Poison in the Mouth — The Dangers of Dental Amalgam

This video clip provides a great basis for the science behind the concern over mercury amalgam fillings. Proponents of mercury in dentistry will often argue that there is no research that shows that mercury amalgam is dangerous. That same argument was made about asbestos 20 years ago — that it’s safe until proven hazardous.

This video — clipped from the BBC’s Poison in the Mouth — provides the science behind the hazard.

Dental amalgams were first introduced in 1833 but many dentists refused to implant them due to the mercury. In 1843, the American Society of Dental Surgeons declared the use of dental amalgam a malpractice(!) and forced its members to abstain from using amalgams.

Proponents of amalgam continued to claim that dental amalgam was safe because it was supposedly inert in the filling. As dental amalgam was less expensive and easier to work with than standard gold fillings, it was not long before dental amalgam was routinely used by most dentists.

In 1926, Dr. Alfred Stock showed that mercury vapor escapes from amalgam fillings and that this could cause significant health damage. The American Dental Association (ADA) vigorously defended dental amalgam as being safe and its widespread use was continued.

In 1986, the ADA finally admitted that mercury vapor escapes from the amalgam fillings. But the ADA remained adamant that amalgams were safe, and in 1986 it changed its code of ethics, making it unethical for dentists to inform patients of the health risks of amalgams or to recommend removal of amalgams

In 2008 the FDA admitted that dental amalgam can cause health problems.

Norway, Denmark and Sweden have ended use of mercury fillings and many dental schools no longer teach mercury placement. Germany, Canada, and California require mercury toxicity warnings to be given to pregnant women.

There are healthier alternatives to dental amalgam such as composite resin (white) fillings, porcelain, and glass ionomers. Gold is not a good alternative as it produces electrical currents within your mouth.

Improve your health by having your amalgam fillings removed!

The mounting body of scientific evidence against dental amalgam is finally creating extensive public concern. It is only a matter of time before dental amalgam fillings are banned.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
This Video is Courtesy of HealthRanger7
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Dangers of Fluoride

I regularly get asked questions about the dangers of fluoride and water fluoridation (often misspelled as flouride and flouridation). In fact, one of my employees was recently speaking with me about the sodium fluoride drops his daughter’s pediatrician had prescribed.

In response to the questions and concerns, I’ve put together this article which is loaded with information about fluoride (flouride), symptoms of fluoridation, and the dangers of consuming fluoride.

I hope this helps answer your questions!

• The fluoride used for water fluoridation does not have FDA approval and is considered by the FDA as an “unapproved drug”. The proper use of any drug requires an understanding of how much is too much. Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, an estimated total intake of existing fluoride amounts is imperative. Research shows fluoridation is unnecessary since we’re already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association’s recommended daily amount.^#
• The chemicals used for fluoridation are not high purity, pharmaceutical quality products. Rather they are byproducts of aluminum and fertilizer manufacturing and contain a high concentration of toxins and heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and chromium. All proven to be carcinogens.^#
• Newsweek Magazine advised the public that “political decisions [about fluoridation] were at odds with expert advice” and “fluoride from your tap may not do much good-and may cause cancer.” Then, in 1992, Newsweek published another fluoride safety related article, “Is Science Censored?, a look at how political considerations influence what scientific studies get published.”^#
• The first noticeable signs of excessive exposure to fluoride in contaminated water, air, and food products include discolorations of the enamel. Dental fluorosis during tooth growth and loss of dentition in adulthood are two consequences of chronic intoxication with fluorine compounds. Abnormalities in mineralization processes affect by and large the osteoarticular system and are associated with changes in the density and structure of the bone presenting as irregular mineralization of the osteoid.^*
• Children’s sodium fluoride anti-cavity supplements were never found safe or effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They were never even tested.

  So why are these prescription drugs allowed despite no FDA approval? Because fluoride supplements were “grandfathered in” before the 1938 law was enacted requiring drug testing.

  So, products on the market before 1938 were presumed safe by the FDA who allowed grandfathered drugs to be sold without any testing. Once a drug is on the market for any reason, doctors can use them to treat any disease or condition.

  Sodium fluoride was on the market pre-1938, but not to stop cavities and not for any medical reason. Sodium fluoride sold as a rat poison.

  So, in effect, the FDA says – since sodium fluoride safely and effectively killed rats before 1938, the FDA considers it is safe to give to little children to prevent tooth decay.From a 1951 American Dental Association brochure:
  “There is no proof that commercial preparations such as tablets, dentifrices, mouthwashes or chewing gum containing fluorides are effective in preventing dental decay. Unfortunately such preparations are being offered to the public without adequate scientific evidence of their value.”^*

• 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.^{^}
• Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and ’50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride’s “predominant effect is posteruptive and topical” (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.^{^}
• Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride’s benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

  Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses attainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

  • Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)
  • Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)
  • Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)
  • Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as “biologically plausible.” Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)
  • Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)^{^}

I hope this helps answer some of your questions about fluoride, fluoridation, and fluorosis. If there are questions this article didn’t answer, please leave me a comment and I’ll be happy to do my best to provide ou with the info you’re looking for!

---

Sources:

^{# http://www.nofluoride.com}

^{* http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/}

^{^ http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm}

^{1. Featherstone JDB. (2000). The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association. 131: 887-899. (Additional references available at: www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html )}

^{2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review. (MMWR). August 17. 50(RR14):1-42.7. National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p. 173-188.}

^{8. Varner JA, et al. (1998). Chronic Administration of Aluminum-Fluoride and Sodium-Fluoride to Rats in Drinking Water: Alterations in Neuronal and Cerebrovascular Integrity.Brain Research. 784: 284-298.}

^{9. Lin Fa-Fu, et al. (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter. Vol. 7. No. 3.}

^{10. Xiang Q, et al. (2003a). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94; 198-199.}

^{11. NRC (2006). p. 189-224.}

^{12. NRC (2006). p. 107-148.}

^{13. National Toxicology Program. (1990). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C.}

^{14. Hoover RN, et al. (1991). Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute In: Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks. US Public Health Service. Appendix E & F.}

^{15. Cohn PD. (1992). A Brief Report On The Association Of Drinking Water Fluoridation And The Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males. New Jersey Department of Health Environ. Health Service: 1- 17.}

^{16. Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. (2006). Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-8.}

^{17. Johnson W, et al. (1979). Fluoridation and bone disease in renal patients. In: E Johansen, DR Taves, TO Olsen, Eds. Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides. AAAS Selected Symposium. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. pp. 275-293.}

^{18. Ittel TH, et al. (1992). Effect of fluoride on aluminum-induced bone disease in rats with renal failure. Kidney International 41: 1340-1348.}

^{19. Ayoob S, Gupta AK. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review on the Status and Stress Effects. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 36:433–487}

About Dr. Marvin

Dr. Irineo Marvin Pantangco, III — Dr. Marvin — is a holistic dentist with a passion for a natural approach to dental care.  He has spent countless hours educating himself and his patients on the most effective, holistic dentistry available.

Dr. Marvin participates in numerous organizations designed to spread the word on basic nutrition, mercury awareness, gum disease awareness, and whole-body dentistry.
Dr. Marvin has spent years of his life exploring the links between gum disease and systemic disease and, consequently, developing natural solutions (www.BreathDr.com) to the real demands of oral hygiene and dental health.

On the lighter side, Dr. Marvin loves sports, nature, and hanging out with his wife, Rhea, and two daughters, Olivia and Sophia, and son Quincy. The whole family is wellness-minded and enjoys living the San Diego lifestyle. He’s a ordinary person just like you – engaged in the world around us and interested in its people, places and things.

Background and Education

Inventor:
BreathDr Tongue Scraper
BreathDr Mouthwash
BreathDr Breath Spray
Breath Optimizer System (BreathOptimizer.com)

Professional Associations:
International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology  — www.IAOMT.com
Holistic Dental Association — www.HolisticDental.org
The Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation  — www.ppnf.org
American Dental Association
California Dental Association
San Diego District Dental Society
International Association of Mercury Safe Dentists

Education:
Case Western Reserve University, BA in Chemistry — 1997
Ohio State University, College of Dentistry, D.D.S. — 2000
University of Texas, Health Science Center, San Antonio School of Dentistry, Certificate, Advanced Education in General Dentistry — 2001

Teaching:
Associate Clinical Professor, University of Texas, Health Science Center, San Antonio School of Dentistry — 2001-2004

Mercury Toxicity: Now Is The Perfect Time To Get Rid Of The Poison

If you’ve ever wanted the best time to have your metal fillings (aka amalgams or mercury fillings) removed, then today is a good day to start… because just a few weeks ago, the Food and Drug Administration changed their pitiful stance on the toxic substance.

Previously, the FDA and American Dental Association agreed that mercury toxicity from dental amalgam fillings were safe, despite known facts about the toxicity in humans. Debates over the safety of amalgam fillings have been staged for decades with many individuals, doctors and dentists included, rallying against the placement of these poisonous fillings.

However, the stubbornness of these large associations still insisted (until a few weeks ago) that it is unlawful for dentist and other medical providers to recommend removing mercury fillings for “health”reasons.

But, since being sued, the FDA has changed their view “slightly” on the topic and it shows on their website. We hope to see the ADA and state dental boards changing their stance.

What does this mean to you?

Well… now you can go to your dentist and have them removed without the dentist fearing litigation. You can have your amalgams removed for the purpose of health. Run a google search on mercury toxicity or visit

IAOMT International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology …

for more information.

This association actually has a protocol for removing amalgams safely. Unfortunately, about 99% of dentists don’t follow up but I’m optimistic they will in the near future with this ruling.

A couple features of the protocol involve a change in technique when removing amalgams… such as using a rubber dam and breaking the fillings in large chunks. You should also have a mercury vapor ionizer because it has shown that the most mercury is removed during placement and removal of the filling.

Because of this recently news, I’m going to dig deeper into the subject and determine what I can do to help my patients to safely remove the mercury fillings. I may also write a report about it… we’ll see. It depends on how much time I have in the coming weeks. If you want to be notified, just sign up for my newsletter.

Dr. Marvin