicity

Symptoms

The overt clinical effects resulting from toxic exposure to

mercury have been clearly described. The scientific literature shows that

amalgam fillings have been associated with a variety of problems such as

Alzheimer's Disease, autoimmunity, kidney dysfunction, infertility,

polycystic ovary syndrome, neurotransmitter imbalances, food allergies,

multiple sclerosis, thyroid problems, and an impaired immune system.

Patients with many amalgam fillings will also have an increase in the

prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Subclinical

neuropsychological and motor control effects were also observed in

dentists who had documented high mercury exposure levels. Amalgam use may

also be related to fatigue, poor memory and certain psychological

disorders.

There has been a recent epidemic of autism in the US and many

investigators believe that this may be partially related to the increased

exposure infants have had to mercury through the preservative thimerosal

that was included in nearly all vaccines until recently.

The nervous system is more sensitive to

mercury toxicity than any other organ in the body. Mercury has recently

been documented to be associated with

arrhythmias and

cardiomyopathies as hair

analysis showed mercury levels to be 20,000 higher in those with these

cardiac abnormalities. Mercury exposure has also been associated with

other neurological problems such as tremors, insomnia, polyneuropathy,

paresthesias, emotional lability, irritability, personality changes,

headaches, weakness, blurred vision, dysarthria, slowed mental response

and unsteady gait.1

Systemic Mercury

Elimination

There are a number of agents that have been demonstrated to

have clinical utility in facilitating the removal of mercury with someone

who has demonstrated clinical signs and symptoms of mercury toxicity. The

urine and feces are the main excretory pathways of metallic and inorganic

mercury in humans.1

The most important part of systemic elimination is to

remove the source of mercury.

For most this involves amalgam removal. Individuals should

seek a dentist who is specially trained in this area as improperly

removed amalgam may result in unnecessarily high exposure to mercury. The

following is a summary of the most effective agents that have been

documented in the peer-reviewed literature.

DMPS

DMPS (Sodium 2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate) is an acid-molecule with

two free sulfhydryl groups that forms complexes with heavy metals such as

zinc, copper, arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, silver, and tin.

DMPS was developed in the 1950s in the former Soviet Union and has been

used to effectively treat metal intoxication since the 1960s there. It is

a water-soluble complexing agent. Because it had potential use as an

antidote for the chemical warfare agent, ite, it was not available

outside of the Soviet Union until 1978, at which time Heyl, a small

pharmaceutical company in Berlin, Germany started to produce it.

It has an abundance of international research data and an

excellent safety record in removing

mercury from the body and has been used safely in Europe as

Dimaval for many years. DMPS is registered in Germany with the BGA (their

FDA) for the treatment of mercury poisoning but is still an

investigational drug in the United States.

DMPS Can Be Used To Eliminate Mercury

Systemically

The use of DMPS to treat mercury toxicity is well established

and accepted. DMPS has clearly demonstrated elimination effects on the

connective tissue. The DMPS dose is 3-5 mg /kg of body weight once a

month which is injected slowly intravenously over five minutes.

DMPS-stimulated excretion of all heavy metals reaches a maximum 2-3 hours

after infusion and decreases thereafter to return to baseline levels

after 8 hours.

DMPS Safety

DMPS is not mutagenic, teratogenic or carcinogenic. Ideally

intravenous DMPS should never be used in patients that still have amalgam

fillings in place, although investigators have done this as

diagnostically, as a one-time dose, without complications. DMPS appears

in the saliva and may mobilize significant amounts of mercury from the

surface of the fillings and precipitate seizures, cardiac arrhythmias, or

severe fatigue.

Even though DMPS has a high affinity for mercury, the highest affinity

appears to be for copper and zinc and supplementation needs to be used to

not avoid depleting these beneficial minerals. Zinc is particularly

important when undergoing mercury chelation. DMPS is administered over a

five-minute period since hypotensive effects are possible when given

intravenously as a bolus. Other possible side effects include allergic

reactions and skin rashes.

DMSA

DMSA (meso-2, 3-dimercaptosucccinic acid) is another mercury

chelating agent. It is the only chelating agent other than cilantro and

d-penicillamine that penetrates brain cells. DMSA removes mercury both

via the kidneys and via the bile. The sulfhydryl groups in both DMPS and

DMSA bind very tightly to mercury.

DMSA has three distinct disadvantages

relative to DMPS.

First, DMPS appears to remain in the body for

a longer time than DMSA.

Secondly, DMPS acts more quickly than DMSA,

probably because its distribution is both intracellular and

extracellular.

Thirdly, preparations of DMPS are available

for intravenous or intramuscular use, while DMSA is available only in

oral form. Since succinic acid is used in the citric acid cycle inside

the cell, DMSA has been suspected for displacing mercury towards the

inside of the cell after binding mercury somewhere on its way from the

intestine to the succinic acid deficient cell.

We propose therefore that DMSA be used

late in the mercury elimination process, after the connective

tissue mercury load has been reduced with DMPS. The standard dose of DMSA

is 5-10 mg/kg twice a day for two weeks. The DMSA is then stopped for two

weeks and then the cycle is repeated.

Chlorella

Algae and other aquatic plants possess the capacity to take up

toxic trace metals from their environment, resulting in an internal

concentration greater than those of the surrounding waters. This property

has been exploited as a means for treating industrial effluent containing

metals before they are discharged, and to recover the bioavailable

fraction of the metal.

Chlorella has been shown to develop resistance to cadmium contaminated

waters by synthesizing metal-binding proteins. A book written for the

mining industry, Biosorption of Heavy Metals, details how miners use

these organisms to increase the yield of precious metals in old mines.

The mucopolysaccharides in chlorella's cell wall absorb rather large

amounts of toxic metals similar to an ion exchange resin.

Chlorella also enhances mobilization of mercury compartmentalized in

non?neurologic structures such as the gut wall, muscles, ligaments,

connective tissue, and bone.

High doses of chlorella have been found

to be very

effective in Germany for mercury

elimination.

Chlorella is an important part of the systemic mercury

elimination program, as approximately 90% of the mercury is eliminated

through the stool. Using large doses of chlorella facilitates fecal

mercury excretion. After the intestinal mercury burden is lowered,

mercury will more readily migrate into the intestine from other body

tissues from where chlorella will effectively remove

it.

Chlorella is not tolerated by about one-third of people due to

gastrointestinal distress. Chitosan can be effectively used as an

alternative in these individuals. Chitosan makes up most of the hull of

insects shellfish and also bind metals like mercury from the lumen of the

intestines.

Cilantro

Omura determined that cilantro could

mobilize mercury and other toxic metals rapidly from the CNS.

Cilantro mobilizes mercury, aluminum, lead and tin stored in the brain

and in the spinal cord and moves it into the connective tissues. The

mobilized mercury appears to be either excreted via the stool, the urine,

or translocated into more peripheral tissues.

The mechanism of action is unknown. Cilantro alone often does not remove

mercury from the body; it often only displaces the metals form

intracellularly or from deeper body stores to more superficial

structures, from where it can be easier removed with the previously

described agents. The use of cilantro with DMSA or DMPS has produced an

increase in motor nerve function.

Potentiating Agents

Adequate sulfur stores are necessary

to facilitate mercury's binding to sulfhydryl groups.

Many individual's sulfur stores are greatly depleted which

impairs sulfur containing chelating or complexing agents, such as DMPS or

DMSA, effectiveness as they are metabolized and utilized as a source of

sulfur.

Sulfur containing natural substances, like garlic and MSM

(methylsulfonylmethane) may also serve as an effective agent to supply

organic sulfur for detoxification. Fresh garlic is preferred as it has

many other recently documented benefits. The garlic is consumed just

below the threshold of social unacceptability, which is typically 1-2

cloves per day.

Antioxidants

Vitamin E doses of 400 I.U

per day have been shown to have a protective effect

when the brain is exposed to methyl-mercury.68 Selenium,

200-400 mcg daily, is a particularly important trace mineral in mercury

elimination and should be used for most patients.

Selenium facilitates the function of

glutathione, which is also

important in mercury detoxification. Some clinicians find repetitive high

dose intravenous glutathione useful, especially in neurologically

compromised patients.

There is a suggestion in a rat model that lipoic acid may also be useful,

but some clinicians are concerned about the potential of lipoic acid to

bring mercury into the brain early in the stages of chelation, similar to

DMSA and N-acetylcysteine (NAC), which has also been used in mercury

chelation.

Vitamin C is also a helpful supplement

for mercury elimination.

Some clinicians will use it intravenously in doses of 25-100

grams IV in preference to DMPS and DMSA.

Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a

major carbohydrate component of the extracellular matrix and can be found

in the skin, joints, eyes and most other organs and tissues. HA is

utilized in many chemotherapy protocols as a potentiating agent. HA is

also being utilized for many novel applications in medicine. Personal

experience has shown that the addition of 2 ml with the DMPS tends to

improve the excretion of mercury by two to four fold with

virtually no toxicity.

Conclusion

We have described the significant toxicities associated with

mercury amalgams and treatment agents that both authors have used

successfully over the past two decades to eliminate mercury and resolve

many chronic health complaints. Considering the weight of evidence

supporting amalgam toxicity it would seem prudent to select

alternative dental restoration materials.

ph Mercola, DO.

Medical Director

Optimal Wellness Center

1443 W. Schaumburg

Schaumburg, IL 60194

mercola@... Dietrich

Klinghardt, M.D., Ph.D.

Medical Director

American Academy of Neural Therapy

2802 E.Madison #147

Seattle, WA 98112

neuralt@...

Bibliography

1. Toxicological Profile For Mercury.

U.S.Department Of Health & Human Services, Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry, March 1999 Published by Division of

Toxicology/Toxicology Information Branch, 1600 Clifton Road NE, E-29,

Atlanta, Georgia 3033

2. GM. Assessment of mercury exposure and rsks from dental

amalgam. Medical Devices Bureau, Environmental Health directorate, 1995

Health Canada.

http://ww.hc-sc.gc/main/drugs/zmfiles/english/issues/mercury_exposure.html.

3. on IA; Some electromchemical features of the in vivo corrosion

of dental amalgams. J Appl Electrochem 1989;19: 301-310

4. Skare I, Engqvist A., Human exposure to mercury and silver released

from dental amalgam restorations. Arch Environ Hlth 1994;49:384-394

5. World Health Organization. Environmental Health Criteria. 118,

Inorganic Mercury (Friber I, ed) WHO Geneva 1991.

6. Berry TC, Nicholson J, Torendle K.; Almost two centuries with amalgam.

Where are we today? J Am Dent Assn 1994;120:394-395

7. Lorschider, F, Vimy MJ, Summers, AO: Mercury exposure from

" silver " tooth fillings: Emerging evidence questions a

traditional dental paradigm. FASEB J 1995; 9:504?508

8. Lorscheider F, Vimy MJ: Evaluation of the safety issue of mercury

release from dental fillings. FASEB J 1993;7:1432-1433

9. Bjorkman L, Sandborgh-Englund G, Ekstrand J. Mercury in salvia and

feces after removal of amalgam fillings. Toxicol Apply Pharmacol

1997;144:156-162.

10. Svare CW, LC, Reinhardt JW, Boyer DB, et.al; The effects of

dental amalgams on mercury levels in expired air. J Dent Res

1981;60:1668-1671

11. Vimy MJ, Lorscheider F; Intra-oral air mercury released from dental

amalgam. J Dent Res 1985;64:10069-1071

12. Aronsson AM; Lind B, Nylander M, Nordberg M; Dental amalgam and

mercury. Biol Metals 1989; 2:25-30

13. Hanson M, Pleva J: The dental amalgam issue. A review. J Experentia.

1991;47:479-22

14. Hahn LJ, Kloiber R, Leininzer RW, Vimy MJ, Lorscheider FI; Whole-body

imaging of the distribution of mercury released from dental fillings into

monkey tissues. FASEB J 1990;4:3256-3260

15. Zahnaerztl, Knappwost et al. Abgabe von Quecksilberdampf aus

Dentalamalgamen unter Mundbedingungen. Welt/Reform 1985;94, 131-138

16. Nierenberg DW, Nordgren RE, Chang MB, et al. Delayed cerebellar

disease and death after accidental exposure to dimethylmercury. N Engl J

Med. 1998;338(23): 1672?1676

17. son TW; Mercury - an element of mystery. N Engl J Med.

1990;323:1137-1139

18. The toxicological profile of mercury. 1994 publication by the US

Department of Health and Human Services (Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology; 1600 Clifton Road NE E-29,

Atlanta, GA 30333).

19. Eggleston DW, Nylander M.; Correlation of dental amalgam with mercury

in the brain. J Prost Dent 1987;58:704-707

20. Retrograde Axonal Transport of Mercury; Bjoern Arvidson Experimental

Neurology 1987;98, 198-203

21. Inorganic Mercury is Transported from Muscular Nerve Terminals to

Spinal and Brainstem Motorneurons: Bjoern Arvidson Muscle and Nerve

1992;15:1089-1094

22. Handbuch der Amalgamvergifung, Max Daunderer, Ecomed Verlag,

Muenchen(1996)

23. son TW, Hursh IB, Sager PR, Sverson TLM: Mercury. In Biological

Monitoring of Toxic Metals (son TW, Friberg L, Nordberg CF,, and

Sager PR, eds) pp 199-246. Plenum, New York 1988.

24. Klassen CD. Heavy metals and heavy-metal antagonists. In: The

Pharmacological Basis of Theraputics, 8th edition(Gilman AC, Rall TW,

Niew AS, P, eds) pp. 1598-1602. Pergamon Press, New York

1990.

25. Hirsch F, Kuhn J, Ventura M, Vial MC, Fournie G, Druet P; Production

of monoclonal antibodies. J Immunol 1986;136:3272-3276

26. Hultman P, Johansson U, Turley Sj, Lindh U, Enestrom S, Pollard KM;

Adverse immunological effects and autoimmunity induced by dental amalgam

and alloy in mice. FASEB J 1994;8:1183-1190

27. Biagazzi M, Pierlguigi E; Autoimmunity and heavy metals. Lupus

1994;3:449-453.

28. Nylander M, Frierg I, Lind B; Mercury concentrations in the human

brain and kidneys in relation to exposure from dental amalgam fillings.

Swed Dent J 1987;11:179-187

29. Dondero F, Lenzi A, Lombardo F, Gandini L; Therapy of immunologic

infertiilty. Acta Eur Fertil 1991;22:139-145

30. Rowlands AS, Baird DD, Weinberg CP, Shore DL, Shy CM, Wilcos AJ. The

effect of occupational exposure to mercury vapor on the fertility of

female dental assistants. Occup Environ Med 1994;51:28-34.

31. Gerhard I, Monga B, Waldbrenner A, Runnebaum B Heavy metals and

fertility. J Toxicol Environ Health 1998;21;54(8):593-611

32. Gerhard I, Frick A, Monga B: Diagnosis of mercury body burden. Clin

Lab 1997;43:637-647

33. Duhr E, Pendergrasss C, Kasarskis E, Slevin J Haley B; Mercury

induces GTP-tubulin interactions in rat brain similar to those observed

in Alzheimer's disease. FASEB J 1991; 5:456.

34. Hultman P, Johansson U, Turle S,J, et al: Adverse immunological

effects and autoimmunity induced by dental amalgam and alloy in mice.

FASEB J 1994;8:1183-1190

35. Siblered TL, Kienholz E. Evidence that mercury from silver dental

fillings may be an etiological factor in reduced nerve conduction

velocity in multiple sclerosis patients. Journal of Orthomolecular

Medicine 1997;12(3):169-172.

36. Pelletier L, Pasquier R, Rossert J, et al: Autoreactive T cells in

mercury-induced autoimmunity. Ability to induce the autoimmune disease. J

Immunol 1988;140:750-754

37. Summers AO, Wireman J, Vimy MI, Lorscheider FI, Marshall B, Levy SB,

et al; Mercury released from dental Asilver@ fillings provokes an

increase in mercury and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in oral and

intestinal floras of primates. Antimicrob Agents and Chemother

1993;37:825-834

38. Escheverria D, Hever N, MD, Naleway CA, Woods JS Bittner AC;

Behavioral effects of low level exposure to mercury among dentists.

Neurotxicol Teratol 1995;17:161-168

39. Ngim CH: Chronic neurobiological effects of elemental mercury in

dentists. Br J Indust Med 1992;49:782-790

40. Siblerud RL; The relationship between mercury from dental amalgam and

mental health. Am J Psychotherapy 1989;18:575-587

41. Frustaci A, Magnavita N, Chimenti C, et. al; Marked elevation of

myocardial trace elements in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. J Am Coll

Cardiology 1999;33:1578-83

42. Chang YC, Yeh C, Wang JD. Subclinical neurotoxicity of merucyr vapor

revcelaed by a multimodality evoked potential study of chloralkali

workers. Amer J Ind Med 1995;27(2):271-279.

43. Yang Y-J, Huang C-C, Shih T-S, et al . Chronic elemental mercury

intoxication:clinical and field studies in lampsocked manufacturers.

1994;Occup Environ Med 57(1):245-247.

44. son TW. Mercury. 1989; J Am Coll Toxicol 8(7):1291-1296.

45. Eley BM The future of dental amalgam: A review of the literature.

Part 2: Mercury exposure in dental practice. Br Dent J

1997;182(8):293-7.

46. Petrunkin VE: Synthesis and properties of demercapto derivatives of

alkylsulfonic acids. Toksikol mosc 1958;21: 53-59

47. -Alanis O, Garza-Ocanas L, Pineyro- A. Evaluation of

urinary mercury excretion after administration of

2,3-dimercapto-1-propane sulfonic acid to occupationally exposed men. J

Toxicol Clin Toxicol 1995;33(6):717-720

48. Aaseth J, sen D, Andersen O, Wickstrom E. Treatment of mercury

and lead poisonings with dimercaptosuccinic acid and sodium

dimercaptopropanesulfonate. 1995;120(3):853-854

49. Aposhian HV, Maiorino RM, M, et al Human studies with the

chelating agents, DMPS and DMSA. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol

1992;30(4):505?528

50. Aposhian HV, Aposhia MM. Meso?2,3 dimercaptosuccinic acid: chemical,

pharmacological and toxicological properties of an orally effective metal

chelating agent. Annu Rev Toxicol 1990;30:279?306

51. Lorscheider FL, Vimy MJ. Evaluation of the saftey issue of mercury

release from dental fillings. FASEB J 1993;7:432?1433

52. Aposhian VK: Mobilization of Mercury and Arsenic in Humans by Sodium

2,3 Dimercapto-1-propane Sulfonate (DMPS). Environ Health Perspect

1998;106(Suppl 4):1017-1025

53. Schiele R, Schaller KH, Welte D: Mobilization of mercury reserves in

the organism by means of DMPS. Occup Med Soc Med Prevent Med 1989;24:

249-251

54. Belles M, DJ, Gomez M, Domingo JL, MM, Singh PK

Assessment of the protective activity of monisoamyl

meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinate against methylmercury-induced maternal and

embryo/fetal toxicity in mice. Toxicology 1996;106(1-3):93-97

55. Kostial K, Restek-Samarzija N, Blanusa M, Piasek M, Prester L,

MM, Singh PK Racemic-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid for inorganic mercury

mobilization in rats. J Appl Toxicol 1997;17(1):71-74

56. Gerhard I; Runnebaum B: Schadstoffe und Fertiliatatsstorungen

Schwermetalle und Mineralstoffe. Geburtshilfe Frauenheillkd

1992;52:383-396, 509-515

57. Handbuch der Amalgamvergifung, Max Daunderer, Ecomed Verlag, Muenchen

1996

58. Sallsten G, Barregard L, Schutz A Clearance half life of mercury in

urine after the cessation of long term occupational exposure: influence

of a chelating agent (DMPS) on excretion of mercury in urine. Occup

Environ Med 1994;51(5):337-342

59. Aposhian HV, Maiorino RM, - D, et al. Mobilization of

heavy metals by newer, therapeutically useful chelating agents.

Toxicology 1995;31;97(1-3):23-38

60. - D, Maiorino RM, Zuniga- M, et al Sodium

2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate challenge test for mercury in humans:

II. Urinary mercury, porphyrins and neurobehavioral changes of dental

workers in Monterrey, Mexico. J Pharmacol Exp Ther

1995;272(1):264-274

61. Kostial K, Restek?Samarzija N, Blanusa M, Piasek M, MM, Singh

PK Combined oral treatment with racemic and meso?2,3?dimercaptosuccinic

acid for removal of mercury in rats. Pharmacol Toxicol

1997;81(5):242?244

62. AL. Dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA), a non?toxic, water?soluble

treatment for heavy metal toxicity. Altern Med Rev. 1998;3(3):

199?207

63. Handbuch der Amalgamvergifung, Max Daunderer, Ecomed Verlag,

Muenchen(1996)

64. Hurlbut KM, Maiorino RM, Mayersohn M, Dart RC, Bruce DC, Aposhian HV

Determination and metabolism of dithiol chelating agents. XVI:

Pharmacokinetics of 2,3-dimercapto-1-propanesulfonate after intravenous

administration to human volunteers. J Pharmacol Exp Ther

1994;268(2):662-668

65. Zheng W, Maiorino RM, Brendel K, Aposhia HV. Determination and

metabolism of dithiol chelating agents. Fundam Appl Toxicol

1990;14:598-607

66. Aposhian HV. Mobilization of mercury and arsenic in humans by sodium

2,3-dimercapto-1-propane sulfonate. Environ Health Perspect 1998;106

Suppl 4:1017-1025

67. Research data presented at the annual meeting of the Australasian

Society of Oral medicine and Toxicology in Sydney, Australia,

Sept.1998

68. H.B.Xue, W.Stumm, L.Sigg: The binding of Heavy Metals to Algal

Surfaces, Water Res 1988;22, 917

69. Ahner, AB, Kong KS, Morell MM, Phytochelatin production in marine

algea: An interspecies comparison. Limnol Oceanograph 1995;40:

649-657

70. Carr HP, et al. Characterization of the cadmium?binding capacity of

Chlorella vulgaris. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 1998;60(3): 433?440

71. M. Tsezos: Biosorption of Radioactive Species, in: Biosorption of

Heavy Metals, pp 45-50 editied by B.Volesky, CRC Press(1990)

72. M.Kraft: Bindungsverhalten von Arsen, Cadmium, Chrom, Quecksilber,

Nickel und Blei an schwerverdauliche Lebensmittel und

Lebensmittelkomponenten in kuenstlichem Magen-Darm-Saft. PhD Thesis.

Institut fuer Hygiene, Sozial-und umweltmedizin der Ruhr-Universitaet

Bochum, Germany, (1998)

73. Klinghardt, D: Amalgam/Mercury Detox as a Treatment for Chronic

Viral, Bacterial, and Fungal Illnesses Explore! Volume 1997;8, No 3

74. M.Kraft: Bindungsverhalten von Arsen, Cadmium, Chrom, Quecksilber,

Nickel und Blei an schwerverdauliche Lebensmittel und

Lebensmittelkomponenten in kuenstlichem Magen-Darm-Saft. PhD Thesis.

Institut fuer Hygiene, Sozial-und umweltmedizin der Ruhr-Universitaet

Bochum, Germany, 1998

75. R.Muzzarelli, O.Tubertini: Chitin and chitosan on chromatographic

supports and adsorbents for collection of metal ions from organic and

aqueous solutions and sea water, Talanta, 1969;16, 1571 ff

76. Y.Subramanian, T.Yoshinar: Studies on the formation of chitin-metal

complexes, Rep.No 27, Marine Sciences Center, Mc Gill Univ, Montreal

(1974)

77. J.W.Park, M.O. Park: Mechanism of metal ion binding to chitosan in

solution, cooperative inter- and intramolecular chelations. Bull.Korean

Chem.Soc. 1984;5(3), 108

78. Omura Y, Beckman SL Role of mercury (Hg) in resistant infections

& effective treatment of Chlamydia trachomatis and Herpes family

viral infections (and potential treatment for cancer) by removing

localized Hg deposits with Chinese parsley and delivering effective

antibiotics using various drug uptake enhancement methods. Acupunct

Electrother Res. 1995;20(3?4): 195?229

79. Omura Y, Shimotsuura Y, Fukuoka A, Fukuoka H, Nomoto T. Significant

mercury deposits in internal organs following the removal of dental

amalgam, & development of pre?cancer on the gingiva and the sides of

the tongue and their represented organs as a result of inadvertent

exposure to strong curing light (used to solidify synthetic dental

filling material) & effective treatment: a clinical case report,

along with organ representation areas for each tooth. Acupunct

Electrother Res. 1996 ;21(2): 133?160.

80. Ewan KB, Pamphlett R Increased inorganic mercury in spinal motor

neurons following chelating agents. Neurotoxicology

1996;17(2):343-349

81. Cha CW A study on the effect of garlic to the heavy metal poisoning

of rat. J Korean Med Sci 1987;2(4):213-224

82. H.Wagner, A.Sendl: Baerlauch und Knoblauch - vergleichende chemische

und pharmakologische Untersuchungen, Deutsche Apotheker Zeitung 130

Jahrg., Nr.33, 16.8.1990

83. The Miracle of MSM The Natural Solution for Pain. , S.,

Lawrence, RM, Zucker, M. Penguin Putnam, New York, NY 1999.

84. Chang, L.W , Gilbert,M and Sprecher,J: Modification of methylmercury

neurotoxicity by vitamin E, Environ.Res. 1978;17:356-366

85. Yoneda S, Suzuki KT Toxicol Appl Pharmacol Detoxification of mercury

by selenium by binding of equimolar Hg-Se complex to a specific plasma

protein. 1997;143(2):274-280

86. Akesson I, Ingrid B; Status of mercury and selenium in dental

personnel: Impact of amalgam work and own fillings. Arch Environ Health

1991;46(2):103-109

87. Johansson E: Selenium and its protection against the effects of

mercury and silver. J Trace Elements 1991;5:273-274

88. Dirks M, Marvin J; Mercury excretion and intravenous ascorbic acid.

Arch Environ Health 1994;49(1):49-52

89. Hill, CH. Interactions of vitamin C with lead and mercury. Ann N Y

Acad Sci 1980;355:262-6

90. Yamini B, Sleight SD. Effects of ascorbic acid deficiency on methyl

mercury dicyandiamide toxicosis in guinea pigs J Environ Pathol Toxicol

Oncol 1984 Jul;5(4-5):139-50

91. Zorn NE, JT A relationship between vitamin B12, folic acid,

ascorbic acid, and mercury uptake and methylation.Life Sci

1990;47(2):167-73

92. Sorg O, Schilter B, Honegger P, et. al. Increased vulnerability of

neurones and glial cells to low concentrations of methylmercury in a

prooxidant situation. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 1998 Dec;96(6):621-7

93. Hultberg B, Andersson A, Isaksson A Thiol and redox reactive agents

exert different effects on glutathione metabolism in HeLa cell

cultures.Clin Chim Acta 1999 May;283(1-2):21-32

94. Crinnion WJ. Environmental medicine, part three: long-term effects of

chronic low-dose mercury exposure Altern Med Rev 2000 Jun;5(3):209-23

95. Chen WY, Abatangelo G.Functions of hyaluronan in wound repair. Wound

Repair Regen 1999;7(2):79-89

96. Delpech B, Girard N, Bertrand P, Courel MN, Chauzy C, Delpech

Hyaluronan: fundamental principles and applications in cancer. J Intern

Med 1997;242(1):41-8

97. Sutherland IW. Novel and established applications of microbial

polysaccharides. Trends Biotechnol 1998;16(1):41-6

98. Knudson CB, Nofal GA, Pamintuan L, Aguiar DJ: The chondrocyte

pericellular matrix: a model for hyaluronan-mediated cell-matrix

interactions. Biochem Soc Trans 1999;27(2):142-7