Removing mercury fillings / amalgams

[FolkGuitar]

That much mercury would have half the population (or more) with 'Mad Hatter's Syndrome.' Think about it for a moment...

Then it should be easy for you to find some authoritative source that says otherwise. I can't find one. I think you don't understand what an amalgam is. Frankly, neither do I but I know that I don't know.

An 'amalgam' is a blending of two or more ingredients (in he case of an old 'silver filling,' just two,) using a 'catalyst' of some sort to create the chemical bonding. The catalyst remains unchanged, and is not part of the amalgam, only a chemical 'tool' used to cause the reaction to occur. Does that clear things up for you?

Mercury is highly poisonous in its natural state. If you had a mouthful of it for years, you would suffer from severe brain damage (colloquially known as "Mad Hatter's Syndrome.) The fact that this sort of filling has been used on millions of people all over the world for more than 75 years WITHOUT Mad Hatters Syndrome becoming epidemic should be evidence enough for any rational individual.

Mercury is not a catalyst but an integral part of the dental amalgam, just as cement is an integral part of concrete. An amalgam is just a mixture of mercury, silver and copper. It is an alloy, like for example bronze (tin and copper). The mercury added is an integral part of the mix, usually 50%, and does not go away once the amalgam is set.

Well, I guess that explains why there are so many crazy people running around. It's all that mercury in their teeth...

Of course, by volume, virtually the same amount of mercury gets squeezed OUT of the amalgam as is put in before it gets mixed, before it is used to fill the teeth, which makes it difficult to believe that the resulting amalgam is 50% mercury, but I'll take your word for it.

[cloudhopper]

Of course, by volume, virtually the same amount of mercury gets squeezed OUT of the amalgam as is put in before it gets mixed, before it is used to fill the teeth, which makes it difficult to believe that the resulting amalgam is 50% mercury, but I'll take your word for it.

No one practicing modern dentistry has used this technique since the '70s when precision measured disposable mixing capsules became widely available.

You are quite right to point out that even this seemingly reckless exposure to free elemental mercury has not resulted in any pathology to those most exposed i.e. the dental clinic personnel.

[suzannegoh]

That much mercury would have half the population (or more) with 'Mad Hatter's Syndrome.' Think about it for a moment...

Then it should be easy for you to find some authoritative source that says otherwise. I can't find one. I think you don't understand what an amalgam is. Frankly, neither do I but I know that I don't know.

An 'amalgam' is a blending of two or more ingredients (in he case of an old 'silver filling,' just two,) using a 'catalyst' of some sort to create the chemical bonding. The catalyst remains unchanged, and is not part of the amalgam, only a chemical 'tool' used to cause the reaction to occur. Does that clear things up for you?

Mercury is highly poisonous in its natural state. If you had a mouthful of it for years, you would suffer from severe brain damage (colloquially known as "Mad Hatter's Syndrome.) The fact that this sort of filling has been used on millions of people all over the world for more than 75 years WITHOUT Mad Hatters Syndrome becoming epidemic should be evidence enough for any rational individual.

Mercury is not a catalyst but an integral part of the dental amalgam, just as cement is an integral part of concrete. An amalgam is just a mixture of mercury, silver and copper. It is an alloy, like for example bronze (tin and copper). The mercury added is an integral part of the mix, usually 50%, and does not go away once the amalgam is set.

Well, I guess that explains why there are so many crazy people running around. It's all that mercury in their teeth...

Of course, by volume, virtually the same amount of mercury gets squeezed OUT of the amalgam as is put in before it gets mixed, before it is used to fill the teeth, which makes it difficult to believe that the resulting amalgam is 50% mercury, but I'll take your word for it.

You are a stubborn man. The claim about it being 50% Hg might be possible to salvage by rephrasing it that mercury content is 50% by atomic weight (which would not necessarily mean that half of it is unbound elemental mercury that will make you as mad as a hatter). Clearly you don't know the first thing about metallurgy, so why are you trying to pass yourself off as an authority?

Edited January 14, 2016 by suzannegoh

[ilostmypassword]

An 'amalgam' is a blending of two or more ingredients (in he case of an old 'silver filling,' just two,) using a 'catalyst' of some sort to create the chemical bonding. The catalyst remains unchanged, and is not part of the amalgam, only a chemical 'tool' used to cause the reaction to occur. Does that clear things up for you?

Mercury is highly poisonous in its natural state. If you had a mouthful of it for years, you would suffer from severe brain damage (colloquially known as "Mad Hatter's Syndrome.) The fact that this sort of filling has been used on millions of people all over the world for more than 75 years WITHOUT Mad Hatters Syndrome becoming epidemic should be evidence enough for any rational individual.

Mercury is not a catalyst but an integral part of the dental amalgam, just as cement is an integral part of concrete. An amalgam is just a mixture of mercury, silver and copper. It is an alloy, like for example bronze (tin and copper). The mercury added is an integral part of the mix, usually 50%, and does not go away once the amalgam is set.

Well, I guess that explains why there are so many crazy people running around. It's all that mercury in their teeth...

Of course, by volume, virtually the same amount of mercury gets squeezed OUT of the amalgam as is put in before it gets mixed, before it is used to fill the teeth, which makes it difficult to believe that the resulting amalgam is 50% mercury, but I'll take your word for it.

If it was just her word, you'd have a point. But the evidence is overwhelming. Do you really believe the FDA has it wrong? Come up with some hard evidence to support your contention. But you can't, because there isn't any.

[Loaded]

I'm not a metallurgist or chemist so therefore haven't really understood the last few posts.

What is the conclusion? yes, they are bad so remove; or no, it would cause too many other problems if removed.

I'm genuinely interested as I, like the OP, have also considered replacing.

[cloudhopper]

I'm not a metallurgist or chemist so therefore haven't really understood the last few posts.

What is the conclusion? yes, they are bad so remove; or no, it would cause too many other problems if removed.

I'm genuinely interested as I, like the OP, have also considered replacing.

If it's OK then leave it be. If it's not OK then then there are several alternatives but if toxicity, real or imagined, is a concern then the only truly non toxic, non abrasive, non corroding and insoluble material to replace it with is gold.

[suzannegoh]

I'm not a metallurgist or chemist so therefore haven't really understood the last few posts.

What is the conclusion? yes, they are bad so remove; or no, it would cause too many other problems if removed.

I'm genuinely interested as I, like the OP, have also considered replacing.

I'm not a metallurgist either though in my job as a mechanical engineer I am often mistaken for one. My (non-medical) opinion is that the risks of mercury-based almagams are small but real. I wouldn't put any new ones in but I think that the risk of ripping out the old fillings is greater than the risk of leaving them in place. In all liklihood that mercury isn't going to go anywhere unless those teeth get drilled again. Edited January 14, 2016 by suzannegoh

[FolkGuitar]

of people all over the world for more than 75 years WITHOUT Mad Hatters Syndrome becoming epidemic should be evidence enough for any rational individual.

Mercury is not a catalyst but an integral part of the dental amalgam, just as cement is an integral part of concrete. An amalgam is just a mixture of mercury, silver and copper. It is an alloy, like for example bronze (tin and copper). The mercury added is an integral part of the mix, usually 50%, and does not go away once the amalgam is set.

Well, I guess that explains why there are so many crazy people running around. It's all that mercury in their teeth...

Of course, by volume, virtually the same amount of mercury gets squeezed OUT of the amalgam as is put in before it gets mixed, before it is used to fill the teeth, which makes it difficult to believe that the resulting amalgam is 50% mercury, but I'll take your word for it.

If it was just her word, you'd have a point. But the evidence is overwhelming. Do you really believe the FDA has it wrong? Come up with some hard evidence to support your contention. But you can't, because there isn't any.

If you insist on arguing my side for me, there really isn't any point in my continuing... however, I will, just this once, simply because the answer is so obvious.

Do I believe the FDA has it wrong? Let's see... in its illustrious history, the FDA has stated that the human body had no need for Vitamin A.

Did they have that wrong? Of course several years later they retracted that statement as they DID have it wrong.

We won't discuss Thalidomide. Did they have that one wrong?

How about Sodium Nitrate/Sodium Nitrite, or Artificial sweeteners such as 'Acesulofame Potassium,' now proved to be carcinogenic, BHA and BHT, both of which the Department of Health and Human Services classifies the preservative as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, Red Dye #3 and Red Dye #40, both of which were approved by the FDA but now are under proposal for banning.

Approved, then rejected, approved then rejected.... Our history is filled with things that were either thought to be poisonous until time proved that they weren't (such as tomatoes!) and things that were considered safe until time proved otherwise. Just because a federal organization makes a claim, it does not mean it is so.

So yes, the FDA DOES make mistakes, and often, as its history proves. Only time will tell regarding mercury poisoning from dental fillings.

[ilostmypassword]

Of course, by volume, virtually the same amount of mercury gets squeezed OUT of the amalgam as is put in before it gets mixed, before it is used to fill the teeth, which makes it difficult to believe that the resulting amalgam is 50% mercury, but I'll take your word for it.

If it was just her word, you'd have a point. But the evidence is overwhelming. Do you really believe the FDA has it wrong? Come up with some hard evidence to support your contention. But you can't, because there isn't any.

If you insist on arguing my side for me, there really isn't any point in my continuing... however, I will, just this once, simply because the answer is so obvious.

Do I believe the FDA has it wrong? Let's see... in its illustrious history, the FDA has stated that the human body had no need for Vitamin A.

Did they have that wrong? Of course several years later they retracted that statement as they DID have it wrong.

We won't discuss Thalidomide. Did they have that one wrong?

How about Sodium Nitrate/Sodium Nitrite, or Artificial sweeteners such as 'Acesulofame Potassium,' now proved to be carcinogenic, BHA and BHT, both of which the Department of Health and Human Services classifies the preservative as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, Red Dye #3 and Red Dye #40, both of which were approved by the FDA but now are under proposal for banning.

Approved, then rejected, approved then rejected.... Our history is filled with things that were either thought to be poisonous until time proved that they weren't (such as tomatoes!) and things that were considered safe until time proved otherwise. Just because a federal organization makes a claim, it does not mean it is so.

So yes, the FDA DOES make mistakes, and often, as its history proves. Only time will tell regarding mercury poisoning from dental fillings.

But the question wasn't whether or not mercury in fillings is toxic. In fact, you asserted that there was no mercury in fillings. That it was used only as a catalyst. That if fillings were roughtly 50% mercury, that all of us who had them would be reduced to the mental status of Mad Hatters. Those assertions of yours were flat out wrong.

[suzannegoh]

of people all over the world for more than 75 years WITHOUT Mad Hatters Syndrome becoming epidemic should be evidence enough for any rational individual.

Mercury is not a catalyst but an integral part of the dental amalgam, just as cement is an integral part of concrete. An amalgam is just a mixture of mercury, silver and copper. It is an alloy, like for example bronze (tin and copper). The mercury added is an integral part of the mix, usually 50%, and does not go away once the amalgam is set.

Well, I guess that explains why there are so many crazy people running around. It's all that mercury in their teeth...

Of course, by volume, virtually the same amount of mercury gets squeezed OUT of the amalgam as is put in before it gets mixed, before it is used to fill the teeth, which makes it difficult to believe that the resulting amalgam is 50% mercury, but I'll take your word for it.

If it was just her word, you'd have a point. But the evidence is overwhelming. Do you really believe the FDA has it wrong? Come up with some hard evidence to support your contention. But you can't, because there isn't any.

If you insist on arguing my side for me, there really isn't any point in my continuing... however, I will, just this once, simply because the answer is so obvious.

Do I believe the FDA has it wrong? Let's see... in its illustrious history, the FDA has stated that the human body had no need for Vitamin A.

Did they have that wrong? Of course several years later they retracted that statement as they DID have it wrong.

We won't discuss Thalidomide. Did they have that one wrong?

How about Sodium Nitrate/Sodium Nitrite, or Artificial sweeteners such as 'Acesulofame Potassium,' now proved to be carcinogenic, BHA and BHT, both of which the Department of Health and Human Services classifies the preservative as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, Red Dye #3 and Red Dye #40, both of which were approved by the FDA but now are under proposal for banning.

Approved, then rejected, approved then rejected.... Our history is filled with things that were either thought to be poisonous until time proved that they weren't (such as tomatoes!) and things that were considered safe until time proved otherwise. Just because a federal organization makes a claim, it does not mean it is so.

So yes, the FDA DOES make mistakes, and often, as its history proves. Only time will tell regarding mercury poisoning from dental fillings.

Great, but next time you use that diatribe leave Thalidomide out of the rant because the US FDA's rejection of Thalidomide was their finest hour not an example of their failures. It was European countries that approved Thalidomide, the US refused to approve it despite intense pressure. Sure, science gets it wrong sometimes, but people who are winging it get it wrong even more often.

But I think that you are correct that people with amalgam fillings should not have them ripped out. Maybe doing that would make sense if you are one of the many people who moved to Chiang Mai because you became awake, maybe even enlightened, by reading Natural News and Dr. Mercola while in a drug induced stupor, but otherwise better advice would be to get off your barstool, go home, kiss your wife, pet your dog, put some music on the stereo, and stop worrying about nonsense.

Edited January 14, 2016 by suzannegoh

[FolkGuitar]

Removed for clarity

Edited January 14, 2016 by FolkGuitar

[seedy]

one Off topic post removed

[Konini]

Seems to me and my total lack of understanding that I should treat it like the asbestos in the roof - totally OK unless it gets disturbed.

As a product of the National Health Service I had a mouthful of fillings by the time I was 14 whether I needed them or not; my dentist got struck off in the late 70's because of filling the mouths of school children with fillings which were proven to be unnecessary and making a very good living off it via the tax payer who ultimately paid the bill. We all hated going to the dentist. It was never one filling, it was always 4 or 5. Every 6 months. Thankfully he was caught out and stopped, but there are hundreds, probably thousands of people who just like me were sent to him twice a year (in my case from the age of 8 to 14) and now have terrible, terrible teeth. Fortunately I am in the position to have implants, I don't come from a wealthy area and most that I went to school with are still there and struggling to put food on the table who have had to get cheap government issue false teeth. Like so many people, I have to be in incredible agony or lose a front tooth before I'll go to a dentist.

I have more filling than tooth in most of them, and they can stay where they are.

[FolkGuitar]

Great, but next time you use that diatribe leave Thalidomide out of the rant because the US FDA's rejection of Thalidomide was their finest hour not an example of their failures. It was European countries that approved Thalidomide, the US refused to approve it despite intense pressure.

Er..... You may want to check your facts....

"On May 26, 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval for thalidomide"

The FDA does make mistakes, both positive and negative, and is constantly revising their stance. The latest has been the approval of arsenic in the poultry industry. Once approved, it is now under scrutiny with intent to ban its use in chicken production.

[ilostmypassword]

Great, but next time you use that diatribe leave Thalidomide out of the rant because the US FDA's rejection of Thalidomide was their finest hour not an example of their failures. It was European countries that approved Thalidomide, the US refused to approve it despite intense pressure.

Er..... You may want to check your facts....

"On May 26, 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval for thalidomide"

The FDA does make mistakes, both positive and negative, and is constantly revising their stance. The latest has been the approval of arsenic in the poultry industry. Once approved, it is now under scrutiny with intent to ban its use in chicken production.

suzannegoh was absolutely correct. The FDA did reject thalidomide as a treatment for morning sickness 6 times back in 1960 when it was offered as a remedy for morning sickness. That's when it counted. . Which is why the USA avoided the mass tragedy that took place in Europe. There were a total of 17 thalidomide deformed children born in the USA. Yes, The FDA did approve the use of thalidomide in 1998 and 2006. It's used as a treatment for certain cases of leprosy, Crohn's disease, and certain kinds of cancer. I think people suffering with these diseases would most likely believe that the benefits would outweigh the risks.

As for criticizing someone else's fact checking. It's kind of laughable coming from someone who apparently finds it impossible to concede that he was repeatedly wrong except in an ambiguous and sarcastic way. "I'll take your word for it" really doesn't cut it.

Edited January 15, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[Loaded]

Seems to me and my total lack of understanding that I should treat it like the asbestos in the roof - totally OK unless it gets disturbed.

As a product of the National Health Service I had a mouthful of fillings by the time I was 14 whether I needed them or not; my dentist got struck off in the late 70's because of filling the mouths of school children with fillings which were proven to be unnecessary and making a very good living off it via the tax payer who ultimately paid the bill. We all hated going to the dentist. It was never one filling, it was always 4 or 5. Every 6 months. Thankfully he was caught out and stopped, but there are hundreds, probably thousands of people who just like me were sent to him twice a year (in my case from the age of 8 to 14) and now have terrible, terrible teeth. Fortunately I am in the position to have implants, I don't come from a wealthy area and most that I went to school with are still there and struggling to put food on the table who have had to get cheap government issue false teeth. Like so many people, I have to be in incredible agony or lose a front tooth before I'll go to a dentist.

I have more filling than tooth in most of them, and they can stay where they are.

Same.

I stopped going to my dentist from around the age of 15 and have never needed a filling since. All my molars are full of the awful mercury amalgam crap from visits before I was 15. My dentist later died in a yachting accident in the Solent. The boom of his boat swung across and decapitated him.

[Dante99]

Seems to me and my total lack of understanding that I should treat it like the asbestos in the roof - totally OK unless it gets disturbed.

As a product of the National Health Service I had a mouthful of fillings by the time I was 14 whether I needed them or not; my dentist got struck off in the late 70's because of filling the mouths of school children with fillings which were proven to be unnecessary and making a very good living off it via the tax payer who ultimately paid the bill. We all hated going to the dentist. It was never one filling, it was always 4 or 5. Every 6 months. Thankfully he was caught out and stopped, but there are hundreds, probably thousands of people who just like me were sent to him twice a year (in my case from the age of 8 to 14) and now have terrible, terrible teeth. Fortunately I am in the position to have implants, I don't come from a wealthy area and most that I went to school with are still there and struggling to put food on the table who have had to get cheap government issue false teeth. Like so many people, I have to be in incredible agony or lose a front tooth before I'll go to a dentist.

I have more filling than tooth in most of them, and they can stay where they are.

Same.

I stopped going to my dentist from around the age of 15 and have never needed a filling since. All my molars are full of the awful mercury amalgam crap from visits before I was 15. My dentist later died in a yachting accident in the Solent. The boom of his boat swung across and decapitated him.

Kharma. You do not really need to pee on the floor.

[FolkGuitar]

Great, but next time you use that diatribe leave Thalidomide out of the rant because the US FDA's rejection of Thalidomide was their finest hour not an example of their failures. It was European countries that approved Thalidomide, the US refused to approve it despite intense pressure.

Er..... You may want to check your facts....

"On May 26, 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval for thalidomide"

The FDA does make mistakes, both positive and negative, and is constantly revising their stance. The latest has been the approval of arsenic in the poultry industry. Once approved, it is now under scrutiny with intent to ban its use in chicken production.

As for criticizing someone else's fact checking. It's kind of laughable coming from someone who apparently finds it impossible to concede that he was repeatedly wrong except in an ambiguous and sarcastic way. "I'll take your word for it" really doesn't cut it.

Sure it does.

And I'll stand firmly behind my original statement that the FDA does make mistakes. Repeatedly makes mistakes.

You can take my word for it.

[suzannegoh]

Great, but next time you use that diatribe leave Thalidomide out of the rant because the US FDA's rejection of Thalidomide was their finest hour not an example of their failures. It was European countries that approved Thalidomide, the US refused to approve it despite intense pressure.

Er..... You may want to check your facts....

"On May 26, 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval for thalidomide"

The FDA does make mistakes, both positive and negative, and is constantly revising their stance. The latest has been the approval of arsenic in the poultry industry. Once approved, it is now under scrutiny with intent to ban its use in chicken production.

The problem with Thalidomide was in the early 60's when it was used as a remedy for morning sickness in pregant women and it wound up causing horrendous birth defects. If it was "fast tracked" 40 years later for treatment of some cancers, that is interesting but irrelevent. Since that fast-tracking, how many of those cancer patients have had flipper babies?

But I'm not denying tgat the FDA makes mistakes. What's strange us that the FDA seems to agree with you on the topic if this thread (that mercury in dental filling shouldn'tvve removed) but yet you are going on about the FDA being idiotic and citing examples that don't enen remotely support that contention. Maybe you are knowlegable about something, but it sure isn't this.

Edited January 15, 2016 by suzannegoh

[suzannegoh]

Seems to me and my total lack of understanding that I should treat it like the asbestos in the roof - totally OK unless it gets disturbed.

As a product of the National Health Service I had a mouthful of fillings by the time I was 14 whether I needed them or not; my dentist got struck off in the late 70's because of filling the mouths of school children with fillings which were proven to be unnecessary and making a very good living off it via the tax payer who ultimately paid the bill. We all hated going to the dentist. It was never one filling, it was always 4 or 5. Every 6 months. Thankfully he was caught out and stopped, but there are hundreds, probably thousands of people who just like me were sent to him twice a year (in my case from the age of 8 to 14) and now have terrible, terrible teeth. Fortunately I am in the position to have implants, I don't come from a wealthy area and most that I went to school with are still there and struggling to put food on the table who have had to get cheap government issue false teeth. Like so many people, I have to be in incredible agony or lose a front tooth before I'll go to a dentist.

I have more filling than tooth in most of them, and they can stay where they are.

Your analogy to asbestos is good.

[FolkGuitar]

But I'm not denying tgat the FDA makes mistakes. What's strange us that the FDA seems to agree with you on the topic if this thread (that mercury in dental filling shouldn'tvve removed) but yet you are going on about the FDA being idiotic and citing examples that don't enen remotely support that contention. Maybe you are knowlegable about something, but it sure isn't this.

You still don't get it, do you... I agree with what the FDA says on this issue because I've researched it and discovered that there is a preponderance of tests results that confirm it, performed by dozens of different organizations, NOT 'because' the FDA says so. In this particular topic, while the FDA does take the same position that I take, my information comes from far more sources than just the FDA.

All I'm saying is that simply because the FDA says it's something, it doesn't make it so. The FDA is simply a government rule-making body. It is not God. Listen to what it says, then listen to ten or twenty other sources to which the FDA may or may not listen. It's all to common a mistake to quickly espouse the pronouncements of the organization that confirms one's own beliefs. And usually, that's ALL anyone looks for when doing research. Even scientists usually run experiments to confirm their preconceived ideas rather than to explore both sides of an issue. Scientists readily admit this flaw in Scientific Method.

[suzannegoh]

But I'm not denying tgat the FDA makes mistakes. What's strange us that the FDA seems to agree with you on the topic if this thread (that mercury in dental filling shouldn'tvve removed) but yet you are going on about the FDA being idiotic and citing examples that don't enen remotely support that contention. Maybe you are knowlegable about something, but it sure isn't this.

You still don't get it, do you... I agree with what the FDA says on this issue because I've researched it and discovered that there is a preponderance of tests results that confirm it, performed by dozens of different organizations, NOT 'because' the FDA says so. In this particular topic, while the FDA does take the same position that I take, my information comes from far more sources than just the FDA.

All I'm saying is that simply because the FDA says it's something, it doesn't make it so. The FDA is simply a government rule-making body. It is not God. Listen to what it says, then listen to ten or twenty other sources to which the FDA may or may not listen. It's all to common a mistake to quickly espouse the pronouncements of the organization that confirms one's own beliefs. And usually, that's ALL anyone looks for when doing research. Even scientists usually run experiments to confirm their preconceived ideas rather than to explore both sides of an issue. Scientists readily admit this flaw in Scientific Method.

It's unfortunately common today for people to delude themelves into thinking that by doing Google searches they are doing medical or scientific research. For your next research project, try Googling the "Dunning-Kruger effect" Edited January 15, 2016 by suzannegoh

[FolkGuitar]

But I'm not denying tgat the FDA makes mistakes. What's strange us that the FDA seems to agree with you on the topic if this thread (that mercury in dental filling shouldn'tvve removed) but yet you are going on about the FDA being idiotic and citing examples that don't enen remotely support that contention. Maybe you are knowlegable about something, but it sure isn't this.

You still don't get it, do you... I agree with what the FDA says on this issue because I've researched it and discovered that there is a preponderance of tests results that confirm it, performed by dozens of different organizations, NOT 'because' the FDA says so. In this particular topic, while the FDA does take the same position that I take, my information comes from far more sources than just the FDA.

All I'm saying is that simply because the FDA says it's something, it doesn't make it so. The FDA is simply a government rule-making body. It is not God. Listen to what it says, then listen to ten or twenty other sources to which the FDA may or may not listen. It's all to common a mistake to quickly espouse the pronouncements of the organization that confirms one's own beliefs. And usually, that's ALL anyone looks for when doing research. Even scientists usually run experiments to confirm their preconceived ideas rather than to explore both sides of an issue. Scientists readily admit this flaw in Scientific Method.

It's unfortunately common today for people to delude themelves into thinking that by doing Google searches they are doing medical or scientific research. For your next research project, try Googling the "Dunning-Kruger effect"

No need. I'm well aware of the 'Dunning-Kruger effect.' I've made the effort to keep abreast of developments in HRM in the years since graduation. I'd like to think than anyone who's run successful businesses is aware of it, but sadly, all too many don't keep up with HRM updates, so only the younger folk who have recently graduated are aware of these studies. Unfortunately, the younger generation is often too busy patting themselves on the back for trying to show the more experienced people just how bright they are.

[arunsakda]

This fear about Hg in fillings is bunk, though up to you. You can probably find a Dentist willing to do unnecessary treatments.

Been attending a Dental Clinic in Los Angeles (as much as I can 2 or 3 times yearly as travel permits ) for almost 20 years. It was started by a UCLA Dentistry Professor

and the current director is also involved in UCLA, I think. (The kind of clinic where one afternoon a week is reserved for celebrities). It is an all-female practice by the way and they provide excellent care with no "up sell". I am positive if there was any danger at all using Amalgam they would have stopped years

ago. I use other Dentists for cleaning sometimes and have had good results in CM with exception of one pricy place often attended by Farangs where this one Dr. said I needed several l filings replaced. Went back to LA and Dr. told me the fillings were fine. Be careful of "up sell".

Edited January 16, 2016 by arunsakda

[ilostmypassword]

As for criticizing someone else's fact checking. It's kind of laughable coming from someone who apparently finds it impossible to concede that he was repeatedly wrong except in an ambiguous and sarcastic way. "I'll take your word for it" really doesn't cut it.

And I'll stand firmly behind my original statement that the FDA does make mistakes. Repeatedly makes mistakes.

No. Your original statement was

"Go with the one that costs the most. As mercury is used as a 'catalyst' in the formation of an amalgam, it leaves no residue. Such is the chemical definition of a 'catalyst.'

If it leaves no residue, all the hype about replacing them is simply a clever scam to cause people to pay for unneeded medical care. So as long as you're going to pay for something that you really don't need, you may as well pay as much as possible. (God, I just love logic! LOL!)"

It had nothing to do with the FDA.

Of course, what you've done is confuse statements of facts with judgement. So when the FDA says standard amalgam fillings are composed of various metals including mercury, that's a statement of fact. If it says that mercury fillings are safe, that's a judgement.. Presumably based on research and evidence, but still it can be leigtimately questioned. So the question remains, are you confused or confusing? Or both?

Edited January 16, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[FolkGuitar]

As for criticizing someone else's fact checking. It's kind of laughable coming from someone who apparently finds it impossible to concede that he was repeatedly wrong except in an ambiguous and sarcastic way. "I'll take your word for it" really doesn't cut it.

And I'll stand firmly behind my original statement that the FDA does make mistakes. Repeatedly makes mistakes.

No. Your original statement was

"Go with the one that costs the most. As mercury is used as a 'catalyst' in the formation of an amalgam, it leaves no residue. Such is the chemical definition of a 'catalyst.'

If it leaves no residue, all the hype about replacing them is simply a clever scam to cause people to pay for unneeded medical care. So as long as you're going to pay for something that you really don't need, you may as well pay as much as possible. (God, I just love logic! LOL!)"

It had nothing to do with the FDA.

Of course, what you've done is confuse statements of facts with judgement. So when the FDA says standard amalgam fillings are composed of various metals including mercury, that's a statement of fact. If it says that mercury fillings are safe, that's a judgement.. Presumably based on research and evidence, but still it can be leigtimately questioned. So the question remains, are you confused or confusing? Or both?

Please go argue with someone else. Don't bore me with semantics.

[ilostmypassword]

As for criticizing someone else's fact checking. It's kind of laughable coming from someone who apparently finds it impossible to concede that he was repeatedly wrong except in an ambiguous and sarcastic way. "I'll take your word for it" really doesn't cut it.

And I'll stand firmly behind my original statement that the FDA does make mistakes. Repeatedly makes mistakes.

No. Your original statement was

"Go with the one that costs the most. As mercury is used as a 'catalyst' in the formation of an amalgam, it leaves no residue. Such is the chemical definition of a 'catalyst.'

If it leaves no residue, all the hype about replacing them is simply a clever scam to cause people to pay for unneeded medical care. So as long as you're going to pay for something that you really don't need, you may as well pay as much as possible. (God, I just love logic! LOL!)"

It had nothing to do with the FDA.

Of course, what you've done is confuse statements of facts with judgement. So when the FDA says standard amalgam fillings are composed of various metals including mercury, that's a statement of fact. If it says that mercury fillings are safe, that's a judgement.. Presumably based on research and evidence, but still it can be leigtimately questioned. So the question remains, are you confused or confusing? Or both?

Please go argue with someone else. Don't bore me with semantics.

Which I guess is your way of admitting you've been massively in error and dishonest about it.

Edited January 16, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[FolkGuitar]

And I'll stand firmly behind my original statement that the FDA does make mistakes. Repeatedly makes mistakes.

No. Your original statement was

"Go with the one that costs the most. As mercury is used as a 'catalyst' in the formation of an amalgam, it leaves no residue. Such is the chemical definition of a 'catalyst.'

If it leaves no residue, all the hype about replacing them is simply a clever scam to cause people to pay for unneeded medical care. So as long as you're going to pay for something that you really don't need, you may as well pay as much as possible. (God, I just love logic! LOL!)"

It had nothing to do with the FDA.

Of course, what you've done is confuse statements of facts with judgement. So when the FDA says standard amalgam fillings are composed of various metals including mercury, that's a statement of fact. If it says that mercury fillings are safe, that's a judgement.. Presumably based on research and evidence, but still it can be leigtimately questioned. So the question remains, are you confused or confusing? Or both?

Please go argue with someone else. Don't bore me with semantics.

Which I guess is your way of admitting you've been massively in error and dishonest about it.

No. It's my way of saying please go argue with someone else. Don't bore me with semantics. .

[suzannegoh]

This fear about Hg in fillings is bunk, though up to you. You can probably find a Dentist willing to do unnecessary treatments.

Been attending a Dental Clinic in Los Angeles (as much as I can 2 or 3 times yearly as travel permits ) for almost 20 years. It was started by a UCLA Dentistry Professor

and the current director is also involved in UCLA, I think. (The kind of clinic where one afternoon a week is reserved for celebrities). It is an all-female practice by the way and they provide excellent care with no "up sell". I am positive if there was any danger at all using Amalgam they would have stopped years

ago. I use other Dentists for cleaning sometimes and have had good results in CM with exception of one pricy place often attended by Farangs where this one Dr. said I needed several l filings replaced. Went back to LA and Dr. told me the fillings were fine. Be careful of "up sell".

Are you single and good looking? If so, I would like to have an empty-headed trophy husband hanging on my arm. Otherwise, perhaps you should consider taking some chemistry or metallurgy courses before trying to pass yourself off as an expert again. Clearly you are a fraud; you're not fooling anyone.

[ilostmypassword]

Please go argue with someone else. Don't bore me with semantics.

Which I guess is your way of admitting you've been massively in error and dishonest about it.

No. It's my way of saying please go argue with someone else. Don't bore me with semantics. .

When someone invokes semantics, it's usually done to signal that the distinctions are subtle. Here they are not. Let me put it in simpler terms that you may be able to understand. Miss X owns a horse. She says that the horse is brown. If the horse is, in fact, brown, then it's a statement of fact. If Miss X says the horse is going to win lots of races, that's a judgement call. Not a statement of fact. When the FDA says that amalgam is composed of mercury and other metals, that's a statement of fact. If the FDA says amalgam is not harmful, that's a judgement call. They probably have lots of evidence to support their position, but, still, it's possible that they're wrong. Are you getting any of this or do I have to resort to pictures?