Posted on 07/26/2007 1:17:56 PM PDT by vadum
That is not correct. Water can be a poison just as fluorides can be a poison. Both are beneficial in some amounts and damaging, even deadly in other amounts.
“Anti-amalgam and anti-fluoride go together well especially combined with holistic dentistry.
Fortunately some of those types are put in prison.”
Perhaps the wrong group is being put in prison. Here is more on fluorides...
Fluoride, toxic industrial waste material, is implicated in Autism amongst many conditions and on the internet, extracts of papers referring to research by Schuld speak about research done by his group on Autism after parents reported great improvements in their children’s conditions after fluorides were eliminated from the diet, and how their research found a strong association with a particular group of G proteins (Gq/11) which are also highly implicated in Alzheimer’s disease, Down Syndrome and thyroid dysfunction. The study showed an increase of 18% in observed thyroid cancers in the fluoridated areas when compared to non-fluoridated areas. Newspaper articles from China report that entire villages are being re-located due to fluoride contamination and where fluoride is being openly acknowledged as the cause of thyroid cancer, Kaschin-Beck disease and iodine deficiency. This ties autism to thyroid function and fluoride damage.
Your pro-fluoride position might get you more than a prison sentence in China.
“Water can be a poison just as fluorides can be a poison...”
Fluorides may be beneficial if you are running a concentration camp ala Nazi Germany and want to keep the victims docile as they wait their turn in the gas chamber.
I can live without fluorides. I cannot live without water. WATER IS NOT A POISON!
There is absolutely no evidence of the problems you “report” to be caused by fluorides in correct amounts. If there is evidence from refereed peer reviewed scientific journals please provide it.
And I don’t live in China, why would that even be relevant?
Water in sufficient quantities is a poison. That is a scientific fact. The fact that you cannot live without it doesn’t matter.
You cannot live without sodium but it is a poison in certain amounts, and so on.
Mercury has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with autism, and you cannot produce scientific evidence supporting that.
Do you believe that dental amalgams should be removed for therapeutic reasons, ie; to remove a source of mercury toxicity that might be causing diseases like autism, MS, etc?
“...the chemicals in dental resins. I mean, what about the BisGMA stuff?”
BisGMA (bisphenol A diglycidylether methacrylate) is used in light-reactive dental resins. Reports say that polymerization is not complete in these resins, and that free monomers can be detected. Bisphenol A, one of these monomers, is widely used in the rubber and plastics industry. BPA is used to produce polycarbonates (trade names such as Lexan). These polycarbonates have many uses, including the plastic lining in cans for food and beverage. Exposure to BPA is wide scale, with or without the dental use in the newer resin based filling materials.
Toxicity of bisphenol-A is continuously being studied and the “scientific” jury is still out on whether it is a serious hazard to human health. I personally have been aware of BPA potential hazards for many years, having used it in some industrial applications. I also do not like it being present in the plastic lining in metal cans, and we try to minimize such exposure.
So what should we fix teeth with?
“Do you believe that dental amalgams should be removed for therapeutic reasons...”
Generally, no. Perhaps, in special cases where a person shows particular signs of mercury poisoning.
I have amalgam fillings that I have had for many years. I do not intend to have them removed as long as they remain intact, “doing the job”. I would opt for resin fillings for any new ones, and have done so.
In many cases, removal of amalgam fillings can cause much more risk of mercury exposure and the toxic effects than would result from the amalgams remaining intact and undisturbed. I suspect you would concur with this comment.
I know people who claim a high sensitivity to the toxic effects of mercury; and who have had amalgam fillings removed and replaced with resins. I know a few of the dentists whose practice “speciallizes” in replacing amalgams with resins.
I also know a few people who have had this done who now show a lot more signs of toxic mercury exposure than they did before the replacements.
I have worked with a few of these people, advising them on heavy metal detoxing. And by the way, if asked, I do not recommend IV-EDTA chelation therapy. Detoxing needs to be done slowly, and heavy metals released during the detoxing need to be scavenged so as not to be reabsorbed.
“So what should we fix teeth with?”
See my post #170. I believe I have answered this question in that comment. Sometimes it is necessary to choose the lesser of two “evils” :)
Also, I believe the known hazards of mercury are much more serious that the possibly known hazards of bisphenol-A residues in the polymerized resins now available and being used to fix teeth.
I believe also that the known hazards and general toxicity of fluorides are adequate reason to reduce/eliminate human exposure, even if it means serious financial hardship on Alcoa and other aluminum producers (resulting from having to find a safe way to dispose of all the fluorides they generate as waste by means other than these wastes being put into public water supply).
Me too, I also prefer the non-chlorinated high bacteria count waters. Helps keep everything moving!
I think you are right. I have a financial interest in eliminating fluorides and replacing amalgam.
The biggest problem is that replacing amalgam because of toxicity concerns is considered to be malpractice.
But both positions are financially rewarding for dentists.
Kinda makes ya wonder why most dentists are against those ideas. I mean, if they could make a lot more money why wouldn’t they be in favor of it?
Could it have anything to do with professionalism?
BTW, the main fear re: BisGMA has been breast cancer. It is generally believed that is not an issue because the BisGMA is essentially gone in a few hours. That isn’t settled science yet but very close. Some of the definitive research was done right here at the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Dentistry.
Amalgam and fluoride is settled science, to those who are serious about science.
Could you provide some science, like peer reviewed journal articles that support your claims?
You know of course that the “N” on Memorial Stadium stands for “(k)nowledge...”
“Amalgam and fluoride is settled science, to those who are serious about science.”
Settled science? Give us a break!
“The biggest problem is that replacing amalgam...”
I stated before, I do not recommend replacing amalgam, and I explained why I do not (higher risk).
“I mean, if they could make a lot more money...”
Hopefully dental professionalism is less tainted that that of the AMA and FDA and their allegience to the drug companies.
“Could you provide some science, like peer reviewed journal articles that support your claims?”
Assume you are referring to toxicity of fluorides and of mercury as related to caries prevention (fluorides) and the use of mercury in amalgams, and as this relates to diseases like Autism. I suspect you have already seen peer reviewed journal articles on both subjects that support my comments, but have not accepted them.
Regarding the articles you say I reject, they don’t exist. There are no reputable studies showing what you claim.
And the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Dentistry is usually in the top ten dental schools in the USA according to entering GPA and exiting board scores. This years freshman dental class has the highest entering GPA ever and Harvard is #2.
Totally inaccurate comments. Fiji blow molds bottles on site.
Recycling of PET water bottles is 23%. Bisphenol is proven to be extremely low risk. Home and office bottled water is delivered in reusable bottles that make 30 to 50 trips. Once scrapped the PC is nearly 100% recycled.
It takes 6 gallons of water to make one gallon of beer. Bottle water draws .04% of all ground water withdrawls in the US. The fast majority of all bottle is consumed or used for cooking offsetting tap water.
The best method to dispose of PET is to burn it the technologies exists to do it safetly it has high BTU content but the greens won’t have it. The environmentalist picked bottle water because is gets their base pissed so they send in more donations. It is all about anti=business special interest.
When you know the facts try again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.