Re: Mercury amalgam STAIN vs. dental tattoo

[Guest guest]

homeschool3gfcf wrote:

>

> Hi,

> I had an amalgam removed a couple of weeks ago by an IAOMT

> mercury-free dentist. When I got home I noticed there is still a gray

> line on my molar where the new filling meets the tooth. Is this a

> dental tattoo?

>

No. A tattoo is in the gum.

However, this indicates that the amalgam has " leeked " into the porous

dentin and has stained the tooth. While the dentist has removed the

actual filling, there is metallic substance in the tooth itself now. (It

is the same principle as a tattoo.) " Leeked " is of course not a

technical chemical term. It is thought that this is mostly due to a

galvanic effect when dissimilar metals (crowns?) are in contact with the

amalgam filling, causing corrosion and corrosion by-products.

Andy believes it is safe to chelate with these stains on the basis that

too much sound tooth would need to be removed to remove the stain.

http://onibasu.com/archives/fdc/17227.html

I can't really understand this. Either there is a mercury compound

present in the body and you can't chelate because the chelator will drag

the mercury around into your organs. Or there is none and you can chelate.

If the argument is that the chelator can't get to the stain " once

covered up by some alternative filling material " , this makes no sense.

Dentin is made of thousands of tiny tubules that irrigate it. It is on

this principle that bacteria from root canals invade the tooth _and the

blood stream_ and provoke systemic and focal infection.

Some amalgam mercury (most?) is absorbed by the body from the exposed

surfaces through chewing, grinding, saliva corrosion, and galvanic

effects. But surely the presence of mercury internally in the tooth

itself accounts for some absorption?

I would love to see some numbers: amount of mercury contained in an

average filling versus a stain. Amount of mercury absorbed by the body

from a filling versus a stain. Amount of mercury redistributed stored in

organs and brain. Amount of this redistributed on the AC protocol

chelation. Just to see relative importance.

Andy does NOT recommend chelating with a [gum] tattoo:

http://onibasu.com/archives/amc/41313.html

Is because there is more blood circulation in the gum than in dentin and

therefore less exposure to the chelator circulating in the blood stream?

Or, as has been suggested elsewhere, is it the silver (sulfide?) and tin

(oxide?) corrosion byproducts from the amalgam that produces the gray

staining, while mercury does not corrode as easily (needing contact with

other metals)? Another paper suggests that it is the traces of copper

and zinc in the amalgam that corrodes most easily.

In the mean time, my suggestion is to treat the tooth as completely

compromised and extract it.

> Is it safe to chelate w/that or should I go back and have the dentist

> scrape/remove that, as well?

> Any advice is greatly appreciated

> Blessings,

> ~Robin

>

>