Mercury Study Report to Congress
The Mercury Study Volumes are portable document format (PDF) files.
If you click on one of the files below and are not able to
automatically read the text, there is free software available to
everyone on the Internet called Adobe Acrobat Reader that will allow
you to view these files. Note that Version 3 of the Adobe Acrobat
Reader is required for viewing these documents; older versions may
have problems properly reading the files.
Click here for tips on how obtain and use this software.

EPA's Report to Congress on Mercury is an eight volume document. Our
short overview gives a concise summary of the report.

The Mercury White Paper is an additional summary document related to
the Mercury Study. This 5 page document describes EPA's recent,
ongoing, and planned actions to reduce mercury pollution.

The eight volumes of the December 1997 report are also now available:

Volume I: Executive Summary (PDF 1mb)
Volume II: An Inventory of Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the
United States (PDF 1mb)
Volume III: Fate and Transport of Mercury in the Environment (PDF 4mb)
Volume IV: An Assessment of Exposure to Mercury in the United States
(PDF 1mb)
Volume V: Health Effects of Mercury and Mercury Compounds (PDF 1mb)
Volume VI: An Ecological Assessment for Anthropogenic Mercury
Emissions in the United States (PDF 2mb)
Volume VII: Characterization of Human Health and Wildlife Risks from
Mercury Exposure in the United States (PDF 727k)
Volume VIII: An Evaluation of Mercury Control Technologies and Costs
(PDF 826k)

The Report provides an assessment of the magnitude of U.S. mercury
emissions by source, the health and environmental implications of
those emissions, and the availability and cost of control
technologies. As the state-of-the-science for mercury is continuously
and rapidly evolving, this Report should be viewed as a "snapshot" of
our current understanding of mercury.

The Mercury Study is a very large document (approximately 2000 pages
in total). It is not yet available in hard copy, but will be
available in the coming months through the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS) for a cost of approximately $300. We will
post the NTIS number on this web page when the report becomes
available. However, you can obtain all eight volumes (including the
Executive Summary) of the Mercury Study from this web page in
electronic format which can be viewed online or downloaded and
printed if desired.

http://www.epa.gov/oar/mercury.html


Environmental Medicine, Part Three: Long-Term Effects of Chronic Low-
Dose Mercury Exposure
Walter J. Crinnion, ND

http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/fulltext/enviro5-3.html

The optic nerve is the nerve of vision. It carries images of what we
see coded as electrical impulses, from our eye to our brain. The
optic nerve is like a cable of electrical wires, and consists of
about 1,200,000 separate tiny wires, or nerve fibers. Each of these
carries a part of the information. If some or all of the nerve fibers
do not do their job, our vision becomes blurred.

Optic neuritis is the medical term used to describe an inflammation
of the optic nerve. The nerve tissue becomes swollen and red, and the
nerve fibers do not work properly. If many of the nerve fibers are
involved, the vision may be very poor, but if the optic neuritis is
mild, vision is nearly normal. Many diseases and conditions may cause
optic neuritis, which may affect the optic nerve of one or both eyes.

Some people, especially children, develop optic neuritis following a
virus illness such as mumps, measles, or a cold. In others, optic
neuritis may occur as a sign of a neurologic disease affecting nerves
in various parts of the body. In a rare condition called Leber's
optic neuropathy, which often runs in families, a special kind of
optic neuritis may appear in both eyes within a short span of time.
Most of the time, however, we cannot discover a cause for optic
neuritis. In those cases, we call the neuritis idiopathic, meaning
that no particular cause can be found.

Optic neuritis usually comes on suddenly, and the patient notices
vision is blurred in one or both eyes. The vision is also dim, like
somebody turned down the lights, and colors may appear to be washed
out. There may be pain in the area of the eye socket, especially when
moving the eyes. The vision may continue to get worse over a week or
two, and may seem worse after exercising or a hot bath.

A careful description of these symptoms is important to your doctor
in the diagnosis of optic neuritis. Since the optic nerve enters the
back of the eye where it appears as a small disc, your eye doctor can
examine it by looking in your eye with a special instrument called an
ophthalmoscope. Swelling of the optic nerve may or may not be visible
depending on whether the optic neuritis is affecting the optic nerve
near the eyeball.


OPTIC NEURITIS

Since optic neuritis can be confused with many other causes of poor
vision, an accurate medical diagnosis is important. If a cause can be
found and treated, further damage may be prevented. Ultrasound, CT
scans or visual brain wave recordings might be ordered. Other tests
which may be performed include color vision, side vision, and pupil
reactions to light.

Unfortunately, there is no good treatment for optic neuritis.
Cortisone-like medications (steroids) can be prescribed, but in most
cases they are not effective. Fortunately, most patients with optic
neuritis improve without treatment. In some cases, the vision may
return to normal. In other cases, good but incomplete improvement
occurs. A few patients fail to recover normal vision, especially
those with special conditions.


http://www.grolaser.com/laservisioncorrection/patienteducation/opticne
uritis.html


http://www.djo.harvard.edu/OA/ON/ON.html

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
  A Review of Optic Neuritis

Ken Graham M.D.
Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary,
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA .
Joseph Rizzo M.D.
Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary,
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA

Address correspondence to:
Ken Graham M.D.
Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School
243 Charles Street
Boston, MA 02114



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------


PURPOSE



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------


Optic neuritis is inflammation of the optic nerve. The cause of the
inflammation and the most appropriate treatment is a subject of
debate. This article will review a typical case of optic neuritis,
the clinicalmanifestations of optic neuritis, and the findings of the
Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial.

INTRODUCTION



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------


Optic neuritis is a serious condition which typically involves
theyoung adult population. Years ago it was thought that one third
ofoptic neuritis patients would go on to have neurological symptoms
frommultiple sclerosis (MS). More recent long term studies indicate
that over decades the risk of developing MS is much higher.(1)
Ophthalmologists must be alert to the symptoms of optic neuritis
andthey must be aware of the more serious complications to which
these symptoms are linked

CASE PRESENTATION



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------


A 30 year old caucasian man presented with 2 weeks of gradually
worsening vision in his left eye.

History of present illness:

The patient had been seen once by a neurologist 2 years previously
for flashes. At that time a head CT was normal. The patient was lost
to follow up with the neurologist, but the flashes had continued for
the 2 year period. The patient has a history of color blindness. The
patient also reported posterior pressure and tightness with left eye
movement for the past week. The patient reported his vision in the
left eye worsened when showering. The patient did not experience
visual changes with activity or movement. Patient denied a history of
trauma, redness, discharge or headache.

Past medical history: negative

Social history: negative

Medications: none

No known drug allergies

Examination:

The exam revealed a vision of 20/20 OD and 20/30 OS. The patient was
only able to get the control plate correct on the color plates in
both eyes consistent with his history of color blindness. The
external exam revealed no ptosis, and no resistance to retropulsion.
His pupils were reactive to light, changing from 4 to 2mm
symmetrically. There was a left afferent pupillary defect. Hertel
measurement with a base of 102 was 19 OD and 18 OS. Extraocular
movements were full OU, though the patient reported a "tight" feeling
on OS abduction. Tension was 15 OU. Slit lamp exam was normal OU.
Dilated exam was normal OU with no disc edema. Humphrey visual fields
showed an inferior altitudinal defect OS ( Fig 1and 2).



Figure 1. Humphrey visual field OD.

Figure 2. Humphrey visual field OS.

One week follow up:

The patient reported continued decreasing vision OS. The exam
revealed visual acuity of 20/20 OD and 20/400 OS. The OS afferent
pupillary defect remained. The rest of the exam was the same.
Goldmann visual fields were done and showed a central scotoma OS
(slide 3).



Figure 3.Goldmann Visual Field OS.

A MRI was done at this time and showed inflammation of the left optic
nerve (slide 4), and white matter hyperintensity of the left
occipital (slide 5) and right frontal(slide 6) lobes. Possible
treatment with corticosteroids was discussed with the patient. He
chose to be observed with no corticosteroid treatment.



Figure 4. MRI demonstrating optic nerve white matter hyperintensity.

Figure 5. MRI demonstrating left occipital lobe hyperintensity.



Figure 6. MRI demonstrating right frontal lobe hyperintensity.

One month follow up:

The patient reported marked recovery of vision OS, but had some
blurring in bright sunlight. The patient was on no medications. His
vision was 20/20 OU. There was no afferent pupillary defect and
no "tightness" on eye movement. The rest of the exam was unchanged. A
Humphrey visual field showed improvement in the central scotoma .

CLINICAL MANIFESTATION



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------


Optic neuritis typically presents with a triad of symptoms: loss of
vision, dyschromatopsia and eye pain. The initial attack is
unilateral in 70% of adult patients and bilateral in 30%. The mean
age of onset of optic neuritis is in the third decade of life, but
can occur from the first to the seventh decades. The annual incidence
of optic neuritis ranges from 1.4 to 6.4 new cases per 100,000
population. (2,3) Associated visual symptoms are reduced perception
of light intensity and Uhthoff's symptom (visual deficit induced by
exercise or increased body temperature).(4)

The visual loss may be subtle or profound. Complete loss of vision
may be caused by a single plaque. In some cases the vision may be
20/20 with the only symptoms being blurred vision on exertion or
other isolated symptoms.(5) The rate of visual decline varies. Visual
loss may occur over hours (rarely) to days (most commonly). The nadir
is usually about 1 week after the onset.(6)

The prognosis for visual recovery is usually good. The majority of
patients (65-80%) recover visual acuity of 20/30 or better.(7,8) Most
cases will recover visual acuity in a few months, although the
patients will often report some residual visual defect. There have
been reported residual abnormalities in contrast sensitivity, color
vision, visual field loss, and light brightness.(9-12)

In a patient with optic neuritis, the vision may improve, but the
risk for development of multiple sclerosis is high. This risk does
not decrease over time.(1) In the past a number of patients have been
treated with oral or intravenous corticosteroids in the hope of
improving visual recovery and decreasing the incidence of multiple
sclerosis. To help resolve the controversy of corticosteroids, the
Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial was formed.


OPTIC NEURITIS TREATMENT TRIAL



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------


The Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial (ONTT) was a multicenter study in
which 389 patients with acute optic neuritis were randomly assigned
to one of three treatment groups. The first group was given oral
prednisone (1 mg/kg daily) for 14 days. The second group was given
intravenous methylprednisolone, 250 mg four times daily for three
days, followed by oral prednisone for 14 days. The third group was
given an oral placebo for 14 days.

The eligibility criteria for the ONTT selected for patients with
typical clinical features of optic neuritis. These criteria were: age
range of 18 to 46 years; acute unilateral optic neuritis with visual
symptoms of 8 days or less; a relative afferent pupillary defect and
a visual field defect in the affected eye; no previous episodes of
optic neuritis in the affected eye; no previous corticosteroid
treatment for optic neuritis or multiple sclerosis; and no systemic
disease other than multiple sclerosis that might be associated with
optic neuritis.(13)

All patients in the ONTT had blood testing to exclude collagen
vascular disease (antinuclear antibody), syphilis (FTA-ABS), and a
chest x-ray to detect sarcoidosis. A lumbar puncture was optional and
was performed in 141 patients. Antinuclear antibody was positive in a
titer 1:320 or greater in 3% of patients. Of these patients, only one
developed a connective tissue disease in the first two years of
follow up. FTA-ABS was positive in 1.3% of the patients, and none
were judged to have syphilis. A chest x-ray did not show evidence of
sarcoidosis in any patients. CSF analysis never yielded unsuspected
information. Based on these results, chest x-ray, blood tests, and
lumbar puncture are deemed not to be necessary in evaluating patients
with typical clinical features of optic neuritis.

The efficacy of corticosteroid therapy in optic neuritis has been
controversial. The ONTT showed that intravenous methylprednisolone
followed by oral prednisone speeds the recovery of visual loss, but
there were no significant differences in visual acuity comparing the
three groups at 6 months. Unexpectedly, oral prednisone was found to
increase the risk of recurrent optic neuritis. Thus, treatment with
oral prednisone in standard doses is no longer advised.

The ONTT also evaluated the relationship between optic neuritis and
multiple sclerosis. A standardized detailed neurologic examination
was performed at study entry, at 6 months, at 1 year and then yearly.
Clinically definite multiple sclerosis was diagnosed when new
neurologic symptoms developed that were attributable to demyelination
in one or more regions of the central nervous system. Treatment with
the intravenous followed by oral corticosteroid regimen reduced the
rate of development of MS during the first 2 years. This was
particularly evident in patients with three or more brain MRI signal
abnormalities consistent with demyelination in locations
characteristic of MS. By 3 years, this treatment effect had subsided.

The ONTT therefore recommends obtaining a brain MRI to assess the
risk of developing MS. The MRI is used to assist in the decision of
whether to use IV steroids. It is unknown if repeat IV steroids at 2
years would continue to affect the rate of development of MS. Other
prospective studies using beta interferon are currently in progress.
(14)

REFERENCES



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------


1. Rizzo JF, Lessell S: Risk of developing multiple sclerosis after
uncomplicated optic neuritis: A long term prospective study.
Neurology 38:185-190, 1988.

2. Brewis M, Poskanzer DC, Rolland C, et al: Neurological disease in
an English city. Acta Neurol Scand 42 (Suppl 24):1, 1965.

3. Wray SH: Optic Neuritis. Principles and Practice of Ophthalmology.
Volume 4, 2539-2568.

4. Percy AK, Nobrega FT, Kurland LT: Optic neuritis and multiple
sclerosis. Arch Ophthalmol 87:135,1972.

5. Nikoskelainen E: Symptoms, signs and early course of optic
neuritis. Acta Ophthalmol 53:254, 1975.

6. Lillie WI: The clinical significance of retrobulbar and optic
neuritis. Am J Ophtahlmol 17:110, 1934.

7. Perkin GD, Rose CF: Optic Neuritis and its Differential Diagnosis.
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1979, p 206.

8. Celesia GG, Kaufman DI, Brigell M, et al: Optic neuritis: A
prospective study. Neurology 40:919, 1990.

9. Sanders EACM, Volkers ACW, van der Poel JC, et al: Estimation of
visual function after optic neuritis: A comparison of clinical tests.
Br J Ophthalmol 70:918, 1986.

10. Griffin JF, Wray SH: Acquired color vision defects in retrobulbar
neuritis. Am J Ophthalmol 86:193, 1978.

11. Van Dalen JTW, Greve EL: Visual field defects in multiple
sclerosis. Neuro-ophthalmology 2:93, 1981.

12. Hess RF, Plant GT: The psychophysical loss in optic neuritis:
spatial and temporal aspects. In Optic Neuritis. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1986, p 109.

13. Beck RW, Cleary PA, et al: Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial. Arch
Ophthalmol 3:773-775, 1993.

14. Beck RW, Trobe JD: What we have learned from the Optic Neuritis
Treatment Trial. Ophthalmology 10:1504-1509, 1995.

NATURE CURE
   Neuritis
   Neuritis is one of the serious nervous disorders. It refers to an
inflammation of the nerves, involving a single nerve or a series of
nerves. At times, several different groups of nerves in various parts
of the body may be involved. This condition is known as polyneuritis.
It is also known as polyneuropathy, for strictly speaking, the
condition is not an inflammation, but a change in the state of the
nerves resulting in weakness, loss of the reflexes and changes of
sensation.
Symptoms
The main symptoms of neuritis are tingling, burning, and stabbing
pains in the affected nerves. IN severe cases, there may be numbness
and loss of sensation and paralysis of the nearby muscles. Thus a
temporary paralysis of the face may result from changes in the facial
nerves on the affected side. During the acute stage of this
condition, the patient may not be able to close the eyes due to loss
of normal tone and strength by the muscles on the affected side of
the face. Neuritis may also be caused by pernicious anaemia,
involving the nerves of the spine. The patient with this condition
may find it very difficult to walk in the dark.

Causes
The chief cause of neuritis is chronic acidosis, that is, excessive
acid condition of the blood and other body fluids. All the body
fluids should be alkaline in their reaction ,but when the acid waste
matter is continuously formed in the tissues over a long period due
to a faulty diet, it results in acidosis. Wrong habits of living ,
over work , etc., lower the tone of nervous system and contribute
towards neuritis. This disease can also result from a variety of
nutritional deficiencies and metabolic disturbances such as faulty
calcium metabolism, deficiencies of several B vitamins like B12, B6,
B1, pantothenic acid and B2 and general toxaemia.
Other causes of neuritis include a blow, a penetrating injury a bad
bruise or heavy pressure over a nerve trunk and dislocation and
fractures of the bones. Any violent muscular activity or over-
extension of the joint as in sprains may injure the nerves and cause
neuritis. The condition may also result from certain infections such
as tuberculosis, diptheria, tetanus, leprosy and diabetes mellitius,
poisoning with insecticides, mercury, lead, arsenic and alcohol.

Treatment
Treatment of neuritis by painkilling drugs may give temporary relief
but it does not remove the trouble effectively. The pain is relieved
for the time being at the cost of the health of other parts of the
body, especially the heart and the kidneys, and the neuritis remains.
The best treatment for neuritis is to ensure that the patient gets
optimum nutrition, well assimilated with all the vitamins and other
nutrients. The emphasis should be on whole grains, particularly whole
wheat,brown rice, raw and sprouted seeds, raw milk, especially in
soured form, and home-made cottage cheese.
In this regimen, the breakfast may consist of fresh fruits, a handful
of raw nuts or a couple of tablespoons of sunflower and pumpkin
seeds. Steamed vegetables, whole wheat, chappatis and a glass of
butter-milk may be taken for lunch. The dinner may comprise a large
bowl of fresh, green, vegetable salad, fresh home made cottage
cheese, fresh butter and a glass of butter milk.
In severe cases, the patient should be put on a short juice fast for
four or five days before being given the optimum diet. Carrot, beet,
citrus fruits, apple and pineapple may be used for juices.
All vitamins of the B group have proved highly beneficial in the
prevention and treatment of neuritis. The disorder has been helped
when vitamins B1, B2, B6, B12, and pantothenic acid have been given
together, and extreme pain,weakness and numbness in some cases have
been relieved within an hour.
The patient should avoid white bread, white sugar,refined cereals,
meat, fish, tinned foods, tea, coffee, and condiments which are at
the root of the trouble, by continuously flooding the tissues with
acid impurities.
Certain remedies have been found highly beneficial in the treatment
of neuritis. One such remedy is soyabean milk. A cupful of soyabean
milk mixed with a teaspoonful of honey should be taken every night in
this condition. It tones up the nervous system due to its rich
concentration of lecithin, vitamin B1 and glutanic acid. Soyabean
milk is prepared by soaking the beans in water for about 12 hours.
The skin of the beans is then removed and after a thorough wash, they
are turned into a fine paste in a grinding machine. The paste is
mixed with water, three times its quantity. The milk should then be
boiled on a slow fire, stirring it frequently. After it becomes
little cooler, it should be strained through a cheese cloth and sugar
added.
barley brew is another effective remedy for neuritis. It is prepared
by boiling one-quarter cup of all natural pearled barley in two
quarters of water. When the water has boiled down to about one
quarter, it should be strained carefully. For better results, it
should be mixed with butter-milk and lime juice.
Raw carrot and spinach have proved valuable in neuritis as both these
vegetables are rich in elements, the deficiency of which has led to
this disease. The quickest and most effective way in which the body
can obtain and assimilate these elements is by drinking daily at
least half a litre of the combined raw juices of carrot and spinach.
The patient should be given two or three hot Epsom-salt baths weekly.
He should remain in the bath for 25 to 30 minutes. The affected parts
should also be bathed several times daily in the hot water containing
Epsom salt - a table- spoon of salt to a cupful of hot water. The
patient should undertake walking and other moderate exercises.

http://www.healthlibrary.com/reading/ncure/chap65.htm

http://www.nationalmssociety.org/%5CSourcebook-Optic%20Neuritis.asp

http://www.dog.org/1999/e-abstract99/597.html




_______
Behavioral, Structural, Functional Abnormalities
associated with various Heavy Metal Toxins

Published in the August issue of Alternative & Complementary
Therapies
(a magazine for doctors) and Published in the April issue of Townsend
Letter for Doctor's & Patients.



http://www.extremehealthus.com/behavior.html

Neuritis
   Neuritis is one of the most serious nervous disorders. It refers to
an inflammation of the nerves, involving a single nerve or a series
of nerves. At times, several different groups of nerves in various
parts of the body may be involved. This condition is known as
polyneuritis. It is also known as polyneuropathy, for strictly
speaking, the condition is not an inflammation, but a change in the
state of the nerves resulting in weakness of the reflexes and changes
of sensation.
Symptoms
The main symptoms of neuritis are tingling and burning and stabbing
pains in the affected nerves. IN severe cases there may be numbness
and loss of sensation and paralysis of the nearby muscles. Thus,
temporary paralysis of the face may result from changes in the facial
nerves on the affected side. During the acute stage of this
condition, the patient may not be able to close the eyes due to loss
of normal tone and strength in the muscles on the affected side of
the face. Neuritis may also be caused by pernicious anaemia,
involving the nerves of the spine. The patient with this condition
may find it very difficult to walk in the darkness.

Causes
The chief cause of neuritis is chronic acidosis, that is, an
excessive acidic condition of the blood and other body fluids. All
the body fluids should be alkaline in their reaction, but when the
acid waste matter is continuously formed in the tissues over a long
period due to a faulty diet, it results in acidosis. Wrong habits of
living, over- work , etc., lower the tone of the nervous system and
contribute towards neuritis. The disease can also result form a
variety of nutritional deficiencies and metabolic disturbances such
as faulty calcium metabolism, deficiencies of several B vitamins like
B12, B6, B1, pantothenic acid and B2 and general toxaemia. Other
causes of neuritis include a blow, a penetrating injury, a bad bruise
or heavy pressure over a nerve trunk and dislocation or fracture of
the bones. Any violent muscular activity or over extension of the
joint as in sprains may injure the nerves and cause neuritis. The
condition may also result from certain infections such as
tuberculosis, diptheria, tetanus, leprosy and diabetes mellitus,
poisoning with insecticides, mercury, lead, arsenic and alcohol.


http://www.healthlibrary.com/reading/diet/neuritis.htm

Please  READ  all previous  messages  to  get answear to  ypur
question.



It all  was  presented  before.

Andy Hall  Cutler  should    get  the   NOBEL Price in medicine!





--- In adentalmercuryamalgam@y..., "RobertCartland"
<RobertCartland@o...> wrote:c
> Hi!
>
> I just joined this group.  I finished having my amalgams replaced
> about ten weeks ago and plan to start chelation with ALA in about a
> week.
>
> Have any of you folks tried it?  Are you folks familiar with the
> adult-metal-chelation AND the autism-mercury groups?
>
> Have you folks read Andy Cutler's book?
>
> -R

Acute mercury poisoning
Mercury poisoning differs from the other forms of metal poisoning in
that it causes neurological symptoms rather than digestive disorders.
The source of mercury poisoning is primarily contamination of food by
polluted water containing mercuric compounds from industrial waste or
organic mercury contained in some fungicides. Food or feed grains
treated with mercury-containing fungicides are a potential source for
transmission of the metal through both animal and cereal foods. The
onset time is one week or more, at which time the symptoms of
numbness, weakness of the legs, spastic paralysis and impaired vision
are noted. Blindness and coma are extreme symptoms of the poisoning.

Chronic mercury poisoning
The symptoms of low-level, chronic mercury exposure and toxicity can
be very general and difficult to diagnose based on symptoms alone. In
addition, individuals show varying levels of sensitivity to the
presence of mercury: amalgam removal may be very important in the
recovery process of one person, while for another it may be best to
leave the amalgams in place.

Mercury is usually targeted because it is the most common toxicity
that most people have - for example, amalgams in teeth contain over
50% mercury. The remainder is made up of silver and sometimes tin,
aluminum and other metals. The mercury escapes the amalgam as a vapor
and is breathed into the body of the person carrying the amalgam.



Signs, symptoms & indicators of Mercury Toxicity (Amalgam Illness):

http://www.digitalnaturopath.com/cond/C585969.html

Hi!

I just joined this group.  I finished having my amalgams replaced
about ten weeks ago and plan to start chelation with ALA in about a
week.

Have any of you folks tried it?  Are you folks familiar with the
adult-metal-chelation AND the autism-mercury groups?

Have you folks read Andy Cutler's book?

-R

Here are SOME  links:


http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=a004209

http://www.melisa.org

http://www.melisa.org/articles/index.html

http://www.melisa.org/articles/engel-e.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/neuroen.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/biomark.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/biomark2.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/nialler.pdf

http://www.bioprobe.com

http://www.cfspages.com/

http://www.state.hi.us/health/eh/heer/poison.html

http://hometown.aol.com/andycutler

TESTIMONIALS:

http://www.guestbook.de/yasg.cgi?X=20086&P=1

http://dir.yahoo.com/Health/Medicine/Dentistry/Amalgam/

http://vest.gu.se/~bosse/Mercury/Mouth/amalgamlinks.html

http://hometown.aol.com/Rjj5019/index.html http://www.web-
light.nl/AMALGAM/amalgam.html

http://www.altcorp.com/vimyresponds.htm

http://www.altcorp.com/amalgam.htm

http://www.dentalmercury.com/publications.html

http://lawschool.stanford.edu/library/special/dentalofficerequirements
.html

http://www.toxicteeth.net

http://www.web-light.nl/AMALGAM/EN/SCIENCE/sciencemain.html

http://lawschool.stanford.edu/library/special/dentalofficerequirements
.html

http://www.bioprobe.com/index.asp

http://www.udel.edu/OHS/dartmouth/drtmtharticle.html


Other  links:


http://www.sonic.net/kryptox/medicine/mullenix2.htm

http://www.state.hi.us/health/eh/heer/poison.html

http://www.heldref.org/html/Consensus.html

http://www.herc.org/news/mcsarticles/rowat.htm

http://www.california.com/~hawk/MCS-Ammunition.htm

http://home13.inet.tele.dk/mcscphdk/grafik/before.jpg

http://home13.inet.tele.dk/mcscphdk/grafik/after.jpg

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1018.2/mr1018.2.chap11.html

http://hometown.aol.com/noamalgam/

http://veterans.house.gov/hearings/schedule106/oct99/10-26-
99/miller.htm

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1018.2/

http://www.cfspages.com/

http://www.mcsrr.org/fedmcsgroup/fedmcsrec.html

http://www.sonic.net/kryptox/medicine/mullenix2.htm

http://www.state.hi.us/health/eh/heer/poison.html

http://www.heldref.org/html/Consensus.html

http://www.herc.org/news/mcsarticles/rowat.htm

http://www.california.com/~hawk/MCS-Ammunition.htm

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1990/9031_n.html

http://hometown.aol.com/andycutler

http://veterans.house.gov/hearings/schedule106/oct99/10-26-
99/miller.htm

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1018.2/

http://www.mcsrr.org/fedmcsgroup/fedmcsrec.html

http://www.melisa.org/hottopics/newnorway.html

http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/site.php3?
newTemplate=NSArticle_Ideas&newDisplayURN=200207010008


http://www.altcorp.com/AffinityLaboratory/SlideShows/bacttox/sld001.ht
m

http://www.who.int/pcs/training_material/hazardous_chemicals/section_3
.html

http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~mgonzalez/Micro521/24.html

http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~mgonzalez/Micro521/23.html

http://www.who.int/pcs/training_material/hazardous_chemicals/contents.
htm

http://www.khorrami.com/Cases%20Web/Gulf%20War/Gulf%20Intro.htm


One  more time   MUST read  ($ 35):

Amalgam Illness: Diagnosis and Treatment
  What you can do to get better
  How your doctor can help
  by Andrew Hall Cutler, PhD, PE
  ISBN 0-9676168-0-8

The legal position of the American Dental Association (ADA) on the
safety of mercury containing dental amalgam and the use
of the material by dentists in the United States was recently stated
as follows:

"The ADA owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from
allegedly dangerous products used by dentists.
The ADA did not manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-
containing amalgams. The ADA does not control those
who do. The ADA's only alleged involvement in the product was to
provide information regarding its use.
Dissemination of information relating to the practice of dentistry
does not create a duty of care to protect the public from
potential injury".
Source: Legal brief filed in 1995 by attorneys for the ADA in W.H.
Tolhurst vs. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Products, Inc.;
Engelhard Corporation; ABE Dental, Inc.; the American Dental
Association, et al., in the Superior Court of the State of
California,  in and for the County of Santa Clara, CA, Case No.
718228.

Some of the diseases a modern physician might mistakenly misdiagnose
chronic mercury poisoning as are:
Toxic Encephalopathy, Chronic fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome,
Autoimmune disorders and disease,
Multiple chemical sensitivities, (Environmental illness),
Fibromyalgia, Endocrine disorders, Thyroidsm,
Irritable bowel syndrome, High Blood pressure, Rheumatoid arthritis,
Food Sensitivities, Acne, Psoriorisis, Sciatica, Allergies,
Panic attacks, Anxiety, Colitis, Prothralgia, Parkinson's disease,
Amylotrophic lateral sclerosis, Alzheimer's' disease,
Hypothyroidism, Infertility, Neuropathy, Erectile dysfunction
disorder, Polineuropathy, Peripheral neuropathy,
Computer vision Syndrome, Alleged and frequently misdiagnozed
misdiagnosed for MENOPAUSE, Gastritis, Crohn's disease,
Addison's disease, Carpal Tunel, Tersal Tunel, Allergies,
Hypogonadism, Ankylosing spondylitis, Insomnia, Anorexia nervosa,
Juvenile arthritis Asthma, RAIDS, RADS, RUDS, Learning disabilities,
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,
Lupus erythromatosus, Manic depression, Bipolar disorder, Multiple
sclerosis, Bulimia, Myasthenia gravis, Sleep disorders,
Candidiasis, Yeast syndrome, Pervasive developmental disorder,
Depression, Psychosis, Obsessive-compulsive disorder,
Borderline personality disorder, Schizophrenia, ....  and  ALLEGED
and  misdiagnosed  as ....   MENOPAUSE!

And  ADA  sham:

http://www.ada.org/prof/pubs/daily/0206/0621wash.html




--- In adentalmercuryamalgam@y..., Jeena Whiteman <jeenadentist@y...>
wrote:
>
> Dental Resources on the Internet
> ================================
>
> Hi,
>
> List of Dental Related Internet Resources are ready for the
> benefit of this group. If you are interested to get your
> Free Copy by email, please visit the following site:
>
> http://www.ecommercedealers.com/dentist/free.htm
>
>>
> If you have Dental Related Websites, we will include it in our
> directory  and publish in our Website.
>
> Expecting your co-operation.
>
> Good Luck,
> Jeena,
>
> Dental Self Sufficiency By Robert O. Nara, D.D.S.
> http://hop.clickbank.net/?ecomdeal/mizar5
>
> How to Relieve Pain Naturally with The Gentle Touch
> http://hop.clickbank.net/?ecomdeal/gentltouch
>
> ---------------------------------
>

LAWSUIT CLAIMS LINK BETWEEN MERCURY-BASED THIMEROSAL EXPOSURE AND
SYMPTOMS SUFFERED BY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF GULF WAR VETERANS
Law Offices of Shawn Khorrami in association with Waters & Kraus have
filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court today, claiming
damages against 13 major pharmaceutical companies which manufactured,
distributed, marketed or sold  vaccines containing the mercury-based
preservative, Thimerosal.

The complaint was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs Frank Schmuck and
Andrea Schmuck, his wife. Frank Schmuck is a U.S. Air Force Captain
and a decorated Gulf War veteran.

The complaint may hold the answer to symptoms suffered by tens of
thousands of Gulf War veterans. It also has implications for any
segment of the population subject to frequent vaccines such as
children and senior citizens and current military personnel.  The
issues of mercury-based Thimerosal vaccines takes on special
significance now given the movement for increased vaccinations
amongst the general public due to recent bio-terrorism attacks.

The defendants in the complaint include Abbott Laboratories, American
Home Products, Wyeth, Aventis Pasteur, Bayer Corporation, Bioport
Corporation, Glaxosmithkline, King Pharmaceuticals, Medeva
Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co., Sigma-Aldrich Crop, Spectrum Chemical
Manufacturing Corp. and Stat Pharmaceuticals.  A jury trial is
demanded.

The complaint alleges a causal connection between symptoms suffered
by tens of thousands of Gulf War veterans, including Frank Schmuck,
and the mercury-based preservative, Thimerosal, in vaccines.  It
charges the drug companies with, among other things: Fraudulent
Misrepresentation,   Fraud and Deceit, Negligence, Strict Product
Liability,  Illegal and deceptive business practices,  and Loss of
Consortium.

As with all Gulf War veterans prior to, during, and after their
deployment to the Persian Gulf, the U.S. Air Force required Plaintiff
Captain Schmuck to receive vaccinations.   The Plaintiff's vaccine
regimen continued until as late as 1998.  After completing his
service, Frank Schmuck obtained employment as a pilot for a major
airline.

As a result of significant exposure to mercury through the Thimerosal
contained in the vaccines, the Plaintiff suffered serious toxic
injuries, including abnormal weight loss, gastrointestinal
inflammation, neurological and short-term memory loss and a tumor on
his liver, all symptoms that are common in many Gulf War veterans.
The effects were so severe that he could not continue his work as a
pilot.  Schmuck recovered his life and his job only after undergoing
a detox program for mercury poisoning.  The mercury-induced injuries
are the subject of the action, says Attorney Shawn Khorrami in the
complaint filed today.

The complaint does not find fault with the vaccines themselves.
Thimerosal is, was, and always has been nothing but a preservative.
The vaccines in question would have had their beneficial effects with
or without Thimerosal.  Thimerosal exists in the vaccine only to
increase profit margins by, among other things, allowing the drug
companies to sell vaccines in multi-dose vials, rather than single
dose ones.

Thimerosal's base ingredient is mercury, one of, if not the, most
toxic non-radioactive material known to man.  An overwhelming amount
of scientific data ranging from animal to human studies conclusively
document mercury's horrendous and devastating effects.  In fact, the
use of Thimerosal in childhood vaccines and their connection to
autism in infants was the subject of hearings at the House of
Representatives in June of 2000.  Thimerosal contains a particularly
toxic, organic form of Mercury.

Despite knowledge of the dangerous propensities of their products,
the Defendants continuously and deliberately concealed from or
otherwise misrepresented to doctors and to the consuming public the
efficacy of these products. The Defendants failed to advise doctors
or consumers that the usage of the Thimerosal-containing vaccines,
used in their ordinary fashion, could result in mercury poisoning.

The Plaintiff's complaint has ramifications to the public at
large. "It raises questions for anyone who is subject to regular
vaccines, especially children,"  Khorrami says. "It is especially
concerning now given the push for an increase in vaccination regimens
to the military and the general population in the wake of the 9-11
terrorist attacks."

The Plaintiff's complaint is filed amid the recent government
admission that service in the Gulf War has been linked to Lou
Gehrig's disease. It is the first time the government acknowledged a
scientific link between service in the Gulf and a specific disease.

Mercury poisoning through Thimersol-based vaccines and other products
administered to those in Gulf War service is a disability that could
have been avoided if the Defendants had been forthcoming.


Shawn Khorrami:
http://www.khorrami.com/Main%20Web/home/Home.htm

Dental Resources on the Internet
================================

Hi,

List of Dental Related Internet Resources are ready for the
benefit of this group. If you are interested to get your
Free Copy by email, please visit the following site:

http://www.ecommercedealers.com/dentist/free.htm

AOL Link: <a href="http://www.ecommercedealers.com/dentist/free.htm"> Click
Here</a>

If you have Dental Related Websites, we will include it in our
directory  and publish in our Website.

Expecting your co-operation.

Good Luck,
Jeena,

Dental Self Sufficiency By Robert O. Nara, D.D.S.
http://hop.clickbank.net/?ecomdeal/mizar5

How to Relieve Pain Naturally with The Gentle Touch
http://hop.clickbank.net/?ecomdeal/gentltouch





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Digital How To- Get the best out of your PC!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Although some of my symptoms have gone, I get new ones because I am
still highly toxic.
Any idea what to do about itching?
Lotions and potions don't work...is this another I have to sit out
as I chelate?

It's driving me nuts because it's bad I am ripping my skin to shreds.

Any ideas greatly appreciated...thanks

It's time for the so called profs to see the light...ya know I have
an autistic daughter too who had all her vaccines, and it's quite
amazing how MY symptoms were the same as hers, and at the time I
thought I was DIABETIC!

Louisa

Hi there,
I am currently mercury poisoned which showed up in my hair and nails.
I have started having my amalagams replaced (4 so far over 5 months)
at the same time I have been using natural chelation and my levels
have gone down by 4 points.
  I knew this was the case as some of my symptoms had gone, which is
why they ran some more tests.
Of course my levels are still abnormally high...but I see the light,
I din't have the choice this was the only way I could go, and I feel
lucky that I managed to detect it, because I was very close to being
diagnosed with the mystery illness MS?????

As for how difficult it is to rid yourself of mercury?
I would say it was more time consuming, and soul destroying for me
because it makes me feel dreadful...but I grin and bear it by
thinking, YAY that's a little more gone!

Louisa




--- In adentalmercuryamalgam@y..., "dimwitty2002" <philip@d...>
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I am a `Newbie'.
> If you thought that sypmptoms you have may be due to amalgam
fillings
> and had them replaced with `safe' filling, is it likely that your
> symptoms will retreat?
> I guess what I am asking is, will a certain level of mercury
always
> be there as a result of having the fillings in the first place. (I
> would guess there are minute quantities of mercury in water
supplies
> and certain foodstuffs anyway). Is it difficult for the body to
rid
> itself of mercury?
>
> Thanks
>
> DiMwItTY

http://www.lichtenberg.dk/

19.06.2002

US Congressional Committee hearing into vaccine safety and autism


The US Congress has commissioned a committee to investigate any
relationship betwen vaccines and neurological disorders such as
autism. Prof. Stejskal, head of the MELISA foundation, was called as
an expert witness to the Committee on Government Reform on 19 June,
2002. She suggested that thimerosal is the link, as hypesensitivity
to the mercury-based compound can lead to autism.

Congressman Dan Burton, the committee chairman, gave an opening
statement to explain the inquiry. The New Stateman, a UK political
magazine, ran an article about the hearing entitled "A modern mystery
deepens".


  Thimerosal - an allergen in our system

Testimony before the Committee on Government Reform
Vera Stejskal, Associated Professor of Immunology, University of
Stockholm

Soon to come!
A modern mystery deepens

Observations on autism by Rosie Waterhouse
From the New Stateman magazine (UK), 1 July 2002
This is an edited version. The full version is available from the New
Statesman website.

At a congressional inquiry in Washington into autism, five of
America's most senior public health officials have been grilled about
whether vaccines might be causing what the government reform
committee chairman, Dan Burton, called an 'epidemic' of autism in
children.

They were presented with a dossier of exhibits comprising copies of e-
mails, confidential minutes of meetings and other incriminating
documents, which one congressman, Dave Weldon, said amounted to
evidence of a cover-up. The public health authorities knew of the
possible health risks from mercury in vaccines years ago, the
documents showed, and had an emergency plan to remove it.

A secret study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), which was never published, showed children who had received
vaccines containing thimerosal - a preservative that is almost 50 per
cent mercury - were more than twice as likely to develop autism as
children who had not. The hearing, on 19 June, was part of an two-
year investigation into a dramatic rise in autism in the United
States, from one in 10,000 children reported ten years ago to one in
250 now.

The session was called to review research into possible causes of
autism, including the MMR vaccine and mercury. Mercury, the most
toxic substance humans are likely to be exposed to, is present in
some vaccines, but not the MMR.

Dr Arthur Krigsman, of the New York University School of Medicine,
has conducted tests on 43 autistic children. He found that 90 per
cent of them had the same inflammatory bowel disorders as Dr Andrew
Wakefield reported from his clinic at the Royal Free Hospital in
London.

Two of the researchers, Dr Vera Stejskal, professor of immunology at
the University of Stockholm, and Dr Jeff Bradstreet, a paediatrician
from Florida, put forward the hypothesis that, in some genetically
predisposed children, an accumulation of mercury damages the brain
and lowers immunity. This means that the body cannot cope with the
three live viruses in the MMR vaccine, thus triggering autism.

Next year, the British and American lawsuits begin. So far, all the
available studies into whether mercury and/or MMR cause autism, have
failed to prove a link. But they haven't disproved one either. We
need a thorough, independent, public or parliamentary inquiry, along
the lines of a US congressional hearing, to tell us about the
possible hazards of the government's vaccination programme - and
whether it is causing autism.

http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/site.php3?
newTemplate=NSArticle_Ideas&newDisplayURN=200207010008


A modern mystery deepens

Rosie Waterhouse

Monday 1st July 2002



Observations on autism by Rosie Waterhouse

At a congressional inquiry in Washington into autism, five of
America's most senior public health officials have been grilled about
whether vaccines might be causing what the government reform
committee chairman, Dan Burton, called an "epidemic" of autism in
children.

They were presented with a dossier of exhibits comprising copies of e-
mails, confidential minutes of meetings and other incriminating
documents, which one congressman, Dave Weldon, said amounted to
evidence of a cover-up. The public health authorities knew of the
possible health risks from mercury in vaccines years ago, the
documents showed, and had an emergency plan to remove it.

A secret study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), which was never published, showed children who had received
vaccines containing thimerosal - a preservative that is almost 50 per
cent mercury - were more than twice as likely to develop autism as
children who had not.

The hearing, on 19 June, was part of an two-year investigation into a
dramatic rise in autism in the United States, from one in 10,000
children reported ten years ago to one in 250 now.

The session was called to review research into possible causes of
autism, including the MMR vaccine and mercury. Mercury, the most
toxic substance humans are likely to be exposed to, is present in
some vaccines, but not the MMR.

In Britain, too, we are witnessing a significant increase in the
number of children diagnosed with autism, from one in 2,200 estimated
by the National Autistic Society in 1988 - when the MMR vaccine was
introduced - to one in 166 now.

Here, as in the US, a growing number of parents believe their
children were born and developed normally, but became autistic and
suffer the additional burden of a painful inflammatory bowel
disorder, because of vaccines. Many are taking legal action against
the manufacturers.

They will be using research that they claim supports their case,
including studies by Dr Andrew Wakefield, a consultant
gastroenterologist who first raised the possibility that the MMR
vaccine may be a contributory cause of autism and bowel disease in
children brought to his clinic at the Royal Free Hospital in London.

Wakefield has since been forced out of his job because government
ministers and health advisers have criticised his research
as "unscientific". But at the congressional inquiry in June, three
other scientists presented research findings that partially supported
Wakefield.

Dr Arthur Krigsman, of the New York University School of Medicine,
has conducted tests on 43 autistic children. He found that 90 per
cent of them had the same inflammatory bowel disorders as Wakefield
reported.

Two of the researchers, Dr Vera Stejskal, professor of immunology at
the University of Stockholm, and Dr Jeff Bradstreet, a paediatrician
from Florida, put forward the hypothesis that, in some genetically
predisposed children, an accumulation of mercury damages the brain
and lowers immunity. This means that the body cannot cope with the
three live viruses in the MMR vaccine, thus triggering autism.

In March, the British government announced a £2.5m research programme
into possible causes of autism. But the minister responsible, Jacqui
Smith, ruled out looking at whether MMR was implicated, because, she
said, that had already been investigated. But not thoroughly. Not
independently.

Next year, the British and American lawsuits begin. So far, all the
available studies into whether mercury and/or MMR cause autism, have
failed to prove a link. But they haven't disproved one either. We
need a thorough, independent, public or parliamentary inquiry, along
the lines of a US congressional hearing, to tell us about the
possible hazards of the government's vaccination programme - and
whether it is causing autism.






http://www.melisa.org/hottopics/thim.html

YOUR  condition WILL   improve, but it is  PERMANENT injury!


See: Solving The Puzzle of Mystery Syndromes

http://www.bioprobe.com/bookreviews/review.asp?review_id=10

This wonderful book is finally back in print and has been revised to
reflect current information.
Solving the Puzzle of Mystery syndromes Are Your Amalgam fillings the
Missing Piece?
By Mary Davis
This is a book written and put together by people whose quality of
life improved after having their amalgam dental fillings replaced
with non-mercury containing material. There are 50 case histories
written by the individuals who experienced them. There are also 5
related personal stories in the book. It is a very objective look at
the health issues related to the chronic exposure to mercury vapor
from "silver" dental fillings. Besides the case histories and
personal stories, the book provides the background as well as current
scientific documentation and legal issues regarding the mercury
controversy.
Published by Hott Off The Press Printing Co. 173 pages; $5.95 plus
$3.00 shipping. Florida residents add 6% Sales Tax.

Dr. Haley Rebuts the American Dental Association Position on Mercury
Amalgam Safety


http://www.bioprobe.com/ReadNews.asp?article=36

http://www.bioprobe.com/links.asp

http://www.bioprobe.com


  http://www.bioprobe.com/bookreviews/review.asp?review_id=12


Hello All,

I am a `Newbie'.
If you thought that sypmptoms you have may be due to amalgam fillings
and had them replaced with `safe' filling, is it likely that your
symptoms will retreat?
I guess what I am asking is, will a certain level of mercury always
be there as a result of having the fillings in the first place. (I
would guess there are minute quantities of mercury in water supplies
and certain foodstuffs anyway). Is it difficult for the body to rid
itself of mercury?

No more amalgam, Norway's government tells its dentists
The following edited article is from Maryanne Rygg, Norway

A long-awaited breakthrough in the war against amalgam was announced
on 31 May.

The director for the Norwegian Directorate of Health and Social
Welfare said on Norwegian radio that the health authorities now
recommend that dentists no longer use amalgam on their patients. He
said that the new guidelines are based on newer research that has
revealed how mercury leaks from amalgam in the mouth of patients.

The Norwegian Directorate of Health and Social Welfare has announced
that it will be sending its new guidelines for use of dental
materials out for hearing in a couple of weeks, and expects them to
take effect from 1 January 2003.

The announcement was called a "U-turn" by the Norwegian radio. The
current president of the Norwegian Dental Association was also
interviewed, and said that the Norwegian Dental Association was
satisfied that the guidelines stop short of a full ban on amalgam,
and that freedom of choice is still possible. He also said that there
has been controversy around the use of amalgam for 100 years, and
that the Dental Association would not defend amalgam "at any price".
The current president of the Norwegian Dental Association works in an
amalgam-free dental practice, and has not used amalgam for many years.

The ten-page document is still labeled as confidential, until it is
sent out for hearing in a couple of weeks. We have been told that it
will be published (in Norwegian) on the website of the Norwegian
Dental Materials Adverse Reaction Unit
(www.uib.no/bivirkningsgruppen/), but it has not appeared there as
yet. It is expected to be published on the website of the Norwegian
Dental Patient Association (www.tenneroghelse.no).

It appears that this document contains many statements that the anti-
amalgam movement has claimed for years. Now they have publicly
endorsed the claims, although there are still a few sentences in the
ten-page document that will continue to be disputed. Although the
document states that the overall aim is to phase out the use of
amalgam, the guidelines do stop short of a complete ban. It is
advice, rather than instruction. It will still be possible for adult
patients who insist on amalgam to receive it. However, when the
statements about amalgam which are contained in this document are
made public, it would be a strong disincentive for anyone to choose
to have amalgam installed in their mouth.


http://www.melisa.org/hottopics/newnorway.html

Hello All,

I am a `Newbie'.
If you thought that sypmptoms you have may be due to amalgam fillings
and had them replaced with `safe' filling, is it likely that your
symptoms will retreat?
I guess what I am asking is, will a certain level of mercury always
be there as a result of having the fillings in the first place. (I
would guess there are minute quantities of mercury in water supplies
and certain foodstuffs anyway). Is it difficult for the body to rid
itself of mercury?

Thanks

DiMwItTY

LAWSUIT CLAIMS LINK BETWEEN MERCURY-BASED THIMEROSAL EXPOSURE AND
SYMPTOMS SUFFERED BY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF GULF WAR VETERANS
Law Offices of Shawn Khorrami in association with Waters & Kraus have
filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court today, claiming
damages against 13 major pharmaceutical companies which manufactured,
distributed, marketed or sold  vaccines containing the mercury-based
preservative, Thimerosal. The complaint was filed on behalf of
Plaintiffs Frank Schmuck and Andrea Schmuck, his wife. Frank Schmuck
is a U.S. Air Force Captain and a decorated Gulf War veteran.

The complaint may hold the answer to symptoms suffered by tens of
thousands of Gulf War veterans. It also has implications for any
segment of the population subject to frequent vaccines such as
children and senior citizens and current military personnel.  The
issues of mercury-based Thimerosal vaccines takes on special
significance now given the movement for increased vaccinations
amongst the general public due to recent bio-terrorism attacks.

The defendants in the complaint include Abbott Laboratories, American
Home Products, Wyeth, Aventis Pasteur, Bayer Corporation, Bioport
Corporation, Glaxosmithkline, King Pharmaceuticals, Medeva
Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co., Sigma-Aldrich Crop, Spectrum Chemical
Manufacturing Corp. and Stat Pharmaceuticals.  A jury trial is
demanded.

The complaint alleges a causal connection between symptoms suffered
by tens of thousands of Gulf War veterans, including Frank Schmuck,
and the mercury-based preservative, Thimerosal, in vaccines.  It
charges the drug companies with, among other things: Fraudulent
Misrepresentation,   Fraud and Deceit, Negligence, Strict Product
Liability,  Illegal and deceptive business practices,  and Loss of
Consortium.

As with all Gulf War veterans prior to, during, and after their
deployment to the Persian Gulf, the U.S. Air Force required Plaintiff
Captain Schmuck to receive vaccinations.   The Plaintiff's vaccine
regimen continued until as late as 1998.  After completing his
service, Frank Schmuck obtained employment as a pilot for a major
airline.

As a result of significant exposure to mercury through the Thimerosal
contained in the vaccines, the Plaintiff suffered serious toxic
injuries, including abnormal weight loss, gastrointestinal
inflammation, neurological and short-term memory loss and a tumor on
his liver, all symptoms that are common in many Gulf War veterans.
The effects were so severe that he could not continue his work as a
pilot.  Schmuck recovered his life and his job only after undergoing
a detox program for mercury poisoning.  The mercury-induced injuries
are the subject of the action, says Attorney Shawn Khorrami in the
complaint filed today.

The complaint does not find fault with the vaccines themselves.
Thimerosal is, was, and always has been nothing but a preservative.
The vaccines in question would have had their beneficial effects with
or without Thimerosal.  Thimerosal exists in the vaccine only to
increase profit margins by, among other things, allowing the drug
companies to sell vaccines in multi-dose vials, rather than single
dose ones.

Thimerosal's base ingredient is mercury, one of, if not the, most
toxic non-radioactive material known to man.  An overwhelming amount
of scientific data ranging from animal to human studies conclusively
document mercury's horrendous and devastating effects.  In fact, the
use of Thimerosal in childhood vaccines and their connection to
autism in infants was the subject of hearings at the House of
Representatives in June of 2000.  Thimerosal contains a particularly
toxic, organic form of Mercury.

Despite knowledge of the dangerous propensities of their products,
the Defendants continuously and deliberately concealed from or
otherwise misrepresented to doctors and to the consuming public the
efficacy of these products. The Defendants failed to advise doctors
or consumers that the usage of the Thimerosal-containing vaccines,
used in their ordinary fashion, could result in mercury poisoning.

The Plaintiff's complaint has ramifications to the public at
large. "It raises questions for anyone who is subject to regular
vaccines, especially children,"  Khorrami says. "It is especially
concerning now given the push for an increase in vaccination regimens
to the military and the general population in the wake of the 9-11
terrorist attacks."

The Plaintiff's complaint is filed amid the recent government
admission that service in the Gulf War has been linked to Lou
Gehrig's disease. It is the first time the government acknowledged a
scientific link between service in the Gulf and a specific disease.
Mercury poisoning through Thimersol-based vaccines and other products
administered to those in Gulf War service is a disability that could
have been avoided if the Defendants had been forthcoming.

Khorrami Firm Brings First Lawsuit Alleging Link Between Amalgams and
Childhood Autism

The Khorrami Firm has brought a landmark lawsuit in Los Angeles
Superior Court on behalf of a five year old autistic child against
the American Dental Association, the California Dental Association,
and manufacturers and distributors of mercury amalgam fillings
alleging, among other things, that the companies engaged in fraud,
deceit, unfair, illegal, and deceptive business practices in
connection with amalgam fillings. A jury trial is requested.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind, charges that the mercury fillings
placed in a woman's mouth contributed to the autism of her child.
The defendants are accused of concealing from consumers the fact that
dental amalgam fillings actually contain mercury, a highly toxic
substance, and that when implanted into a woman's mouth they cause
her unborn and nursing child to be exposed to toxic levels of
mercury.  The complaint also charges that the defendants have
concealed the fact that mercury toxicity in newborn children can
cause learning disabilities, decreased motor skills, language
difficulties and in some cases, severe autism.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of six-year-old Daniel Galeano, his
mother Kathy Galeano and father, Fernando Galeano, all residents of
Burbank.  The dental establishment, including the American Dental
Association, defrauded the Galeanos regarding the toxicity of mercury
amalgams and deceptively called "silver fillings" which lead to the
autism of their child.  Daniel, the lead plaintiff, is a six year-old
child with severe symptoms of autism, including self-injurious
behavior, impaired social interactions, impaired verbal and nonverbal
communication, and restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior.
The symptoms may vary from quite mild to quite severe; in Daniel's
case, this disease has produced severe symptoms.

"These companies have been hiding the ball from the American public.
When the science is analyzed, there is no question that amalgam is
unsafe and should not be used.  This is the first , but it certainly
will not be the last on the issue," Khorrami said.

There is overwhelming scientific data, ranging from animal to human
studies that conclusively document the horrendous and devastating
effects of mercury toxicity. Kathy Galeano, the mother, is a 37-year-
old woman who had nine mercury amalgams placed in her mouth over 15
years prior to her son's birth.

Mercury has been shown to have toxic effects at very low exposures of
under one microgram per kilogram of body weight.  As a point of
reference, a typical mercury amalgam filling contains 750,000
micrograms of mercury. At the time of her pregnancy, Kathy Galleons
nine separate fillings contained over 5,000,000 micrograms of
mercury.  This information becomes even more disturbing when
scientific studies have shown that even a very low level of mercury
in a mother can cause severe learning disabilities in her children.

The complaint also charges that the dental corporations knowingly
withheld pertinent facts and provided false information to dental
patients about the dangers of their product. It further charges that
they essentially denied that mercury is even an ingredient by calling
them "silver filling," misleading the public.

Both the American Medical Association and the California Medical
Association recently passed resolutions stating that the use of
mercury in healthcare must be phased out.  In fact, both associations
have voiced their desire to work with the federal government and
healthcare groups in order to educate professionals in the use of
alternative materials.  The dental industry, including these
Defendants stand alone as the only industry which openly, outwardly,
and falsely claims that mercury is safe and that its use should be
continued.

The statutory basis for this complaint is the California Business &
Professions Code '17200 which provides that unfair competition shall
mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice. An
unfair business practice occurs when that practice offends an
established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical,
oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.

http://www.khorrami.com/Main%20Web/home/CalLawArticle.pdf

http://www.khorrami.com


Mercury Toxicity
Mercury is one of the few chemicals that is conclusively known to
cause adverse health effects in humans. This is because the effects
of Mercury on humans have been widely studied, in a variety of
circumstances and populations. Mercury is dangerous if inhaled, if
absorbed through the skin, or if it enters through any part of the
body. It is a highly toxic element and the most volatile of the heavy
metals.

Various Federal governmental agencies, and numerous States, including
California, regard Mercury as a powerful carcinogen, and a
reproductive and developmental toxin. Mercury is also poisonous to
the human nervous system. Due to its significant documented
reproductive and developmental effects, pregnant women and their
developing fetuses, women of child-bearing age, and children under
the age of 8 are most at risk for mercury-related health impacts.
These health impacts include, for example, subtle effects arising
from prenatal exposure such as delayed development and cognitive
changes in children.

Mercury can cause a variety of symptoms including chronic
inflammation of mouth and gums, personality change, nervousness,
fever, or rash. Neurotoxicity symptoms associated with Mercury and
Mercury Compounds include, but are not limited to, impaired vision,
speech, hearing, and walking; sensory disturbances; incoordination of
movements; nervous system damage very similar to congenital cerebral
palsy; mental disturbances; psychomotor retardation; and, in some
cases death. Mercury has also been linked to brain neuron
degeneration. According to the United States Public Health Service,
mercury poses the most direct danger to the brain and the kidneys. It
impairs fetal development, preventing the brain and nervous system
from developing normally. Children poisoned by mercury show lowered
intelligence, impaired hearing and poor coordination and their verbal
and motor skills may be delayed or otherwise, severely and
permanently impaired.

Knowledge of Mercury's adverse health effects is nothing new. Human
studies alone date back more than 60 years. Studies have correlated
various ailments, symptoms, and effects with Mercury for decades. For
example in the 1940's, Mercury was found to be the cause of
Acrodynia. Furthermore, disasters in Minamata, Japan, in the 1950s
and in Iraq in 1971-1972 clearly demonstrated neurologic effects
associated with ingestion of Mercury both in adults and in infants
exposed in utero.

In workplace case studies, very low exposure to Mercury has been
linked to neurologic and renal disorders. Studies have confirmed more
subtle effects such as preclinical changes in kidney function and
behavioral and cognitive changes associated with effects on the
central nervous system. Chronic exposure can result in
neuropsychiatric symptoms such as "mad hatter syndrome" or "erethism"
and include tremor, anxiety, incapacitating shyness and irritability.
Mercury is a neurological poison affecting primarily brain tissue. In
adults, permanent brain damage is focal affecting the function of
such areas as the cerebellum (ataxia) and the visual cortex
(constricted visual fields). Methylmercury also at high doses can
cause severe damage to the developing brain.

Even trace amounts of Mercury are known to be toxic to humans. In
fact, various governmental and private entities have determined that
exposures of less than 1 microgram per kilogram of body weight, per
day, can have severe adverse effects. The mercury in just one fever
thermometer is enough to contaminate more than 200 million gallons of
water.

June 21, 2002


Supreme Court: Patient has right to challenge HMO
By Julie Rovner

Washington (Reuters Health) — The U.S. Supreme Court Thursday re-
ignited a Capitol Hill debate over the rights patients should have to
appeal decisions made by their health insurance plans.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court said an Illinois law that gives patients
in health maintenance organizations the right to seek an outside
physician's opinion if care is denied does not conflict with a
federal law that regulates employee benefits.


The case involved an Illinois speech therapist, Debra Moran, whose
HMO denied her doctor's request for a rare surgery to correct a nerve
problem in her shoulder. Moran — who paid for the surgery herself as
the case dragged on — won the appeal she demanded under the state's
law, but the HMO continued to refuse to pay the $95,000 bill.

It insisted that it was not subject to the Illinois law because the
federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not
permit states to legislate employee benefits matters for plans it
covers.
The court disagreed, finding that the Illinois law does not violate
ERISA.

"We recognize, of course, that a state might enact an independent
review requirement with procedures so elaborate, and burdens so
onerous, that they might undermine (ERISA)," said the majority
opinion, written by Justice David Souter. But in this case, he
continued, "no such system is before us."

Backers and opponents of a patients' bill of rights in Congress were
closely watching the court for its decision in the case, Rush
Prudential HMO v. Moran. Had the decision gone the other way, it
could have effectively invalidated not just the "external appeals"
law in Illinois, but those in more than 40 other states.

But several members of Congress said the decision could still prompt
Congress to act.

"I think the prospects of a statute being enacted are higher because
of this decision," said Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ). "Groups concerned
about patients' rights will find this inadequate, but industry will
find it frightening because now they're exposed to a patchwork of
state laws," Andrews said.

Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) called the decision "a stunning defeat
for the HMO industry," and predicted it might bring insurers to the
table to discuss a patients' rights bill. "For years and years,
insurers have screamed 'no' to everything, but now look what it has
gotten them. The president needs to step in and cut a deal on the
Patients' Bill of Rights to save insurers from themselves," he said.

But business groups — while expressing dismay that the decision
effectively undercuts ERISA's promise of a single national standard
for benefit plans — said they remain adamantly opposed to a patients'
rights bill.

"If the proponents of an expansive 'patients' bill of rights' think
that today's decision will induce employers to seek enactment of a
federal patients' rights bill, they are sorely mistaken," said James
Klein, President of the American Benefits Council. While the lack of
uniformity is a problem, he said, "the answer to that problem is not
to plunge our healthcare system into a sea of litigation as the
(patients' rights) advocates would like."

Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited.

http://www.examiner.com/headlines/default.jsp?story=n.dental.0515w


By Tom Harrigan
Associated Press

     LOS ANGELES -- An attorney who has taken the American Dental
Association to court in several states over the amount of mercury
used in fillings was the target of a defamation lawsuit filed Tuesday
by the organization.

     Shawn Khorrami is involved in lawsuits in California, Ohio,
Maryland and Georgia against the ADA, its state affiliates and others
for allegedly endorsing amalgam filling material with a high content
of mercury compounds.

     The Chicago-based ADA, with 141,000 members, is accusing him of
conducting an "orchestrated campaign of lies and distortion to
promote himself and his law firm."

     The organization wants Khorrami to stop the action as well as pay
punitive and compensatory damages.

     Khorrami called the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in
Los Angeles, "a desperate attempt on the part of the ADA to further
conceal the truth from the public."

     "We stand firmly by the allegations made in our lawsuits: The ADA
has withheld information about the dangers of mercury dental fillings
from the American public. Our cases brought this issue to light and
now the ADA is responding with this baseless complaint. This is
similar to the smear tactics used by the tobacco industry when they
were challenged," Khorrami said in a statement.

     Dental activists say what are commonly called silver fillings
actually contain about 25 percent silver by weight and about 50
percent mercury. Mercury exposure can cause cancer, birth defects and
nerve damage. But scientific studies on the effects of mercury in
amalgam -- the term referring to alloys of mercury -- have been
largely inconclusive.

     Amalgam fillings cost about half as much as other fillings,
including plastic and porcelain, and last longer.

     The most recent lawsuit handled by Khorrami, filed in Georgia
last month, seeks damages that could exceed $100 million. It claims
mercury from dental fillings, vaccine preservatives and power plants
with emissions that contain mercury caused or worsened the conditions
of nine autistic children.

     The ADA lawsuit said Khorrami has wrongly accused the
organization of defrauding and endangering the public and of
pressuring dentists to use amalgam fillings because the ADA has a
vested economic interest in the material.

     The ADA "has no financial (or other economic) stake in dental
amalgam or the use of mercury," the organization said in its
complaint.

     Khorrami said Tuesday the ADA receives fees for its seal of
approval on material used in dentistry.

     On the Web:

     American Dental Association: http://www.ada.org

     Attorney Shawn Khorrami: http://www.khorrami.com





A 'campaign of lies'
ADA sues 'self-promoting' L.A. lawyer for defamation

By James Berry

http://www.ada.org/prof/pubs/daily/0205/0514suit.html

A Los Angeles attorney who notes on his own Web site that he "has
been extensively involved in [amalgam] litigation with the American
Dental Association" has promoted himself and his law practice through
a campaign of "lies and distortion" against the ADA, the Association
alleges in a defamation suit filed May 14.

Attorney Shawn Khorrami has used news releases and his Web site to
spread "false, defamatory and malicious accusations" that the ADA
is "defrauding and endangering the lives of the American public" by
supporting the use of dental amalgam restorations, the ADA says in
its civil complaint, filed in Los Angeles U.S. District Court,
Central District of California.

The Association has requested a jury trial and seeks compensatory and
punitive damages. ADA officers and trustees authorized the lawsuit at
their April meeting.

In a statement on the suit, ADA President D. Gregory Chadwick said
the Association could not stand idly by and allow Mr. Khorrami
to "impugn the reputation of the ADA" in an effort to "erode the
public trust that we have built through more than 140 years of caring
for the nation's oral health."

Dr. Chadwick said the ADA welcomes "fair and honest debate" on all
aspects of dental care, but cannot tolerate "libelous, unwarranted
attacks."

Among other allegations, the complaint says Mr. Khorrami has accused
the ADA of exerting "undue and unfair pressure" on dentists to
continue using amalgam because the Association has a "vested economic
interest" in the material.

In truth, the ADA "has no financial (or other economic) stake in
dental amalgam or the use of mercury," the Association says in its
complaint. It says the defendant's "self-promoting campaign of lies
and distortion targeting the ADA is based on defamatory statements
that Khorrami published with reckless disregard for their truth or
falsity."

The Association, notes the complaint, has filed suit "to vindicate
its reputation" and to stop the defendant's "campaign of lies."

The ADA says Mr. Khorrami is well aware that many leading scientific
and consumer organizations, independent of the Association, have
attested to the safety of dental amalgam. Findings from six of those
organizations are cited in the ADA's complaint (see related story).

Dr. James B. Bramson, ADA executive director, notes that amalgam is
just one of a wide range of dental materials that the Association
evaluates to help dentists and patients choose safe and effective
treatments.

Added Dr. Bramson, "The ADA is a strong proponent of choice, with
patients and their dentists discussing the full range of treatment
options, including filling materials, and together deciding what is
clinically appropriate."

Thanks to the ADA's efforts in education, research and
professionalism, he said, Americans enjoy the highest standard of
oral health care in the world.

"A lot of good people worked hard to achieve this standard, and to
build and maintain the ADA's good name," said the executive
director. "We will not capitulate to the calculated, self-promotional
aims of the defendant. We will protect the good name of the ADA from
such unwarranted, malicious assaults."

The complete text of the complaint is available online.



Mercury Ban Promotes Lawsuits, Not Health
Friday, May 10, 2002

By Steven Milloy



http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,52391,00.html

Junk science has united quite the political odd couple - Reps. Diane
Watson, D-Calif., and Dan Burton, R-Ind. They recently co-sponsored a
bill to end the use of mercury in dental fillings.

The bill would: ban dental amalgam containing mercury from children
under 18 and pregnant and lactating women; require dentists to warn
patients that mercury is "highly toxic" and poses "health risks"; and
phase out mercury amalgam by 2007.

Rep. Watson, a Congressional Black Caucus member from Watts who
claims to be "chemically sensitive," has targeted mercury-containing
dental amalgam since CBS' 60 Minutes spotlighted the scare in
December 1990.

Rep. Burton, the anti-Clinton lightning rod, only recently converted
to anti-mercury-ism. Burton blames thimerosal, a mercury-based
preservative used in vaccines, for causing his grandson's autism.

Also in on the mercury scare are - who else - unscrupulous personal
injury lawyers. Class action lawsuits have been filed against the
American Dental Association and the California and Maryland state
dental associations seeking the return of monies paid for mercury-
containing fillings - the great majority of fillings ever done.

Lawsuits alleging thimerosal causes autism also have been filed
against vaccine manufacturers.

As to mercury in dental fillings, the lawsuits are among the best
evidence that mercury in amalgam is harmless. Though the complaints
allege that mercury-containing amalgam is harmful, they contain no
specific allegations of harm to anyone.

This is hardly surprising.

Mercury has been a major ingredient of dental amalgam (35-42 percent)
for more than 150 years. No other filling material has been proven to
be safer, more durable and more cost-effective.

The National Institutes of Health reports only about 100 documented
cases of allergy to mercury mentioned in the scientific literature
since 1906 - despite billions of uses of mercury amalgam and tens of
millions more of thimerosal-containing vaccines.

Mercury can have toxic effects on the nervous system - but only at
sufficiently high exposures. As is the basic rule in toxicology, it
is the dose that makes the poison. Paracelsus, the father of this
principle, successfully used this principle - and mercury - to treat
syphilis in the 16th century.

Fillings containing mercury typically emit about 1-3 millionths of a
gram (micrograms) per day. An individual might be unavoidably exposed
to another 5-6 micrograms of mercury through food, water and air.
Such exposures are well below the World Health
Organization's "acceptable daily intake" for mercury, about 30
micrograms per day.

Keep in mind that the ADI is not a "safety" level; it's a level set
by regulatory agencies that is anywhere from tens to thousands of
times below dose levels reported to cause biological effects in
animal experiments. The ADI is set well below effect levels to
provide a wide margin of safety for potential exposures.

Amalgam expert Dr. Rod Mackert says even the most sensitive
individual would need about 450 fillings before exhibiting even
slight symptoms of mercury toxicity.

Finally, even the hyper-cautious Food and Drug Administration
concluded in March, 2002, that "No valid scientific evidence has ever
shown that amalgams cause harm to patients with dental restorations,
except in the rare case of allergy."

But why let a lack of factual support get in the way of a feel-good
law and a chance at the lawsuit jackpot?

Rep. Burton's anti-mercury rationale and the vaccine-related lawsuits
are similarly deficient.

It's true many children may have been exposed to relatively high
levels of mercury through vaccines preserved with thimerosal. Even
so, there's no evidence these exposures harmed any child - a point
reaffirmed by FDA researchers in a May 2001 article in the journal
Pediatrics.

Moreover, no one knows what causes autism. A National Institutes of
Health working group concluded in 1995 that autism likely was mostly
genetic in origin. No evidence indicates that late-pregnancy or after-
birth events - including extensively studied mass mercury poisonings -
  are associated with autism.

Burton's desperate rush to blame an after-birth event for causing
autism isn't unusual.

Autistic behavior becomes apparent as children progress from saying a
few words to generating more complex language, at ages of 16-36
months. Parents whose children "turn" autistic often erroneously
associate the onset of autistic behavior with some contemporaneous
event such as vaccination.

But public alarm about vaccine safety can be a public health problem.
Outbreaks of measles, for example, occurred in the U.K. and Ireland
where many worried parents shunned the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR)
vaccine.

Instead of filling our minds with fear and the U.S. Code with
needless laws (and our courtrooms with meritless lawsuits), Reps.
Watson and Burton and the personal injury lawyers should fill
themselves, as appropriate, with facts and scruples.

Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com , an adjunct
scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of Junk Science Judo:
Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).


Final  QUESTION:

      WOULD  YOU ever  BUY any  USED  CAR  FROM ADA?

Answer:

ONLY  if  it is  made  of  PURE  mercury  and  can  make 0 -100
   in 4.6 sec!

Toxic Effects of Mercury on Central Nervous System Nucleotide Binding
Proteins: Potential Role in Alzheimer's Disease

http://www.altcorp.com/mercurytox.htm

1/25/99

  Click here to start
http://www.altcorp.com/SlideShows/mercury/sld001.htm


Table of Contents
Toxic Effects of Mercury on Central Nervous System Nucleotide Binding
Proteins: Potential Role in Alzheimer's Disease

I. Sources and Fate of Absorbed Elemental Mercury Vapor (Hg0)

Estimated Average Daily Intake of Mercury from Environmental Sources

Metabolism and Transport of Elemental Mercury Vapor (Hg0)

Oxidation of Elemental Mercury Vapor (Hg0) by the Enzyme Catalase

Oxidation of Mercury Vapor in the Brain and Trapping of Hg2+ by
Binding to Brain Proteins

Membrane Associated Targets of Mercuric Cation and Methylmercury

Partial List of Nucleotide Binding Proteins Inhibited by Hg2+

II. Toxic Effects of Mercury on Brain Nucleotide Binding Proteins
(NBPs)

Many Nucleotide Binding Proteins Contain Cysteine Residues At Their
Active Sites

These Active Site Cysteine Sulfhydryl (-SH) Groups Are Critical for
Proper Enzyme Function

Mercury Can Covalently Bind to Active Site Sulfhydryls (-SH) and
Inhibit Enzyme Activity

Schematic of Nucleotide Photoaffinity Labeling

Inhibitory Effects of Mercury on a Mixture of Nucleotide Binding
Proteins can be Detected and Quantified by Photoaffinity Labeling

Neuronal Tubulin, the Most Abundant Brain Protein, Is Especially
Vulnerable to Mercury

Reported Effects of Mercury and Other Sulfhydryl Reactive Heavy
Metals on the In Vitro Polymerization of Purified Brain Tubulin

Reported Effects of Mercury and Other Sulfhydryl Reactive Heavy
Metals on Microtubules (MTs) in Cell Culture

Photoaffinity Labeling With [32P]8N3GTP Has Been Used Extensively to
Study Tubulin Biochemistry

Biochemical Properties of Brain Tubulin

Structure of Neuronal Microtubules

Morphological Arrangement of the Neuronal Cytoskeleton

Microtubules Form the Structural Framework for Axonal Transport - A
Process Essential for the Survival of Neurons

Disruption of Axonal Transport

III. Possible Role of Mercury and Sulfhydryl Reactive Heavy Metals in
the Etiology of Alzheimer's Disease (AD)

Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease

Pathological Hallmarks of AD

Proteins Associated with Senile Plaques

Possible Relationship Between Microtubule Disruption and Plaque and
Tangle Formation

Genes Linked to Alzheimer's Disease

Apolipoprotein E4 Genotype Increases the Susceptibility to the
Development of AD

Apolipoprotein E (Apo E)

Substitution of Arginine for Cysteine in Apo E3 and Apo E4 at
Positions 112 and 158 Results in Loss of Potential Binding Sites for
Sulfhydryl Reactive Heavy Metals such as Mercury

Mercury is Significantly Elevated in the Brains of Alzheimer's
Disease Subjects Relative to Controls

Hg2+ Induces Aberrant [32P]8N3GTP-b-Tubulin Interactions Indicative
of Alzheimer's Disease

SDS-PAGE Separation of Control and AD Brain Hippocampus Homogenates
After Photolabeling with [32P]8N3GTP

Autoradiogram of the Photolabeled Control & AD Brain Hippocampus
Homogenates Showing Decreased [32P]8N3GTP-b-Tubulin Interactions

Western Blotting of the Hippocampus Homogenates with Anti-b-Tubulin
Antibodies Shows the Amount of b-Tubulin Protein is Not Reduced in
the AD Brain Relative to Controls Despite a Significant Decrease in
Photolabeling

Illustration of Western Blotting

[32P]8N3GTP-b-Tubulin Interactions are Aberrant in Both the
Hippocampus and Frontal Pole of the Majority of AD Brain Homogenates
Despite Normal Levels of Total b-Tubulin

Decreased [32P]8N3GTP-b-Tubulin Interactions in Hg0 Vapor Exposed
Rats Correlates with Elevated Brain Hg

Decreased [32P]8N3GTP-b-Tubulin Interactions in Hg0 Vapor Exposed
Rats Correlates with Elevated Brain Hg

Decreased [32P]8N3GTP-b-Tubulin Interactions in Hg0 Exposed Rats & AD
Brain Homogenates is Not Due to Decreased Levels of b-Tubulin Protein

Treatment of Human Control Brain Homogenate with Sulfhydryl Reactive
Heavy Metals Results in a Concentration Dependent Decrease [32P]
8N3GTP Photolabeling of b-Tubulin

EDTA Prevents Cd, Cu & Zn But Potentiates Hg Inhibition of [32P]
8N3GTP Photolabeling of Brain b-Tubulin

Partial List of Studies Demonstrating the Cytotoxic Effects of
Mercury Containing Amalgams

Cytotoxicity of Endodontic Materials

Study Design

Table 2. Root-End Filling Materials Tested

Osorio et al., (1998). J. Endodon. 24,91-96.

Extraction and In Vitro Toxicity Testing of a Mercury Amalgam

Sequential Extracts of a Mercury Containing Amalgam Significantly
Inhibit [32P]8N3GTP Interactions with b-Tubulin in Human Control
Brain Homogenate

Inhibition of [32P]8N3GTP Photolabeling of Brain b-Tubulin Was
Greater Than 65% for All Amalgam Extracts Tested While the 45 kDa
Protein Band was Not Significantly Effected

Sequential Extracts of a Mercury Containing Amalgam Inhibit [32P]
N3ATP Interactions with Purified ATP Binding Enzymes

The Extract of a Mercury Containing Amalgam Inhibits [32P]N3ATP
Interactions with Purified ATP Binding Enzymes

Phosphorylase a (Phos a) Catalyzes the Sequential Removal of Glycosyl
Residues from Glycogen

Phosphoglycerate Kinase (PGK) and Pyruvate Kinase (PK) Function in
the Breakdown of Glucose to Pyruvate in Glycolysis and in the
Substrate Level Production of ATP

Creatine Kinase (CK) and Adenylate Kinase (AK) Maintain ATP Levels in
Tissues With High, Fluctuating Energy Demands Such as Brain and
Muscle


Author: J. Curt Pendergrass Ph.D.
               President, ALT, Inc.

Toxic effects of  Mercury on Central Nervous System (57 slides)


http://www.altcorp.com/SlideShows/mercury/sld001.htm

23 May 2001

The Honorable Dan Burton

Chairman

Committee on Government Reform

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C.

RE: May 11th letter by Robert M. Anderton, D.D.S., J.D., LL.M. and
President of the ADA, challenging my statement to the Committee on
Government Reform looking at the topic, Autism-Why the Increased
Rates? A One Year Update.

Dear Mr. Chairman:

At the April 25th meeting of your committee I gave testimony that the
President of the American Dental Association (ADA) takes exception to
in a letter sent to you dated 11 May 2001. Quoting from that letter
the testimony the ADA dislikes is "that elementary mercury from
dental amalgam could work synergistically with other ethy-mercury
sources and have a cumulative toxic effect on the body. Dr. Haley
postulated that this could be a potential cause of autism and
Alzheimer's disease." I stand by my statement as a sensible concern
based on published scientific research regarding synergist toxicities
caused by two very toxic agents, mercury and the organic mercury
compound thimerosal. This concern is elevated since mercury exposure
from amalgams to a pregnant mother concentrates in the fetus and a
single vaccine given to a six-pound newborn is the equivalent of
giving a 180-pound adult 30 vaccinations on the same day. Include in
this the toxic effects of high levels of aluminum and formaldehyde
contained in some vaccines, and the synergist toxicity could be
increased to unknown levels. Further, it is very well known that
infants do not produce significant levels of bile or have adult renal
capacity for several months after birth. Bilary transport is the
major biochemical route by which mercury is removed from the body,
and infants cannot do this very well. They also do not possess the
renal (kidney) capacity to remove aluminum. Additionally, mercury is
a well-known inhibitor of kidney function. Common sense indicates
that the concern I expressed should be taken seriously since we do
not know how combined toxicities effect humans, especially in utero.
Consider the current epidemic death on birth of over 500 foals from
apparently healthy mares around Lexington, KY. These deaths were
identified as being due to a low level toxicity delivered by
caterpillars eating poison plants and later, on migration, depositing
their waste products on grass being eaten by the mares. The point
being it is the infant in utero that suffered most on exposure to low
level, toxins, not the mother. Combined mercury toxicities can be
devastating as I reference below and in the many references available
on the www.altcorp.com website. What is needed is research by non-
biased scientists to clarify this, something our FDA and NIDCR have
refused to do. As the American public find out what has happened
regarding this issue, they will be quite angry. This is a biomedical
science issue that should have been resolved a long time ago by the
responsible federal agencies.

Below I present detailed and referenced information supporting my
case and respond to various statements made by the ADA President that
I believe to be misleading and sometimes flagrantly wrong. The ADA
seems to think it has the right to select which research it believes
and to trash that research that says it is wrong, even though the
latter represents the bulk of published research. To address the
issues raised by the ADA President in his letter I will go in
sequential order of the comments made in the letter placing the ADA
comments in italics and providing scientific references for my
conclusions.

"There is no scientifically valid evidence linking either autism or
Alzheimer's disease with dental amalgam". First, mercury is a well-
known, potent neurotoxicant, and common sense would lead to the
conclusion that severe neurotoxins would exacerbate all neurological
disorders, including Parkinson's, ALS, MS, autism and AD. Several
research papers in refereed, high quality journals and scientific
publications have shown that mercury inhibits the same enzymes in
normal brain tissues as are inhibited in AD brain samples (1a-c, 2,
3). AD is pathologically confirmed post-mortem by the appearance of
neuro-fibillary tangles (NFTs) and amyloid plaques in brain tissue.
Published research, within the past year, has shown that exposure of
neurons in culture to sub-lethal doses of mercury (much less than is
observed in human brain tissue) causes the formation of NFTs (4), the
increased secretion of amyloid protein and the hyper-phosphorylation
of a protein called Tau (5). All three of these mercury-induced
aberrancies are regularly identified as the major diagnostic markers
for AD. In the manuscript published in the J. of Neurochemistry (5)
the authors state "These results indicate that mercury may play a
role in the patho-physiological mechanisms of AD." In most of these
experiments, mercury and only mercury among the several toxic heavy
metals tested, caused the AD related responses reported. Many
medically trained individuals would agree that if something causes
the appearance of the pathological hallmarks confirming the disease
then it likely causes the disease. I at least have limited my claims
to exacerbation of these diseases to err on the side of caution.

Further, consider this about AD. A study of 500 sets of identical
twins from World War II era lead to the conclusion that sporadic AD
which represents 90% of the cases was not a directly inherited
disease. In many cases one twin would get AD and the other would not.
Genetic susceptibility is involved, but a toxic exposure is required
(e.g., if you are genetically susceptible to being an alcoholic you
still need to be exposed to alcohol to become one). The work by
Rose's group at Johns Hopkins University implicates APO-E genotype as
a "risk" factor with APO-E2 being protective and APO-E4 being a major
risk factor. APO-E2 has the ability to protect the brain from mercury
by having two additional thiol-groups to bind mercury appearing in
the cerebrospinal fluid whereas APO-E4 does not have this additional
capability (1). This may explain the proven genetic susceptibility to
AD of the APO-E4 carriers.

NIH has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to find a causal factor
for AD. Yet, no virus, yeast or bacteria has been identified so the
cause remains unknown to general science. The rate of AD per 1,000
population is nearly the same in California, Michigan, Maine, North
Carolina, Florida, Texas, etc. It is not significantly different for
rural versus urban individuals, or factory workers versus those with
outside jobs. So the primary toxicant that may be involved is most
likely not environmental. Therefore, it must be a very personal
toxicant, like what you put in your mouth. Since we place grams of a
neurotoxic metal, mercury, in our mouths in the form of dental
amalgam this makes it a good suspect for the exacerbation of AD---not
that all would be affected, just those that are genetically
susceptible, or those who become ill enough to fall prey to the
toxicity, or those that are also exposed to another synergistic toxin
(see below).

The one fact that ties mercury into a major suspect for AD is the
fact that most of the proteins/enzymes that are inhibited in AD brain
are thiol-sensitive enzymes. Mercury is one of the most potent
chemical inhibitors of thiol-sensitive enzymes and mercury vapor
easily penetrates into the central nervous system (2). Mercury is not
the only toxicant to inhibit thiol-sensitive enzymes. Thimerosal and
lead will do this also as well as reactive oxygen compounds created
in oxidative stress and many other industrial compounds. However,
mercury has been reported to be significantly elevated in AD brain
(14a,b, 15). Mercury is in many mouths being emitted from dental
amalgam and absolutely would exacerbate the clinical condition
identified as AD. Therefore, mercury should be considered as a causal
contributor since mercury can produce the two pathological hallmarks
of the disease and inhibits the same thiol-sensitive enzymes that are
dramatically inhibited in AD brain.

It documented by a 1991 World Health Organization report that dental
amalgams constitute the major human exposure to mercury. Grams of
mercury are in the mouths of individuals with several amalgam
fillings. Further, the level of blood and urine mercury positively
correlates with the number of amalgam fillings. This was confirmed by
a recently published NIH funded study (6). Therefore, I fail to see
the ADA's viewpoint that there is no scientifically valid evidence
linking mercury from amalgams to exacerbating AD, especially since
mercury produces the diagnostic hallmarks of AD (4,5). The ADA hides
behind the fact that there has not been an epidemiological study to
attempt to correlate mercury exposure and AD. However, absence of
proof is not proof of absence. This also begs the question why the
ADA, the FDA and the National Institutes of Dental Craniofacial
Research (NIDCR) have not pushed for such a study? These agencies
know this would be immensely expensive and only the U.S. government
could afford to support any reliable long-term study. Yet, these same
responsible agencies have failed to confirm as safe the placing into
the mouth of Americans grams of the most toxic heavy metal Americans
are exposed to. The dental branch of the FDA has steadfastly refused
to investigate the toxic potential of dental amalgam.

Look at the references in the ADA letter! Even they must quote
Scandinavian literature to support their contentions of safety, and
even then they have to reference papers on fertility instead of
neurotoxicity! Where is the ADA, FDA and NIDCR supported U.S.
research in this area? Go to the NIH web-sites and look for research
on the safety of mercury from amalgams, or try to find an NIH study
concerning possible mercury involvement in any common neurological
diseases. NIH does support research on methyl-mercury, as we seem to
like beating up on the fishing industry whilst leaving the dental
industry alone. However, according to the NIH study about 90% of the
mercury in our bodies is elemental mercury, not methyl-mercury,
showing the exposure is more likely from dental amalgams rather than
fish (6). Support at NIH has been very sparse for investigating the
relationship of elemental mercury exposure to neurological diseases.

"And there is no scientifically valid evidence demonstrating in vivo
transformation of inorganic mercury into organo mercury species in
individuals occupationally exposed to amalgam mercury vapor". There
was a paper published entitled "Methylation of Mercury from Dental
Amalgam and Mercuric Chloride by Oral Streptococci in vitro" (19).
This strongly indicates that "organo mercury species" are indeed
capable of being made in the human body and may explain the
appearance of methyl-mercury in the blood and urine of individuals
who don't eat seafood.

Further, periodontal disease is considered one of the major risk
factors for stroke, heart and cardiovascular disease and late onset,
insulin independent diabetes. Many studies of the toxicants produced
in periodontal disease have identified hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and
methane-thiol (CH3SH) as major toxic products of infective anerobic
bacteria in the mouth metabolizing the amino acids cysteine and
methionine, respectively. These volatile thiol-compounds are what
cause bad-breath! Methane-thiol (CH3SH) would react immediately and
spontaneously in the mouth with amalgam generated mercury cation to
produce the following two compounds, CH3S-HgCl and CH3S-Hg-SCH3,
which are organo-mercurial compounds (check this out with any
competent chemist). They are also very similar in structure to methyl-
mercury (CH3-HgCl) and dimethyl-mercury (CH3-Hg-CH3), the latter
which caused the highly publicized death of a University of Dartmouth
chemistry professor 10 months after she spilled two drops on her
gloved hand. We have synthesized CH3S-HgCl and CH3-Hg-CH3 in my
laboratory and tested their toxicity in comparison to Hg2+. As
expected, they were both more toxic than Hg2+ and this data is
available on the www.altcorp.com web-site. Therefore, the ADA
President is badly misinformed on this issue. Additionally, I am
amazed that the researchers at the ADA and NIDCR did not previously
report on this obvious chemistry as I would imagine this is the kind
of topic they should be addressing.

"Based on currently available scientific evidence, the ADA believes
that dental amalgam is a safe, affordable and durable material for
all but a handful of individuals who are allergic to one of its
components. It contains a mixture of metals such as silver, copper
and tin, in addition to mercury, which chemically binds these
components into a hard, stable and safe substance." This is a totally
wrong statement unless you underline the "ADA believes" and define
how big is a "handful of individuals". Sensible people
want "believes" replaced with "knows" and a "handful" replaced with
a "hard number". Amalgams emit dangerous levels of mercury and the
ADA absolutely refuses to accept this fact or even to study the
possibility. Otherwise, the ADA administrators seem to be unable to
separate fact from fiction. Consider, if they wanted to destroy my
argument on amalgam toxicity they would reference several solid,
refereed publication showing that mercury is not emitted from dental
amalgams---but they cannot do this with even one article. They always
state the "estimate" is that a very, very, very small amount.
Competent, well-informed researchers don't use the evasive language
used in the ADA President's letter. They would state the amount is so
many micrograms mercury released per centimeter squared amalgam
surface area and a "handful of individuals" would be a percentage of
our population! Lets look at the published literature.

First, careful evaluation of the amount of mercury emitted from a
commonly used dental amalgam in a test tube with 10 ml of water was
presented in an article entitled "Long-term Dissolution of Mercury
from a Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam". This study showed that "the
over-all mean release of mercury was 43.5 ± 3.2 micrograms per
cm2/day, and the amount remained fairly constant during the duration
of the experiments (2 years)" (7). This was without pressure, heat or
galvanism as would have occurred if the amalgams were in a human
mouth. Further, research where amalgams containing radioactive
mercury were placed in sheep and monkeys, showed the radioactivity
collecting in all body tissues and especially high in the jaw and
facial bones. (8,9). Another publication, from a major U.S. School of
Dentistry, stated that solutions in which amalgams had been soaked
were "severely cytotoxic initially when Zn release was highest" (13).
Zn is a needed element for body health and is found in very low
percentages in dental amalgams when compared to mercury and why
mercury was not mentioned in the abstract of this publication baffles
me. Why would the statement be true? Because Zn2+ is a synergist that
enhances mercury toxicity! However, does this sound like amalgams are
a safe, stable material? We have repeated similar amalgam soaking
experiments in my laboratory and the results can be seen at
www.altcorp.com. Cadmium (from smoking), lead, zinc and other heavy
metals enhanced mercury toxicity as expected (this research is
currently being prepared for publication).

The ADA claim that a zinc oxide layer is formed on the amalgams that
decreases mercury release is true, if you don't use the teeth. The
zinc oxide layer would be easily removed by slight abrasion such as
chewing food or brushing the teeth. Further, my laboratory has
confirmed that solutions in which amalgams have been soaked can cause
the inhibition of brain proteins that are inhibited by adding mercury
chloride, and these are the same enzymes inhibited in AD brain
samples.

Further, mercury emitting from a dental amalgam can be easily
detected using the same mercury vapor analysis instrument used by
OSHA and the EPA to monitor mercury levels. Anyone who does not
believe mercury is emitted from amalgams should consider doing the
following. Have your local dentist make 10 amalgams using the same
material he/she places in your mouth. Take these 10 amalgams to your
nearest research university's department of chemistry or toxicology
department and have them determine how much mercury is being emitted.
For example, have them calculate how long it would take a single
spill of hardened amalgam to make a gallon of water to toxic to pass
EPA standards as drinking water. You will then have an answer from an
unbiased, solid group of scientists who are trained to do such
determinations. Also, remember the level of mercury they measure
would not include the increase that would occur with amalgams in the
mouth where chewing, grinding your teeth, drinking hot liquids and
galvanism greatly increase the release of mercury. Since this
approach can be easily done by anyone don't you think the ADA, FDA
and other amalgam supporters would have this published by now if the
level of mercury released was below the danger level?

Here is their attempt. According to an ADA spokesman he
has "estimated" that only 0.08 micrograms of mercury per amalgam per
day is taken into the human body. Applying simple math to
this "estimate" of 0.08 micrograms/ day one would divide this amount
by 8,640 (24 hours/day X 60 minutes/hour X 6 ten second
intervals/minute) to determine the amount of mercury in micrograms
available for a ten second mercury vapor analysis. Consider that
somewhere between one-half to five-sixths of the mercury released
would be into the tooth (that area of the amalgam that exists below
the visibly exposed amalgam surface) and not into the oral air. In
addition, some mercury in the oral air would be rapidly absorbed into
the saliva and oral mucosa (mercury loves hydrophobic cell membranes)
and also not be measured by the mercury analyzer. Further, as the
mercury analyzer pulls mercury containing oral air into the analysis
chamber, mercury free ambient air rushes into the oral cavity
decreasing the mercury concentration. Taking all of this into account
you can calculate that most mercury analyzers could not detect
this "estimated" 0.08 micrograms/day level of mercury even if you had
several amalgams. However, the fact is that it is quite easy to
detect mercury emitting from one amalgam using these analyzers.
Therefore, the "estimate" by this ADA spokesman is way to low. Also,
if you gently rub the amalgam with a tooth-brush the amount of
mercury emitted goes up dramatically. This is a test anyone can do
and demonstrate to any group. The ADA spokesmen state that the
mercury vapor analyzer is not accurate at determining oral mercury
levels and they are quite correct. However, using this instrument
would greatly underestimate the amount of mercury exiting the
amalgam. The very fact that the mercury analyzer detects high levels
of oral mercury strongly indicates the emitted amount of mercury is
to high to be acceptable.

Mercury release from dental amalgams is also the reason OSHA has used
this analyzer to make the dentists place unused amalgam in a sealed
container under liquid glycerin. This is done so that the mercury
vapors from the amalgams will not contaminate the dental office
making it an unsafe place to work. This is also the reason the EPA
insists that removed amalgam filling and extracted teeth containing
amalgam material be picked up and disposed of as toxic waste.
Apparently, the only safe place for amalgams is in the human mouth if
you believe what the ADA believes.

"Amalgams have been used for 150 years and, during that time, has
established an extensively reviewed record of safety and
effectiveness." First, what other aspect of industry or medicine is
still using the same basic manufactured material that they used 150
years ago? One has to ask the question as to what has hindered the
progress of development of better and safer dental materials? Also,
consider that in the early 1900s the average life expectancy of most
Americans was about 50 years of age and most of them could not afford
dental fillings. Fifty to sixty years is much less than the average
age of onset of AD. Further, amalgams became more available to most
working class Americans after World War II, or in the early 1950s.
The greatest increase in the use of amalgam occurred at about this
time and these `baby boomers are the great ongoing amalgam
experiment'. They are now reaching the age where AD appears and have
lived most of their lives carrying amalgam fillings. They also wonder
what is causing their chronic fatigue as the physicians can find
nothing systemically wrong with them. I would encourage all concerned
to contact the health experts on the rate of increase of AD in the
U.S.A. at this time. Consider the cost it will place on the taxpayer
and how much we would save if we could even remove the exacerbation
factors that might speed up the onset of AD. I must point out that
the "extensively reviewed record of safety" mentioned in the ADA
letter was mostly done by dentists and committees dominated by ADA
dentists. Also, much of the "safety opinion" was developed long
before words like Alzheimer's disease and chronic fatigue were
commonplace. Further, these were "reviews" and not carefully
documented studies based on scientific experimentation and done by
unqualified dentists, not medical scientists. Dentists are not
trained to do basic research, nor are they trained in toxicology.
Furthermore, the ADA does have a vested interest in keeping amalgam
use legitimate. The ADA was founded on using amalgam technology and
participated in patenting and licensing amalgam technology. One has
to question why there has not been a general outcry by the bulk of
well-meaning dentists and their patients and this question should be
addressed. The International Association of Oral Medicine and
Toxicology, started by American & Canadian dentists, does adamantly
disagree with the ADA on the issue of safety of dental amalgams and
this organization has the mantra of "Show me your science" with
regards to all dental issues.

The ADA, through state dental boards stacked with ADA members, has
instigated a "gag order" preventing dentists from even mentioning to
their patients that amalgams are 50% mercury. Dentists cannot state
that mercury is neurotoxic and emits from amalgams and that the
dental patient should consider this as they select the tooth filling
material they want used. If a dentist informs a patient of these very
truthful facts he will be consider not to be practicing good
dentistry and his license will be in jeopardy. Attacking a person's
freedom of speech because he is telling the truth and causing serious
questions to be asked about the protocols pushed by a bureaucracy
(the ADA) makes me seriously question the commitment the ADA has for
the health of the American people. The negative stand taken by many
state dental boards against even informing the patients about the
mercury content of amalgams and the other filling choices they have
does not speak well for the organized dental profession. What medical
group would give a treatment to a patient without telling them of the
risks involved?

"Issued late in 1997, the FDI World Dental Federation and the World
Health Organization consensus statement on dental amalgam stated "No
controlled studies have been published demonstrating systemic adverse
effects from amalgam restorations."" My first comment would be to
question "who staffed these committees and what percentage were
connected to the ADA though the NIDCR or the FDA dental materials
branch or other relationships?" We appear to have the foxes guarding
the henhouse! Then I would again point out that "absence of proof is
not proof of absence". I would then ask `have any controlled studies
been done and if not, why not?' If the ADA dentists insist on placing
amalgams in the mouth, are they not required to show it is safe, not
the other way around? Should not the ADA and others concerned push to
require the FDA to prove amalgams are safe instead of totally ducking
this issue. Go to the FDA dental materials web-site and try to find
any evaluation of amalgam safety---you will not succeed. The dental
branch of the FDA refuses to do a safety study on amalgams and this
is shame on our government.

"the small amount of mercury released from amalgam restorations,
especially during placement and removal, has not been shown to cause
any…adverse effects." This increase in mercury exposure has also not
been shown to be safe by proving it does not cause any adverse
effects! Are we to believe this elevated exposure to a toxic metal is
good for us? If one were in a building that caused the rise in
blood/urine mercury that appears after dental amalgam removal, then
OSHA would shut the building down. In fact, no study by the ADA or
NIDCR has been completed that specifically and accurately addresses
this issue. Yet, the ADA leads us to believe that additional exposure
to toxic mercury from these procedures is not dangerous to our
health. 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 (12). Therefore, the damage caused by
amalgams could occur years after initial placement and at mercury
levels now deemed safe by the ADA.

Our ability to protect ourselves from the toxic damage caused by
exposure to mercury depends on the level of protective natural
biochemical compounds (e.g. glutathione, metallothionine) in our
cells and the levels of these protecting agents is dependent upon our
health and age. If we become ill, or as we age, the cellular levels
of glutathione drop and our protection against the toxic effects of
mercury decreases and damage will be done. This is strongly supported
by numerous studies where rodents have been chemically treated to
decrease their cellular levels of protective glutathione and then
treated with mercury, always with dramatic injurious effects when
compared to controls. Therefore, published science indicates that
mercury toxicity is much more pronounced in infants, the very old and
the very ill.

A recent NIH study on 1127 military men showed the major contributor
to human mercury body burden was dental amalgams. The amount of
mercury in the urine increased about 4.5 fold in soldiers with the
average number of amalgams versus the controls with no amalgams. In
extreme cases it was over 8 fold higher. Since the total mercury
included that from diet and industrial pollution are we to expect
that this 4.5 to 8 fold average increase in mercury is not
detrimental to our health? Does this indicate that amalgams are
a "safe and effective restorative material"? Is the public and
Congress expected to be so naïve as to believe that increased
exposure above environmental exposure levels is not damaging? Then
why are pregnant mothers told to limit seafood intake when mercury
exposure from amalgams is much greater? Then why is the EPA pushing
regulations to force the chloro-alkali plants and fossil fuel plants
to clean up their mercury contributions to our environment?
Obviously, from this study most of the human exposure to mercury is
from dental amalgams, not fossil fuel plants. Yet, the FDA lets the
dental profession continue to expose American citizens to even
greater amounts of mercury. They do this by refusing to test amalgam
fillings as a source of mercury exposure. Also, remember that the
amalgam using ADA dentists are a major contributor to mercury in our
water and air through mercury leaving the dental offices, and even
when we are cremated.

"The ADA's Council on Scientific Affairs 1998 report on its review of
the recent scientific literature on amalgam states: "The Council
concludes that, based on available scientific information, amalgam
continues to be a safe and effective restorative material."
and "There currently appears to be no justification for discontinuing
the use of dental amalgam." What would you expect an ADA Council to
say? The ADA, as evidenced in the current letter by the President of
the ADA, only quotes and considers valid the published research that
supports their desire to continue placing mercury containing amalgam
fillings in American citizens. When were dentists trained to evaluate
neurological and toxicological data and manuscripts? What is needed
is an international conference where both the pro- and anti-amalgam
researchers show up and present their data in front of a world-class
scientific committee. I would challenge the ADA to line up their
scientists and supporters to participate in such a conference. This
could be held in Washington, D.C. so the FDA officials could easily
attend. Perhaps we could persuade the FDA to sponsor such a
conference. However, this is unlikely since a recent written request
to have a conference to evaluate the safety of amalgams was rejected
in a letter from the FDA and signed by three FDA/ADA dentists who
presented the ADA line on this issue. Doesn't it seem a bit
fraudulent to have FDA/ADA dentists deciding on whether or not a
safety study should be done on mercury emitting amalgams being placed
in human mouths with the blessing of the ADA? This does seem like a
conflict in interest that Congress should address.

"In an article published in the February 1999 issue of the Journal of
the American Dental Association, researchers report finding "no
significant association of Alzheimer's disease with the number,
surface area or history of having dental amalgam restorations." This
research was lead by a dentist, Dr. Sax. It was submitted to the J.
of the American Medical Association and rejected. It was then
submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine and rejected. It was
then published in the ADA trade journal, JADA, that is not a
refereed, scientific journal. JADA is loaded with commercial
advertisements for dental products. They even called a "press
conference" announcing the release of this article! Calling a press
conference for a twice-rejected publication that is to appear in a
trade journal is playing politics with science at its worst! At this
press conference two of the authors made unbelievable statements that
were not supported by any of the data in the article and conflicted
with numerous major scientific reports, including the 1998 NIH study
(6). Some of these were high-lighted in the side-bars of the ADA
publication. I would suggest that those concerned with this article
visit Medline and look at the publication records of the two
individuals who made these statements. Also, look at the three
earlier excellent publications in refereed journals by some of the
other authors showing significant mercury levels in the brains of AD
subjects compared to controls (14a,b, 15). However, put a dentist in
charge of the project and the data gets reversed!

Apply some common sense. The ancillary comments by some of the
authors and the results of the JADA publication are in total
disagreement with the vast majority of research published that looks
at elevated mercury levels in subjects with amalgam fillings. For
example, the NIH study on military men discussed above showed a very
significant elevation of mercury in the blood that correlated with
number of dental amalgams (6). Another recent publication
demonstrated elevated mercury in the blood of living AD patients in
comparison to age-matched controls (10). These studies clearly show
that there should be increased mercury in your blood if you have
amalgams and especially if you have AD and amalgams (6,10). Does not
the brain have blood in it? This makes it a total mystery as to how
could the authors of the JADA article not find elevated brain mercury
levels in patient with existing amalgams and/or AD. Even cadavers
have brain mercury levels that correlate with the number of amalgam
fillings they had on death.

Further, if you are addressing the contribution of amalgams to brain
mercury and AD wouldn't it be important to divide the AD and control
subjects into those with and without existing amalgams on death? In
the JADA article this was not done and represents a major research
flaw! That this was not done also arouses suspicion. I participated
in submitting a letter pointing out this flaw to editors of JADA but
they refused to acknowledge the letter and did not publish our
comments. It is my opinion that the entire situation around this
singular supportive publication of the ADA position on amalgams,
brain mercury levels and AD represents a weak attempt at controlling
the mind-set of well-meaning dentists, scientists, physicians and
medical research administrators. It definitely impedes honest
scientific debate. It also explains the cavalier attitude of the ADA
and NIDCR about elemental mercury exposure and toxicity when compared
to the more serious approaches taken by the EPA and OSHA.

With regards to the JADA article summary that "no statistically
significant differences in brain mercury levels between subjects with
Alzheimer's disease and control subjects." Here I must quote Mark
Twain on honesty, "There are liars, damned liars and statisticians."
Comparing the level of mercury in the AD versus control alone using
straight-forward statistics previously showed a significant
difference on mercury levels in AD versus control subjects (14a,b,
15). However, there are anomalies, confounders and other factors that
can be considered in this situation, especially if you don't like the
initial results. This allows one to invoke a Bon-Feroni statistical
manipulation. With Bon-Feroni you include the comparison of one pair
of data (that may be statistically significantly different taken
alone, e.g. mercury levels in the brains of AD versus control
subjects) with several other pairs of data rendering the difference
statistically insignificant. One known weakness of the Bon-Feroni
treatment of several coupled pairs of comparisons is that one very
likely will miss a single comparison that is significantly different,
and clever people know this. It is my opinion that application of the
Bon-Feroni manipulation is what happened in this JADA study that
reversed the previous significance of the mercury levels in AD versus
control brain previously reported. Research previously reported by
some of the very same researchers involved in the JADA study
consistently indicated that mercury levels were higher in AD versus
age-matched control brains (14a,b, 15). Only when an ADA dentist
became involved did the results change to being insignificant. I
think the data used in this JADA article and funded by NIH needs to
be re-evaluated by a different statistician if we are to ever really
know if the mercury levels in the AD brains differed significantly
from controls.

The letter from the ADA President then lists four publications as
proof of amalgams having no statistically significant negative
effects. Two of these were published in Scandinavian Journals,
another was a review of the literature in a Dental Journal, and one
was the JADA article mentioned above. Sweden is well known to have
lead the world in the restriction and replacement of dental amalgams
with non-mercury containing materials. Forces are pushing hard to get
the use of amalgams accepted again in Sweden to eliminate this
embarrassment to our ADA. The current situation in Sweden and some
other European countries, Canada and Japan seriously questions the
ADA contention of amalgam safety. What if people in Sweden become
healthier without amalgams?

Additionally, the studies quoted by the ADA President were
epidemiological studies. These are very complex as many confounders
are included which make finding a statistically significant
difference very difficult. So the results are negative, nothing
found, and not surprising. However, they are in disagreement with
numerous other similar reports and appear to be hand-selected to
support the ADA position. One has to wonder, since the ADA President
seemed to visit Swedish journals to support the ADA position, how he
missed the research of the Nylander group in Sweden that showed
increased mercury content in brains and kidneys of humans in
relationship to exposure to dental amalgams (17,18). Also, the
referenced studies in the ADA letter did not involve neurotoxicity,
autism or neurological disease---which is the question at hand.
Rather, they addressed fertility, reproduction and other systemic
illnesses. Could not the ADA find references to focus on
neurotoxiological studies? What about the 1989 study that showed
elevated levels of mercury in 54 individuals with Parkinson's disease
when compared to 95 matched controls (16)? Further, one ought to
consider who was doing these touted ADA studies and any vested
interest they may have in the outcome. I am also aware of studies
done in the U.S.A. by major research universities that would disagree
with the conclusions drawn by the ADA on this subject yet these
articles are not considered in the ADA letter.

At the end of the last publication the quote "Conclusions: No
statistically significant correlation was observed between dental
amalgam and the incidence of diabetes, myocardial infarction, stroke,
or cancer." How does this relate to an article published in the J. of
the American College of Cardiology where the mercury levels in the
heart tissue of individuals who died from Idiopathic Dilated
Cardiomyopathy (IDCM) contained mercury levels 22,000 times that of
individuals who died of other forms of heart disease? Where did this
tremendous amount of mercury come from? Even a Bon-Feroni
manipulation could not make this difference insignificant! Many who
die of IDCM are well-conditioned, young athletes who drop dead during
sporting events---and they live in locations and in economic
environments where sea-food is not a dietary mainstay. Perhaps the
victims of IDCM are within the ADA Presidents "handful of individuals
who are allergic to one of its components."

"The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research is
currently supporting two very large clinical trials on the health
effects of dental amalgam. Studies underway for several years each in
Portugal and the Northeastern United States involve not only direct
neurophysiological measures but also cognitive and functional
assessments." Do we really think that the NIDCR and associated ADA
personnel are going to deliver up a conclusion to American parents
saying "we put a mercury containing toxic material in your child's
mouth that lowered his/her I.Q. and made him more susceptible to
neurological problems in comparison to the children whom we selected
to not get exposed to this toxic material"? It is my opinion that
most bureaucracies don't have a brain or a heart, but they do have a
very strong survival instinct. Therefore, the results presented from
this study will likely follow previously ADA supported research, i.e.
no significant results.

Since the NIDCR started this project only 4 years ago one has to ask
why it took so long for them to get involved since the "amalgam wars"
have been going on for scores of years? Was it the overwhelming
amount of modern science showing mercury from amalgams being a major
part of the daily exposure that forced their hand and they had to
develop a defense? Would I trust the conclusions of this study
without knowing who put it together and who did the statistics? Not
any more than I trust the conclusions of the JADA article mentioned
in ADA letter that stupendously concludes that mercury from dental
amalgams does not get into the brain.

As was proven by the tobacco situation, trying to find any
significant negative effect of one product (amalgams) related to any
disease through epidemiological studies is very difficult and
complex. To do this with mercury would be difficult because of the
synergistic effect two or more toxic metals or compounds (e.g.
cadmium from smoking) may have on the toxicity of the mercury emitted
from amalgams. For example, one publication showed that combining
mercury and lead both at LD1 levels caused the killing rate to go to
100% or to an LD100 level (12). An LD1 level is where, due to the low
concentrations, the mercury or the lead alone was not very toxic
alone (i.e., killed less than 1% of rats exposed when metal were used
alone). The 100% killing, when addition of 1% plus 1% we would expect
2%, represents synergistic toxicity. Therefore, mixing to non-lethal
levels of mercury plus lead gave an extremely toxic mixture! What
this proves is that one cannot define a "safe level of mercury"
unless you absolutely know what others toxicants the individual is
being exposed to. The combined toxicity of various materials, such as
mercury, thimerosal, lead, aluminum, formaldehyde, etc., is unknown.
The effects various combinations of these toxicants would have is
also not defined except that we know they would be much worse than
any one of the toxicants alone. So how could the ADA take any
exception, based on intellectual considerations, to my contention
that combinations of thimerosal and mercury could exacerbate the
neurological conditions identified with autism and AD? Autism and AD
have clinical and biological markers that correspond to those
observed in patients with toxic mercury exposure. Why would the ADA
take this position? I personally feel like I have been in a ten year
argument with the town drunk on this issue. Facts don't count and
data is only valid if it meets the pro-amalgam agenda.

The ADA was founded on the basis that mercury-containing amalgams are
safe and useful for dental fillings. This may have been an acceptable
position in 1850. However, modern science has proven that amalgams
constantly emit unacceptable levels of mercury. Especially as the
average life span has increased from 50 to 75-78 years of age where
AD and Parkinson's become prevalent diseases. The ADA can try to
verify its position using selected epidemiological studies. But the
bottom line is that amalgams emit significant levels of neurotoxic
mercury that are injurious to human health and would exacerbate the
medical condition of those individuals with neurological diseases
such as ALS, MS, Parkinson's, autism and AD.

I am hoping that the ADA sent this letter to your committee and also
placed it on the ADA web-site to indicate that they are now willing
for a wide-open discussion to take place on the issue of dental
amalgams. I, for one, would welcome a major scientific conference on
this issue. The ADA should feel free to post my letter in response
and address any issue they feel that I am mistaken about. However, in
closing I urge your committee to push forward on the study of the
potential dangers of mercury in our dentistry and medicines. This
includes mercury exposures from amalgams, vaccines and other
medicaments containing thimerosal. The synergistic effects of mercury
with many of the toxicants commonly found in our environment make the
danger unpredictable and possibly quite severe, especially any
mixture containing elemental mercury, organic mercury and other heavy
metal toxicants such as aluminum.

Sincerely,



Boyd E. Haley

Professor and Chair

Department of Chemistry

University of Kentucky



REFERENCES:

a. Duhr, E.F., Pendergrass, J. C., Slevin, J.T., and Haley, B. HgEDTA
Complex Inhibits GTP Interactions With The E-Site of Brain b-Tubulin
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 122, 273-288 (1993).; b.
Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E. Mercury-EDTA Complex Specifically
Blocks Brain b-Tubulin-GTP Interactions: Similarity to Observations
in Alzheimer"s Disease. p 98-105 in Status Quo and Perspective of
Amalgam and Other Dental Materials (International Symposium
Proceedings ed. by L. T. Friberg and G. N. Schrauzer) Georg Thieme
Verlag, Stuttgart-New York (1995).; c. Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley,
B.E. Inhibition of Brain Tubulin-Guanosine 5'-Triphosphate
Interactions by Mercury: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer's
Diseased Brain. In Metal Ions in Biological Systems V34, pp 461-478.
Mercury and Its Effects on Environment and Biology, Chapter 16.
Edited by H. Sigel and A. Sigel. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 270 Madison
Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10016 (1996).
Pendergrass, J. C., Haley, B.E., Vimy, M. J., Winfield, S.A. and
Lorscheider, F.L. Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits Binding of GTP to
Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarity to a Molecular Lesion in Alzheimer's
Disease Brain. Neurotoxicology 18(2), 315-324 (1997).
David, S., Shoemaker, M., and Haley, B. Abnormal Properties of
Creatine kinase in Alzheimer's Diseased Brain: Correlation of Reduced
Enzyme Activity and Active Site Photolabeling with Aberrant Cytosol-
Membrane Partitioning. Molecular Brain Research 54, 276-287 (1998).
Leong, CCW, Syed, N.I., and Lorscheider, F.L. Retrograde Degeneration
of Neurite Membrane Structural Integrity and Formation of
Neurofibillary Tangles at Nerve Growth Cones Following In Vitro
Exposure to Mercury. NeuroReports 12 (4): 733-737, 2001.
Olivieri, G., Brack, Ch., Muller-Spahn, F., Stahelin, H.B., Herrmann,
M., Renard, P; Brockhaus, M. and Hock, C. Mercury Induces Cell
Cytotoxicity and Oxidative Stress and Increases b-amyloid Secretion
and Tau Phosphorylation in SHSY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells. J.
Neurochemistry 74, 231-231, 2000.
Kingman, A., Albertini, T. and Brown, L.J. Mercury Concentrations in
Urine and Whole-Blood Associated with Amalgam Exposure in a U.S.
Military Population. J. Dental Research 77(3) 461-71, 1998.
Chew, C. L., Soh, G., Lee, A. S. and Yeoh, T. S. Long-term
Dissolution of Mercury from a Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam. Clinical
Preventive Dentistry 13(3): 5-7, May-June (1991).
Hahn, L.J., Kloiber, R., Vimy, M. J., Takahashi, Y. and Lorscheider,
F.L. Dental "Silver" Tooth Fillings: A Source of Mercury Exposure
Revealed by Whole-Body Image Scan and Tissue Analysis. FASEB J. 3,
2641-2646, 1989.
Hahn, L.J., Kloiber, R., Leininger, R.W., Vimy, M. J., and
Lorscheider, F.L. Whole-body Imaging of the Distribution of Mercury
Released from Dental Filling Into Monkey Tissues. FASEB F. 4, 3256-
3260, 1990.
Hock, C., Drasch, G., Golombowski, S., Muller-Span, F., Willerhausen-
Zonnchen, B., Schwarz, P., Hock, U., Growdon, J.H., and Nitsch, R.M.
Increased Blood Mercury Levels in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease.
J. of Neural Transmission v105(1) 59-68, 1998.
Frustaci, A., Magnavita, N., Chimenti, C., Caldarulo, M., Sabbioni,
E., Pietra, R., Cellini. C., Possati, G. F. and Maseri, A. Marked
Elevation of Myocardial Trace Elements in Idiopathic Dilated
Cardiomyopathy Compared With Secondary Dysfunction. J. of the
American College Cardiology v33(6) 1578-1583, 1999,
Schubert, J., Riley, E.J., and Tyler, S.A. Combined Effects in
Toxicology—A Rapid Systemic Testing Procedure: Cadmium, Mercury and
Lead. J. of Toxicology and Environmental Health v4, 763-776,1978.
Wataha, J. C., Nakajima, H., Hanks, C. T., and Okabe, T. Correlation
of Cytotoxicity with Element Release from Mercury and Gallium-based
Dental Alloys in vitro. Dental Materials 10(5) 298-303, Sept. (1994)
a. Ehmann, W., Markesbery, W., and Alauddin, T., Hossain, E. and
Brubaker, E., Brain Trace Elements in Alzheimer's Disease.
Neurotoxicology 7(1) p197-206, 1986. b. Thompson, C. M., Markesbery,
W.R., Ehmann, W.D., Mao, Y-X, and Vance, D.E. Regional Brain Trace-
Element Studies in Alzheimer's Disease. Neurotoxicology 9, 1-8
(1988).
Wenstrup, D., Ehmann, W., and Markesbery, W. Brain Research, 533, 125-
131, 1990.
Ngim, C.H., Devathasan, G. Epidemiologic Study on the Assocaiation
Between Body Burden Mercury Level and Idiopathic Parkinson's Disease.
Neuroepidemiology, 8, 128-141, 1989.
Nylander, M., Friberg, L. and Lind, B. Mercury Concentrations in the
Human Brain and Kidneys in Relation to Exposure from Dental Amalgam
Fillings. Swedish Dentistry J. 11:179-187, 1987.
Nylander, M., Friberg, L., Eggleston, D., Bjorkman, L. Mercury
Accumulation in Tissues from Dental Staff and Controls in Relation to
Exposure. Swedish Dental J. 13, 235-243, 1989
Heintze, U. Edwardsson, S., Derand, T. and Birkhed, D. Methylation of
Mercury from Dental Amalgam and Mercuric Chloride by Oral
Streptococci in vitro. Scand. J. Dental Research 91(2) 150-152, 1983.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE TOXIC EFFECTS OF MERCURY TO EXACERABATION OF
THE MEDICAL CONDITION CLASSIFIED AS ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE



By

Boyd E. Haley Ph.D.,
Professor and Chair,
Department of Chemistry,
University of Kentucky,
Lexington, KY 40506-0055
e-mail, behaley@...

Abstract: Mercury(II) or Hg2+, is neurotoxic and when exposed to
normal brain tissue homogenates, is capable of causing many of the
same biochemical aberrancies found in Alzheimer's diseased (AD)
brain. Also, rats exposed to mercury vapor show some of these same
aberrancies in their brain tissue. Specifically, the rapid
inactivation of the brain thiol-sensitive enzymes tubulin, creatine
kinase and glutamine synthetase occurs on the addition of low
micromolar levels of Hg2+ or exposure to mercury vapor, and these
same enzymes are significantly inhibited in AD brain. Further,
extended Hg2+ exposure to neurons in culture has been shown to
produce three of the widely accepted pathological diagnostic
hallmarks of AD. These are elevated amyloid protein, hyper-
phosphorylation of Tau, and formation of neurofibillary tangles. The
hypothesis is that mercury and other blood-brain permeable toxicants
that have enhanced specificity for thiol-sensitive enzymes are the
etiological source of AD. Included in this category are other heavy
metals such as lead and cadmium that act synergistically to enhance
to toxicity of mercury and organic-mercury compounds, like thimerosal
that is found in vaccines and other medicines. This hypothesis is
also able to explain the genetic susceptibility to AD that is
expressed through the APO-E gene family. Specifically, a reduction of
APO-E gene types carrying cysteines decreases the ability to remove
mercury and other thiol-reactive toxicants from the cerebrospinal
fluid. This increases brain exposure to thiol-reactive toxicants and
the risk of AD.

RATIONALE FOR THE HYPOTHESIS:

AD is a disease of unknown etiology. However, it is widely accepted
that most AD is not directly genetically inherited and that some
external vector, such as a toxicant exposure or an infection, must be
involved for the disease to progress into a clinically observable
condition. In the USA the rate of AD is very similar for rural versus
urban peoples and it does not vary appreciably from state to state.
Therefore, if a toxicant is involved then this toxicant must be of a
very personal nature, like what we eat or what is placed into our
bodies through other sources such as dental fillings, vaccines, etc.

The involvement of infectious agents such as bacteria, virus or
yeasts; while possible at this time, seems not to be directly
involved. This is based on the huge amount of National Institutes of
Health (USA) and other world-wide funds spent on AD to identify the
causal factors and they have not detected a consistent microbial
vector. If an infectious agent were involved (like in AIDS and polio)
it seems as if it would have been identified by now. However, focal
infections caused by microbes in the oral cavity must still be
considered as these microbes are known to produce toxicants such as
hydrogen sulfide, methyl-mercaptan, gliatoxin and other compounds
that inhibit thiol-sensitive enzymes.

For any toxicant, or class of toxicants, to be proposed as involved
in the etiology of AD they must be available equally to individuals
living in markedly different locations. The toxicant proposed must
explain the genetic susceptibility concept of AD. Further, under
experimental conditions the toxicants must be able to cause the
exacerbation of the many biochemical aberrancies found in AD brain.
Based on our research and a literature review, mercury and mercury
containing compounds from dental amalgams, vaccines, other medicinals
and preservatives used in paints, seed grains, etc. represent a class
of compounds that fill this requirement.

Mercury and organic mercurials are neurotoxicants. Further, the
enzyme inhibitory effects of mercury are synergistically enhanced by
exposures to other toxicants such as lead and cadmium (smokers). Even
the simultaneous presence of EDTA (ethylene-diamine-tetraacetic acid,
a common food additive) or metal binding antibiotics such as
tetracycline can enhance mercury toxicity. Therefore, any
determination of a safe level of mercury exposure using rats in a
cage being feed carefully monitored food and water is not reliable
for determination of a "safe level of exposure to mercury" for
humans. The fact is that science does not know what the combined
toxic effects of many toxicants or enhancers of toxicity would be if
present with mercury and therefore cannot identify a safe level of
exposure.

Therefore, thiol-reactive toxicants such as mercury, cadmium, lead
and certain organics are rational suggestions as being exacerbating
factors for AD, or possibly even causal. However, mercury is the one
toxicant that has been shown to reproduce many of the biochemical
aberrancies and diagnostic hallmarks of AD. Also, mercury exposure is
readily available to most humans. It is reasonable to propose that
exposure to mercury is one of the major toxic factors involved in
early onset AD. Further, that simultaneous exposures to other
toxicants or factors enhance the toxicity of mercury and hasten the
onset of AD, especially in those individuals who are genetically
susceptible.

RESEARCH REVIEW AND RESULTS:

Enzyme Inhibition and Protein Partitioning Results.

Research regarding Alzheimer's disease (AD) done in our laboratory in
the late 1980s was directed towards detecting aberrancies in the
nucleotide binding proteins of AD post-mortem brain tissue versus age-
matched, non-demented control brain samples. Basic to all of our
findings was the following observation. Two very important brain
nucleotide binding proteins, tubulin and creatine kinase (CK), showed
greatly diminished activity and nucleotide binding ability. Further,
they were abnormally partitioned into the particulate fraction versus
the soluble fraction of AD brain tissue by simple centrifugation
(1,2).

Both tubulin and CK are proteins that bind the nucleotides GTP
(guanosine-5'-triphosphate) and ATP (adenosine-5'-triphosphate),
respectively. We use a "photoaffinity labeling" technology to
determine the availability of these binding sites before and after
addition of mercury or other toxicants (21). This technology is
explained in detail at www.altcorp.com for those interested in the
detailed chemistry. Using this technology our laboratory has
demonstrated that both tubulin and CK had diminished biological
activity in AD brain compared to age-matched controls. Since AD is
not directly a genetically inherited disease we searched for possible
toxicants that might mimic the specific findings observed in AD brain.

Our first finding was simple and straight-forward. After testing
numerous heavy metals we observed that only Hg2+ could mimic the AD
effect in homogenates of normal brain at concentrations that might be
expected to be found in brain (3,4). The observation was that Hg2+ at
very low micromolar levels (@ 1 micromolar) could rapidly and
selectively abolish the GTP binding activity of tubulin (Mr = 55,000
daltons) without any noticeable effect on the other GTP binding
proteins protein(s) observed at an Mr of about 42,000 daltons, that
are present in both control and AD brain at approximately equal
levels. Therefore, concerning heavy metals the addition of only
mercury at low micromolar levels to control brain homogenates gave a
GTP binding profile that was identical to that observed in AD brain
and that chelation of Hg2+ by EDTA did not prevent but enhanced this
effect (4,5,6). Further, additional results have shown that the
addition of Hg2+ to control brain homogenates not only caused the
decrease in nucleotide interaction but could also support the
abnormal partitioning of tubulin into the particulate fraction as
observed in AD brain (7). This was especially effective in the
presence of other divalent metals, such as zinc, which is elevated in
AD brain. The recent video demonstrating Hg2+ specific stripping the
tubulin from the neurofibrils shows the tubulin abnormally
aggregating at the base of the neuron, supporting the partitioning we
observed in brain homogenates
(http://movies.commons.ucalgary.ca/mercury).

It is critical to understand that both tubulin and CK in normal brain
are found primarily in the soluble fraction of a homogenate. Yet,
both proteins appear of normal size and unmodified on reducing
polyacrylamide gel electrophoretic analysis (PAGE). This indicates
that both intact tubulin and CK have formed crosslinks with other
proteins that are insoluble under physiological conditions. Yet,
these crosslinks are readily disrupted by the common dithiolthreitol
(DTT) reduction procedure used before PAGE. What tubulin and CK have
in common is that both have a very reactive sulfhydryl in their
nucleotide binding sites that, if modified, inhibits their biological
activity (14, 15).

Mercury has a very high affinity for sulfhydryls and has been proven
to be a potent inhibitor of the biological activity of both of these
proteins. Also, mercury is divalent and can form crosslinks between
soluble proteins like tubulin and CK and is known to cause protein
aggregation. A generalized single step reaction would be as given in
reaction 1.

1: Protein-A-SH + Protein-B-SH + Hg2+ Þ Protein-A-S-Hg-S-Protein-B +
2 H+

This chemistry would allow the formation of aggregates that would
abnormally appear in the particulate fraction. Due to its dithiol
structure DTT is an excellent chelator of mercury. The massive
amounts of DTT used in reducing gels could chelate and remove mercury
from the proteins resulting in their becoming soluble again and
migrating as unmodified on gel electrophoresis as observed as shown
in reaction 2.

2. Protein-A-S-Hg-S-Protein-B + DTT Þ Protein-A-SH + Protein-B-SH +
DTT-Hg

The correct criticism of any homogenate test is that it may not occur
in a living animal. Therefore, experiments were done to determine if
mercury vapor, the primary form that escapes from dental amalgams,
could mimic the effect in rats exposed to such vapor for various
periods of time (5). Rats are different from humans in that they can
synthesize vitamin C whereas humans have to ingest vitamin C. Vitamin
C is thought to be somewhat protective against heavy metal toxicity
and other oxidative stresses. However, we observed that the tubulin
in the brains of rats exposed to mercury vapor lost between 41 and 75
percent of the nucleotide binding capability demonstrating a
similarity to the aberrancy observed in AD brain and confirming the
homogenate results (5).

There is also an "excito-toxic" amino acid hypothesis for the cause
of AD wherein excito-toxic amino acid glutmate builds up in brain
tissue causing neuronal death. This is a reasonable hypothesis and
could co-exist with the thiol-sensitive enzyme/mercury hypothesis.
The activity of Hg2+ sensitive glutamine synthetase (GS) was measured
in AD brain and the amount of GS in the cerebrospinal fluid of AD
versus control patients was determined. GS was found it to be
inhibited in AD brain and copies of GS were elevated in the
cerebrospinal fluid (12, 22). It has also been predicted by two
groups that the elevation of GS in the cerebrospinal fluid of AD
patients has potential as a diagnostic aid for AD (12,16). However,
it is reasonable to conclude that brain GS would be rapidly inhibited
by Hg2+ produced by oxidation of mercury vapor. This inhibition would
cause a rise in glutamate based excito-toxicity and could cause
neuron death. Further, glutamate is transported by molecular motors
down the microtubules that are destroyed by Hg2+. Therefore, both the
metabolism and transport of glutamate would be immediately affected
by exposure to mercury. The measurement of GS in cerebrospinal fluid
is most likely a measure of glial cell toxicity and death as would be
expected in several central nervous system diseases, including AD.

Illnesses that lower our metabolic energy levels also lower our
ability to synthesize the reducing equivalents that allow our body to
bind and dispose of excess mercury. Hg2+ is known to inhibit the
metabolic processes in mitochondria that produce ATP and NADH by
inhibiting the enzymes of the citric acid cycle and the electron
transport system. These nucleotides are absolutely required for both
the synthesis of reduced glutathione (GSH) and to reduce glutathione
after it is oxidized. GSH in the reduced state is the major
biomolecule involved in the natural removal of mercury from the body.
Therefore, as mercury slowly accumulates in the body it weakens the
body's natural defense against all forms of other heavy metal
toxicities and increases the overall oxidative stress expressed by
reactive oxygen species formation. It is well known that AD brain
tissue suffers from greater oxidative stress in all cellular
components versus similar tissues from control subjects. This would
be expected and it is well documented that mercury increases
oxidative stress in biological tissues. Further, Hg2+ is well known
to inhibit numerous other enzymes important to neurological function,
including the Na/K ATPase that is necessary for recovery from a nerve-
action potential. Therefore, the many numerous aberrancies observed
in AD brain would be expected within a hypothesis that proposes
exposure to Hg2+ is a major contributor to this disease.

Relevant Mercury Exposures and Measurments.

Mercury from Dental Amalgams;

The fact that mercury has inhibitory effects on tubulin, CK and GS
and that these proteins are proven to be aberrantly inhibited in AD
does not alone conclusively prove that mercury exposure causes AD.
However, it definitely proves that chronic, daily exposure to mercury
would at least exacerbate the clinical conditions of AD. Is such an
exposure to mercury likely? The answer is yes, and this makes mercury
involvement in AD plausible.

First, the question must be addressed if there is enough mercury in
an amalgam filling to continue a low chronic level exposure for
years? The answer is yes. For example, if a single large amalgam
filling contained 1 gram of mercury (1 million micrograms) and lost a
significantly toxic 10 micrograms per day there would be enough
mercury for 100,000 days or about 274 years of exposure. A small
tenth of a gram mercury filling would last 27 years. So enough
mercury is within amalgam fillings to provide a consistent chronic
toxic exposure for the life of most fillings.

Second, does mercury emit from amalgams at a rate that should cause
concern? The answer is yes. Dental amalgams, or "silver fillings" as
organized dentistry calls them, are approximately 50% mercury by
weight and it is quite easy to demonstrate that mercury vapors
readily emit from these fillings. The actual amount can only be
determined with the amalgam in a closed container and the amount of
mercury released being determined using solid, time proven chemical
techniques and instrumentation. The accurate level of mercury
released cannot be accomplished on amalgams in the mouth. In a
carefully designed study in a sealed container Chew et al. tested
the "long term dissolution of mercury from a non-mercury-releasing
amalgam (trade name Composil)" (9). Their results demonstrated "that
the overall mean release of mercury was 43.5 +/-3.2
micrograms/cm2/24hr, and the amount of mercury released remained
fairly constant during the duration of the experiment (2 years)".

In my opinion, this 43.5 micrograms/cm2/day is not an insignificant
amount of mercury exposure if one considers the number of years a 70
year old individual living today may have been exposed to chronic
mercury levels from his amalgams. Additionally, 43.5
micrograms/cm2/day is the level released without galvanism, excess
heat, or pressure from chewing, all factors that increase mercury
release from amalgams in the mouth (26).

Some may disagree with the figure presented above and indeed,
amalgams of different manufacture may release more or less. However,
the pro-amalgam supporters have not published any carefully
controlled study similar to the one above repudiating the finds of
this research group. They definitely have all of the scientific
laboratory expertise needed to do this. Instead, they
utilize "estimates" of release based on urine and blood levels that
are widely known to vary dramatically with time and not to be
reliable. In judging science one looks for what is not published that
obviously should have been.

Does the Presence of Amalgams Contribute Significantly to Mercury
Body Burden?

There have been numerous published reports of increased tissue
mercury levels in subjects and the relationship to increased number
of amalgams fillings (see 10, 11, 25 and references therein). Also,
the World Health Organization Scientific Panel found ranges of
mercury exposures from 3 to 70 micrograms/day with the bulk being
from amalgam fillings (31). Data relevant to this question was
addressed by a recent NIH study using 1,127 military personnel (20).
Soldiers in this study had an average of 20 amalgam surfaces with
ranges from 0 to 66 surfaces. Each 10 surfaces increased the urine
mercury level 1microgram/liter or an average of 4.5 micrograms/day.
This study indicated that individuals with an average number of
amalgam fillings had about 4.5 times the urine mercury levels as
controls without amalgams. Those soldiers with over 49 surfaces
averaged over 8 times the urine level observed in the non-amalgam
controls. Further, the blood and urine mercury levels corresponded
well with the number of amalgam fillings (20). The results above are
consistent with an earlier study where urinary mercury levels dropped
by a factor of 5 after the removal of several amalgam fillings. The
conclusion of the authors was that mercury from dental amalgams
exceeds that from all forms of food, air and fluids (23). All of the
data on urine or blood mercury levels must be considered with the
knowledge that approximately 80% of inhaled mercury vapor is retained
in the body. Mercury typifies a "retention" toxicity and much of the
mercury taken into the body is absorbed by the solid tissues. The
amount in urine represents mercury being excreted. However, the main
question is how much is being retained in the different body tissues.

In contrast to other reports there was published in the J. American
Dental Association research that measured mercury levels in brain and
other neurological tissues and concluded "Our results do not support
the hypothesis that dental amalgam is a major contributor to brain Hg
levels. They also do not support the hypothesis that Hg is a
pathogenetic factor in AD (25)." I can't explain how amalgams can
increase blood mercury levels and not increase brain mercury levels.
However, these researchers presented data showing no significant
increase in Hg level in several brain regions between control and AD
subjects. They surprisingly included data showing that the Hg levels
in control olfactory region was more than double that of the
corresponding AD olfactory tissue. This olfactory mercury increase in
control subjects could have several explanations.

One explanation could be they were not precise in estimating the
amount of mercury exposures of their subjects and the controls they
selected were much more exposed to mercury than the AD subjects
selected. The olfactory region is outside the blood-brain barrier and
should be a consistent internal standard for mercury exposure in the
air breathed in by the subjects.

Another explanation would be that the controls, even though exposed
to more than double the mercury levels of the AD subjects, as
evidenced by the olfactory region Hg levels, had a mechanism that
protected their brain tissues from also having double the mercury
levels. If this were true, then dividing the brain mercury levels by
the olfactory mercury levels would give results that clearly show a
significant ability of the controls to have a mechanism that protects
brain tissue from mercury that is lacking in the AD subjects. This
mechanism could be the presence of the protective APO-E protein
genotypes (see below) and other predisposition factors not yet known.

The debate continues on whether or not human mercury exposures reach
levels in the brain and other tissues that could be considered toxic
or harmful (24,25). There are several reasons why the brain levels of
mercury would not directly correlate to the damage being done. The
level of selenium in the diet, which could bind with mercury
rendering it less toxic, is the most straight-forward example. Also,
the determination of the levels of mercury toxicity that could cause
neurological disease has been done using animals, such as rats and
monkeys, under tightly controlled laboratory conditions where the
diet is carefully monitored to exclude other toxicants. Further, any
test animal that becomes ill or infected by microbial sources is
removed from the study. However, humans do not live under such
restricted conditions. For example, we are exposed to numerous
infections and additional heavy metal imbalances in AD brains have
been reported numerous times. Cigarette smokers are exposed to excess
cadmium (Cd2+) and lead (Pb2+) toxicity is not that uncommon in the
inter-city environment or for those exposed to leaded gasoline fumes
for many years. This means that the synergistic toxicities of
combined heavy metals must be considered for humans.

It is also questionable whether or not brain mercury levels should be
expected to remain high in AD brain. A report by Hock et al. (27)
stated that in early onset AD the blood levels of mercury were almost
three fold higher than the control groups and that these increases
were unrelated to the patients' dental status. The concluded that the
explanation of increased mercury in AD would include yet unidentified
environmental sources or release from the brain tissue with the
advance in neuronal death. The AD brain loses 25% of its average
weight by time of death making the latter explanation reasonable. It
is a well-known biochemical event that cells or tissues rid
themselves of denatured, unusable protein.

The inhibition and break down of neuronal tissue may also explain
another observation related to AD. It is documented that AD patients
have elevated olfactory thresholds and impaired odor identification.
It is further suggested that in patients with mild cognitive
impairment, olfactory problems may have clinical value as an early
diagnostic predictor for diagnosis of AD(28, 29, 30). Mercury in the
oral cavity must interact with the olfactory bulb. Due to the
neurotoxicity of mercury, this could impair olfactory sensitivity.
Also, based on our hypothesis impaired olfactory response would
almost have to occur.

Our laboratory has shown that one can add various metals to human
brain homogenates to levels that alone do not affect nucleotide
binding to tubulin, yet the very presence of these metals
synergistically increases the toxicity of Hg2+. That is, the presence
of Pb2+, Zn2+ and Cd2+, at non-toxic levels, decrease the amount of
Hg2+ required for 50% inhibition of tubulin or creatine kinase
viability. It is important to remember the "Periodic Chart of the
Elements" which places Zn, Cd and Hg in the same IIB category and all
have high affinity for thiol groups. In other words, mercury is much
more toxic in the presence of other metals that compete with mercury
for the binding sites on protective biomolecules (e.g., APO-E2 & E3,
glutathione or GSH, metallo-thionine, etc.).

It is also important to note that the "test tube levels" of mercury
are not representative of what would happen in a dynamic system where
a constant level of mercury is being supplied by the amalgams. Since
mercury toxicity is a "retention toxicity" all mercury pulled from
the system, or retained by the tissue, is replaced by more mercury
being constantly released from the amalgams and the Hg2+ level and
toxicity in solution remains constant. In the test tube as the
mercury is pulled out of solution the free Hg2+ concentration in
solution drops making the soluble aspect less toxic with time.

Are Amalgams Capable of Producing Toxic Solutions?

To propose deleterious effects of amalgams while in the mouth the
amalgams must be able to produce toxic effects outside of the mouth.
Wataha et al. reported that extracts of the amalgam material (trade
name, Dispersalloy) "was severely cytotoxic when Zn release was
greatest, but less toxic between 48 and 72 hours as Zn release
decreased" (8). Zn is a trace material in dental amalgams and a
needed supplement for living neurons. Therefore, it did not seem
likely that the toxicity was due to Zn emitting from the amalgams.
When we compare the toxicity of Hg2+ in brain homogenates as
described above (refs. 3 & 4), the addition of 0, 10 and 20
micromolar Zn2+ increased the inhibition of GTP binding to tubulin
from 4% to 50% and 76%, respectively (7,13). This supports the
concept that the Zn correlation to increased toxicity was due to the
synergistically enhanced toxicity of the mercury released from the
amalgam. Further,other studies in our laboratory have shown that
soaking of amalgams in distilled water for less than one hour created
a solution that also caused rapid inhibition of brain tubulin and
creatine kinase similar to that observed on adding Hg2+ solutions.
Therefore, it appears that the toxicity of solutions in which
amalgams were soaked is not caused by direct Zn2+ toxic effects.
Rather, enhanced toxicity is due to the Zn2+ or other amalgam heavy
metals stimulating the toxicity of mercury by occupying biomolecule
chelation sites. This would result in a higher concentration of free
Hg2+ capable of inhibiting the activity of critical nucleotide
binding proteins such as tubulin and CK.

The observed synergistic toxicity of other heavy metals with Hg2+ has
been supported in animal models. Combining an LD-1 solution of Pb2+
with an LD-1 solution of Hg2+ gave a solution with an LD of 100,
instead of an LD-2, when injected into rats (19). The bottom line is
that mercury toxicity is enhanced by the presence of other heavy
metals. Therefore, when one considers the toxicity of a certain body
level of mercury it is somewhat meaningless unless the body level of
other heavy metals is also considered.

With the complexity of our environment and the confounding factors
involving neurological diseases, and without major government
supported epidemiological studies proving safety, it is impossible to
state with assurance, as many amalgams supporters do, that this
exposure does not place the individuals at greater health risk.
The "lack of proof of damage" from mercury exposure seems unwarranted
to be used as "proving the safety of any material" that unnecessarily
exposes individuals daily to several micrograms of mercury.

Genetic Susceptibility Considerations.

Any hypothesis of the etiology of AD must consider information on
genetic susceptibility. The best known genetic risk factor for AD is
the correlation of APO-E genotypes to the age of onset of AD (24a,b).
Individuals can inherit any combination of the alleles APO-E2, E3 or
E4. Individuals inheriting APO-E2 or combinations of APO-E2 and E3
are much less likely to get early onset AD than are individuals who
have inherited APO-E4 genes. Also, APO-E2 appears to be more
protective than APO-E3 against early onset AD. Therefore, it is
necessary that the mechanism of mercury toxicity contain an
explainable relationship for the APO-E genetic susceptibility. This
is accomplished in a straight-forward manner by considering the basic
structural difference between these three alleles. Simply put, the
protective APO-E2 has two sulfhydryls (cysteines) that can bind
mercury or other heavy metals that APO-E4 lacks. For example, in APO-
E3, one of APO-E2 cysteines is replaced by an arginine and in APO-E4,
both of the APO-E2 cysteines are replaced by arginines (32).
Therefore, lack of protection against early onset AD was proposed to
follow the loss of mercury binding sulfhydryls from APO-E proteins
(6).

The protection provided by APO-E2 is reasonable when considering the
nature and biochemical assignment of APO-E proteins. APO-E proteins
are involved in cholesterol transport and all three alleles do this
reasonably well. However, APO-E is classified as a "housekeeping
protein". That is, in contrast to tubulin, GS and CK, which are meant
to stay inside of cells where they are synthesized, APO-E is meant to
leave the brain cells carrying damaged cholesterol through the
cerebrol spinal fluid (CSF), across the blood-brain barrier into the
blood where it is removed by the liver. It fits into the hypothesis
that while APO-E2 or E3 are leaving the brain cells and traversing
the CSF they likely bind and remove mercury, other heavy metals or
other sulfhydryl reactive toxins that may have made it into the
central nervous system thereby protecting the brain neurons (6). APO-
E4 cannot as effectively bind mercury and therefore does not provide
the protective parameters that APO-E2 and E3 have. It is interesting
to note that the second highest level of APO-E protein in the body is
in the CSF that bathes and protects the brain.

Oral Super-toxins Produced by Reaction With Dental Mercury.

Many recent literature and popular press reports state that the
presence of periodontal disease raises the risk factor or exacerbates
the condition of several other seemingly unrelated diseases such as
stroke, low birth weight babies, cardiovascular disease (See October
1996 issue of Periodontology). The anerobic bacteria of periodontal
disease produce hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and methyl thiol (CH3SH) from
cysteine and methionine, respectively. This accounts for the "bad
breath" many individuals have.

However, in a mouth that produces H2S, CH3SH (from periodontal
disease) and Hgo (from amalgam fillings) the very likely production
of their reaction products, HgS (mercury sulfide), CH3S-Hg-Cl (methyl-
thiol mercury chloride) and CH3S-Hg-S-CH3 (Dimethylthiol mercury) has
to occur. This is simple, straight-forward chemistry whose occurrence
is supported by easily observable "amalgam tattoos". These tattoos
are purple gum tissue surrounding certain teeth where the gum and
tooth meet and primarily caused by HgS as determined by elemental
analysis of such tissue.

HgS is one of the most stable forms of mercury compounds and is the
mineral form found in ore, called cinnabar, from which mercury is
mined from the earth. All of these oral site produced compounds are
classified as extremely toxic and the latter compound, dimethylthiol-
mercury is very hydrophobic and its solubility would be similar to
dimethyl-mercury (CH3-Hg-CH3). Dimethyl-mercury was the compound that
was made famous in the press where only a small amount spilled on the
latex gloves of a Dartmouth University chemistry professor caused
severe neurological problems and finally death 10 months later. In my
opinion, the extreme lethality of CH3-Hg-CH3 compared to other forms
of mercury is due to its ability to collect in hydrophobic regions of
the body, like the central nervous system. CH3-Hg-CH3 is similar to
CH3-S-Hg-S-CH3 in its hydrophobic characteristics.

Logic implies that anyone with periodontal disease, anaerobic
bacterial infected teeth and mercury containing fillings would be
exposed daily to these very toxic compounds. In our laboratory we
synthesized the two methylthiol-mercury compounds and tested them.
They are extremely cytotoxic at 1 micromolar or less levels and are
potent, irreversible inhibitors of a number of important mammalian
enzymes, including tubulin and CK.

A recent report stated that the tissues of individuals who died of
Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy (IDCM) had mercury levels of
178,400 ng/g tissue or 22,000 times more than their controls who died
of other forms of heart disease. IDCM is a disease where young
athletes drop dead during strenuous exercise. It seems impossible for
a tissue to bind this much mercury on protein without early notice of
injury through pain and lack of bioenergy. However, if this mercury
were to combine with H2S produced by a local anerobic infection the
mercury could precipitate out in the tissue as HgS as it does
in "amalgam tattoos" causing a buildup without killing the tissue
immediately. However, one has to ask where does this excess mercury
come from. Many times this occurs to young intercity athletes who are
not on a high seafood diet. My opinion is that dental amalgam is the
source of this mercury. Also, if HgS is being made in the heart
tissue the very cytotoxic CH3-S-HgX and CH3-S-Hg-S-CH3 are also being
made.

To determine if toxic teeth could have an effect on the
enzymes/proteins of human brain we have done the following study.
Several very toxic teeth were incubated for 1 hour in distilled
water. Aliquots of these solutions were then added to control human
brain homogenates and the resulting samples tested for tubulin
viability and partitioning. The results showed that about 40%
inhibited the viability of tubulin and caused partitioning.
Therefore, depending on the type of anerobic microbial infection
existing in avital teeth it is possible to have a toxicant production
that would exacerbate the condition classified as AD. It is also
probable that many of these teeth were extracted from mouths
containing amalgam and the toxins in these teeth may also consist
partially of extremely organic-mercury compounds as described above.

Based on the potential clearance represented by elevated blood levels
of mercury in early onset AD patients, the synergistic effects of
other heavy metals, the fluctuating GSH levels during illness and
aging, and dietary factors (e.g. selenium levels) there is no reason
to believe that the adverse effects of mercury from amalgams would be
dose dependent in any straight-forward manner in post-mortem AD
brain. To expect this would fly in the face of published data and
scientific logic. Further, to eliminate mercury as a factor in AD
based on statistically insignificant increases above normal in post-
mortem brain samples is not warranted. Also, involvement of genetic
factors likely plays a key role.

Studies Involving Neuronal Cultures and Diagnostic Markers for AD.

A recent publication supports our contention that mercury from dental
amalgams poses a major threat to the exacerbation of AD. Olivieri et
al. demonstrated that exposure of neuroblastoma cells to sub-lethal
doses (36 X 10-9 molar) of Hg2+ caused a rapid drop in GSH, an
increased secretion of b–amyloid protein and an increased
phosphorylation of the microtubulin protein Tau (17). The latter two
of these biochemical changes are uniquely observed in AD brain
tissues and are widely considered to be diagnostic, pathological
markers of the disease. b-amyloid protein makes up the `amyloid
plaques' that was one of the first diagnostic markers reported for AD
brain pathology. A very strong component of AD researchers believe
that amyloid protein is the cause of AD. Therefore, mercury exposure
at nanomolar levels causes neuroblastoma cells to produce a protein
that is believed to be involved directly in AD. This lead the authors
of this paper to conclude that mercury would have to be consider as
causal for AD (17).

Further, the recent report of the response of neurons in culture
rapidly forming neurofibillary tangles on exposure to extremely low
levels of mercury, by a process involving loss of microtublin
structure, completes the picture that mercury is capable of causing
the formation of three widely accepted major pathological diagnostic
hallmarks of AD in neuronal cultures (18). An impressive video
accompanying this publication and available at
http://movies.commons.ucalgary.ca/mercury shows the addition of 2
microliters of 10-7M mercury to a 2 milliliter solution bathing
neurons caused a rapid stripping of the tubulin from the neurofibrils
leaving them bare. This would be predictable from our earlier data
showing mercury interfering with normal tubulin-GTP interactions and
the abnormal partitioning of tubulin into the particulate fraction of
brain tissue(3,4,6). The bare neurofibrils then aggregate forming
neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) similar to those observed in AD brain.
The final mercury concentration of 10-10M in these experiments is
roughly 100 to 1000 times lower than the 10-7M levels normally found
in human brain of individuals with amalgam fillings. The majority of
the mercury in brain is likely bound by protective compounds like GSH
or selenium and not free to cause neuronal damage. However, it is not
unreasonable to consider that some of this mercury is present as free
Hg2+ some fraction of the time, especially when illness or other
toxicities lower the GSH levels.

However, these two recent publications supports the initial
contention that mercury first rapidly inhibits thiol-sensitive
enzymes like tubulin, creatine kinase and glutamine synthetase and
dramatically affects metabolism and membrane structure. The stripping
of tubulin leads to the formation of NFTs and the exposing Tau for
hyper-phosphorylation. This is followed by elevated production of b –
amyloid protein that can aggregate into senile plaques. all
diagnostic markers for AD. It is consistent with the mercury toxicity
hypothesis for AD that neurofibillary tangles, hyper-phosphorylated
Tau, amyloid plaques and increased oxidative stress observations are
the result of neuronal toxicity and death in AD, they are not the
cause. The cause is exposure to environmental toxicants like mercury
that attack enzymes with the most reactive thiol groups.

CONCLUSION:

The data on the effects of mercury on the nucleotide binding
properties and the abnormal partitioning of two very important brain
nucleotide binding proteins proven to be aberrant in AD brain first
suggested that mercury must be considered as an exacerbating factor
to the condition classified as AD. This has been strongly supported
by the recent finds that nanomolar levels of mercury causes
neuroblastoma cells to secrete b-amyloid protein and increase
phosphorylation of the microtubulin associated protein Tau, both
major biochemical observations related to AD. Also, neurons in
culture exposed to Hg2+ at the 10-7 to 10-10 M levels have
conclusively been visually shown to rapidly produce abnormal tubulin
aggregation, resulting in particulate partitioning as observed in AD
brain. Also, this stripping of tubulin from the neurofibrils results
in the formation of NFTs that are indistinguishable from those
observed in AD brain. and used as a diagnostic marker of the disease
(18). These facts alone warrant serious consideration of mercury as a
certain exacerbating factor for AD, if not causal.

Consideration of mercury as a causal or exacerbating factor for AD is
especially relevant when mercury is present in combination with other
heavy metals such as zinc (Zn) cadmium (Cd) and lead (Pb).
Synergistic toxicity is not an exception but is observed as a general
rule (19). This obviates the argument that mercury must be
significantly elevated in AD brains to be considered causal or
contributing to the disease state. Further, the reaction of oral
mercury from amalgams with toxic thiols produced by periodontal
disease bacteria very likely enhances the toxicity of the mercury
being released. Humans are likely the only mammals with amalgam
fillings and periodontal disease. Bluntly, the determination of safe
body levels of mercury by using animal data where the animals have
not been exposed to other heavy metals is not scientifically
justifiable. Mercury is much more toxic to individuals with other
heavy metal exposures. It is my opinion that one of the major
unanswered questions concerning the toxic effects of mercury is "does
the combination of mercury with different heavy metals lead to
different clinical observations of toxicity?"

Finally, mercury biochemically mimics numerous observations seen in
AD brain tissues including inducing the formation of widely accepted
diagnostic hallmarks of the disease. Further, the synergistically
toxicity of mercury with other heavy metals, microbial produced oral
toxins and certain metal chelators is obvious. It is also a
scientific fact that amalgams contribute greatly to overall mercury
body burden and are capable of producing cytotoxic solutions with
properties like mercury solutions. Therefore, it seems very
reasonable to consider a hypothesis that mercury would be the major
contributor to early onset AD.

Bibliography

1. Khatoon, S., Campbell, S.R., Haley, B.E. and Slevin, J.T. Aberrant
GTP b-Tubulin Interaction in Alzheimer's Disease. Annals of Neurology
26, 210-215 (1989).

2. David, S., Shoemaker, M., and Haley, B. Abnormal Properties of
Creatine kinase in Alzheimer's Disease Brain: Correlation of Reduced
Enzyme Activity and Active Site Photolabeling with Aberrant Cytosol-
Membrane Partitioning. Molecular Brain Research 54, 276-287 (1998).

3. Duhr, E.F., Pendergrass, J. C., Slevin, J.T., and Haley, B. HgEDTA
Complex Inhibits GTP Interactions With The E-Site of Brain b-Tubulin
Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 122, 273-288 (1993).

4. Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E. Mercury-EDTA Complex
Specifically Blocks Brain b-Tubulin-GTP Interactions: Similarity to
Observations in Alzheimer"s Disease. pp98-105 in Status Quo and
Perspective of Amalgam and Other Dental Materials (International
Symposium Proceedings ed. by L. T. Friberg and G. N. Schrauzer) Georg
Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart-New York (1995).

5. Pendergrass, J. C., Haley, B.E., Vimy, M. J., Winfield, S.A. and
Lorscheider, F.L. Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits Binding of GTP to
Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarity to a Molecular Lesion in Alzheimer's
Disease Brain. Neurotoxicology 18(2), 315-324 (1997).

6. Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E. Inhibition of Brain Tubulin-
Guanosine 5'-Triphosphate Interactions by Mercury: Similarity to
Observations in Alzheimer's Diseased Brain. In Metal Ions in
Biological Systems V34, pp 461-478. Mercury and Its Effects on
Environment and Biology, Chapter 16. Edited by H. Sigel and A. Sigel.
Marcel Dekker, Inc. 270 Madison Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10016 (1996).

7. Pendergrass, J.C., David, S. and Haley, B. Aberrant GTP-Tubulin
Interactions and Aberrant –Tubulin Partitioning in Alzheimer's
Disease Brain are Induced In Vitro by Micromolar Mercury, Zinc and
other Sulfhydryl Reactive Heavy Metals. (in preparation 1998).

8. Wataha, J. C., Nakajima, H., Hanks, C. T., and Okabe, T.
Correlation of Cytotoxicity with Element Release from Mercury and
Gallium-based Dental Alloys in vitro. Dental Materials 10(5) 298-303,
Sept. (1994)

9. Chew, C. L., Soh, G., Lee, A. S. and Yeoh, T. S. Long-term
Dissolution of Mercury from a Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam. Clinical
Preventive Dentistry 13(3): 5-7, May-June (1991).

10. Thompson, C. M., Markesbery, W.R., Ehmann, W.D., Mao, Y-X, and
Vance, D.E. Regional Brain Trace-Element Studies in Alzheimer's
Disease. Neurotoxicology 9, 1-8 (1988).

11. Deibel, M. A., Ehmann, W.D., and Markesbery, W. R. Copper, Iron
and Zinc Imbalances in Severely Degenerated Brain Regions in
Alzheimer's Disease: Possible Relation to Oxidative Stress. J.
Neurol. Sci. 143, 137-142 (1996).

12. Gunnersen, D.J. and Haley, B. Detection of Glutamine Synthetase
in the Cerebrospinal Fluid of Alzheimer's Diseased Patients: A
Potential Diagnostic Biochemical Maker. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
88, 11949-11953 (1992).

13. Pendergrass, J. C., Cornett, C.R., David, S. and Haley, B.
Mercury and Zinc Levels in Frontal Pole and Hippocampus of
Alzheimer's Disease Brain: Relationship to Abberant GTP-b-Tubulin
Interactions. Submitted to Neurotoxicology (1998).

14. Jayaram, B. and Haley, B. Identification of Peptides Within the
Base Binding Domains of the GTP and ATP Specific Binding Sites of
Tubulin. J. Biol. Chem. 269 (5) 3233-3242 (1994).

15. Olcott, M. and Haley, B. Identification of Two Peptides From the
ATP-Binding Domain of Creatine Kinase. Biochemistry, 33, 11935-11941
(1994).

16. Tumani, H., Shen, G-Q., Peter, J. and Bruck, W. Glutamine
Synthetase in Cerebrospinal Fluid, Serum and Brain: A Diagnostic
Marker for Alzheimer Disease? Arch. Neurol. 56, 12411246, 1999.

17. Olivieri, G., Brack, Ch., Muller-Spahn, F., Stahelin, H.B.,
Herrmann, M., Renard, P; Brockhaus, M. and Hock, C. Mercury Induces
Cell Cytotoxicity and Oxidative Stress and Increases b-amyloid
Secretion and Tau Phosphorylation in SHSY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells. J.
Neurochemistry 74, 231-231, 2000.

18. Leong, CCW, Syed, N.I., and Lorscheider, F.L. Retrograde
Degeneration of Neurite Membrane Structural Integrity and Formation
of Neruofibillary Tangles at Nerve Growth Cones Following In Vitro
Exposure to Mercury. NeuroReports 12 (4):733-737, 2001.

19. Schubert, J., Riley, E.J. and Tyler, S.A., Combined Effects in
Toxicology—A Rapid Systemic Testing Procedure: Cadmium, Mercury and
Lead. J. of Toxicology and Environmental Health v4;763-776, 1978.

20. Kingman, A., Albertini, T. and Brown, L.J. Mercury Concentrations
in Urine and Whole Blood Associated with Amalgam Exposure in a US
Military Population. J. of Dental Research v77(3): 461-471, 1998.

21. B. E. Haley, "Development and Utilization of 8-Azidopurine
Nucleotide Photoaffinity Probes," Federation Proceedings, 42, 2831-
2836 (1983).

22. K. Hensley, P. Cole, R. Subramaniam, M. Aksenov, M. Aksenova, P.
M. Bummer, B. E. Haley, J. M. Carney and D. A.
Butterfield, , "Oxidatively-Induced Structural Alteration of
Glutamine Synthetase Assessed by Analysis of Spin Labeled
Incorporation Kinetics: Relevance to Alzheimer's Disease," J.
Neurochem., 68, 2451-2457 (1997).

23. Begerow, J., Zander, D., Freier, I. And Dunemann, L. Long-term
Mercury Excretion in Urine after Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Int.
Arch. Occup. Environ. Health v66 (3), 209-212, 1994.

24. (a)Roses, A.D. Scientific American. Science and Medicine. 16-25,
1995. (b)Roses, A.D. Apolipoprotein-E and Alzheimer's Disease. The
Tip of the Susceptibility Iceberg. Annals of the N.Y. Academy of
Science 855, 738-743, 1998.

25. Saxe, S.R., Wekstein, M.W., Kryscio, R.J., Henry, R.G., Conrett,
C.R., Snowdon, D.A., Grant, F.T., Schmitt, F.A., Donegan, S.J.,
Wekstein, D.R., Ehmann, W.D. and Markesbery, W.R. Alzheimers'
Disease, Dental Amalgam and Mercury. JADA 130, 191-199, 1999.

26. Lorscheider, F.L., Vimy, M.J. and Summers, A.O. Mercury Exposure
from Silver Tooth Fillings: Emerging Evidence Questions a Traditional
Dental Paradigm. FASEB J. 9, 504-508, 1995.

27. Hock, C. Drasch, G. Golombowski, S., Muller-Spahn, F.,
Willershausen-Zonnchen, B., Schwarz, P., Hock, U. Growdon, J.H. and
Nitsch, R.M. Increased Blood Mercury Levels in Patients with
Alzheimer's disease. J. of Neural Transmission v105L 1) 59-68, 1998.

28. Devanand, D.P., Michaels-Marston, K.S., Liu, X., Pelton, G.H.,
Padilla, M., Marder, K., Bell, K., kStern, Y., and Mayeux, R.
Olfactory Deficits in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment Predict
Alzheimer's Disease at Follow-up. Am. J. Psychiatry 157(9): 1399-
1405, 2000.

29. Kovacs, T., Cairns, N.J., Lantos, P.L. Olfactory Centres in
Alzheimer's disease: Olfactory Bulb is Involved in Early Braak's
Stages. Neuroreport 12(2): 285-288, 2001.

30. Gray, A.J., Staples, V., Murren, K., Dahariwal, A. and Bentham,
P. Olfactory Identification is Impaired in Clinic-Based Patients with
Vascular Dementia and Senile Dementia of Alzheimer's type. Int. J.
Geriatr. Psychiatry 16(5):513-517, 2001.

31. World Health Organization (WHO) report on Environmental Health
Criteria 118, Inorganic Mercury, WHO, Genevia, 1991.

32. Brouwer, D.A., Clinical Chemistry of Common Apoprotein-E
Isoforms. J. Chromatography, Biomed. Applications, v678(1) 23-41,
1996.

Review of Robert Baratz Testimony Before the Florida Dental Board by
Two Distinguished Chemistry Professors and Researchers



Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board

By Dr. Ralph Dougherty

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry

Florida State University

Telephone: 850-644-5725

"I have qualified as an expert witness in chemistry and toxicology in
both federal and state courts. I have conducted extensive research in
analytical toxicology. I have more than 100 papers published in
refereed journals."

"To allege that there is no mercury in mercury amalgam as Dr. Baratz
has done in his sworn testimony before the Florida Dental Board is
either a reflection of ignorance, or intent to deceive."

Sincerely,

Ralph Dougherty



Dr. Boyd E. Haley

Chair, Department of Chemistry

University of Kentucky

3 January 2002

The following is my comments on the content and specific statements
made in the Sept. 29th Florida Dental Board where the FDA
presented "Amalgam Related Material" to support their proposed rule.
Please feel free to share it with whomever you wish and especially
the Florida Dental Board (FDA).

Sincerely,

Boyd Haley

  With regards to statements made by Dr. Baratz. First, to be an
esteemed academic as claimed one should hold an academic position and
publish articles in refereed journals on his subject of expertise. I
have been unable to find a single research article on mercury or
amalgams or about anything authored by Dr. Baratz. I further could
not find any source of academic appointments in tenure leading
positions. With my personal knowledge of numerous outstanding and
productive academic research scientists available to the FDA for
consultation I am somewhat perplexed that they would select someone
with such weak credentials---unless they were searching for someone
who would adamantly support their preconceived position of amalgams
being totally safe. Dr. Baratz is evidently well known for taking
that position. Finally, statements made by Dr. Baratz concerning
amalgams and chemistry in general are so pathetic that they almost
defy sensible analysis. I WOULD CHALLENGE THE FDA TO TRY TO GET THE
DEPARTMENT CHAIRS OF CHEMISTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY TO AGREE WITH DR. BARATZ'S COMMENTS
REGARDING THE CHEMISTRY OF AMALGAMS AND MERCURY. However, knowing
this is unlikely I will deal as best I can with Dr. Baratz's
statements one at a time in order of presentation.

Page 6, line 27-28. Dr. Baratz has no published basis for making this
statement. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. How can Dr.
Baratz say that a patient on a kidney dialysis program is not further
injured by additional mercury (a potent kidney toxicant) exposure
from their amalgams? I don't think such a study has ever been
undertaken. When exposing a person to years of a chronic level of
toxic mercury it is the responsibility of the pro-amalgam group to
prove it does no harm, not vice-versa. Can Dr. Baratz or the FDA
confirm that the 22,000-fold increased mercury levels in the hearts
of inter-city young men who die of Idiopathic Dialated Cardiomyopthy
did not come from dental amalgams? { Frustaci, A., Magnavita, N.,
Chimenti, C., Caldarulo, M., Sabbioni, E., Pietra, R., Cellini. C.,
Possati, G. F. and Maseri, A. Marked Elevation of Myocardial Trace
Elements in Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy Compared With Secondary
Dysfunction. J. of the American College Cardiology v33(6) 1578-1583,
1999,}

Page 6, lines 31-32. One grain of standard sucrose does not weigh
near one milligram. Therefore his visual aid is totally misleading
and indicates that he has not, or does not, remember experiments
where weighing small amounts was involved.

Page 6, lines 37-41. Sodium metal when added to water burns
violently, but it does not explode when added to a glass of water. I
have done this as a demonstration so I know the results first-hand.
No one would be killed or even injured unless they touched the
burning metallic sodium. Yes, chlorine gas is toxic and is a man-made
material (as is metallic sodium) that does not exist naturally. Dr.
Baratz wants to claim that metallic sodium and chlorine gas are toxic
but become non-toxic on conversion to a compound, sodium chloride,
and therefore, mercury in an amalgam is not toxic because it is
surrounded by other (toxic) metals that he feels produces something
that is not mercury. This is banal.

Reactivity and biological compatibility is the essence of the amalgam
issue. Human blood contains about 140 millimolar chloride anion and
124 millimolar sodium cation. This ions are not toxic because they
are not very reactive with biomolecules. These ions are used to
perform many biological functions necessary for life, including
maintaining the ionic gradient and electrical potential across cell
membranes. However, mercury is not found to serve any useful purpose
in human tissues and is a well known inhibitor of many enzymes,
including the enzyme that transports sodium across cell membranes. In
contrast to sodium cation, mercury cation, produced from mercury
vapor by a blood enzyme, is very reactive and inhibits almost every
biological pathway or enzyme driven function in man. To compare
amalgam material to sodium chloride in the manner Dr. Baratz has
chosen to reveals a total misunderstanding of chemistry and
biochemistry of heavy metal toxicity.

Page 6 line 42 to page 7 line 2. Since all of the metal components of
amalgam are basic metallic elements with no charge how can someone
make the inept statement that there is no mercury in amalgams. It is
an "element" and the fact that elements cannot be broken down or
changed is a basic tenant of chemistry. The metals in amalgams have
no net charge and therefore form only metallic bonds. Mercury is a
liquid at room temperature and quite volatile because it forms weak
metallic bonds with itself. This makes mercury unlike all other
metals. The metallic bonds formed between mercury and other metals in
amalgams are stronger and a solid phase is produced---but the bonds
between mercury and, say silver, are weaker than silver-silver metal
bonds and therefore break easier releasing elemental mercury vapor at
a regular rate. This is why you can heat a gold ring covered with
mercury and rapidly make it gold again and why dimes made silvery
with mercury soon resort to their old form. The bottom line is that
inclusion of mercury into an amalgam reduces its vapor pressure but
it does not reduce it to the point that mercury cannot be
significantly emitted.

Dr. Baratz states that if you detect traces of mercury from amalgams
it is because that material has been decomposed by heat and friction.
How does he explain the observations of the release of 43.5
micrograms mercury per cm2 surface area per day for two years
straight in a test tube without additional heat and no friction?
{Chew, C. L., Soh, G., Lee, A. S. and Yeoh, T. S. Long-term
Dissolution of Mercury from a Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam. Clinical
Preventive Dentistry 13(3): 5-7, May-June (1991).} Bottom line is
that it is quite easy to demonstrate mercury release from a dental
amalgam. I suggest the FDA not believe either Dr. Baratz or myself
but instead make 20-30 amalgams and send them to the state
universities in Florida and have them determine how long a single
amalgam must be in a gallon of water before the water is considered
unsafe to drink by OSHA or EPA standards. Then the FDA can then make
a decent decision on the mercury release and toxicity of amalgams
using data from an unbiased source.

Page 7, lines 10-13. Sodium chloride intake is necessary for life.
Mercury is toxic to every type of cell. Dr. Baratz's comparison
amalgams to sodium chloride is ridiculous. Amino acids contain
carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen and so does cyanide but the difference
is how these molecules react in the body---one is a food and the
other a lethal toxin. Amalgams release mercury and other metal ions
and solutions in which amalgams are soaked are cytotoxic! { Wataha,
J. C., Nakajima, H., Hanks, C. T., and Okabe, T. Correlation of
Cytotoxicity with Element Release from Mercury and Gallium-based
Dental Alloys in vitro. Dental Materials 10(5) 298-303, Sept. (1994)}

Page 7, lines 15-18. Yes, everything is toxic if an overdose is
obtained---that is common sense. However, mercury has no food or
biological function and is toxic at concentrations much lower than
even most other toxicants. Low levels of mercury have been shown to
inhibit the same enzymes/proteins that are found inhibited in
Alzheimer's diseased brain. { Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E.
Mercury-EDTA Complex Specifically Blocks Brain -Tubulin-GTP
Interactions: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer"s Disease. pp98-
105 in Status Quo and Perspective of Amalgam and Other Dental
Materials (International Symposium Proceedings ed. by L. T. Friberg
and G. N. Schrauzer) Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart-New York (1995).
Pendergrass, J. C., Haley, B.E., Vimy, M. J., Winfield, S.A. and
Lorscheider, F.L. Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits Binding of GTP to
Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarity to a Molecular Lesion in Alzheimer's
Disease Brain. Neurotoxicology 18(2), 315-324 (1997). Pendergrass,
J.C. and Haley, B.E. Inhibition of Brain Tubulin-Guanosine 5'-
Triphosphate Interactions by Mercury: Similarity to Observations in
Alzheimer's Diseased Brain. In Metal Ions in Biological Systems V34,
pp 461-478. Mercury and Its Effects on Environment and Biology,
Chapter 16. Edited by H. Sigel and A. Sigel. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 270
Madison Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10016 (1996)}

Later research with neurons in culture nanomolar (10-9M) levels of
mercury caused cell destruction and formation of three of the widely
accepted diagnostic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. { Olivieri, G.,
Brack, Ch., Muller-Spahn, F., Stahelin, H.B., Herrmann, M., Renard,
P; Brockhaus, M. and Hock, C. Mercury Induces Cell Cytotoxicity and
Oxidative Stress and Increases -amyloid Secretion and Tau
Phosphorylation in SHSY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells. J. Neurochemistry 74,
231-231, 2000. Leong, CCW, Syed, N.I., and Lorscheider, F.L.
Retrograde Degeneration of Neurite Membrane Structural Integrity and
Formation of Neruofibillary Tangles at Nerve Growth Cones Following
In Vitro Exposure to Mercury. NeuroReports 12 (4):733-737, 2001.}
Therefore, being unnecessarily exposed to continuous low doses of
mercury for scores of years is an unhealthy situation. Does the FDA
operate with the mantra of allowing itself to do this and eliminate
any disagreement by posturing that no one has proven mercury toxic
when indeed this has been done over and over. Due to the overall
difficulty and complexity there is not one epidemiological study
showing any major negative effects of mercury from amalgams, but
there are none showing it to be safe either. With all of the data on
animal cell culture studies showing mercury toxicity showing concern
and eliminating all long-term exposures to mercury is justified.

Page 7 lines 15-34. This paragraph should convince everyone that Dr.
Baratz is way off base. I had to replace all of the mercury
thermometers in the teaching labs in our department of chemistry
because of the OSHA/EPA restrictions where the spill of one
thermometer could create a toxic in-building situation and the
possible wash-out into the sewage stream caused an unacceptable
environmental hazard. Dr. Baratz seems unaware of the long-term
affects of mercury accumulation. Sure, he could ingest liquid mercury
a single time and walk away but how many industrial workers have been
seriously injured by less severe but continuous mercury exposures?
Also, if he did ingest liquid mercury then he could pay a severe
price later on in his life but he doesn't seem to know this. Why does
he think the government has outlawed the sale of mercury thermometers
to the general public?

In this paragraph Dr. Baratz states that mercury is not absorbed from
the gut. This is totally incorrect. Mercury vapor is rapidly absorbed
into all hydrophobic areas of the body. Where is the publication to
support his absurd contention? He is further incorrect in his
statement that the amount that comes off of an amalgam is equivalent
to the amount you get every day by breathing air, drinking water and
eating food. In a 1998 NIH study on 1,127 US military personnel it
was shown that the blood/urine mercury levels were much higher in
individuals with dental amalgams and the amount of mercury was
correlated with the number of amalgams surfaces. The average amalgam
bearer had 4.5 times the urine mercury level of individuals who were
amalgam free. { Kingman, A., Albertini, T. and Brown, L.J. Mercury
Concentrations in Urine and Whole Blood Associated with Amalgam
Exposure in a US Military Population. J. of Dental Research v77(3):
461-471, 1998.}

Dr. Baratz states that even the most ardent anti-amalgamist have
virtually the same amount of mercury in their bodies as does the
members of the Florida Board of Dentistry. That would be true only if
all of them are free of amalgams. In a published report removing
amalgam fillings dropped the level of mercury in the urine in the
patients by about 5-fold at a subsequent date. { Begerow, J., Zander,
D., Freier, I. And Dunemann, L. Long-term Mercury Excretion in Urine
after Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health
v66 (3), 209-212, 1994.}

Neither Dr. Baratz nor I have the right to make sweeping statements
without providing the scientific literature on the subject that backs
up our statements. Under adjudication many of his statements, now on
record, such as given on page 7 line 19, "So to say that dental
amalgam has mercury in it is false. It has what used to be mercury."
will provide a feast for the opposing lawyers. I am very surprised
that Dr. Baratz has chosen to pass himself off as an amalgam expert
with no publications in the area and this is compounded by what
appears to be total ignorance of the relevant literature.

Page 8 lines 1 to 10. My comment is that the EPA and OSHA government
units don't think the amount of mercury released from amalgams is
safe. If indeed the groups listed by Dr. Baratz say amalgams are safe
(are amalgams listed on the Food and Drug Administration list of safe
dental materials?) where are the scientific studies that back their
claims. Who represents the NIH and says amalgams are safe? I
challenge Dr. Baratz to find a single research article where
experimental protocols are used that provide proof of safety of
dental amalgams. It is easy to compose a "committee mainly pro-
amalgam dentists" and have them proclaim amalgams safe, but have them
show the relevant basic research that proves this is another thing.
Does he really have publications from the Multiple Sclerosis and
Alzheimer's Associations that claim amalgams are safe? I would really
like to see him produce these documents.

Page 8, line 30. Keeping or bringing science into the dental
profession is my goal also. This means both Dr. Baratz and I have to
back our statements with refereed scientific publications, not wild,
unjustified claims or opinions. I would like to challenge Dr. Baratz
to produce the research papers that back his many claims.


http://www.altcorp.com/baratztestimony.htm

Statement by Congresswoman Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles)

Mercury in Dental Filling Disclosure and Prohibition Act

Los Angeles, California

November 5, 2001

In times like these, there are toxins that we don't know about – how
to control them, their source and their impact. But there are toxins
that we DO know about – toxins that we know do not belong in our
bodies, toxins that we can do something about. My bill addresses that
very problem.

Mercury is an acute neuro-toxin. It is the most toxic non-radioactive
element and the most volatile heavy metal. In recent years, it has
been, or is being removed from all health care uses, save one.
Antibiotics have replaced oral doses of Mercury. The disinfectant
Mercurochrome is banned. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control
ordered Mercury preservatives removed from childhood vaccines.
Mercury preservatives are no long used in contact lens solutions.
This year, legislatures in California and several other states banned
Mercury thermometers. When Governor Gray Davis signed bills
addressing Mercury in thermometers and in dental fillings, he
said, "Mercury is a persistent and toxic pollutant that
bioaccumulates in the environment." In recent years, the American
Public Health Association, the California Medical Association and
Health Care Without Harm have all called for the elimination of
putting any Mercury in the human body.

Today, I am announcing legislation to disclose and phase-out the last
major use of Mercury in the human body. The fillings that organized
dentistry wrongly calls "silver" are mainly Mercury, not "silver."

Mercury is the major ingredient in each filling, about one-half gram
per. In the words of Professor Boyd Haley of the University of
Kentucky, that is a "colossal" amount of Mercury in scientific terms –
  as much, in fact, as is in a thermometer. A teenager with six
fillings has six Mercury thermometers worth of Mercury in his or her
mouth.

The Mercury in the fillings is volatile, such that – as all
authorities concede – poisonous vapors are constantly being emitted
from the fillings, more so when one chews or passes hot liquid over
the teethe. The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry of the
United States Public Health Service reports that those poisonous
vapors go first to the brain and kidneys. For the developing brain –
and by that I mean a child's brain – a major health risk exists.

It is in fact children who are at greatest risk from these fillings.
The government of Canada recommended back in 1996 that dentists not
place fillings in the mouths of children or pregnant women. (The 1999
report on Mercury by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease
Registry says Mercury passes through the placenta into the developing
child's brain.) In 1997, a major manufacturer of dental amalgam,
Dentsply, said that amalgam is CONTRAINDICATED (translation DO NOT
USE) for children and pregnant women, as well as for those with
braces, Mercury hypersensitivities, or kidney problems. Another
manufacturer, Vivadent, added a contraindication for nursing mothers.
(The 1999 government report says the Mercury goes through the
mother's breast milk into the baby.)

Why don't consumers already know this? The answer is a disappointing
one. Organized dentistry is extremely divided on this issue. My bill,
in fact is supported by the American Academy of Biological Dentistry.
But the American Dental Association tells the public that the
fillings are safe. The ADA does not tell the public that it accepts
payments from the amalgam manufacturers while it pronounces their
product safe. I wish to note that the American Medical Association
has a policy prohibiting the organization from taking money for
product endorsements. The ADA, by contrast, accepts money from the
manufacturers of the products it endorses which certainly hurts its
credibility in my mind.

The public does not know about the presence of Mercury and its risks
for two reasons. First, the fillings are falsely called "silver."
This term is deceptive, because there is much more Mercury than
silver in the product. It's time to call it what it is and quit
hiding the large presence of Mercury.

Second, the ADA has a rule that gags dentists from talking about the
risks of Mercury amalgam, a rule that some dental boards enforce
against dentists who call for the elimination of Mercury in dental
fillings. I understand that rule is being challenged by dentists in
federal court in Maryland based on the First Amendment.

Developments in this area have been quite encouraging this year in my
state. In 1992, as a state Senator, I wrote a law that required the
Dental Board of California to write a "Fact Sheet" about the risks
and efficacies of dental fillings. My goal was to ensure the public
could make informed choices about Mercury dental amalgam. But the
Dental Board continued to ignore the law and, in recent years, defy
the Davis Administration's insistence that it comply with this law.
After an impasse, including the Board refusing to show up for a
hearing in Los Angeles on this issue, the Legislature stepped in and
shut down the Board. I am told that never before has the California
Legislature shut down a board before its Sunset date expired. In
January, a new Dental Board will come into existence.

A major environmental issue exists here. When removed from a
patient's mouth, Mercury amalgam is a hazardous waste, and it is
often improperly disposed of. The more Mercury that goes into
people's teeth, the more of it that will end up in our water supply.
I am delighted, therefore, that San Francisco-based Clean Water
Action is supporting my bill, and I look forward to other
environmental groups joining us in this effort.

The occupational risk is significant. Dental employees are constantly
exposed to the vapors. Women in dental offices have lower fecundity
(pregnancy) rates, more miscarriages, and more problem births.
Mercury exposure is the likely reason. Dentists have the highest
suicide rate of any profession; depression leading to suicide is
consistent with a diagnosis of Mercury toxicity.

Mercury amalgam is dangerous before it is put in the mouth – any
dental journal will tell you that – and it is considered hazardous
waste after it has been removed. Who can conclusively say it's safe
in between when it is in our bodies?

A major social justice, or environment justice, issue exists here.
While the public lacks informed choice, low- and moderate-income
people have it worse: they have no choice at all. For families on
Medi-Cal, the children get Mercury – or nothing. It is outrageous
that low-income Americans are forced to have such a toxic material
put in their mouths. I understand that the Rhode Island legislature
adopted a law this year to provide choice in insurance plans, and
that the state of Maine permits Medicaid children to get alternatives
to amalgam – so, yes, we can do it differently.

Mercury, and all other poisons in the body, hurt the body's immune
system – its ability to withstand diseases and biologically harmful
agents. If at any time in our nations history we need strong immune
systems, it is now. The stronger our bodies, the more able we are to
fend off biological agents that have so tragically been placed in our
midst.

My bill will protect children, pregnant women, and nursing mothers
immediately – regardless of their income. Henceforth, amalgam will
bear warnings that they not be placed in these most vulnerable
people. And there will be health warnings for all consumers of
amalgam, also immediately. Then, there is a five-year phase out of
Mercury amalgam. That will give dentistry plenty of time to shift to
alternatives that exist in today's market – resin, porcelain, and
gold – or to develop new materials.

Dentistry says amalgam is fine because it has been in ;use for 150
years. This statement, makes no scientific sense. We have abandoned
other remnants of pre-Civil War medicine, and we have abandoned all
other uses of Mercury. It is no longer a question of if, but when.
Mercury dental fillings will be history. I say five more years is
time enough.



To see a complete copy of Rep. Watson's Press Release see
watsonstatementnov5.pdf

Mailing Address:

The Honorable Diane Watson,
United States House of Representatives
5100 Goldleaf Circle
Suite 208
Los Angeles, CA 90056
Washington DC 20515

Fax 202.225-2422 or 323.292-1836

E-mail: Diane.Watson@...

Be sure and include your full mailing address.



Response of the California Dental Association to Rep. Watson

California Dental Association Says Consumers Were Misled By
Congresswoman's Comments

From E-Dental http://www.e-dental.com/content/news/article.asp?DocID=
{DB0FB6F9-D455}



California dentists are once more  were on attack  trying to  mislead
all unfortunatelly  while  taking strong issue with Congresswoman
Diane Watson's (32nd Congressional District), assertions this week
that there is a conspiracy regarding the use of amalgam as a
restorative material for decaying teeth.   The  conspiracy and
collusion  is very  real and undisputed!

Fortunatelly for all of us this  legislator held a press conference
in Los Angeles November 5th, to announce a bill to prohibit using
amalgam for dental fillings.

The Dentist Labor Union decisively is attacking Watson  claiming that
the  statements Watson made in her remarks and distributed in her
press materials are unproven and untrue. This   scam  is
orchestrated  to  assault Watson  while  the  branch of the  Dentist
Labor Union known as  California Dental Association (CDA) is
deliberately trying one  more  time to  mislead patients and
consumers, says the

To  rebute  CDA  anecdotal comments  and  opinions  one need to read
the  real scienytists  and  researchers  comments:

http://www.altcorp.com/mercurytox.htm

Congresswoman Watson's comments regarding amalgam are very  accurate
and  shall result in final  nation  wide   ban of  use  of  mercury
urgently  needed  protection  for all, not  just  California
consumers,  contrary to what falsely  claims  another  Dental Labor
Union  QUACK Steven Chan, passing for DDS,  and now  CDA  president-
elect.

"We encourage dialogue and discussion on the amalgam issue, it is
imperative that the information disseminated to the public be
absolutely correct and clear" added Dr. Chan.

They  are injuring people  and want to talk about it, while we  the
injured  patrients who know it better,  we  MUST  to stop this
modern age  medical HOLOCAUST  and  propaganda.

Specifically  two undisputed  facts raised by Watson  are:
  that there is a collusion between the American Dental Association
(ADA) and amalgam manufacturers for the ADA's financial gain, and
that the ADA is "conspiring" to withhold from the public the fact
that mercury is present in dental amalgams.

There  is  nothing closer  to the  economic reality of the  purpose
of the  organised movement  by  nothing else  but the  Dentist Labor
Union.


CDA  deceptively  alleges  that  "One of the falsehoods Watson
implies is the connection between the ADA and the manufacturers of
amalgam -- that it is a mass conspiracy of financial gain."

This is simply a  matter  of fact, contrary to  what said   allegedly
a "Doctor" Chan  whants  us  to  believe.

The fact is, the connection to which she refers is the  abuse of
the   "ADA Seal of Acceptance"  program.

The American Dental Association's Seal of Acceptance Program is just
another  joke  for  profit to  promote the Dentist Labor Union
propaganda to  generate income  from endorsements  for the  oral
health care products for over  60 years.

ADA  and  CDA   alleges  that the  cost to maintain the Seal program
is   $1.5 million annually, of which alleged   approximately $5,100
per year is generated  from amalgam manufacturers,  who  cares?
At the  same time   not  reporting the income  generatred  from
endorsements of other  products.

No one  endorse products  fopr  free  while  risking the liability
for  fraudulent  endorsements  such as  fluoride in toothpaste  or
water fluoridation.

Not  surprisingly  CDA deceived all when it  continue to stand by its
position on the safety, efficacy and value of amalgam fillings to
dental consumers.

The Association (Dentist Labor Union) recognized  that  dental
amalgam contains mercury,  the  liability associated  with the
placement  of  mercury  in lieu of emerging  current scientific
evidence does supporting the contention that the mercury contained in
amalgam causes serious illnesses or disease  is a  substantial
financial  liability, than  is  vigorously  defending its  corrupt
practice  to  protect its  financial  goals  and  shattered  by  past
150 years  of  deception   the  "STATUS QUO".

"Education of the public regarding dental health and the care that is
available to them is a high priority to CDA and other health
professionals," decisively  said Jack Broussard, DDS, than  the  CDA
President,  while    being  silent  about  neurotoxicity of  mercury
resulting  in chronic systemic  poisoning.

Consequently Dental  Labor  Unions are still denying  that an entire
healthcare profession would attempt to deceive or mislead the public
only   due to generated  cash  flow,  helpless  treatments  and
undisputed   liability,   is well understood.

Its report, titled "Toxicological Profile for Mercury" (Update 1999),
stipulates on page 23 that "the practice of having all your dental
amalgam fillings replaced with non-mercury filling materials just to
remove the possibility of mercury exposure is not recommended by
ATSDR."  So  who  is deliberately   misleading the ATSDR?

World-renowned dental researchers many Schools of dentistry concur
that Watson's statements are   right on target are not  misleading,
in contrast to imbeciles  hired by Dentist Labor Union  including
quacks like  Dr. Harold Slavkin, DDS, PhD, and unfortunatelly  Dean
at the USC School of Dentistry and former director of the NICDR in
Washington, D.C  singing to the tune of ADA.

The Restorative Dental Materials Fact Sheet  Watson referred  to was
required  by legislation since  1992 to provide a detailed and
accurate  data on   hazards  due to  toxicity of somer  of the
restorative materials such as poisonous  dental mercury  to the
consumer,  giving patients  constitutional right to be informed and
consequent choice  based on disclosure of  severe  harm posed by
dental mercury fillings  and describing the alternate  choices
instead of being stuffed  like a thanksgiving turkeys   with out ther
right  to chose based on prefered by dentists and  fraudulently
alleged  as safe  only  due to  cost of  dental materials  with no
choice.

It is  the  cost of labor  which is  most  critical than the
materials  as dentists  prefer to buy  $ 85,000  Mercedeses  or
Porches  instead of investing in dental technology  suchn as  CEREC
3  with same cost  to benefits of  all patients!

In violation of the  legislation, The Dental Board  lied  to all
consumers  when it  created  alleged  "fact sheet"  in 1993 and
distributed an updated version to all dentists on October 31, 200l.

Watson very  accurately  presented the  California Dental Board,
which will allegedly  prepared  a response to Watson's scientific
findings  with regard to severe  adverse  well now known toxicology
and neurotoxicity  of  the restorative materials fact sheet,
specially  dental mercury fiillings.

CDA recently launched a public  propaganda  known as  "awareness
campaign"   to  mislead  when claiming to  stress the importance of
discussion and dialogue between patients and their dentists.
Consumers interesting in seeking   how  the  CDA  brainwash all
with  nonscientific and  purely  anecdotal information on amalgam and
other alleged dental topics should call 1-800-CDA-SMILE or visit
http://www.smilecalifornia.org.

[The California Dental Association (CDA) is the nonprofit
organization representing Dentist  Labor Union or organized
dentistry in California.   Founded in 1870, CDA is the largest and
most high profile constituents of the nation wide  Dentist  Labor
Union  known as  American Dental Association.

CDA claims  that it contributes to the dental health of consumers in
California through various comprehensive programs aimed at improving
dental health.

CDA's (or a  State  branch  of  ADA   known as   Dentist  Labor
Union  as  an organisation )  membership consists of more than 18,000
dentists  trying to  UNIONISE  to  defend the  undisputed  cases  of
malpractice  due to use  of  poisonous  and  higly  toxic  mercury.



NOW  LOOK  how idiotic  press releases  to  deceive  were
produced  by  QUACKS  from the  Dentist Labor Union:


______________

11/9/2001

SACRAMENTO, Calif., Nov 9, 2001 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- California
dentists are taking strong issue with Congresswoman Diane Watson's
(32nd Congressional District), assertions this week that there is a
conspiracy regarding the use of amalgam as a restorative material for
decaying teeth. The legislator held a press conference in Los Angeles
November 5th, to announce a bill to prohibit using amalgam for dental
fillings. Unfortunately, many of the statements Watson made in her
remarks and distributed in her press materials are unproven and
untrue. This could mislead and scare consumers, says the California
Dental Association (CDA).

"Regrettably, Congresswoman Watson's comments regarding amalgam are
very misleading for California consumers," says Steven Chan, DDS, CDA
president-elect. "We encourage dialogue and discussion on the amalgam
issue, it is imperative that the information disseminated to the
public be absolutely correct and clear" added Dr. Chan.

Specifically, CDA stressed two false allegations raised by Watson:
that there is a collusion between the American Dental Association
(ADA) and amalgam manufacturers for the ADA's financial gain, and
that the ADA is "conspiring" to withhold from the public the fact
that mercury is present in dental amalgams.

"One of the falsehoods Watson implies is the connection between the
ADA and the manufacturers of amalgam -- that it is a mass conspiracy
of financial gain. This is simply untrue," said Dr. Chan. "The fact
is, the connection to which she refers is the highly regarded ADA
Seal of Acceptance program. The American Dental Association's Seal of
Acceptance Program has helped identify effective oral health care
products for more than 60 years. The total cost to maintain the Seal
program is approximately $1.5 million annually, of which a total of
approximately $5,100 per year is generated from amalgam
manufacturers. Let me make this clear," said Dr. Chan. "The ADA does
not profit from giving its seal of approval to dental products."

CDA continues to stand by its position on the safety, efficacy and
value of amalgam fillings to dental consumers. The Association
recognizes that while dental amalgam contains mercury, current
scientific evidence does not support the contention that the mercury
contained in amalgam causes serious illnesses or disease.

"Education of the public regarding dental health and the care that is
available to them is a high priority to CDA and other health
professionals," said Jack Broussard, DDS, CDA President. "To imply
that an entire healthcare profession would attempt to deceive or
mislead the public is reprehensible. This claim wouldonsumer's teeth.
Its report, titled "Toxicological Profile for Mercury" (Update 1999),
stipulates on page 23 that "the practice of having all your dental
amalgam fillings replaced with non-mercury filling materials just to
remove the possibility of mercury exposure is not recommended by
ATSDR."

World-renowned dental researchers from the UCLA and USC Schools of
dentistry concur that Watson's statements are misleading, including
Dr. Harold Slavkin, DDS, PhD, Dean at the USC School of Dentistry and
former director of the NICDR in Washington, D.C.

The Restorative Dental Materials Fact Sheet Watson referred to was
required by legislation in 1992 to provide a comparative study of
restorative materials to the consumer, describing the differences in
durability and cost of these dental materials. In compliance with
this legislation, The Dental Board created a fact sheet in 1993 and
distributed an updated version to all dentists on October 31, 200l.
Watson also apparently misrepresented the California Dental Board,
which will likely prepare a response to Watson's allegations with
regard to the restorative materials fact sheet.

CDA recently launched a public awareness campaign to stress the
importance of discussion and dialogue between patients and their
dentists. Consumers seeking more information on amalgam and other
dental topics should call 1-800-CDA-SMILE or visit
www.smilecalifornia.org.

[The California Dental Association (CDA) is the nonprofit
organization representing organized dentistry in California. Founded
in 1870, CDA is the largest and most high profile constituents of the
American Dental Association. CDA contributes to the dental health of
consumers in California through various comprehensive programs aimed
at improving dental health. CDA's membership consists of more than
18,000 dentists. For more information, visit http://www.cda.org .]

MAKE YOUR OPINION COUNT - Click Here
http://tbutton.prnewswire.com/prn/11690X63448793
SOURCE California Dental Association

CONTACT: Lori Reed of California Dental Association , +1-800-736-
7071, ext. 4670
URL: http://www.smilecalifornia.org

  http://www.cda.org

  http://www.prnewswire.com

See  great  site:


http://www.altcorp.com/amalgam.htm

http://www.altcorp.com/mercurytox.htm




Dr. Murray J. Vimy DMD Responds to  QUACK  in chargew  for ADA
President    Robert M. Anderton DDS, President of the American Dental
Association


CALGARY, CANADA, July 4, 2001

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The news release by the American Dental Association (ADA) dated June
13, 2001 contains a very significant error. The ADA President Dr.
Robert M. Anderton is reported as saying, ``There is no sound
scientific evidence supporting a link between amalgam fillings and
systemic diseases or chronic illness''. Yet, it is well known in the
published, peer-reviewed dental journals that mercury leaks directly
from amalgam into adjacent oral tissues causing periodontal disease
(gum disease).

  Critical Fact #1:

In 1957, Zander (JADA, 55:11-15) reported "materials used in
restorative dentistry may be a contributing factor in gingival
disease."

  Critical Fact #2:

In 1961, App (J Prosth Dent 11:522-532) suggested that there was
greater chronic inflammation around amalgam sites than non-amalgam
areas.

  Critical fact #3:

In 1964, Trott and Sherkat (J CDA, 30:766-770) showed that the
presence of amalgam correlates with gingival disease. Such disease
was not present at contralateral amalgam-free sites.

Critical fact #4:

In 1969, Sanches Sotres et al (J. Periodo. l40: 543-546) confirmed
Trott and Sherkat findings.

  Critical fact #5:

In 1972, Turgeon et al. (J CDA 37:255-256) reported the presence of
very significant erythema around amalgam restorations that was not
present at control non-amalgam sites.

  Critical fact #6:

In 1973, Trivedi and Talim (J. Prosth. Dentistry, 29:73-81)
demonstrated that 62.5% of amalgam sites have inflammatory
periodontal tissue reaction.

  Thus, as early as 1973, a case can be made that the presence of
dental mercury-amalgam results in chronic inflammation and bleeding
in the gingival tissue adjacent to it; in other words, in situ
amalgam produced chronic Gingivitis.

  Critical fact #7:

In 1974, Freden et al. (Odontol. Revy, 25: 207-210) showed that
gingival biopsy material from sites not adjacent to amalgam had 1-10
µg mercury/gram of tissue   (mean=3); whereas, gingival biopsy sites
near amalgams contained 19-380 µg mercury/gram of tissue (mean=147).

  Critical fact #8:

In 1976, Goldschmidt et al (J. Perio. Res., 11:108-115) demonstrated
that amalgam corrosion products were cytotoxic to gingival cells at
concentrations of 10-6; that is, micrograms/gram of tissue.

  Critical fact #9:

In 1984, the year of the NIDR/ADA Workshop, Fisher et al (J Oral
Rehab, 11:399-405) reported that at amalgam sites alveolar bone loss
was very pronounced and statistically significant as compared to
control non-amalgam sites! In other words, in situ amalgam produces
chronic Periodontitis.

  This suggests that placing mercury fillings leads to a dentist-
induced disease, periodontal disease, which the same dentists then
treat. This is iatrogenesis.

  Thus, for the ADA to conclude ``There is no sound scientific
evidence supporting a link between amalgam fillings and systemic
diseases or chronic illness'' is incorrect. Periodontal disease is
one of the most prevalent chronic diseases in Man, and mercury
fillings contribute significantly!

Such statements by ADA spokespersons suggest that the ADA and its
advisors may be knowingly disinforming the public  through the media
or they lack an understanding of the scientific research about
mercury release from amalgam published in their own journals.

Murray J. Vimy DMD

Clinical Associate Professor

Faculty of Medicine,

University of Calgary.

  http://www.altcorp.com/vimyresponds.htm






--- In adentalmercuryamalgam@y..., cambri0leur <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> http://www.toxicteeth.net
>
> The  ADA  is  NOW  wetting  their  diapers!
>
>
> http://www.melisa.org/articles/index.html
>
> http://www.melisa.org/articles/engel-e.pdf
>
> http://www.melisa.org/articles/neuroen.pdf
>
> http://www.melisa.org/articles/biomark.pdf
>
> http://www.melisa.org/articles/biomark2.pdf
>
> http://www.melisa.org/articles/nialler.pdf
>
> http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/022002a.pdf
>
>
> The legal position of the American Dental Association (ADA) on the
> safety of mercury containing dental amalgam and the use of the
> material by dentists in the United States was recently stated as
> follows:
>
> "The ADA owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from
> allegedly dangerous products used by dentists. The ADA did not
> manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing
> amalgams. The ADA does not control those who do. The ADA's only
> alleged involvement in the product was to provide information
> regarding its use. Dissemination of information relating to the
> practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the
> public from potential injury".
> Source: Legal brief filed in 1995 by attorneys for the ADA in W.H.
> Tolhurst vs. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Products, Inc.; Engelhard
> Corporation; ABE Dental, Inc.; the American Dental Association, et
> al., in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for
the
> County of Santa Clara, CA, Case No. 718228.
>
>
>
>
> The complaint  that the ADA negligently misrepresented to member
> dentists that dental amalgam is safe for tooth restorations. These
> representations were  made by means of ADA publications, ADA-
> accredited dental schools and other communications to the
membership.
>
> Summary Points
>
> The ADA's actions in Tolhurst in no way represent a change in ADA
> policy on the safety of dental amalgam. The ADA continues to
believe,
> as does the U.S. Public Health Service and the National Institute
of
> Dental Research, that amalgam is safe and is a durable and cost-
> effective filling material.
>
> The ADA further believes that specific treatment decisions
involving
> dental patients are within the professional judgment of the
> individual practitioner. The Association does not require dentists
to
> use dental amalgam, nor does it prohibit dentists from removing
> dental amalgam in appropriate cases. The Association does take the
> position that it is unethical for a dentist to remove serviceable
> dental amalgams from the non-allergic patient for the alleged
purpose
> of removing toxic substances from the body, when such treatment is
> performed solely at the recommendation or suggestion of the
dentist.
>
> There exists no credible scientific evidence that dental amalgam,
> when used in restorations in the non-allergic patient, constitutes
> either a general health hazard or is in any way related to the
cause
> or cure of any specific disease. Neither the Alzheimer's
Association
> nor the Multiple Sclerosis Society is aware of any scientific
> evidence that has shown a credible link between use of amalgam
> fillings and either disease.
>
> In stating that the ADA "owes no legal duty of care to protect the
> public from allegedly dangerous products used by dentists," the
> Association was only articulating the legal principle that
liability
> for negligence against a third party in a case like this is limited
> to those who guarantee the product at issue or help to market it.
The
> Association does not fall into this category. Its only alleged
> involvement in the plaintiff's injury was providing information
about
> amalgam to the dental profession.
>
> The plaintiff in Tolhurst was essentially asking the court to
create
> new law that would have made the ADA potentially liable for every
> dental related injury suffered by any person in the United States.
> The ADA takes very seriously its responsibility to advance the art
> and science of dentistry by disseminating scientific information
> about the safety and efficacy of dental products and therapeutic
> agents. This does not mean that the Association is willing to allow
> itself to be wrongfully sued where no legal liability exists or to
> pay needless attorneys' fees and court costs.
>
> The ADA believes that the art and science of dentistry are best
> served by the free flow of scientific information and debate. The
> court agreed. In granting the ADA's motion, the court stated:
>  "To subject Defendant Association to liability would be, in this
> Court's opinion, contrary to public policy which the Court
perceives
> to be the promotion rather than suppression of the free flow of
> scientific information directed to the practicing membership of the
> professional community to which the Defendants' publications are
> directed, i.e., professional dentists."
>
> lier   lier  lier  .....
>
>
> The  role  of  ADA ONLY   as  DENTIST  LABOR  UNION  is  undisputed
> and  can  not  be  challenged.
>
>
>
> "Silver", Mercury Amalgam: This material is mix of base metals such
> as silver, tin, copper, or zinc dissolved to a malleable state by
> elemental mercury. The durability of these fillings is dependent
upon
> the electrical currents created by the filling being
> immersed in an electrolyte solution, saliva. Even though many
people
> leave these fillings in place for 10-20 years, the research
standard
> of durability is 7.6 years.
>
> Mercury amalgam is the least expensive filling material. The
dentist
> can prepare the tooth cavity, fill it with the malleable amalgam,
and
> shape the contours in one sitting.   The material is technically
easy
> to manage for the dentist. The combination of low cost materials
and
> ease of use and reasonable durability has made mercury amalgam the
> most widely used dental material.
>
> The drawback to mercury amalgam fillings is that elemental mercury
> constitutes 50 % of the amalgam mass. Elemental mercury is a
> poisonous heavy metal. Elemental mercury vapors continue to be
> released from amalgam fillings for the entire life of the filling.
>
> Mercury is not a biocompatible material. Mercury is the active
> ingredient in many herbicides, fungicides and pesticides. As the
> environment of modern living becomes increasingly polluted, larger
> numbers of people find that their threshold of toleration to
> pollutants has been exceeded, resulting in severe physical
> debilitation. Mercury   accumulates in the body tissue and
gravitates
> to the central nervous system.   Accumulations of mercury stress
the
> immune system, so even low levels of exposure to mercury is
> undesirable.
>
> These are the issues that cause an increasing number of dentists
and
> consumers to conclude that the convenience, low cost and relative
> durability of mercury amalgam fillings is not worth the health
risks
> of continuous, micro-exposure to mercury in the body.
>
> Composite materials: There are a number of formulations of glass
and
> resin materials that have received Federal Drug Administration
> approval. These materials are tooth colored and can be placed in a
> single visit. The durability of these materials is less than
mercury
> amalgams. The research standard of acceptable durability is 6.5
> years.  Composites are definitely less durable than gold. Composite
> fillings will need to be replaced periodically.
>
> To make an ideal composite filling with good durability, the
dentist
> must exercise exacting care in placing the materials. Composites
are
> very technique sensitive, and time consuming. The dentist should
> always use a rubber dam to keep the tooth absolutely dry when
placing
> a composite filling. The technical demands of composite fillings
> means that they are usually more expensive than amalgams.
>
> Can filling materials be tested for biocompatibility?
>
> YES. Tests are available to evaluate biocompatibility of dental
> materials prior to placement in your teeth. In principal, any
foreign
> material that is going to be permanently implanted in the body
should
> be tested for compatibility with that body.
>
> Testing for bio-compatibility does add to the expense of your
dental
> treatment. If you believe that your system is especially
susceptible
> to stresses or if you have symptoms of sensitivity or  as
> mislabeled  allergy or immune stress, then testing for bio-
> compatibility is highly recommended.

http://www.toxicteeth.net

The  ADA  is  NOW  wetting  their  diapers!


http://www.melisa.org/articles/index.html

http://www.melisa.org/articles/engel-e.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/neuroen.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/biomark.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/biomark2.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/nialler.pdf

http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/022002a.pdf


The legal position of the American Dental Association (ADA) on the
safety of mercury containing dental amalgam and the use of the
material by dentists in the United States was recently stated as
follows:

"The ADA owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from
allegedly dangerous products used by dentists. The ADA did not
manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing
amalgams. The ADA does not control those who do. The ADA's only
alleged involvement in the product was to provide information
regarding its use. Dissemination of information relating to the
practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the
public from potential injury".
Source: Legal brief filed in 1995 by attorneys for the ADA in W.H.
Tolhurst vs. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Products, Inc.; Engelhard
Corporation; ABE Dental, Inc.; the American Dental Association, et
al., in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the
County of Santa Clara, CA, Case No. 718228.




The complaint  that the ADA negligently misrepresented to member
dentists that dental amalgam is safe for tooth restorations. These
representations were  made by means of ADA publications, ADA-
accredited dental schools and other communications to the membership.

Summary Points

The ADA's actions in Tolhurst in no way represent a change in ADA
policy on the safety of dental amalgam. The ADA continues to believe,
as does the U.S. Public Health Service and the National Institute of
Dental Research, that amalgam is safe and is a durable and cost-
effective filling material.

The ADA further believes that specific treatment decisions involving
dental patients are within the professional judgment of the
individual practitioner. The Association does not require dentists to
use dental amalgam, nor does it prohibit dentists from removing
dental amalgam in appropriate cases. The Association does take the
position that it is unethical for a dentist to remove serviceable
dental amalgams from the non-allergic patient for the alleged purpose
of removing toxic substances from the body, when such treatment is
performed solely at the recommendation or suggestion of the dentist.

There exists no credible scientific evidence that dental amalgam,
when used in restorations in the non-allergic patient, constitutes
either a general health hazard or is in any way related to the cause
or cure of any specific disease. Neither the Alzheimer's Association
nor the Multiple Sclerosis Society is aware of any scientific
evidence that has shown a credible link between use of amalgam
fillings and either disease.

In stating that the ADA "owes no legal duty of care to protect the
public from allegedly dangerous products used by dentists," the
Association was only articulating the legal principle that liability
for negligence against a third party in a case like this is limited
to those who guarantee the product at issue or help to market it. The
Association does not fall into this category. Its only alleged
involvement in the plaintiff's injury was providing information about
amalgam to the dental profession.

The plaintiff in Tolhurst was essentially asking the court to create
new law that would have made the ADA potentially liable for every
dental related injury suffered by any person in the United States.
The ADA takes very seriously its responsibility to advance the art
and science of dentistry by disseminating scientific information
about the safety and efficacy of dental products and therapeutic
agents. This does not mean that the Association is willing to allow
itself to be wrongfully sued where no legal liability exists or to
pay needless attorneys' fees and court costs.

The ADA believes that the art and science of dentistry are best
served by the free flow of scientific information and debate. The
court agreed. In granting the ADA's motion, the court stated:
  "To subject Defendant Association to liability would be, in this
Court's opinion, contrary to public policy which the Court perceives
to be the promotion rather than suppression of the free flow of
scientific information directed to the practicing membership of the
professional community to which the Defendants' publications are
directed, i.e., professional dentists."

lier   lier  lier  .....


The  role  of  ADA ONLY   as  DENTIST  LABOR  UNION  is  undisputed
and  can  not  be  challenged.



"Silver", Mercury Amalgam: This material is mix of base metals such
as silver, tin, copper, or zinc dissolved to a malleable state by
elemental mercury. The durability of these fillings is dependent upon
the electrical currents created by the filling being
immersed in an electrolyte solution, saliva. Even though many people
leave these fillings in place for 10-20 years, the research standard
of durability is 7.6 years.

Mercury amalgam is the least expensive filling material. The dentist
can prepare the tooth cavity, fill it with the malleable amalgam, and
shape the contours in one sitting.   The material is technically easy
to manage for the dentist. The combination of low cost materials and
ease of use and reasonable durability has made mercury amalgam the
most widely used dental material.

The drawback to mercury amalgam fillings is that elemental mercury
constitutes 50 % of the amalgam mass. Elemental mercury is a
poisonous heavy metal. Elemental mercury vapors continue to be
released from amalgam fillings for the entire life of the filling.

Mercury is not a biocompatible material. Mercury is the active
ingredient in many herbicides, fungicides and pesticides. As the
environment of modern living becomes increasingly polluted, larger
numbers of people find that their threshold of toleration to
pollutants has been exceeded, resulting in severe physical
debilitation. Mercury   accumulates in the body tissue and gravitates
to the central nervous system.   Accumulations of mercury stress the
immune system, so even low levels of exposure to mercury is
undesirable.

These are the issues that cause an increasing number of dentists and
consumers to conclude that the convenience, low cost and relative
durability of mercury amalgam fillings is not worth the health risks
of continuous, micro-exposure to mercury in the body.

Composite materials: There are a number of formulations of glass and
resin materials that have received Federal Drug Administration
approval. These materials are tooth colored and can be placed in a
single visit. The durability of these materials is less than mercury
amalgams. The research standard of acceptable durability is 6.5
years.  Composites are definitely less durable than gold. Composite
fillings will need to be replaced periodically.

To make an ideal composite filling with good durability, the dentist
must exercise exacting care in placing the materials. Composites are
very technique sensitive, and time consuming. The dentist should
always use a rubber dam to keep the tooth absolutely dry when placing
a composite filling. The technical demands of composite fillings
means that they are usually more expensive than amalgams.

Can filling materials be tested for biocompatibility?

YES. Tests are available to evaluate biocompatibility of dental
materials prior to placement in your teeth. In principal, any foreign
material that is going to be permanently implanted in the body should
be tested for compatibility with that body.

Testing for bio-compatibility does add to the expense of your dental
treatment. If you believe that your system is especially susceptible
to stresses or if you have symptoms of sensitivity or  as
mislabeled  allergy or immune stress, then testing for bio-
compatibility is highly recommended.

Steve  WELCOME  and  Good  luck  to you!

Once  a  while  we  have  some uneducated  idiot  dentist  trying
to   suggest  opposed  views  like  this  time  Jenna  Whitman
another   shithead  claiming to be a  dentist.

There is  many  dishonest  idiots and  uneducated  cons  who are  in
practice of dentistry.

I  fought with FDA  and  because  of ONLY  my  actions  after  going
through the office  of President of US   FDA was  forced  to respond
and  now  FDA  is  pretending   that  they are  doing  something!


http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/022002a.pdf


Read  more  on:

http://www.melisa.com

Download full size medical articles concerning the MELISA® test

http://www.melisa.org/articles/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The role of metals in autoimmunity and the link to neuroendocrinology
Jenny Stejskal MD., Vera Stejskal PhD., Neuroendocrinology Letters,
1999

Current literature indicates a risk for metal-induced autoimmunity in
man. Metal pathology may be due to toxic or allergic mechanisms where
both play a role. The main factors decisive for disease induced by
metals are exposure and genetics which determine the individual
susceptibility to metals. This paper reviews the possible mechanics
which may play a role in metal-induced autoimmunity with the emphasis
on multiple sclerosis (MS), rheumatoid arthrisis (RA) and amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (ALS). We also discuss the role of inflammation-
induced changes in the hypotalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis as a
possible explanation of fatigue, depression and other psychosomatic
symptoms observed in these diseases.

  [169 kb] Download article

Metal-specific lymphocytes: biomarkers of sensitivity in man
Vera Stejskal, PhD., et al., Neuroendocrinology Letters, 1999
The MELISA® test has been performed in more than 3000 patients
suffering from various oral and systemic symptoms (resembling chronic
fatigue) often in combination with metal intolerance. Nickel was
found to be the most common sensitizer followed by inorganic mercury,
gold, cadmium and palladium. Replacement of amalgam and other dental
metals resulted in health improval in a majority of patients and in
the decrease of positive MELISA® response.

  [398 kb] Download article

Metal-specific lymphocytes: biomarkers of sensitivity in man
Vera Stejskal, PhD., et al., Amalgam and Health
This article was presented at the conference "Amalgam and health -
new perspectives on risks" in Stockholm on January 14 1998 (If there
was a needle in a haystack - could we find it? The case of amalgam).
Although the title is the same as the article which was later
published in NEL 1999 (above article), the results are here described
in more detail.

  [710 kb] Download article

Health observations before and after amalgam removal
Dr.med.dent. Paul Engel, Lyss-Strasse 24, 2560 Nidau, Switzerland
From the 1800 patients whom I had treated in the last four years,
roughly 90 wished to have their
partially intact amalgam fillings -often done by me - replaced by
another material (mostly
composites and compomere). Predominantly, these were patients with
certain health problems,
who had been influenced by an acquaintance or via different media and
had learned of the
possible toxic effect of mercury from amalgam.

  [129 kb] Download article
  [233 kb] German version
  [115 kb] French version

Mercury and nickel allergy: risk factors in fatigue and in
autoimmunity
Ivan Sterzl, MD., et al., Neuroendocrinology Letters, 1999
This study examined the presence of hypersensitivity to dental and
environmental metals in patients with clinical disorders complicated
with chronic fatigue syndrome. 22 patients with autoimmune
thyroiditis, 28 fatigued patients free from endocrinopathy and 22
fatigued professionals without evidence of autoimmunity were studied.
As controls, a population sample of 13 healthy subjects without any
evidence of metal sensitivity was included. To evaluate the relevance
of positive in vitro findings, the replacement of amalgam with metal-
free restorations was performed. At a six-month follow-up, patients
reported considerably alleviated fatigue and disappearance of many
symptoms previously encountered; in parallel, lymphocyte responses to
metals decreased, as well. We suggest that metal-driven inflammation
may affect the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA axis) and
indirectly trigger psychosomatic multisymptoms characterising chronic
fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and other diseases of unknown
etiology.

  [153 kb] Download

http://www.melisa.org/articles/engel-e.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/neuroen.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/biomark.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/nialler.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/biomark2.pdf

see  Dr.  Halley  article on

http://www.bioprobe.com

and

http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/PDHA/mercury/asr.htm

http://www.bioprobe.com/ReadNews.asp?article=36

http://www.bioprobe.com/ReadNews.asp?article=47

http://www.bioprobe.com/ReadNews.asp?article=42



--- In adentalmercuryamalgam@y..., "smorticvs" <smorticvs@y...> wrote:
> I believe that I have problems with mercury and other metals as far
> as my body's reaction to them.  I have taken the 24 hr. clearance
> profile through Great Smokies and came back high in Mercury, Nickel
> (very high), gallium, chromium, Arsenic, and Bismuth.  I scheduled
to
> have my fillings replaced and took the Clifford test.  It said that
I
> showed reactivity to Aluminum, Antimony, Arsenic, Berylium,
Bismuth,
> Cadmium, Formeldahyde, Indium, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Palladium,
> Polyethemine, Rhodium, Ruthenium, Scandium, Tannis, and Toluenes.
It
> seems that I showed reactivity in some elements that were high in
my
> urine test.  Mainly mercury, nickel, arsenic, and bismuth.
> My question is that is it possible that my feeling like crud since
> late Dec. 2001 has to do with my body reacting to the elements that
I
> tested as high.  (by the way I had 2 1/2 Hg amalgams placed in
Sept.
> 2001 with one old one drilled out and also a really big one put in
> with MUCH grinding to adjust it to my bite- I felt the filling for
a
> week or so until it ground down by my bite)
> I don't want to bore your with all of my details it's just that I
> feel like my life has severely affected and I have to find the
cause
> and fix it.  I JUST HAVE TO!
> My problems are mainly anxiety and GI problems, but also there are
> some others like sweaty palms, ringing ears, salivation and just
> generally feeling like crap.  And before all of this I was playing
> tennis 2-3 times a week and loving it.  Now it seems like I'll pass
> out if I over-exert myself.  If there is anyone out there who has
had
> a similar test results, please let me know what happened.  I am
very
> worried form my health and I just have to get better.
>
> Thanks for your time,
> Steve Mortillaro
>
> P.S. Going to have my first removal on June 13, 2002.  Keeping my
> fingers crossed!

There is  NO  phobia.
Fraud  comitted  by  DENTISTS  and their  American Dental Association
a  Labor  Union for  Dentists  is  well  known!

Here you can  learn the  REAL science  not a  crap  as  you are
posting.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/PDHA/mercury/asr.htm

May I suggest  you  stop  practicing the  DENTAL  QUACKERY  or  your
licence  to  injur  patients   by  using  mercury  should  be
immediately  revoked!    You are   nothing else  but  a QUACK!

"The ADA owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from
allegedly dangerous products used by dentists. The ADA did not
manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing
amalgams. The ADA does not control those who do. The ADA's only
alleged involvement in the product was to provide information
regarding its use. Dissemination of information relating to the
practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the
public from potential injury".
Source: Legal brief filed in 1995 by attorneys for the ADA in W.H.
Tolhurst vs. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Products, Inc.; Engelhard
Corporation; ABE Dental, Inc.; the American Dental Association, et
al., in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the
County of Santa Clara, CA, Case No. 718228.

Historical Overview of Mercury Use in Dentistry

Lorscheider, F.L., Vimy, M.J., and Summers, A.O. "Mercury Exposure
from Silver Tooth Fillings: Emerging Evidence Questions a Traditional
Dental Paradigm." FASEB Journal (April 1995).


http://www.altcorp.com/amalgam.htm

http://www.bioprobe.com/ReadNews.asp?article=47

http://www.bioprobe.com

http://www.toxicteeth.com

HR 4163 IH


107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4163
To prohibit after 2006 the introduction into interstate commerce of
mercury intended for use in a dental filling, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 10, 2002
Ms. WATSON of California (for herself and Mr. BURTON of Indiana)
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------


A BILL
To prohibit after 2006 the introduction into interstate commerce of
mercury intended for use in a dental filling, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Mercury in Dental Filling Disclosure
and Prohibition Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds as follows:

(1) Mercury is a highly toxic element.

(2) A dental amalgam, commonly referred to as a `silver filling',
consists of 43 to 54 percent mercury.

(3) Consumers may be deceived by the use of the term `silver' to
describe a dental amalgam, which contains substantially more mercury
than silver.

(4) Dental amalgam may contain about 1/2 to 3/4 of a gram of mercury,
depending on the size of the filling.

(5) The mercury in a dental amalgam continually emits mercury vapors.

(6) Mercury toxicity is a retention toxicity that builds up over
years of exposure.

(7) According to certain scientific studies, Health Canada, and the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of the Public Health
Service of the Department of Health and Human Services, children and
pregnant women are at particular risk for exposure to mercury
contained in dental amalgam.

(8) According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, the mercury from amalgam goes through the placenta of
pregnant women and through the breast milk of lactating women, giving
rise to health risks to an unborn child or a baby.

(9) The Environmental Protection Agency considers removed amalgam
filling and extracted teeth containing amalgam material to be
hazardous waste.

(10) The use of mercury in any product being put into the body is
opposed by many health groups, such as the American Public Health
Association, the California Medical Association, and Health Care
Without Harm.

(11) Consumers and parents have a right to know, in advance, the
risks of placing a product containing a substantial amount of mercury
in their mouths or the mouths of their children.

(12) Alternatives to mercury-based dental fillings exist, but many
publicly and privately financed health plans do not allow consumers
to choose alternatives to mercury amalgam.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON INTRODUCTION OF DENTAL AMALGAM INTO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.

(a) PROHIBITION- Section 501 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (21 U.S.C. 351) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(j) Effective January 1, 2007, if it contains mercury intended for
use in a dental filling.'.

(b) TRANSITIONAL PROVISION- For purposes of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), effective July 1, 2002, and
subject to subsection (a), a device that contains mercury intended
for use in a dental filling shall be considered to be misbranded,
unless it bears a label that provides as follows: `Dental amalgam
contains approximately 50 percent mercury, a highly toxic element.
Such product should not be administered to children less than 18
years of age, pregnant women, or lactating women. Such product should
not be administered to any consumer without a warning that the
product contains mercury, which is a highly toxic element, and
therefore poses health risks.'.
END
__________
Dr. Haley Rebuts the American Dental Association Position on Mercury
Amalgam Safety
23 May 2001

The Honorable Dan Burton
Chairman
Committee on Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

RE: May 11th letter by Robert M. Anderton, D.D.S., J.D., LL.M. and
President of the ADA, challenging my statement to the Committee on
Government Reform looking at the topic, Autism-Why the Increased
Rates? A One Year Update.

Dear Mr. Chairman:

At the April 25th meeting of your committee I gave testimony that the
President of the American Dental Association (ADA) takes exception to
in a letter sent to you dated 11 May 2001. Quoting from that letter
the testimony the ADA dislikes is "that elementary mercury from
dental amalgam could work synergistically with other ethyl-mercury
sources and have a cumulative toxic effect on the body. Dr. Haley
postulated that this could be a potential cause of autism and
Alzheimer's disease." I stand by my statement as a sensible concern
based on published scientific research regarding synergist toxicities
caused by two very toxic agents, mercury and the organic mercury
compound thimerosal. This concern is elevated since mercury exposure
from amalgams to a pregnant mother concentrates in the fetus and a
single vaccine given to a six-pound newborn is the equivalent of
giving a 180-pound adult 30 vaccinations on the same day. Include in
this the toxic effects of high levels of aluminum and formaldehyde
contained in some vaccines, and the synergist toxicity could be
increased to unknown levels. Further, it is very well known that
infants do not produce significant levels of bile or have adult renal
capacity for several months after birth. Bilary transport is the
major biochemical route by which mercury is removed from the body,
and infants cannot do this very well. They also do not possess the
renal (kidney) capacity to remove aluminum. Additionally, mercury is
a well-known inhibitor of kidney function. Common sense indicates
that the concern I expressed should be taken seriously since we do
not know how combined toxicities effect humans, especially in utero.
Consider the current epidemic death on birth of over 500 foals from
apparently healthy mares around Lexington, KY. These deaths were
identified as being due to a low level toxicity delivered by
caterpillars eating poison plants and later, on migration, depositing
their waste products on grass being eaten by the mares. The point
being it is the infant in utero that suffered most on exposure to low
level, toxins, not the mother. Combined mercury toxicities can be
devastating as I reference below and in the many references available
on the www.altcorp.com website. What is needed is research by non-
biased scientists to clarify this, something our FDA and NIDCR have
refused to do. As the American public find out what has happened
regarding this issue, they will be quite angry. This is a biomedical
science issue that should have been resolved a long time ago by the
responsible federal agencies.

Below I present detailed and referenced information supporting my
case and respond to various statements made by the ADA President that
I believe to be misleading and sometimes flagrantly wrong. The ADA
seems to think it has the right to select which research it believes
and to trash that research that says it is wrong, even though the
latter represents the bulk of published research. To address the
issues raised by the ADA President in his letter I will go in
sequential order of the comments made in the letter placing the ADA
comments in italics and providing scientific references for my
conclusions.

"There is no scientifically valid evidence linking either autism or
Alzheimer's disease with dental amalgam". First, mercury is a well-
known, potent neurotoxicant, and common sense would lead to the
conclusion that severe neurotoxins would exacerbate all neurological
disorders, including Parkinson's, ALS, MS, autism and AD. Several
research papers in refereed, high quality journals and scientific
publications have shown that mercury inhibits the same enzymes in
normal brain tissues as are inhibited in AD brain samples (1a-c, 2,
3). AD is pathologically confirmed post-mortem by the appearance of
neuro-fibillary tangles (NFTs) and amyloid plaques in brain tissue.
Published research, within the past year, has shown that exposure of
neurons in culture to sub-lethal doses of mercury (much less than is
observed in human brain tissue) causes the formation of NFTs (4), the
increased secretion of amyloid protein and the hyper-phosphorylation
of a protein called Tau (5). All three of these mercury-induced
aberrances are regularly identified as the major diagnostic markers
for AD. In the manuscript published in the J. of Neurochemistry (5)
the authors state "These results indicate that mercury may play a
role in the patho-physiological mechanisms of AD." In most of these
experiments, mercury and only mercury among the several toxic heavy
metals tested, caused the AD related responses reported. Many
medically trained individuals would agree that if something causes
the appearance of the pathological hallmarks confirming the disease
then it likely causes the disease. I at least have limited my claims
to exacerbation of these diseases to err on the side of caution.

Further, consider this about AD. A study of 500 sets of identical
twins from World War II era lead to the conclusion that sporadic AD
which represents 90% of the cases was not a directly inherited
disease. In many cases one twin would get AD and the other would not.
Genetic susceptibility is involved, but a toxic exposure is required
(e.g., if you are genetically susceptible to being an alcoholic you
still need to be exposed to alcohol to become one). The work by
Rose's group at Johns Hopkins University implicates APO-E genotype as
a "risk" factor with APO-E2 being protective and APO-E4 being a major
risk factor. APO-E2 has the ability to protect the brain from mercury
by having two additional thiol-groups to bind mercury appearing in
the cerebrospinal fluid whereas APO-E4 does not have this additional
capability (1). This may explain the proven genetic susceptibility to
AD of the APO-E4 carriers.

NIH has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to find a causal factor
for AD. Yet, no virus, yeast or bacteria has been identified so the
cause remains unknown to general science. The rate of AD per 1,000
population is nearly the same in California, Michigan, Maine, North
Carolina, Florida, Texas, etc. It is not significantly different for
rural versus urban individuals, or factory workers versus those with
outside jobs. So the primary toxicant that may be involved is most
likely not environmental. Therefore, it must be a very personal
toxicant, like what you put in your mouth. Since we place grams of a
neurotoxic metal, mercury, in our mouths in the form of dental
amalgam this makes it a good suspect for the exacerbation of AD---not
that all would be affected, just those that are genetically
susceptible, or those who become ill enough to fall prey to the
toxicity, or those that are also exposed to another synergistic toxin
(see below).

The one fact that ties mercury into a major suspect for AD is the
fact that most of the proteins/enzymes that are inhibited in AD brain
are thiol-sensitive enzymes. Mercury is one of the most potent
chemical inhibitors of thiol-sensitive enzymes and mercury vapor
easily penetrates into the central nervous system (2). Mercury is not
the only toxicant to inhibit thiol-sensitive enzymes. Thimerosal and
lead will do this also as well as reactive oxygen compounds created
in oxidative stress and many other industrial compounds. However,
mercury has been reported to be significantly elevated in AD brain
(14a,b, 15). Mercury is in many mouths being emitted from dental
amalgam and absolutely would exacerbate the clinical condition
identified as AD. Therefore, mercury should be considered as a causal
contributor since mercury can produce the two pathological hallmarks
of the disease and inhibits the same thiol-sensitive enzymes that are
dramatically inhibited in AD brain.

It is documented by a 1991 World Health Organization report that
dental amalgams constitute the major human exposure to mercury. Grams
of mercury are in the mouths of individuals with several amalgam
fillings. Further, the level of blood and urine mercury positively
correlates with the number of amalgam fillings. This was confirmed by
a recently published NIH funded study (6). Therefore, I fail to see
the ADA's viewpoint that there is no scientifically valid evidence
linking mercury from amalgams to exacerbating AD, especially since
mercury produces the diagnostic hallmarks of AD (4,5). The ADA hides
behind the fact that there has not been an epidemiological study to
attempt to correlate mercury exposure and AD. However, absence of
proof is not proof of absence. This also begs the question why the
ADA, the FDA and the National Institutes of Dental Craniofacial
Research (NIDCR) have not pushed for such a study? These agencies
know this would be immensely expensive and only the U.S. government
could afford to support any reliable long-term study. Yet, these same
responsible agencies have failed to confirm as safe the placing into
the mouth of Americans grams of the most toxic heavy metal Americans
are exposed to. The dental branch of the FDA has steadfastly refused
to investigate the toxic potential of dental amalgam.

Look at the references in the ADA letter! Even they must quote
Scandinavian literature to support their contentions of safety, and
even then they have to reference papers on fertility instead of
neurotoxicity! Where is the ADA, FDA and NIDCR supported U.S.
research in this area? Go to the NIH web-sites and look for research
on the safety of mercury from amalgams, or try to find an NIH study
concerning possible mercury involvement in any common neurological
diseases. NIH does support research on methyl-mercury, as we seem to
like beating up on the fishing industry whilst leaving the dental
industry alone. However, according to the NIH study about 90% of the
mercury in our bodies is elemental mercury, not methyl-mercury,
showing the exposure is more likely from dental amalgams rather than
fish (6). Support at NIH has been very sparse for investigating the
relationship of elemental mercury exposure to neurological diseases.

"And there is no scientifically valid evidence demonstrating in vivo
transformation of inorganic mercury into organo mercury species in
individuals occupationally exposed to amalgam mercury vapor". There
was a paper published entitled "Methylation of Mercury from Dental
Amalgam and Mercuric Chloride by Oral Streptococci in vitro" (19).
This strongly indicates that "organo mercury species" are indeed
capable of being made in the human body and may explain the
appearance of methyl-mercury in the blood and urine of individuals
who don't eat seafood.

Further, periodontal disease is considered one of the major risk
factors for stroke, heart and cardiovascular disease and late onset,
insulin independent diabetes. Many studies of the toxicants produced
in periodontal disease have identified hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and
methane-thiol (CH3SH) as major toxic products of infective anerobic
bacteria in the mouth metabolizing the amino acids cysteine and
methionine, respectively. These volatile thiol-compounds are what
cause bad-breath! Methane-thiol (CH3SH) would react immediately and
spontaneously in the mouth with amalgam generated mercury cation to
produce the following two compounds, CH3S-HgCl and CH3S-Hg-SCH3,
which are organo-mercurial compounds (check this out with any
competent chemist). They are also very similar in structure to methyl-
mercury (CH3-HgCl) and dimethyl-mercury (CH3-Hg-CH3), the latter
which caused the highly publicized death of a University of Dartmouth
chemistry professor 10 months after she spilled two drops on her
gloved hand. We have synthesized CH3S-HgCl and CH3-Hg-CH3 in my
laboratory and tested their toxicity in comparison to Hg2+. As
expected, they were both more toxic than Hg2+ and this data is
available on the www.altcorp.com web-site. Therefore, the ADA
President is badly misinformed on this issue. Additionally, I am
amazed that the researchers at the ADA and NIDCR did not previously
report on this obvious chemistry as I would imagine this is the kind
of topic they should be addressing.

"Based on currently available scientific evidence, the ADA believes
that dental amalgam is a safe, affordable and durable material for
all but a handful of individuals who are allergic to one of its
components. It contains a mixture of metals such as silver, copper
and tin, in addition to mercury, which chemically binds these
components into a hard, stable and safe substance." This is a totally
wrong statement unless you underline the "ADA believes" and define
how big is a "handful of individuals". Sensible people
want "believes" replaced with "knows" and a "handful" replaced with
a "hard number". Amalgams emit dangerous levels of mercury and the
ADA absolutely refuses to accept this fact or even to study the
possibility. Otherwise, the ADA administrators seem to be unable to
separate fact from fiction. Consider, if they wanted to destroy my
argument on amalgam toxicity they would reference several solid,
refereed publication showing that mercury is not emitted from dental
amalgams---but they cannot do this with even one article. They always
state the "estimate" is that a very, very, very small amount.
Competent, well-informed researchers don't use the evasive language
used in the ADA President's letter. They would state the amount is so
many micrograms mercury released per centimeter squared amalgam
surface area and a "handful of individuals" would be a percentage of
our population! Lets look at the published literature.

First, careful evaluation of the amount of mercury emitted from a
commonly used dental amalgam in a test tube with 10 ml of water was
presented in an article entitled "Long-term Dissolution of Mercury
from a Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam". This study showed that "the
over-all mean release of mercury was 43.5 ± 3.2 micrograms per
cm2/day, and the amount remained fairly constant during the duration
of the experiments (2 years)" (7). This was without pressure, heat or
galvanism as would have occurred if the amalgams were in a human
mouth. Further, research where amalgams containing radioactive
mercury were placed in sheep and monkeys, showed the radioactivity
collecting in all body tissues and especially high in the jaw and
facial bones. (8,9). Another publication, from a major U.S. School of
Dentistry, stated that solutions in which amalgams had been soaked
were "severely cytotoxic initially when Zn release was highest" (13).
Zn is a needed element for body health and is found in very low
percentages in dental amalgams when compared to mercury and why
mercury was not mentioned in the abstract of this publication baffles
me. Why would the statement be true? Because Zn2+ is a synergist that
enhances mercury toxicity! However, does this sound like amalgams are
a safe, stable material? We have repeated similar amalgam soaking
experiments in my laboratory and the results can be seen at
www.altcorp.com. Cadmium (from smoking), lead, zinc and other heavy
metals enhanced mercury toxicity as expected (this research is
currently being prepared for publication).

The ADA claim that a zinc oxide layer is formed on the amalgams that
decreases mercury release is true, if you don't use the teeth. The
zinc oxide layer would be easily removed by slight abrasion such as
chewing food or brushing the teeth. Further, my laboratory has
confirmed that solutions in which amalgams have been soaked can cause
the inhibition of brain proteins that are inhibited by adding mercury
chloride, and these are the same enzymes inhibited in AD brain
samples.

Further, mercury emitting from a dental amalgam can be easily
detected using the same mercury vapor analysis instrument used by
OSHA and the EPA to monitor mercury levels. Anyone who does not
believe mercury is emitted from amalgams should consider doing the
following. Have your local dentist make 10 amalgams using the same
material he/she places in your mouth. Take these 10 amalgams to your
nearest research university's department of chemistry or toxicology
department and have them determine how much mercury is being emitted.
For example, have them calculate how long it would take a single
spill of hardened amalgam to make a gallon of water too toxic to pass
EPA standards as drinking water. You will then have an answer from an
unbiased, solid group of scientists who are trained to do such
determinations. Also, remember the level of mercury they measure
would not include the increase that would occur with amalgams in the
mouth where chewing, grinding your teeth, drinking hot liquids and
galvanism greatly increase the release of mercury. Since this
approach can be easily done by anyone don't you think the ADA, FDA
and other amalgam supporters would have this published by now if the
level of mercury released was below the danger level?

Here is their attempt. According to an ADA spokesman he
has "estimated" that only 0.08 micrograms of mercury per amalgam per
day is taken into the human body. Applying simple math to
this "estimate" of 0.08 micrograms/ day one would divide this amount
by 8,640 (24 hours/day X 60 minutes/hour X 6 ten second
intervals/minute) to determine the amount of mercury in micrograms
available for a ten second mercury vapor analysis. Consider that
somewhere between one-half to five-sixths of the mercury released
would be into the tooth (that area of the amalgam that exists below
the visibly exposed amalgam surface) and not into the oral air. In
addition, some mercury in the oral air would be rapidly absorbed into
the saliva and oral mucosa (mercury loves hydrophobic cell membranes)
and also not be measured by the mercury analyzer. Further, as the
mercury analyzer pulls mercury containing oral air into the analysis
chamber, mercury free ambient air rushes into the oral cavity
decreasing the mercury concentration. Taking all of this into account
you can calculate that most mercury analyzers could not detect
this "estimated" 0.08 micrograms/day level of mercury even if you had
several amalgams. However, the fact is that it is quite easy to
detect mercury emitting from one amalgam using these analyzers.
Therefore, the "estimate" by this ADA spokesman is way to low. Also,
if you gently rub the amalgam with a tooth-brush the amount of
mercury emitted goes up dramatically. This is a test anyone can do
and demonstrate to any group. The ADA spokesmen state that the
mercury vapor analyzer is not accurate at determining oral mercury
levels and they are quite correct. However, using this instrument
would greatly underestimate the amount of mercury exiting the
amalgam. The very fact that the mercury analyzer detects high levels
of oral mercury strongly indicates the emitted amount of mercury is
too high to be acceptable.

Mercury release from dental amalgams is also the reason OSHA has used
this analyzer to make the dentists place unused amalgam in a sealed
container under liquid glycerin. This is done so that the mercury
vapors from the amalgams will not contaminate the dental office
making it an unsafe place to work. This is also the reason the EPA
insists that removed amalgam filling and extracted teeth containing
amalgam material be picked up and disposed of as toxic waste.
Apparently, the only safe place for amalgams is in the human mouth if
you believe what the ADA believes.

"Amalgams have been used for 150 years and, during that time, has
established an extensively reviewed record of safety and
effectiveness." First, what other aspect of industry or medicine is
still using the same basic manufactured material that they used 150
years ago? One has to ask the question as to what has hindered the
progress of development of better and safer dental materials? Also,
consider that in the early 1900s the average life expectancy of most
Americans was about 50 years of age and most of them could not afford
dental fillings. Fifty to sixty years is much less than the average
age of onset of AD. Further, amalgams became more available to most
working class Americans after World War II, or in the early 1950s.
The greatest increase in the use of amalgam occurred at about this
time and these 'baby boomers are the great ongoing amalgam
experiment'. They are now reaching the age where AD appears and have
lived most of their lives carrying amalgam fillings. They also wonder
what is causing their chronic fatigue as the physicians can find
nothing systemically wrong with them. I would encourage all concerned
to contact the health experts on the rate of increase of AD in the
U.S.A. at this time. Consider the cost it will place on the taxpayer
and how much we would save if we could even remove the exacerbation
factors that might speed up the onset of AD. I must point out that
the "extensively reviewed record of safety" mentioned in the ADA
letter was mostly done by dentists and committees dominated by ADA
dentists. Also, much of the "safety opinion" was developed long
before words like Alzheimer's disease and chronic fatigue were
commonplace. Further, these were "reviews" and not carefully
documented studies based on scientific experimentation and done by
unqualified dentists, not medical scientists. Dentists are not
trained to do basic research, nor are they trained in toxicology.
Furthermore, the ADA does have a vested interest in keeping amalgam
use legitimate. The ADA was founded on using amalgam technology and
participated in patenting and licensing amalgam technology. One has
to question why there has not been a general outcry by the bulk of
well-meaning dentists and their patients and this question should be
addressed. The International Association of Oral Medicine and
Toxicology, started by American & Canadian dentists, does adamantly
disagree with the ADA on the issue of safety of dental amalgams and
this organization has the mantra of "Show me your science" with
regards to all dental issues.

The ADA, through state dental boards stacked with ADA members, has
instigated a "gag order" preventing dentists from even mentioning to
their patients that amalgams are 50% mercury. Dentists cannot state
that mercury is neurotoxic and emits from amalgams and that the
dental patient should consider this as they select the tooth filling
material they want used. If a dentist informs a patient of these very
truthful facts he will be consider not to be practicing good
dentistry and his license will be in jeopardy. Attacking a person's
freedom of speech because he is telling the truth and causing serious
questions to be asked about the protocols pushed by a bureaucracy
(the ADA) makes me seriously question the commitment the ADA has for
the health of the American people. The negative stand taken by many
state dental boards against even informing the patients about the
mercury content of amalgams and the other filling choices they have
does not speak well for the organized dental profession. What medical
group would give a treatment to a patient without telling them of the
risks involved?

"Issued late in 1997, the FDI World Dental Federation and the World
Health Organization consensus statement on dental amalgam stated "No
controlled studies have been published demonstrating systemic adverse
effects from amalgam restorations."" My first comment would be to
question "who staffed these committees and what percentage were
connected to the ADA though the NIDCR or the FDA dental materials
branch or other relationships?" We appear to have the foxes guarding
the henhouse! Then I would again point out that "absence of proof is
not proof of absence". I would then ask 'have any controlled studies
been done and if not, why not?' If the ADA dentists insist on placing
amalgams in the mouth, are they not required to show it is safe, not
the other way around? Should not the ADA and others concerned push to
require the FDA to prove amalgams are safe instead of totally ducking
this issue. Go to the FDA dental materials web-site and try to find
any evaluation of amalgam safety---you will not succeed. The dental
branch of the FDA refuses to do a safety study on amalgams and this
is shame on our government.

"the small amount of mercury released from amalgam restorations,
especially during placement and removal, has not been shown to cause
anyadverse effects." This increase in mercury exposure has also not
been shown to be safe by proving it does not cause any adverse
effects! Are we to believe this elevated exposure to a toxic metal is
good for us? If one were in a building that caused the rise in
blood/urine mercury that appears after dental amalgam removal, then
OSHA would shut the building down. In fact, no study by the ADA or
NIDCR has been completed that specifically and accurately addresses
this issue. Yet, the ADA leads us to believe that additional exposure
to toxic mercury from these procedures is not dangerous to our
health. 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 (12). Therefore, the damage caused by
amalgams could occur years after initial placement and at mercury
levels now deemed safe by the ADA.

Our ability to protect ourselves from the toxic damage caused by
exposure to mercury depends on the level of protective natural
biochemical compounds (e.g. glutathione, metallothionine) in our
cells and the levels of these protecting agents is dependent upon our
health and age. If we become ill, or as we age, the cellular levels
of glutathione drop and our protection against the toxic effects of
mercury decreases and damage will be done. This is strongly supported
by numerous studies where rodents have been chemically treated to
decrease their cellular levels of protective glutathione and then
treated with mercury, always with dramatic injurious effects when
compared to controls. Therefore, published science indicates that
mercury toxicity is much more pronounced in infants, the very old and
the very ill.

A recent NIH study on 1127 military men showed the major contributor
to human mercury body burden was dental amalgams. The amount of
mercury in the urine increased about 4.5 fold in soldiers with the
average number of amalgams versus the controls with no amalgams. In
extreme cases it was over 8 fold higher. Since the total mercury
included that from diet and industrial pollution are we to expect
that this 4.5 to 8 fold average increase in mercury is not
detrimental to our health? Does this indicate that amalgams are
a "safe and effective restorative material"? Is the public and
Congress expected to be so naïve as to believe that increased
exposure above environmental exposure levels is not damaging? Then
why are pregnant mothers told to limit seafood intake when mercury
exposure from amalgams is much greater? Then why is the EPA pushing
regulations to force the chloro-alkali plants and fossil fuel plants
to clean up their mercury contributions to our environment?
Obviously, from this study most of the human exposure to mercury is
from dental amalgams, not fossil fuel plants. Yet, the FDA lets the
dental profession continue to expose American citizens to even
greater amounts of mercury. They do this by refusing to test amalgam
fillings as a source of mercury exposure. Also, remember that the
amalgam using ADA dentists are a major contributor to mercury in our
water and air through mercury leaving the dental offices, and even
when we are cremated.

"The ADA's Council on Scientific Affairs 1998 report on its review of
the recent scientific literature on amalgam states: "The Council
concludes that, based on available scientific information, amalgam
continues to be a safe and effective restorative material."
and "There currently appears to be no justification for discontinuing
the use of dental amalgam." What would you expect an ADA Council to
say? The ADA, as evidenced in the current letter by the President of
the ADA, only quotes and considers valid the published research that
supports their desire to continue placing mercury containing amalgam
fillings in American citizens. When were dentists trained to evaluate
neurological and toxicological data and manuscripts? What is needed
is an international conference where both the pro- and anti-amalgam
researchers show up and present their data in front of a world-class
scientific committee. I would challenge the ADA to line up their
scientists and supporters to participate in such a conference. This
could be held in Washington, D.C. so the FDA officials could easily
attend. Perhaps we could persuade the FDA to sponsor such a
conference. However, this is unlikely since a recent written request
to have a conference to evaluate the safety of amalgams was rejected
in a letter from the FDA and signed by three FDA/ADA dentists who
presented the ADA line on this issue. Doesn't it seem a bit
fraudulent to have FDA/ADA dentists deciding on whether or not a
safety study should be done on mercury emitting amalgams being placed
in human mouths with the blessing of the ADA? This does seem like a
conflict in interest that Congress should address.

"In an article published in the February 1999 issue of the Journal of
the American Dental Association, researchers report finding "no
significant association of Alzheimer's disease with the number,
surface area or history of having dental amalgam restorations." This
research was lead by a dentist, Dr. Sax. It was submitted to the J.
of the American Medical Association and rejected. It was then
submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine and rejected. It was
then published in the ADA trade journal, JADA, that is not a
refereed, scientific journal. JADA is loaded with commercial
advertisements for dental products. They even called a "press
conference" announcing the release of this article! Calling a press
conference for a twice-rejected publication that is to appear in a
trade journal is playing politics with science at its worst! At this
press conference two of the authors made unbelievable statements that
were not supported by any of the data in the article and conflicted
with numerous major scientific reports, including the 1998 NIH study
(6). Some of these were high-lighted in the side-bars of the ADA
publication. I would suggest that those concerned with this article
visit Medline and look at the publication records of the two
individuals who made these statements. Also, look at the three
earlier excellent publications in refereed journals by some of the
other authors showing significant mercury levels in the brains of AD
subjects compared to controls (14a,b, 15). However, put a dentist in
charge of the project and the data gets reversed!

Apply some common sense. The ancillary comments by some of the
authors and the results of the JADA publication are in total
disagreement with the vast majority of research published that looks
at elevated mercury levels in subjects with amalgam fillings. For
example, the NIH study on military men discussed above showed a very
significant elevation of mercury in the blood that correlated with
number of dental amalgams (6). Another recent publication
demonstrated elevated mercury in the blood of living AD patients in
comparison to age-matched controls (10). These studies clearly show
that there should be increased mercury in your blood if you have
amalgams and especially if you have AD and amalgams (6,10). Does not
the brain have blood in it? This makes it a total mystery as to how
could the authors of the JADA article not find elevated brain mercury
levels in patient with existing amalgams and/or AD. Even cadavers
have brain mercury levels that correlate with the number of amalgam
fillings they had on death.

Further, if you are addressing the contribution of amalgams to brain
mercury and AD wouldn't it be important to divide the AD and control
subjects into those with and without existing amalgams on death? In
the JADA article this was not done and represents a major research
flaw! That this was not done also arouses suspicion. I participated
in submitting a letter pointing out this flaw to editors of JADA but
they refused to acknowledge the letter and did not publish our
comments. It is my opinion that the entire situation around this
singular supportive publication of the ADA position on amalgams,
brain mercury levels and AD represents a weak attempt at controlling
the mind-set of well-meaning dentists, scientists, physicians and
medical research administrators. It definitely impedes honest
scientific debate. It also explains the cavalier attitude of the ADA
and NIDCR about elemental mercury exposure and toxicity when compared
to the more serious approaches taken by the EPA and OSHA.

With regards to the JADA article summary that "no statistically
significant differences in brain mercury levels between subjects with
Alzheimer's disease and control subjects." Here I must quote Mark
Twain on honesty, "There are liars, damned liars and statisticians."
Comparing the level of mercury in the AD versus control alone using
straight-forward statistics previously showed a significant
difference on mercury levels in AD versus control subjects (14a,b,
15). However, there are anomalies, confounders and other factors that
can be considered in this situation, especially if you don't like the
initial results. This allows one to invoke a Bon-Feroni statistical
manipulation. With Bon-Feroni you include the comparison of one pair
of data (that may be statistically significantly different taken
alone, e.g. mercury levels in the brains of AD versus control
subjects) with several other pairs of data rendering the difference
statistically insignificant. One known weakness of the Bon-Feroni
treatment of several coupled pairs of comparisons is that one very
likely will miss a single comparison that is significantly different,
and clever people know this. It is my opinion that application of the
Bon-Feroni manipulation is what happened in this JADA study that
reversed the previous significance of the mercury levels in AD versus
control brain previously reported. Research previously reported by
some of the very same researchers involved in the JADA study
consistently indicated that mercury levels were higher in AD versus
age-matched control brains (14a,b, 15). Only when an ADA dentist
became involved did the results change to being insignificant. I
think the data used in this JADA article and funded by NIH needs to
be re-evaluated by a different statistician if we are to ever really
know if the mercury levels in the AD brains differed significantly
from controls.

The letter from the ADA President then lists four publications as
proof of amalgams having no statistically significant negative
effects. Two of these were published in Scandinavian Journals,
another was a review of the literature in a Dental Journal, and one
was the JADA article mentioned above. Sweden is well known to have
lead the world in the restriction and replacement of dental amalgams
with non-mercury containing materials. Forces are pushing hard to get
the use of amalgams accepted again in Sweden to eliminate this
embarrassment to our ADA. The current situation in Sweden and some
other European countries, Canada and Japan seriously questions the
ADA contention of amalgam safety. What if people in Sweden become
healthier without amalgams?

Additionally, the studies quoted by the ADA President were
epidemiological studies. These are very complex as many confounders
are included which make finding a statistically significant
difference very difficult. So the results are negative, nothing
found, and not surprising. However, they are in disagreement with
numerous other similar reports and appear to be hand-selected to
support the ADA position. One has to wonder, since the ADA President
seemed to visit Swedish journals to support the ADA position, how he
missed the research of the Nylander group in Sweden that showed
increased mercury content in brains and kidneys of humans in
relationship to exposure to dental amalgams (17,18). Also, the
referenced studies in the ADA letter did not involve neurotoxicity,
autism or neurological disease---which is the question at hand.
Rather, they addressed fertility, reproduction and other systemic
illnesses. Could not the ADA find references to focus on
neurotoxiological studies? What about the 1989 study that showed
elevated levels of mercury in 54 individuals with Parkinson's disease
when compared to 95 matched controls (16)? Further, one ought to
consider who was doing these touted ADA studies and any vested
interest they may have in the outcome. I am also aware of studies
done in the U.S.A. by major research universities that would disagree
with the conclusions drawn by the ADA on this subject yet these
articles are not considered in the ADA letter.

At the end of the last publication the quote "Conclusions: No
statistically significant correlation was observed between dental
amalgam and the incidence of diabetes, myocardial infarction, stroke,
or cancer." How does this relate to an article published in the J. of
the American College of Cardiology where the mercury levels in the
heart tissue of individuals who died from Idiopathic Dilated
Cardiomyopathy (IDCM) contained mercury levels 22,000 times that of
individuals who died of other forms of heart disease? Where did this
tremendous amount of mercury come from? Even a Bon-Feroni
manipulation could not make this difference insignificant! Many who
die of IDCM are well-conditioned, young athletes who drop dead during
sporting events---and they live in locations and in economic
environments where sea-food is not a dietary mainstay. Perhaps the
victims of IDCM are within the ADA Presidents "handful of individuals
who are allergic to one of its components."

"The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research is
currently supporting two very large clinical trials on the health
effects of dental amalgam. Studies underway for several years each in
Portugal and the Northeastern United States involve not only direct
neurophysiological measures but also cognitive and functional
assessments." Do we really think that the NIDCR and associated ADA
personnel are going to deliver up a conclusion to American parents
saying "we put a mercury containing toxic material in your child's
mouth that lowered his/her I.Q. and made him more susceptible to
neurological problems in comparison to the children whom we selected
to not get exposed to this toxic material"? It is my opinion that
most bureaucracies don't have a brain or a heart, but they do have a
very strong survival instinct. Therefore, the results presented from
this study will likely follow previously ADA supported research, i.e.
no significant results.

Since the NIDCR started this project only 4 years ago one has to ask
why it took so long for them to get involved since the "amalgam wars"
have been going on for scores of years? Was it the overwhelming
amount of modern science showing mercury from amalgams being a major
part of the daily exposure that forced their hand and they had to
develop a defense? Would I trust the conclusions of this study
without knowing who put it together and who did the statistics? Not
any more than I trust the conclusions of the JADA article mentioned
in the ADA letter that stupendously concludes that mercury from
dental amalgams does not get into the brain.

As was proven by the tobacco situation, trying to find any
significant negative effect of one product (amalgams) related to any
disease through epidemiological studies is very difficult and
complex. To do this with mercury would be difficult because of the
synergistic effect two or more toxic metals or compounds (e.g.
cadmium from smoking) may have on the toxicity of the mercury emitted
from amalgams. For example, one publication showed that combining
mercury and lead both at LD1 levels caused the killing rate to go to
100% or to an LD100 level (12). An LD1 level is where, due to the low
concentrations, the mercury or the lead alone was not very toxic
alone (i.e., killed less than 1% of rats exposed when metal were used
alone). The 100% killing, when addition of 1% plus 1% we would expect
2%, represents synergistic toxicity. Therefore, mixing to non-lethal
levels of mercury plus lead gave an extremely toxic mixture! What
this proves is that one cannot define a "safe level of mercury"
unless you absolutely know what others toxicants the individual is
being exposed to. The combined toxicity of various materials, such as
mercury, thimerosal, lead, aluminum, formaldehyde, etc., is unknown.
The effects various combinations of these toxicants would have is
also not defined except that we know they would be much worse than
any one of the toxicants alone. So how could the ADA take any
exception, based on intellectual considerations, to my contention
that combinations of thimerosal and mercury could exacerbate the
neurological conditions identified with autism and AD? Autism and AD
have clinical and biological markers that correspond to those
observed in patients with toxic mercury exposure. Why would the ADA
take this position? I personally feel like I have been in a ten year
argument with the town drunk on this issue. Facts don't count and
data is only valid if it meets the pro-amalgam agenda.

The ADA was founded on the basis that mercury-containing amalgams are
safe and useful for dental fillings. This may have been an acceptable
position in 1850. However, modern science has proven that amalgams
constantly emit unacceptable levels of mercury. Especially as the
average life span has increased from 50 to 75-78 years of age where
AD and Parkinson's become prevalent diseases. The ADA can try to
verify its position using selected epidemiological studies. But the
bottom line is that amalgams emit significant levels of neurotoxic
mercury that are injurious to human health and would exacerbate the
medical condition of those individuals with neurological diseases
such as ALS, MS, Parkinson's, autism and AD.

I am hoping that the ADA sent this letter to your committee and also
placed it on the ADA web-site to indicate that they are now willing
for a wide-open discussion to take place on the issue of dental
amalgams. I, for one, would welcome a major scientific conference on
this issue. The ADA should feel free to post my letter in response
and address any issue they feel that I am mistaken about. However, in
closing I urge your committee to push forward on the study of the
potential dangers of mercury in our dentistry and medicines. This
includes mercury exposures from amalgams, vaccines and other
medicaments containing thimerosal. The synergistic effects of mercury
with many of the toxicants commonly found in our environment make the
danger unpredictable and possibly quite severe, especially any
mixture containing elemental mercury, organic mercury and other heavy
metal toxicants such as aluminum.

Sincerely,



Boyd E. Haley
Professor and Chair
Department of Chemistry
University of Kentucky



REFERENCES:

1. a. Duhr, E.F., Pendergrass, J. C., Slevin, J.T., and Haley, B.
HgEDTA Complex Inhibits GTP Interactions With The E-Site of Brain b-
Tubulin Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 122, 273-288 (1993).; b.
Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E. Mercury-EDTA Complex Specifically
Blocks Brain b-Tubulin-GTP Interactions: Similarity to Observations
in Alzheimer"s Disease. p 98-105 in Status Quo and Perspective of
Amalgam and Other Dental Materials (International Symposium
Proceedings ed. by L. T. Friberg and G. N. Schrauzer) Georg Thieme
Verlag, Stuttgart-New York (1995).; c. Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley,
B.E. Inhibition of Brain Tubulin-Guanosine 5'-Triphosphate
Interactions by Mercury: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer's
Diseased Brain. In Metal Ions in Biological Systems V34, pp 461-478.
Mercury and Its Effects on Environment and Biology, Chapter 16.
Edited by H. Sigel and A. Sigel. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 270 Madison
Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10016 (1996).
2. Pendergrass, J. C., Haley, B.E., Vimy, M. J., Winfield, S.A. and
Lorscheider, F.L. Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits Binding of GTP to
Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarity to a Molecular Lesion in Alzheimer's
Disease Brain. Neurotoxicology 18(2), 315-324 (1997).
3. David, S., Shoemaker, M., and Haley, B. Abnormal Properties of
Creatine kinase in Alzheimer's Diseased Brain: Correlation of Reduced
Enzyme Activity and Active Site Photolabeling with Aberrant Cytosol-
Membrane Partitioning. Molecular Brain Research 54, 276-287 (1998).
4. Leong, CCW, Syed, N.I., and Lorscheider, F.L. Retrograde
Degeneration of Neurite Membrane Structural Integrity and Formation
of Neurofibillary Tangles at Nerve Growth Cones Following In Vitro
Exposure to Mercury. NeuroReports 12 (4): 733-737, 2001.
5. Olivieri, G., Brack, Ch., Muller-Spahn, F., Stahelin, H.B.,
Herrmann, M., Renard, P; Brockhaus, M. and Hock, C. Mercury Induces
Cell Cytotoxicity and Oxidative Stress and Increases b-amyloid
Secretion and Tau Phosphorylation in SHSY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells. J.
Neurochemistry 74, 231-231, 2000.
6. Kingman, A., Albertini, T. and Brown, L.J. Mercury Concentrations
in Urine and Whole-Blood Associated with Amalgam Exposure in a U.S.
Military Population. J. Dental Research 77(3) 461-71, 1998.
7. Chew, C. L., Soh, G., Lee, A. S. and Yeoh, T. S. Long-term
Dissolution of Mercury from a Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam. Clinical
Preventive Dentistry 13(3): 5-7, May-June (1991).
8. Hahn, L.J., Kloiber, R., Vimy, M. J., Takahashi, Y. and
Lorscheider, F.L. Dental "Silver" Tooth Fillings: A Source of Mercury
Exposure Revealed by Whole-Body Image Scan and Tissue Analysis. FASEB
J. 3, 2641-2646, 1989.
9. Hahn, L.J., Kloiber, R., Leininger, R.W., Vimy, M. J., and
Lorscheider, F.L. Whole-body Imaging of the Distribution of Mercury
Released from Dental Filling Into Monkey Tissues. FASEB F. 4, 3256-
3260, 1990.
10. Hock, C., Drasch, G., Golombowski, S., Muller-Span, F.,
Willerhausen-Zonnchen, B., Schwarz, P., Hock, U., Growdon, J.H., and
Nitsch, R.M. Increased Blood Mercury Levels in Patients with
Alzheimer's Disease. J. of Neural Transmission v105(1) 59-68, 1998.
11. Frustaci, A., Magnavita, N., Chimenti, C., Caldarulo, M.,
Sabbioni, E., Pietra, R., Cellini. C., Possati, G. F. and Maseri, A.
Marked Elevation of Myocardial Trace Elements in Idiopathic Dilated
Cardiomyopathy Compared With Secondary Dysfunction. J. of the
American College Cardiology v33(6) 1578-1583, 1999,
12. Schubert, J., Riley, E.J., and Tyler, S.A. Combined Effects in
Toxicology-A Rapid Systemic Testing Procedure: Cadmium, Mercury and
Lead. J. of Toxicology and Environmental Health v4, 763-776,1978.
13. Wataha, J. C., Nakajima, H., Hanks, C. T., and Okabe, T.
Correlation of Cytotoxicity with Element Release from Mercury and
Gallium-based Dental Alloys in vitro. Dental Materials 10(5) 298-303,
Sept. (1994)
14. a. Ehmann, W., Markesbery, W., and Alauddin, T., Hossain, E. and
Brubaker, E., Brain Trace Elements in Alzheimer's Disease.
Neurotoxicology 7(1) p197-206, 1986. b. Thompson, C. M., Markesbery,
W.R., Ehmann, W.D., Mao, Y-X, and Vance, D.E. Regional Brain Trace-
Element Studies in Alzheimer's Disease. Neurotoxicology 9, 1-8
(1988).
15. Wenstrup, D., Ehmann, W., and Markesbery, W. Brain Research, 533,
125-131, 1990.
16. Ngim, C.H., Devathasan, G. Epidemiologic Study on the
Assocaiation Between Body Burden Mercury Level and Idiopathic
Parkinson's Disease. Neuroepidemiology, 8, 128-141, 1989.
17. Nylander, M., Friberg, L. and Lind, B. Mercury Concentrations in
the Human Brain and Kidneys in Relation to Exposure from Dental
Amalgam Fillings. Swedish Dentistry J. 11:179-187, 1987.
18. Nylander, M., Friberg, L., Eggleston, D., Bjorkman, L. Mercury
Accumulation in Tissues from Dental Staff and Controls in Relation to
Exposure. Swedish Dental J. 13, 235-243, 1989
19. Heintze, U. Edwardsson, S., Derand, T. and Birkhed, D.
Methylation of Mercury from Dental Amalgam and Mercuric Chloride by
Oral Streptococci in vitro. Scand. J. Dental Research 91(2) 150-152,
1983.













--- In adentalmercuryamalgam@y..., Jeena Whiteman <jeenadentist@y...>
wrote:
>
> Articles - Dental Phobia
> ========================
>
> Hi,
>
> Fears and phobias about dental procedures are not unusual. Many
dentists are understanding about these fears.  Now I have listed
> some interesting articles on the subject for you.
>
> Visit the following link to get access:
>
> http://www.sadiqalhaddad.com/dentist/free.htm
>
> AOL Users <a href="http://www.sadiqalhaddad.com/dentist/free.htm">
Click Here</a>
>
> Regards,
> Jeena.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> The Sold.com.au Big Brand Sale- New PCs, notebooks, digital
cameras, phones and more ... Sale ends June 12
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]