Re: chelating before amalgam removal / antioxidants

[Guest guest]

>>>>>>>>PS: I'm not saying that I won't get my amalgam remnoved. Of course I

will if I am convinced that it is mercury that is the problem. What I am saying

is that a one or two week chelation with DMSA won't kill me, and hopefully it

will give me some added information and much needed confidence. Thanks for

listening, and for the kind suggestions.>>>>>>>>>>

It is proven that amalgams cause health problems, so why take the risk and

chelate while they are in your mouth? I know it can be costly to have them

removed, but I wouldn't do a challenge with them in. It might not kill you, but

it could make you a lot sicker in the interim.

a

[Guest guest]

Hullo Rob,

> My thanks to everybody for the warm welcome on this list. It seems

> that the concensus is I should have my amalgam removed before

> attempting chelation therapy.

yup, I think that is the consensus you'll find here.

> If this were easily done (and done

> inexpensively), I would certainly do it immediately.

yeah, the process to replace them is no fun and expensive to boot.

> However, not

> knowing with even 50% certainty that Mercury is my problem, is it

> really wise to put myself at greater risk and expense of amalgam

> removal?

I think this is one of the big issues for adults with lots'o metal

fillings. One more thing is that there actually is risk and

damage to the teeth from dental work, so one doesn't want to

do it unless there is some benefit. So, you might consider

getting a hair test, if you haven't already:

/files/HOW_TO_hair_test

Hey, only $80 --- way way less than dental work! Also

much less than DMPS IV, I believe.

> This is my thinking (which could be absolutely wrong of

> course:) But I'm thinking, why not chelate for just a week or so

> with DMSA and see if I notice even a slight improvement?

um, you might see improvement or you might see deterioration.

> If I see

> that slight improvemnt in my condition, then I'll stop the DMSA and

> get my amalgam removed,

what if you get worse? what if you have no noticable reaction?

what if you have both positive and negative effects?

> and then continue with DMSA for the course,

> and follow that up with DMS + ALA in the second round?

don't use ALA until several MONTHS after your last amalgam

is replaced. At least there is the recommendation for you.

> I was just challenge chelated with 250 mg IV-DMPS yesterday (with my

> amalgam left in) and my condition didn't get any worse even with the

> IV megadose.

So then why the heck would you want to use DMSA? You already

just DID chelation w/amalgams in -- why repeat it?

> Actually, I wasn't too happy with my doctor or his nurse staff. They

> seemed to be unprofessional and uncoordinated, and they were

> extremely annoyed by my questions (especially the nurses -- and no, I

> wasn't asking for phone numbers!) I should have ran out when I asked

> the nurse what the side effects of DMPS are, and she she shot me a

> dirty look. She just wanted me to sign the " not-liable " release form

> like every other patient who comes down the assembly line. The

> doctor was no help, he didn't even tell me he was using DMPS.

I wonder if the nurse has read the DMPS backfire website?

http://www.dmpsbackfire.com/default.shtml

> Water over the dam. I await my challenge test results, and I will

> ask my doctor why he prefers DMPS to DMSA, and will try to decipher

> whether it has anything to do with the payments on his Porsche

> sitting in his reserved parking spot at the clinic.

DPMS and DMSA are both decent chelators for mercury. The issue

that may relate to your doctor's Porsche is IV vs. oral. Your

doctor could use ORAL DPMS pills instead of IV. This would be

MUCH MUCH MUCH cheaper for patients. Never mind safer, easier

to control, etc. Notice it does not involve an office procedure,

thus the connection with the doctor's income. Before you

decide the doc is totally at fault here, do consider that

some alternative doctors associations also PROMOTE DMPS IVs as the

way to do chelation. I think it is really considered very

" standard " by many. I usually just suggest ASKING for

oral DMPS instead of IV.

> >> As far as the mechanisms of why you dont chelate with amalgams, I

> >> am sure several folks on this list will comment excellently.

>

> I eagerly await responses. However, the only scientific research on

> the topic which I can find (what little there is) has concluded that

> at least 2/3 of the chelated mercury (using DMSA) comes from body

> tissues and definitely not amalgam. How they figured this out I do

> not know.

I don't know either.

> Now I am not a doctor, but I can see the implications

> here. The reason why most people aren't affected by their amalgam

> fillings is simply because their body naturally excretes mercury

> faster than it is absorbing it from the amalgam. Having said that,

> it stands to reason that if DMSA is chelating Mercury out of the body

> at a ratio no worse than 2-to-1 in favor of body tissue to amalgam,

> wouldn't that be a good thing over time?

No, it would totally suck. That would mean that you are getting

lots of mercury pulled out of your fillings. Now, this study,

(let's just assume it is correct, okay?) -- it says the " chelated "

mercury is 2/3 from body, maybe 1/3 from fillings. Well, how

much of this mercury was excreted and how much got redistributed

to the brain or redistributed to other body organs?

This is a BIG DEAL --- even if there is NO amalgam, mercury

redistribution is a risk. So, now we have an extra " 1/3 "

that is from the amalgam. But maybe that is 1/3 of the

EXCRETED amount. Maybe twice that much (or 4 times that much)

was pulled out of the amalgam, but the rest went to the

brains and liver??? How did they measure? COULD anyone

measure the amount that was pulled from amalgam and then

deposited in brain??? I can't see how.

Another thing you can do, while you are pondering, and if you

wish, is look for a non-amalgam dentist, and get an estimate

on the dental work. Here are some references that may be

of some use:

/files/HOW_TO_find_doctor

Look at the section about dentists.

best,

Moria

[Guest guest]

> > However, not

> > knowing with even 50% certainty that Mercury is my problem, is it

> > really wise to put myself at greater risk and expense of amalgam

> > removal?

Getting certainty is inexpensive.

Go get that hair test, etc. See the diagnostic section of my book

Amalgam Illness: Diangosis and Treatment (www.noamalgam.com - where

you can see the symptom description on the website and you may find

this helpful).

Do NOT do challenge tests.

Andy . . .. . . .

[Guest guest]

Hi a and Moria. Thanks for writing.

I wrote:

<< If I see that slight improvemnt in my condition, then I'll stop

the DMSA and get my amalgam removed >>

Moria wrote:

<< what if you get worse? What if you have no noticable reaction?

what if you have both positive and negative effects? >>

If I get unbearably worse, I'll stop the DMSA. If I have no

noticeable reaction, I won't get my amalgam removed just yet until

further investigation. But how about this question. What if I spend

the thousands of dollars for amalgam removal and go through all the

pain and put in the weaker composite material on my biting surfaces,

and THEN take the full course of chelation... only to find out... I

have no noticeable reaction? Arghhh!!!!!! Or better yet, what if I

get worse due to allergic reaction to the composite material, and my

teeth get destroyed in the continous removal process.

Honestly though, if I knew for a FACT that my amalgams are poisoning

me with mercury and that that is what my symptoms are coming from, I

swear to God I would take a pair of pliers and pull my teeth out of

my own mouth, and drink baby food from a straw for the rest of my

life if I have to. That would be an incredible improvement over my

miserable existence.

Okay. Enough drama. Simply put, there is NO truly accurate test for

mercury poisoning. Even if they come back showing low levels of

mercury -- so what! You could still be sensitive to the low levels

of mercury that exist. So why not use the easiest, cheapest, and

least invasive method of trial chelation (DMSA)?

I wrote:

>> I was just challenge chelated with 250 mg IV-DMPS yesterday (with

>> my amalgam left in) and my condition didn't get any worse even

>> with the IV megadose.

Moria wrote:

>> So then why the heck would you want to use DMSA? You already

>> just DID chelation w/amalgams in -- why repeat it?

That was just a one time challenge test, which was probably ill-

advised to begin with. But now that I did it, I see that I can

handle a big dose of IV-DMPS, even with amalgam in my mouth. That

suggests to me that I could get away with a weaker, though much

longer trial course of DMSA for about 2 weeks or so. And also, I

read that DMSA has a somewhat weaker attraction to Mercury than does

DMPS, although it still gets the job done over time. It seems that

the medical community's main concern with the leeching of amalgam is

in regards to the use of DMPS, and I've even read some researchers

say that it would be very difficult for DMSA to pull mercury from

amalgam, but they are less comfortable with the stronger DMPS. So

yeah, for all of these reasons, that's why I would rather do a slow

chelation with DMSA than continue with IV-DMPS. Even if I had no

amalgam in my mouth, I would still be worried about the DMPS.

>> I wonder if the nurse has read the DMPS backfire website?

>> http://www.dmpsbackfire.com/default.shtml

I saw that website the other day. Pretty scary stuff. Looking back

on it, I guess I took a big risk.

>> I usually just suggest ASKING for

>> oral DMPS instead of IV.

Thanks. I'll ask about it. The amalgam issue aside, what do you

think about the idea of me administering oral DMSA on my own, and

taking mineral supplements, etc. Is it really neccessary to be

monitored with small doses of DMSA? I guess you never really know

for sure.

>> Now, this study, (let's just assume it is correct, okay?)

>> -- it says the " chelated " mercury is 2/3 from body, maybe 1/3 from

>> fillings. Well, how much of this mercury was excreted and how

>> much got redistributed to the brain or redistributed to other

>> body organs?

Good point. Needs more study. And thanks for the non-amalgam

dentist reference. I'll check it out.

a wrote:

<<< It is proven that amalgams cause health problems, so why take the

risk and chelate while they are in your mouth? I know it can be

costly to have them removed, but I wouldn't do a challenge with them

in. It might not kill you, but it could make you a lot sicker in the

interim. >>>

You said a mouthfull.

-Rob

[Guest guest]

> This is my thinking (which could be absolutely wrong of

> course:) But I'm thinking, why not chelate for just a week or so

> with DMSA and see if I notice even a slight improvement?

You won't. If you are toxic you will get a lot worse.

> If I see

> that slight improvemnt in my condition, then I'll stop the DMSA and

> get my amalgam removed, and then continue with DMSA for the course,

> and follow that up with DMS + ALA in the second round?

>

> I was just challenge chelated with 250 mg IV-DMPS yesterday (with my

> amalgam left in) and my condition didn't get any worse even with the

> IV megadose.

Most people who play russian roulette don't blow their brains out,

either. The odds are similar.

Andy . . . .. . . . . . .

[Guest guest]

Hello Rob,

I'm finding your viewpoint interesting although I disagree with

you on some points. I also think there are BOTH technical issues

( " what happens if.... " ) AND personal attitude issues, and they

are really different kettles of fish. Thus, onward:

> If I get unbearably worse, I'll stop the DMSA. If I have no

> noticeable reaction, I won't get my amalgam removed just yet until

> further investigation. But how about this question. What if I spend

> the thousands of dollars for amalgam removal and go through all the

> pain and put in the weaker composite material on my biting surfaces,

> and THEN take the full course of chelation... only to find out... I

> have no noticeable reaction? Arghhh!!!!!! Or better yet, what if I

> get worse due to allergic reaction to the composite material, and my

> teeth get destroyed in the continous removal process.

>

> Honestly though, if I knew for a FACT that my amalgams are poisoning

> me with mercury and that that is what my symptoms are coming from, I

> swear to God I would take a pair of pliers and pull my teeth out of

> my own mouth, and drink baby food from a straw for the rest of my

> life if I have to. That would be an incredible improvement over my

> miserable existence.

This is one of the " personal attitude " issues. Mind you, you

are entitled to have whatever attitude you want, and you are free

to decide what to do any way you want. Including logic I would

not use, throwing dice, etc. It is up to you. When I say it

is about attitude, I don't mean you are wrong.

Now, with that said, I will point out that there are NEVER

guarentees. You could have TONS of evidence that your problems

are " caused " by mercury, and you STILL would NOT know that ALL

your problems would be " solved " by detox. That is not how

things work, at least that is not MY understanding of how life

works. Very much not. Rather, you and I get to " make the best bet "

that we can. ALWAYS it is bet. This does not mean that one

does not want a " good " bet. Sure I do. And I want a " plan

B " and I want to limit the risk and so on. But I am betting.

I am taking some action and not knowing the consequences.

You get the same options as everyone else: do as much

reading as you want: find out what all your " options " are:

do whichever one(s) you want to try and can afford. Continue

on like this. Try something else, or don't. See results.

Getting sicker or healthier. And so on, until we die.

As for your " worst " case, I will also note that one's

attitude is a factor there too. I ***did*** get my amalgams

out. I ***did*** chelate for many months. I got some,

but not dramatic, health improvements. Should I be upset?

Well, as a matter of fact, I'm not. I figure I'm much

better off (although I sure do hate dental work, yuck.)

I'm glad for the things that are better, and I figure

there may be more benefits than I know about. For example,

the fact that I now have normal mineral transport---- I

think that should equate to some good long term benefits,

even if I have not noticed any dramatic change that is

obviously related.

> Okay. Enough drama. Simply put, there is NO truly accurate test for

> mercury poisoning. Even if they come back showing low levels of

> mercury -- so what! You could still be sensitive to the low levels

> of mercury that exist.

right, which is why the hair test for mineral transport is better

than some other ways. Although still not totally conclusive.

> That was just a one time challenge test, which was probably ill-

> advised to begin with. But now that I did it, I see that I can

> handle a big dose of IV-DMPS, even with amalgam in my mouth.

Well, I am not certain about this, but I think if you go reread

the stories on the DMPS backfire site, I think SOME are people

who " could handle " DMPS one or two or three times, and THEN

suddenly they " couldn't " handle it and had awful reactions.

The reason I'm not certain is that I really dislike reading

the stories there--- it is just way too sad....... so I have

only read some of them, and not repeatedly. (I like happy

endings a lot. I prefer LOVE_LETTERS.)

/files/LOVE_LETTERS

> That

> suggests to me that I could get away with a weaker, though much

> longer trial course of DMSA for about 2 weeks or so. And also, I

> read that DMSA has a somewhat weaker attraction to Mercury than does

> DMPS, although it still gets the job done over time. It seems that

> the medical community's main concern with the leeching of amalgam is

> in regards to the use of DMPS,

and why, oh why, would that be? If leaching is actually an

issue (you decide), why would it be an issue for ONE chelation

agent and not another? I am saying that this does not make

sense to me. Tell me what I'm missing about this picture.

> and I've even read some researchers

> say that it would be very difficult for DMSA to pull mercury from

> amalgam, but they are less comfortable with the stronger DMPS.

SOME researchers say <anything you want>. I'm not saying they

are wrong, I'm just saying that if you want to go by anything

said by any researcher, you will be in a big mess, because they

say ALL KINDS OF THINGS. Very very very contradictory.

> So

> yeah, for all of these reasons, that's why I would rather do a slow

> chelation with DMSA than continue with IV-DMPS. Even if I had no

> amalgam in my mouth, I would still be worried about the DMPS.

I'd be worried about IV DMPS, in any case.

Oral low dose DMPS every 8 hours for 3 days+ I would consider

to be reasonable --- certainly as reasonable as DMSA, better

in some ways. Both are stressful to liver. I personally chose

to use ALA only.

> >> I usually just suggest ASKING for

> >> oral DMPS instead of IV.

>

> Thanks. I'll ask about it. The amalgam issue aside, what do you

> think about the idea of me administering oral DMSA on my own, and

> taking mineral supplements, etc. Is it really neccessary to be

> monitored with small doses of DMSA? I guess you never really know

> for sure.

You'll hate my answer I'm sure: I'm not willing to put the

amalgam issue aside. Self administration, and what the risks are,

is discussed

here often. Just keep reading. I have written about this many

many many times, and I'm sure I'll write about it many many more.

It just doesn't seem like the most important issue right now,

so I'm reluctant to type up all my thoughts on it. My thoughts

are available in huge quantity on this issue in the message

archive though.

>

> >> Now, this study, (let's just assume it is correct, okay?)

> >> -- it says the " chelated " mercury is 2/3 from body, maybe 1/3 from

> >> fillings. Well, how much of this mercury was excreted and how

> >> much got redistributed to the brain or redistributed to other

> >> body organs?

>

> Good point. Needs more study.

I suggest that you read the DMPS backfire site some more.

The quote from the DMPS manufacturer about redistribution is

pretty good. (Heyl?) I don't see how someone could

study the amount of mercury that is NOT excreted. So, if

you accept that redistribution occurs and is dangerous,

(up to you) then I don't know what else there is to study.

best,

Moria

[Guest guest]

>

> Getting certainty is inexpensive.

>

> Go get that hair test, etc. See the diagnostic section of my book

> Amalgam Illness: Diangosis and Treatment (www.noamalgam.com - where

> you can see the symptom description on the website and you may find

> this helpful).

>

> Do NOT do challenge tests.

>

> Andy . . .. . . .

Thanks Andy. I think I'm going to buy your book before I do anything

else. And I'll look into that hair test. You seem to know a lot,

and everyone here respects you. But it's good to ask questions.

Regarding the saliva, coming from blood, and leeching mercury from

amalgam and then returning it to the bloodstream to be redistributed

to the CNS. I didn't think of that. Thank you.

However, I'm still puzzled:

How is it that most people with amalgam are able to naturally

detoxify, while their saliva, which you equate with blood for these

purposes, is constantly in contact with mercury? If these people's

circulatory systems are capable of naturally carrying away mercury

stores in body tissue, why aren't you worried that their prolific

ability to chelate naturaly is actually DANGEROUS to them since their

saliva (i.e., blood) is constantly in contact with an in

insurmountable store of mercury in the mouth? Is it not simply a

matter of the elimination rate being greater than the absorption

rate? And isn't the introduction of DMSA simply an attempt to

artificially restore proper elimination rates in the body?

Go easy on me. I'm new you know

-Rob

[Guest guest]

> But it's good to ask questions.

Yes. Even better to ask them BEFORE doing things.

BTW, see

/files/HOW_TO_hair_test

about the hair test.

> Regarding the saliva, coming from blood, and leeching mercury from

> amalgam and then returning it to the bloodstream to be redistributed

> to the CNS. I didn't think of that. Thank you.

>

> However, I'm still puzzled:

>

> How is it that most people with amalgam are able to naturally

> detoxify, while their saliva, which you equate with blood for these

> purposes, is constantly in contact with mercury?

Individual variations both in metabolic handling of mercury and also

in the actual amount of mercury that leaks out of their fillings

combine to make the amount inside different people vary quite widely.

And some people are just naturally a lot more sensitive than others.

> If these people's

> circulatory systems are capable of naturally carrying away mercury

> stores in body tissue, why aren't you worried that their prolific

> ability to chelate naturaly is actually DANGEROUS to them since

their

> saliva (i.e., blood) is constantly in contact with an in

> insurmountable store of mercury in the mouth?

They aren't chelating. They are doing something else.

>Is it not simply a

> matter of the elimination rate being greater than the absorption

> rate?

No, these are generally in balance or very close. it is a question of

how much is sitting in your body with the balance these two have

established.

> And isn't the introduction of DMSA simply an attempt to

> artificially restore proper elimination rates in the body?

No.

>

> Go easy on me. I'm new you know

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Rob,

I also was afraid that getting my mercury fillings out might destroy my

teeth. I had all my molars filled with huge fillings and some took out the

sides of some teeth. I knew I wanted them out- but was afraid of crowns.

I found a dentist that has not used mercury for over 6 years and was skilled

at doing composites. Where most other Dentists told me I'd need crowns, he

was able to rebuild a tooth with composite and replace all my fillings

successfully.

The technology with curing composites is better now than it was 10 years ago

and a skilled dentist should be able to do the work without harming your

teeth. Keep in mind that your teeth could be rotting under the " silver "

fillings since they are not bonded to your teeth. My Dentist found decay and

gooey stuff (dissolved cement used to insulate under large fillings) under

several of my teeth during the process of replacement.

Sooner or later your fillings will have to be replaced anyway. If you wait

too long you may end up losing your teeth due to decay. The composites if

properly applied will offer you a stronger tooth- a silver (mercury) filling

acts as a wedge that frequently will crack your tooth apart. (this happened

to me)

Regardless of the " mercury " issues, the composites (if bio-compatible for

you) will insure your teeth last longer. And, Mercury is not safe at any

level. Mercury kills and damages cells, as we age we are less able to

handle the constant level of chronic mercury leakage from the amalgams. The

longer you wait to have them out the harder it will be on your body.

The first thing I noticed after having mine out was that my gums stopped

bleeding. My personal opinion was to have them out as preventative medicine.

The evidence the exposure to mercury is linked to MS, Chronic Fatigue,

Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Autism.....is strong enough to be a real concern.

If one of your Mercury fillings needed replaced chances are it would get

replaced with composite anyway- I don't see any harm in having them replaced

one at a time, although I did mine in 4 visits. The pain killer they use is

very toxic- getting a quadrant done at one time reduces the exposure to this

substance.

This is only my personal experience, not qualified to give advice, ~

_________________________________________________________________

The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

[Guest guest]

Comments interpersed with *s.

>

What if I spend <BR>

> the thousands of dollars for amalgam removal and go through all the <BR>

> pain and put in the weaker composite material on my biting surfaces, <BR>

>

*FWIW, I've had my composites (17 fillings) for 12 yrs.

>

Or better yet, what if I <BR>

> get worse due to allergic reaction to the composite material,

>

*I had the same concern and chose to have biocompatibility testing done through

Huggins outfit in CO. I sent a blood sample and they tested the dental

materials being used at that time in the US with my blood and provided a 25 page

report listing the materials as highly reactive, moderately reactive and

acceptable for me. Some also use applied kinesiology or NAET to have materials

tested.

>

> Honestly though, if I knew for a FACT that my amalgams are poisoning <BR>

> me with mercury and that that is what my symptoms are coming from, I <BR>

> swear to God I would take a pair of pliers and pull my teeth out of <BR>

> my own mouth, and drink baby food from a straw for the rest of my <BR>

> life if I have to.  That would be an incredible improvement over my <BR>

> miserable existence.<BR>

>

*Have you done DDI hair analysis and applied the counting rules? Good place to

start, IMO.

=======================================================<BR>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/24/2003 3:07:38 AM Central Daylight Time,

_Shepard@... writes:

> Some also use applied kinesiology or NAET to have materials tested.

>

I did Clifford testing and Bioenergetic testing.........the Bioenergetic

testing showed me not compatible with materials Clifford said were okay with me.

I've just picked up some of the materials we've chosen and will be wearing

them next to my skin. My DO said to take a pulse for a minute.....and if your

pulse changes 10 beats in either direction.....your body is reacting to it.

Also, take the piece of material, glue etc...and put in mouth and see how you

wear it. Just do all you can do.....make the best educated decision you

can......and hope for the best.

claire