Re: Amalgams victims may need medical treatment

Mark Thorson wrote:
Mike wrote:
Mark Thorson wrote:
Mike wrote:
Mark Thorson wrote:
Mike wrote:
Your excerpts from Jan's post are highly selective. Links to pages at
www.health.gov and www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov are snipped. Why am I not surprised?

She cited just one source at www.health.gov,
which is a 15-year-old report, which says (in its
conclusion):

"Available data are not sufficient to indicate that
health hazards can be identified in non-occupationally
exposed persons. Health hazards, however, cannot be
dismissed. Because there are no scientifically
acceptable studies with sensitive, standardized
measurements for physiological and behavioral
changes in non-occupationally exposed populations,
we cannot, at present, determine whether such changes
observed in persons with low-level occupational
exposure to mercury also occur as a result of
exposure to mercury from dental amalgams."

That does not support the notion that dental
amalgams cause any adverse health effects
in the people who receive them. It only says
there isn't sufficient information to decide
the question at that time (1991).

But it demolishes (you love this word) your claim that nobody is adversely affected and those who say they are affected need psychiatric treatment.


She cited some PubMed abstracts on the NIH
server, but now that I've demolished Jan's
two best sources of information, why bother
wasting any time looking at the others?


Three lies in one sentence.
1. You may say "demolished" ad nauseum but you did not even start.
2. Which two best sources? Do you decide what sources are best?
3. You looked at the other source (findings that amalgams are the primary source of mercury in saliva) and found you cannot refute it. But you could not admit it.

If you want to discuss one of the others,
you'll have to be specific about which one.

What I quoted was from the source at the top of her list.
If that was not her best source of information, then
why was it at the top?
What you quoted (http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/oxygen.htm and
http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/cancerselftreatment.htm) was not even
on her list. As for the link at the top
(http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Lhealthfraud2.htm), you are not
quoting it and you are making no attempt to refute or mock it. Your
I quoted from other documents from the same web site
to demonstrate how poor is the quality of their information.
This is as much as you could do. If the evidence is unassailable find
something else to attack.

I just did. My record is 100% in demonstrating that
Jan's citations are either unreliable or irrelevant.

"You just did" what? "Find something else to attack"?


All of her sources fall into one or both of two
categories:

1) Not reliable -- for example, written by quacks.

2) Not evidence for any adverse health effects
of dental amalgams in the people who receive
them (except in the rare cases of genuine
mercury allergy as determined by a patch test).

I could have chosen additional examples, but I cited
a few good ones sufficient to demolish their reputation
as a reliable source.

Bwahahaha

Go ahead and cry. You've been spanked quite well.

pants are on fire again, Sir, and, again, I am not surprised.
Just because you pronounce it so? I demolished the
best information that Jan could cite.
No. You mocked something Jan did not cite but located on the web site
that Jan did not cite (but mentioned among many others). This is the
best you could do.

It's sufficient to demonstrate that that site is
full of baloney. They believe lots of crazy stuff,
therefore they cannot be cited as a reliable source
of information. If they make a statement which is
backed up by another source (a reliable one), then
that statement might be worth checking out. But
if they make an unsupported statement, it can't be
believed just on their say-so.

Let's quote from Jan's link:

"Mercury toxicity is a retention toxicity that builds up during years of exposure. The toxicity of a singular level of mercury is greatly increased by current or subsequent, low exposures to lead or other toxic heavy metals" - this is followed by a reference to a research paper. Is it baloney? No, and this is why you did not quote from that link but chose something else.


I'm not going
to bother with her lesser sources, but I could do
the same to all of them. All of her sources fall
into one or both of two categories:

1) Not reliable -- for example, written by quacks.

2) Not evidence for any adverse health effects
of dental amalgams in the people who receive
them (except in the rare cases of genuine
mercury allergy as determined by a patch test).
The link to http://www.dentalmaterial.gov.se/Mercury.pdf that you do not
even mention does not fall in any of these categories. And you know it.

That is not a research report. It is document on
how a Swedish government commission arrived at their
recommendations for government policy.

It is a review of many research papers.


Do they claim to have evidence for any adverse
health effects of dental amalgams in the people
who receive them (except in the rare cases of genuine
mercury allergy as determined by a patch test)?

No. Here is what they say on that subject:

"At present it may be considered unproven, but not
excluded, that subclinical psychomotor functional
impairment caused by mercury is demonstrable in groups
at the mean exposure level for amalgam bearers."

Did they review any studies on the effects of
dental amalgams in people who received them?

Yes. Here is what they say on that subject:

"A Swedish prospective cross-section study of
1,462 women aged 38-60 was conducted, with a
follow-up after five years. In this study,
no correlation was found between symptoms and
exposure to mercury from amalgam (Ahlqwist et
al. 1999). The yardstick of exposure used was
the mercury content of serum, and effects were
gauged by responses to a questionnaire concerning
symptoms."


Then how come the report gives these recommendations:

amalgam must be considered to be an unsuitable material for dental restoration

and

For medical reasons, amalgam should be eliminated in dental care as soon as possible

Your quoting is very selective.

My record of demolishing Jan's sources stands
at 100%. Feel free to cry some more. :-)
.