Guest guest Posted September 25, 2001 Report Share Posted September 25, 2001 I cannot properly answer your doubts regarding chelation, although I would suggest you listen to a tape or two from previous DAN conferences............I will send details of how to get them, if you like. However, I can tell you that in this country [scotland] a doctor has recently been threatened with being 'struck off' because he was administering the MMR in seperate doses, to parents who had older siblings with ASD. I think one must ask who gains from particular reasearch............Drug companies are eager to cover up and avoid blame, governments do not want to have to compensate........on the other hand, it might be said that parents are just out for money to help their own kids, BUT they are NOT the ones doing the research. Similarly, who might gain on either side of the chelation fence? What finally persuaded my 'doubting' husband was hearing from a friend whose severely affected son was FINALLY beginning to make real progress, having started chelation. Up to that point NO other biomedical interventions had helped, although many had been tried. Also, learning that there was nothing to lose, if it was done carefully. [ ] Brief intro/question Hi All, I'm new to the list. I am currently in need of information for my 8yo son who has been diagnosed with Aspergers, ADHD, Sensory Integration Dysfunction, Dyspraxia, Apraxia, Anxiety Disorder, you name it. We started seeing a DAN dr. a few months ago and, after allergy testing, have been GFCF for over 2 months. We are now at a point where we need to do some heavy metal testing, which is why I joined this list. My husband and I both read the FAQ, and my husband has the following comment (below). He is the world's biggest skeptic, by the way. For clarification, in the opening statement when he says " this information " , he is referring to the entire FAQ. When he says " buy into this " at the end, he is referring to chelation. I would appreciate it greatly if anyone could respond to his comment. Looking forward to learning and sharing on this list. Here's his comment: I'm sorry, but this statement casts doubt in my mind on how valid this information is: " The presence of mercury in dental amalgams is a very controversial subject. Despite the fact that dental amalgam contains 50% mercury, the American Dental Association's official position is that dental amalgam is safe, and that mercury does not pose a health risk. However, numerous research studies show that dental amalgams are a major source of mercury toxicity. Because of the ADA's position, your dentist risks losing his license if he tells you that mercury is dangerous, no matter what he personally believes. " The various states license Dentists, not the ADA. I find it very hard to believe that a dentist would ever loose his license for having an opinion. This is the type of exaggerated statement that makes it hard for me to buy into this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2001 Report Share Posted September 25, 2001 Dear Mark, As a practicing dentist in the state of Michigan I can tell you that I have to be very careful about what I tell my patients about the risks of amalgam. Dentists that discuss mercury hazards risk peer review hearings and possible sanctions from state boards. The official ADA stance is that mercury in dental amalgams is inert and poses absolutely no health risks except in very rare cases of allergy or sensitivity and they will not change this position unless someone does a very large study proving otherwise. Imagine this scenario, a patient comes to your office and asks about mercury fillings and you tell them that you feel they are hazardous. They have them removed on your advice and later meet a dentist on an airplane who tells them that you're a quack because the ADA says mercury in fillings is totally safe. The patient decides to investigate and calls the state board. The state board begins a peer review process and you can bet you will be sanctioned for providing " unnecessary " treatment. I do not place mercury fillings any longer but I don't discuss mercury toxicity unless a patient asks. If a patient presents with typical symptoms of heavy metal toxicity I am very careful before I discuss it with them. I was and still am a skeptic about most alternative treatments. I was at the top of my class at the Univ. of Michigan dental school and had total faith in everything they taught me. In 1998 my 3 year old son was diagnosed with autism. He had tremors when he was a baby and constant diarrhea. He never seemed to bond to us and the only language he developed was echolalia. After putting him on the GFCF diet, chelation and intensive behavioral and speech therapy he has improved to the point that he can express all his needs, can play meaningfully with toys and people ask me routinely " what makes you say he's autistic? " . He still does not interact normally with other children, but last month he started playing tag and hide and seek with his brother. I had my amalgams replaced six months ago (9 total). After removal, I lost the morning fog that I had experienced for years. My dental assistant who tested very high for mercury after a DMPS provocation test (48) and suffered from severe colitis and frequent illness for years is feeling better than she has in years after chelation and removal of her mercury fillings. We both have had improvements with our seasonal allergies as well. My son has made remarkable improvements since we began treating him and he is amazing while he is chelating and regresses slightly when we stop. I can't say for sure that this is the only answer but it has been a key factor for my son. [ ] Brief intro/question Hi All, I'm new to the list. I am currently in need of information for my 8yo son who has been diagnosed with Aspergers, ADHD, Sensory Integration Dysfunction, Dyspraxia, Apraxia, Anxiety Disorder, you name it. We started seeing a DAN dr. a few months ago and, after allergy testing, have been GFCF for over 2 months. We are now at a point where we need to do some heavy metal testing, which is why I joined this list. My husband and I both read the FAQ, and my husband has the following comment (below). He is the world's biggest skeptic, by the way. For clarification, in the opening statement when he says " this information " , he is referring to the entire FAQ. When he says " buy into this " at the end, he is referring to chelation. I would appreciate it greatly if anyone could respond to his comment. Looking forward to learning and sharing on this list. Here's his comment: I'm sorry, but this statement casts doubt in my mind on how valid this information is: " The presence of mercury in dental amalgams is a very controversial subject. Despite the fact that dental amalgam contains 50% mercury, the American Dental Association's official position is that dental amalgam is safe, and that mercury does not pose a health risk. However, numerous research studies show that dental amalgams are a major source of mercury toxicity. Because of the ADA's position, your dentist risks losing his license if he tells you that mercury is dangerous, no matter what he personally believes. " The various states license Dentists, not the ADA. I find it very hard to believe that a dentist would ever loose his license for having an opinion. This is the type of exaggerated statement that makes it hard for me to buy into this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 25, 2001 Report Share Posted September 25, 2001 The deal with the dental boards/ADA is this: If they " allow " their members to admit that mercury amalgam is a toxin they then in effect admit: either: We've known all along (150 yrs+) about the toxicity and used it anyway. or We've used mercury all along without bothering to educate ourselves on the basic properties of the substance. Either way they look irresponsible, incompetent and lacking any understanding of " first do no harm " . Consider introducing your husband to books by dentists about the subject: " It's all in your Head " by Hal Huggins, DDS " Toxic Time Bomb " by Sam and/or Ziff, DDS Guy Fasciana, DDS and Joyal , DDS also have books out but I don't have the titles handy. Also try to get a copy of the October 1972 National Geographic and have him read the mercury article in it(I understand one can access it on the web). I don't agree with all the info in Huggins book but it convinced me of the cause of my symptoms. Huggins moved his practice out of the country due to persecution... Look up mercury in most any dictionary and it will say " poisonous " . Find articles about the warnings of mercury in fish and the exchange programs for mercury thermometers. Get a copy of the April 2001 Mothering magazine article on mercury in vaccines. Find information about the banning of mercury in contact lens solution. Just some thoughts, S On Tue, 25 September 2001, & Mark wrote: > > <html><body> > <tt> > Hi All,<BR> > <BR> > I'm new to the list. & nbsp; I am currently in need of information for my 8yo son who has been diagnosed with Aspergers, ADHD, Sensory Integration Dysfunction, Dyspraxia, Apraxia, Anxiety Disorder, you name it. & nbsp; We started seeing a DAN dr. a few months ago and, after allergy testing, have been GFCF for over 2 months. & nbsp; We are now at a point where we need to do some heavy metal testing, which is why I joined this list. & nbsp; My husband and I both read the FAQ, and my husband has the following comment (below). & nbsp; He is the world's biggest skeptic, by the way. & nbsp; For clarification, in the opening statement when he says & quot;this information & quot;, he is referring to the entire FAQ. & nbsp; When he says & quot;buy into this & quot; at the end, he is referring to chelation. & nbsp; I would appreciate it greatly if anyone could respond to his comment.<BR> > <BR> > Looking forward to learning and sharing on this list.<BR> > <BR> > <BR> > <BR> > Here's his comment:<BR> > I'm sorry, but this statement casts doubt in my mind on how valid this information is:<BR> > <BR> > & quot;The presence of mercury in dental amalgams is a very controversial subject. Despite the fact that dental amalgam contains 50% mercury, the American Dental Association's official position is that dental amalgam is safe, and that mercury does not pose a health risk. However, numerous research studies show that dental amalgams are a major source of mercury toxicity. Because of the ADA's position, your dentist risks losing his license if he tells you that mercury is dangerous, no matter what he personally believes. & quot; <BR> > <BR> > The various states license Dentists, not the ADA. & nbsp; I find it very hard to believe that a dentist would ever loose his license for having an opinion. & nbsp; This is the type of exaggerated statement that makes it hard for me to buy into this.<BR> > <BR> > <BR> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2001 Report Share Posted September 26, 2001 Dear , First, it is lovely that you and your (skeptical) husband are writing to the list. I think it shows some openness. I guess I think skepticism can be very useful when you use it in this way (to get more information, and to highlight what the issues are that are not causing skepticism). Anyway, as for the issue you have brought up about risks to dentists: I don't know if it is " literally " or " precisely " correct what the FAQ says. It might be, I don't happen to know. But I think it is " in the right ballpark " at least. As one example that I know of, I'll offer this: last year I went to a local dentist who has a website that includes info about mercury poisoning. He is also a member of the board of a dental organization that is anti-mercury. When I went to see him I asked him how he " gets away " with doing this so publically. He told me that he is very careful what he says-- and will only say things he can clearly back up with facts and studies. He also said something like that they HAVE tried to hound him but are currently leaving him alone. He told me that he has testified in some hearings about mercury -- I think meaning that he feels he can back up his claims well enough to keep the authorities " at bay " . Please note that I am not quoting him here, and don't remember the actual words used--- but the overall concept is correct: he has had to fight about it to be able to say these things, although he is currently not being challenged, accused or harrassed. What the FAQ says is: " Because of the ADA's position, your dentist risks losing his license if he tells you that mercury is dangerous, no matter what he personally believes. " I think your husband's point that the ADA doesn't liscense dentists is correct, but too narrow. The ADA doesn't liscense dentists, but they are a GIANT factor in this mercury fisaco. They have a very clear position. I'd like to recommend the book " Mercury Free: the wisdom behind the global consumer movement to ban " silver " dental fillings " by Dr. E. Hardy (he is a dentist). This is my " favorite " book about mercury poisoning and amalgam. It is very " easy reading " (except for being potentially very disturbing information). I am recommending it here because it includes a LOT of information about the history of amalgam (mercury) in dentistry, including the VERY SORDID (in my opinion and the authors) history of the ADA. Hardy refers to them as " the Amalgam Dental Association " . They were literally formed as an alternative to another dental organization that had its members pledge never to use mercury fillings! So, the ADA was formed for dentists who wanted to use mercury! So, my point is that I think the ADA's position is a big factor in the (supposed) controversy about mercury fillings. They may not be the " only " factor, but I don't think it is unrealistic to say that it is " because of the ADA's position " that dentists face problems in this area. Another way to say it would be: " Because of the (mistaken) belief that amalgam is safe, which has been promoted and supported by the ADA, your dentist may get into trouble...... " As an aside, (not directly on the point), my " regular " dentist, who uses amalgam occassionally, believes that amalgam is safe, and that amalgam replacement is a bad idea. He sees it as needless dental work, which always carries some risk. Since there is no " benefit " , it makes sense to be against doing it. (from his point of view) I remember reading a bunch of email last year about a dentist on the east coast who was basically being harrassed legally for doing some unconventional things, including saying mercury was dangerous, and doing amalgam replacements. The emails were asking for support. I'm sure I don't have any of them anymore. If you are adequately curious about what really does happen to dentists who say amalgam is " bad " , you could also try contacting dental groups--- I think IAOMT is one--- there may be others--- that are against the use of mercury. http://www.iaomt.org/ Reading Huggins' books (one of which was recommended to you yesterday) will also give some prespecitve on the real world for dentists. It is not a pretty picture-- there are reasons Huggins has moved to Mexico to practice. I think that's about all I can add regarding your husband's points. As for the rest of what you said-- welcome and I think you have " come to the right place " . For testing, get a hair test run through DDI. Your DAN doctor can order it for you. Finally, in respect for skepticism, I would like to add that it is not necessary to " buy into " any particular belief in order to test your son and in order to try chelation (if he is toxic). People who did NOT believe their problems were due to mercury poisoning have been helped (I've read some interesting testimonials about amalgam replacements that are along these lines). If your son is poisoned with heavy metals, chelation will help him for purely physical reasons-- not because of your belief it will help. In other words, it is your actions that count. best, Moria >Hi All, > >I'm new to the list. I am currently in need of information for my 8yo son who has been diagnosed with Aspergers, ADHD, Sensory Integration Dysfunction, Dyspraxia, Apraxia, Anxiety Disorder, you name it. We started seeing a DAN dr. a few months ago and, after allergy testing, have been GFCF for over 2 months. We are now at a point where we need to do some heavy metal testing, which is why I joined this list. My husband and I both read the FAQ, and my husband has the following comment (below). He is the world's biggest skeptic, by the way. For clarification, in the opening statement when he says " this information " , he is referring to the entire FAQ. When he says " buy into this " at the end, he is referring to chelation. I would appreciate it greatly if anyone could respond to his comment. > >Looking forward to learning and sharing on this list. > > > >Here's his comment: >I'm sorry, but this statement casts doubt in my mind on how valid this information is: > > " The presence of mercury in dental amalgams is a very controversial subject. Despite the fact that dental amalgam contains 50% mercury, the American Dental Association's official position is that dental amalgam is safe, and that mercury does not pose a health risk. However, numerous research studies show that dental amalgams are a major source of mercury toxicity. Because of the ADA's position, your dentist risks losing his license if he tells you that mercury is dangerous, no matter what he personally believes. " > >The various states license Dentists, not the ADA. I find it very hard to believe that a dentist would ever loose his license for having an opinion. This is the type of exaggerated statement that makes it hard for me to buy into this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2001 Report Share Posted September 26, 2001 Just look at the PARADE insert in the Sunday paper about 2 weeks ago. There was an article about the EPA telling everyone to get rid of their mercury containing thermometers and how unsafe they were. The info is probably on the EPA's website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2001 Report Share Posted September 26, 2001 Moira and all who responded to my intro, Thanks so much for all the information provided. After rereading the FAQ statement " your dentist risks losing his license if he tells you that mercury is dangerous " , I can see my husband's point. In my husband's mind it should say specify " amalgams " rather than " mercury " . I, on the other hand, didn't take it so literally when I first read it. We do, however, both agree that testing needs to be done. >>First, it is lovely that you and your (skeptical) husband are writing to the list. I think it shows some openness. I guess I think skepticism can be very useful when you use it in this way (to get more information, and to highlight what the issues are that are not causing skepticism). Anyway, as for the issue you have brought up about risks to dentists: I don't know if it is " literally " or " precisely " correct what the FAQ says. It might be, I don't happen to know. But I think it is " in the right ballpark " at least. As one example that I know of, I'll offer this: last year I went to a local dentist who has a website that includes info about mercury poisoning. He is also a member of the board of a dental organization that is anti-mercury. When I went to see him I asked him how he " gets away " with doing this so publically. He told me that he is very careful what he says-- and will only say things he can clearly back up with facts and studies. He also said something like that they HAVE tried to hound him but are currently leaving him alone. He told me that he has testified in some hearings about mercury -- I think meaning that he feels he can back up his claims well enough to keep the authorities " at bay " . Please note that I am not quoting him here, and don't remember the actual words used--- but the overall concept is correct: he has had to fight about it to be able to say these things, although he is currently not being challenged, accused or harrassed. What the FAQ says is: " Because of the ADA's position, your dentist risks losing his license if he tells you that mercury is dangerous, no matter what he personally believes. " I think your husband's point that the ADA doesn't liscense dentists is correct, but too narrow. The ADA doesn't liscense dentists, but they are a GIANT factor in this mercury fisaco. They have a very clear position. I'd like to recommend the book " Mercury Free: the wisdom behind the global consumer movement to ban " silver " dental fillings " by Dr. E. Hardy (he is a dentist). This is my " favorite " book about mercury poisoning and amalgam. It is very " easy reading " (except for being potentially very disturbing information). I am recommending it here because it includes a LOT of information about the history of amalgam (mercury) in dentistry, including the VERY SORDID (in my opinion and the authors) history of the ADA. Hardy refers to them as " the Amalgam Dental Association " . They were literally formed as an alternative to another dental organization that had its members pledge never to use mercury fillings! So, the ADA was formed for dentists who wanted to use mercury! So, my point is that I think the ADA's position is a big factor in the (supposed) controversy about mercury fillings. They may not be the " only " factor, but I don't think it is unrealistic to say that it is " because of the ADA's position " that dentists face problems in this area. Another way to say it would be: " Because of the (mistaken) belief that amalgam is safe, which has been promoted and supported by the ADA, your dentist may get into trouble...... " As an aside, (not directly on the point), my " regular " dentist, who uses amalgam occassionally, believes that amalgam is safe, and that amalgam replacement is a bad idea. He sees it as needless dental work, which always carries some risk. Since there is no " benefit " , it makes sense to be against doing it. (from his point of view) I remember reading a bunch of email last year about a dentist on the east coast who was basically being harrassed legally for doing some unconventional things, including saying mercury was dangerous, and doing amalgam replacements. The emails were asking for support. I'm sure I don't have any of them anymore. If you are adequately curious about what really does happen to dentists who say amalgam is " bad " , you could also try contacting dental groups--- I think IAOMT is one--- there may be others--- that are against the use of mercury. http://www.iaomt.org/ Reading Huggins' books (one of which was recommended to you yesterday) will also give some prespecitve on the real world for dentists. It is not a pretty picture-- there are reasons Huggins has moved to Mexico to practice. I think that's about all I can add regarding your husband's points. As for the rest of what you said-- welcome and I think you have " come to the right place " . For testing, get a hair test run through DDI. Your DAN doctor can order it for you. Finally, in respect for skepticism, I would like to add that it is not necessary to " buy into " any particular belief in order to test your son and in order to try chelation (if he is toxic). People who did NOT believe their problems were due to mercury poisoning have been helped (I've read some interesting testimonials about amalgam replacements that are along these lines). If your son is poisoned with heavy metals, chelation will help him for purely physical reasons-- not because of your belief it will help. In other words, it is your actions that count. best, Moria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2001 Report Share Posted September 27, 2001 >Moira and all who responded to my intro, > >Thanks so much for all the information provided. After rereading the FAQ statement " your dentist risks losing his license if he >tells you that mercury is dangerous " , I can see my husband's point. In my husband's mind it should say specify " amalgams " rather than " mercury " . I, on the other hand, didn't take it so literally when I first read it. We do, however, both agree that testing needs to be done. > > Dear , Oh! Oops. I guess I sorta answered the " wrong question " but hope it was interesting! I have updated the FAQ to refer to " amalgam fillings " rather than " mercury " in this particular sentence! It is a point taken: it does INTEND to refer to the mercury in fillings, which is what the controvery is about. The ADA does not (to my knowledge) have the opinion that MERCURY is not toxic--- they just think it is non-toxic when it is in your mouth in amalgam. Presumably dentists who believe that mercury is a poison are not subject to professional risks, as long as they (like the ADA) also have the opinion that it is safe when in amalgam fillings. Tell your husband (Mark?) " thank you " for the correction. (By the way, I didn't write the FAQ, but have done formatting edits to the currently-posted-version, so I have the file on my computer -- which is why I could change it easily enough.) Moria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2001 Report Share Posted September 27, 2001 Moira, I will tell him! I think that will give him a lot more confidence in the rest of the information presented. By the way, he spent many years as an auditor, so he naturally tends to scrutinize the details of anything he reads. >Tell your husband (Mark?) " thank you " for the correction. >(By the way, I didn't write the FAQ, but have done formatting >edits to the currently-posted-version, so I have the file >on my computer -- which is why I could change it easily >enough.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.