BERNARD WINDHAM'S MAIN ARTICLE
Facts
about Mercury and Dental Amalgam
(With
Medical Study References)
Bernard
Windham, Editor—Chemical Engineer
12164
Whitehouse Road, Tallahassee, FL 32311
850-878-9024
I. Introduction
II. Toxicity and Health Effects of
Mercury
III. Systemic Mercury Intake Levels
from Amalgam Filling Exposure
IV. Immune System Effects and
Autoimmune Disease
V. Medical Studies Finding Health
Problems Related to Amalgam Fillings
VI. Documented Results of Removal of
Amalgam Fillings
VII. Tests for Mercury Level and
Toxicity and Treatments
VIII. Health Effects from Dental Staff
Exposure to Mercury
IX. Scientific Panel and Government
Bodies That Have Found Amalgam Fillings Unsafe
I. Introduction
Toxic
metals such as mercury, lead, cadmium, etc. have been documented to be
neurotoxic, immunotoxic, reproductive/developmental toxins that, according to
U.S. Government agencies, cause adverse health effects and learning disabilities
to millions in the U.S. each year, especially
children and the elderly (105,160).
Exposure of humans and animals to toxic metals such as mercury, cadmium,
lead, copper, aluminum, arsenic, chromium, manganese, etc. is widespread and in
many areas increasing. The U.S.
Center for Disease Control (276) ranks toxic metals as the number one
environmental health threat to children.
According to an EPA/ATSDR assessment, the toxic metals mercury, lead,
arsenic, and cadmium are all ranked in the top 7 toxins having the most adverse
health effects on the public based on toxicity and current exposure levels in
the U.S., with nickel and chromium also highly listed. While there are large numbers of
neurological and immune conditions among adults, the incidence of neurotoxic or
immune reactive conditions in infants such as autism, schizophrenia, ADD,
dyslexia, learning disabilities, etc. have been increasing especially rapidly in
recent years (2, 276, 409, 441). A
recent report by the National Research Council found that 50% of all pregnancies
in the U.S. are now resulting in prenatal or postnatal mortality, significant
birth defects, or otherwise chronically unhealthy babies (441). Exposure to toxic chemicals or
environmental factors appears to be a factor in as much as 28 percent of the 4
million children born each year (441), with 1 in 6 having one of the
neurological conditions previously listed.
EPA estimates that over 3 million of these are related to lead or mercury
toxicity (2, 276, 409).
While
there is considerable commonality to the health effects commonly caused by these
toxic metals, and effects are cumulative and synergistic in many cases, this
paper will concentrate on the health effects of elemental mercury from amalgam
fillings. Studies have found
considerable genetic variability in susceptibility to toxic metals as well. The public appears to be generally
unaware that considerable scientific evidence supports that mercury is the metal
causing the most widespread adverse health effects to the public, and amalgam
fillings have been well documented to be the number one source of exposure of
mercury to most people, with exposure levels often exceeding Government health
guidelines and levels documented to cause adverse health effects.
II.Toxicity
and Health Effects of Mercury
1.
Dental amalgam contains about 50% mercury, as well as other toxic metals
such as tin, copper, nickel, palladium, etc. The average filling has 1 gram of
mercury and leaks mercury vapor continuously due to mercury’s low vapor pressure
along with loss due to galvanic action of mercury with dissimilar metals in the
mouth (182, 192, 292, 348, 349), resulting in significant exposure for most with
amalgam fillings (see Section III).
Mercury vapor is transmitted rapidly throughout the body, easily crosses
cell membranes, and like organic methyl mercury, has significant toxic effects
at much lower levels of exposure than other inorganic mercury forms (38, 281,
287, 304, 329). According to the
U.S. EPA and ATSDR, mercury is among the top 3 toxic substances adversely
affecting large numbers of people (217), and amalgam is the number one source of exposure for most
people (see III).
2.
Mercury is the most toxic of the toxic metals. Mercury (vapor) is carried by the blood
to cells in all organs of the body where it:
(a) is cytotoxic (kills cells) (2,
21, 27, 36, 56, 147, 148, 150, 160, 210, 259, 295, 333/333)
(b) penetrates and damages the
blood brain barrier (311), resulting in accumulation of mercury and other toxic
substances in the brain (14, 20, 25, 85, 99, 175, 273, 301/262, 274); also
accumulates in the motor function areas of the brain and CNS (48, 291, 327,
329)
(c) is neurotoxic (kills brain and
nerve cells): damages brain cells and nerve cells (19, 27, 34, 36, 43, 69, 70,
147, 148, 175, 207, 211, 273, 291, 295, 327, 329, 301, 303, 395/39, 262, 274,
303); generates high levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and oxidative
stress, depletes glutathione and thiols causing increased neurotoxicity from
interactions of ROS, glutamate, and dopamine (13, 56, 98, 102, 126, 145, 169,
170, 184, 213, 219, 250, 257, 259, 286, 290, 291, 302, 324, 326, 329, 424, 442);
kills or inhibits production of brain tubulin cells (66, 67,161,166, 207, 300);
inhibits production of neurotransmitters by inhibiting: calcium-dependent neurotransmitter release (372, 432),
dihydroteridine reductase(27, 122, 257, 333), nitric oxide synthase (259),
blocking neurotransmitter amino acids (412), and affecting phenylalanine,
serotonin, tyrosine and tryptophan transport to neurons (34, 122, 126, 257, 285,
288, 333, 372, 374, 412/255, 333)
(d) is immunotoxic (damages and
inhibits immune T-cells, B-cells, neutrophil function, etc.) (17, 27, 31, 38,
44, 45, 46, 60, 127, 128, 129, 130, 152, 155, 165, 181, 226, 252, 270, 285, 316,
355/272) and induces ANA antibodies and autoimmune disease (38, 43, 45, 59, 60,
118, 131, 181, 234, 269, 270, 313, 314, 334, 342, 343, 35)
(e) is nephrotoxic (toxic to
kidneys) (14, 20, 203, 223, 254, 260, 268, 334, 438)
(f) is endocrine system-disrupting
chemical (accumulates in pituitary gland and damages or inhibits pituitary
glands’ hormonal functions at very low levels (9, 19, 20, 25, 85, 99, 105, 273,
312, 327, 348, 369/274), adrenal gland function (84, 369, 381), thyroid gland
function (50, 212, 369, 382, 459, 35), and disrupts enzyme production processes
at very low levels of exposure
(9, 13, 33, 35, 56, 111, 194, 348, 355, 410-412)
(g) exposure to mercury vapor (or
methyl mercury) causes rapid transmittal through the placenta to the fetus (20,
22-24, 27, 38, 39, 61, 112, 186, 281, 287, 304, 311, 338, 339, 348, 361, 366,
20/4, 22, 37, 39, 41, 42) and significant developmental effects—much more damage to the
fetus than for maternal exposure to inorganic mercury and at lower exposure
levels than for organic mercury (287, 304, etc.)
(h) reproductive and developmental
toxin (2, 4, 9, 10, 22, 23, 24, 31, 37, 38, 41, 61, 105, 149, 160, 275, 276,
281, 305, 338, 361, 367, 381, 20/4, 39, 55, 149, 162, 255, 308, 339, 357);
damages DNA (296, 327, 272, 392, 142, 38, 41, 42, 35) and inhibits DNA and
RNA synthesis (114, 35/149);
damages sperm, lowers sperm counts and reduces motility (4, 37, 104, 105, 159,
160, 35/4, 55, 162); causes menstrual disturbances (9, 27, 146); reduces blood’s
ability to transport oxygen to fetus and transport of essential nutrients
including amino acids, glucose, magnesium, zinc and vitamin B12 (43,
96, 198, 263, 264, 338, 339, 347, 427); depresses enzyme isocitric dehydrogenase
(ICD) in fetus, causes reduced iodine uptake and hypothyroidism (50, 91, 212,
222, 369, 382, 459, 35) and learning deficits; causes learning disabilities and
impairment, and reduction in IQ (1, 3, 38, 110, 160, 285c, 263, 264/39), causes
infertility (4, 9, 10, 24, 38, 121, 146, 357, 365, 367/4, 10, 55, 162), causes
birth defects (23, 35, 37, 38, 110, 142, 241, 338c/241)
(i) prenatal/early postnatal
exposure affects level of nerve growth factor in the brain, impairs astrocyte
function, and causes imbalances in development of brain (38, 119, 131, 161, 175,
194, 305, 458/175, 255, 39)
(j) causes cardiovascular damage
and disease, including damage to vascular endothelial cells, damage to
sarcoplasmic reticula, sarcolemma, and contractile proteins, increased white
cell count, decreased oxyhemoglobin level, high blood pressure, tachycardia,
inhibits cytochrome P450/heme synthesis (84, 35), and increased risk of acute
myocardial infarction (35, 59, 202,
205, 212, 232, 306, 310, 351/201, 308)
(k) causes immune system damage
resulting in allergies, asthma, lupus, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), and
multiple sensitivities (MCS) (8,
17, 26, 35, 45, 46, 52, 60, 75, 86, 87, 90, 95, 97, 101, 128,129, 131, 132, 154,
156, 168, 181,212, 226, 228, 230, 234, 265, 267, 296, 313, 42, 375, 388, 445,
446/272) and neutrophil functional impairment (285, 404/59,etc.)
(l) causes interruption of the
cytochrome C oxidase system/ATP energy function (43, 84, 232, 338c, 35) and blocks enzymes
needed to convert porphyrins to adenosine triphosphate (ATP) causing progressive
porphyrinuria, resulting in low energy, digestive problems, and porphyrins in
urine (34, 35, 69, 70, 73, 210,
212, 226, 232, 260)
(m) inhibition of immune system
facilitates increased damage by bacterial, viral, and fungal infections (17, 45,
59, 129, 131, 251, 296, 350, 40), and increased antibiotic resistance (116, 117,
161, 258, 389, 53)
(n) mercury causes significant
destruction of stomach and intestine epithelial cells, resulting in damage to
stomach lining which, along with mercury’s ability to bind to SH hydroxyl
radical in cell membranes, alters permeability (338, 35) and adversely alters
bacterial populations in the intestines causing leaky gut syndrome with toxic,
incompletely digested complexes in the blood (222, 228b, 35) and accumulation of
helicobacter pylori, a suspected major factor in stomach ulcers and stomach
cancer (256) and Candida albicans, as well as poor nutrient
absorption
(o) forming strong bonds with and
modification of the -SH groups of proteins causes mitochondrial release of calcium (1, 21,
35, 38, 43, 329, 333, 432), as well as altering molecular function of amino
acids and damaging enzymatic process (33, 96, 111, 194, 252, 338, 410-412)
resulting in improper cysteine regulation (194), inhibited glucose transfer
(338, 254), damaged sulfur oxidation processes (33, 338), and reduced
glutathione availability (necessary for
detoxification)(13, 126, 54).
3.
Mercury has been well documented to be an endocrine system disrupting
chemical in animals and people, disrupting function of the pituitary gland,
thyroid gland, enzyme production processes, and many hormonal functions at very
low levels of exposure. Mercury
(especially mercury vapor) rapidly crosses the blood brain barrier and is stored
preferentially in the pituitary gland, hypothalamus, and occipital cortex in
direct proportion to the number and extent of dental amalgam surfaces (1, 14,
16, 19, 20, 25, 34, 38, 61, 85, 99, 162, 211, 273, 274, 287, 327, 348, 360, 366,
369). Thus mercury has a greater
effect on the functions of these areas.
The pituitary gland controls many of the body’s endocrine system
functions and secretes hormones that control most bodily processes, including
the immune system and reproductive systems. One study found mercury levels in the
pituitary gland ranged from 6.3 to 77 ppb (85), while another (348) found the
mean level to be 30ppb—levels found to be neurotoxic and cytotoxic in animal
studies.
Mercury
blocks thyroid hormone production by occupying iodine binding sites and
inhibiting hormone action even when the measured thyroid level appears to be in
proper range (35). The
thyroid and hypothalamus regulate body temperature and many metabolic processes
including enzymatic processes that when inhibited result in higher dental decay
(35). Mercury damage thus commonly
results in poor bodily temperature control, in addition to many problems caused
by hormonal imbalances such as depression.
Such hormonal secretions are affected at levels of mercury exposure much
lower than the acute toxicity effects normally tested, as previously confirmed
by hormonal/reproductive problems in animal populations (104, 381). Mercury also damages the blood brain
barrier and facilitates penetration of the brain by other toxic metals and
substances (311).
4.
Mercury’s biochemical damage at the cellular level include DNA damage,
inhibition of DNA and RNA synthesis (4, 38, 41, 42, 114, 142, 197, 272, 296,
392/149); alteration of protein structure (33, 111, 114, 194, 252/114);
alteration of the transport of calcium (333, 43, 96, 254, 329, 432); inhibition
of glucose transport (338, 254), and of enzyme function and other essential
nutrients (96, 198, 254, 263, 264, 338, 339, 347, 410-412); induction of free
radical formation (13, 54), depletion of cellular glutathione (necessary for
detoxification processes) (111, 126), inhibition of glutathione peroxidase
enzyme (13), endothelial cell damage (202), abnormal migration of neurons in the
cerebral cortex (149), and immune system damage (34, 38, 111, 194, 226, 252,
272, 316, 325, 355). Oxidative
stress and reactive oxygen species (ROS) have been implicated as major factors
in neurological disorders including stroke, PD, Alzheimer’s, ALS, etc. (13, 56,
84, 98, 145,1 69, 207b, 424, 442, 453).
Mercury induced lipid peroxidation has been found to be a major factor in
mercury’s neurotoxicity, along with leading to decreased levels of glutathione
peroxidation and superoxide dismutase (SOD)(13). Only a few micrograms of mercury
severely disturb cellular function and inhibit nerve growth (147, 175, 226, 255,
305). Exposure to mercury
results in metalloprotein compounds that have genetic effects, having both
structural and catalytic effects on gene expression (114, 241, 296). Some of the processes affected by such
metalloprotein control of genes include cellular respiration, metabolism,
enzymatic processes, metal-specific homeostasis, and adrenal stress response
systems. Significant physiological
changes occur when metal ion concentrations exceed threshold levels. Such metalloprotein formation also
appears to have a relation to autoimmune reactions in significant numbers of
people (114, 60, 313, 342, 368, 369).
Of a population of over 3000 tested by the immune lymphocyte reactivity
test MELISA (60, 275), 22% tested positive for inorganic mercury and 8% for
methyl mercury.
A
direct mechanism involving mercury’s inhibition of cellular enzymatic processes
by binding with the hydroxyl radical (SH) in amino acids appears to be a major
part of the connection to allergic/immune reactive conditions such as autism
(408-414, 439, 33, 160), schizophrenia (409, 410), lupus(113, 234, 330, 331),
eczema and psoriasis (323, 375, 385, 419, 455, 33), and allergies (26, 46, 60,
95, 132, 152, 156, 271, 313, 330, 331, 445, 446). For example, mercury has been
found to strongly inhibit the activity of dipeptyl peptidase (DPP IV) which is
required in the digestion of the milk protein casein (411, 412) as well as of
xanthine oxidase (439). Studies
involving a large sample of autistic and schizophrenic patients found that over
90% of those tested had high levels of the milk protein beta-casomorphin-7 in
their blood and urine and defective enzymatic processes for digesting milk
protein (410). Elimination of milk
products from the diet has been found to improve the condition. Such populations have also been found to
have high levels of mercury and to recover after mercury detox (413, 60,
313). As mercury levels are
reduced, the protein binding is reduced and improvement in the enzymatic process
occurs. Additional cellular level
enzymatic effects of mercury’s binding with proteins include blockage of sulfur
oxidation processes (33, 114, 412), enzymatic processes involving vitamins B6
and B12 (418), effects on the cytochrome-C energy processes (43, 84, 232, 338c,
35), along with mercury’s adverse effects on cellular mineral levels of calcium,
magnesium, zinc, and lithium (43, 96, 119, 198, 333, 386, 427, 432, 38). And along with these blockages of
cellular enzymatic processes, mercury has been found to cause additional
neurological and immune system effects in many through immune/autoimmune
reactions (60, 313, 314).
But
the effect on the immune system of exposure to various toxic substances such as
toxic metals and environmental pollutants has also been found to have additive
or synergistic effects and to be a factor in increasing eczema, allergies,
asthma, and sensitivity to other lesser allergens. Most of the children tested for toxic
exposures have found high or reactive levels of other toxic metals, and
organochlorine compounds (413, 313, 415).
Much mercury in saliva and the brain is also organic (220, 272), since
mouth bacteria and other organisms in the body methylate inorganic mercury to
organic mercury (51, 81, 225).
Bacteria also oxidize mercury vapor to the water soluble, ionic form
Hg(II) (431).
5.
Because of the extreme toxicity of mercury, only ½ gram is required to
contaminate a 10 acre lake to the extent that a health warning would be issued
by the government to not eat the fish (151, 160). Over half the rivers and lakes in
Florida have
such health warnings (160). Some
Florida panthers that eat birds, and animals that eat fish containing very low
levels of mercury (about 1 part per million), have died from chronic mercury
poisoning (104, 160). Since mercury
is an estrogenic chemical and reproductive toxin, the majority of the rest
cannot reproduce. The average male
Florida panther has higher estrogen levels than females, due to the estrogenic
properties of mercury (105, 160).
Similar is true of some other animals at the top of the food chain like
alligators, which are affected by mercury and other hormone disrupting
chemicals.
6.
Mercury accumulates in the pituitary glands, ovaries, testes, and
prostate gland (35, 99, 9, 19, 20, 25, 85, 273). In addition to having estrogenic
effects, mercury has other documented hormonal effects including effects on the
reproductive system resulting in lowered sperm counts, defective sperm cells,
damaged DNA, aberrant chromosome numbers rather than the normal 46, chromosome
breaks, and lowered testosterone levels in males; menstrual disturbances and
infertility in women; and increased neurological problems related to lowered
levels of neurotransmitters dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine (4, 9, 35,
38, 104, 105, 107, 140, 141, 275, 276, 288, 290, 296, 365, 367, 372, 381, 432,
412). Some of the effect on
depression is related to mercury’s effect of reducing the level of posterior
pituitary hormone (oxytocin). The
pituitary glands of a group of dentists had 800 times more mercury than controls
(99). This may explain why dentists
have much higher levels of emotional problems, depression, suicide, etc.
(Section VIII). Low levels of
pituitary function are associated with depression and suicidal thoughts, and
appear to be a major factor in suicide of teenagers and other vulnerable
groups. Amalgam fillings, nickel
and gold crowns are major factors in reducing pituitary function (35, 50, 369,
etc.). Supplementary oxytocin
extract has been found to alleviate many of these mood problems (35), along with
replacement of metals in the mouth (Section VI). The normalization of pituitary function
also often normalizes menstrual cycle problems, endometriosis, and increases
fertility (35, 9).
7.
An average amalgam filling contains over ½ gram of mercury, and the
average adult had at least 5 grams of mercury in fillings (unless most has
vaporized). Mercury in solid form
is not stable, having low vapor pressure and being subject to galvanic action
with other metals in an oral environment (182, 192, 292, 348, 349), so that
within 10 years, up to half has been found to have been transferred to the body of the host (34, 35, 182, and
Section III).
8.
Elemental mercury vapor is more rapidly transmitted throughout the body
than most other forms of mercury and has more much toxic effects on the CNS and
other parts of the body than inorganic mercury due to its much greater capacity
to cross cell membranes, according to the World Health Organization and other
studies (38, 183, 282, 287, 360, and Section III). Mercury vapor rapidly crosses the
blood-brain barrier (14, 85, 311) and placenta of pregnant women (20, 22-24, 27,
38, 105, 162, 186, 231, 281, 287, 304, 308, 311, 361). Developmental, learning, and behavioral
effects have been found from mercury vapor at much lower levels than for
exposure to methyl mercury (287, 304); similarly for inhibition of some
essential cellular processes (333, 338, 329).
9.
Running shoes with ½ gram of mercury in the heels were banned by several
states, because the amount of mercury was considered dangerous to public health
and created a serious disposal problem.
Mercury from dental offices and human waste from people with amalgam
fillings has much higher levels and is a major source of mercury in Florida waters. One study found dental offices discharge
into waste water between 65 and 842 milligrams per dentist per day (231),
amounting to several hundred grams per year per office. This is in addition to air
emissions. Additionally, cremation
of those with amalgam fillings adds to air emissions and deposition onto land
and lakes. A study in Switzerland
found that in that small country, cremation released over 65 kilograms of
mercury per year as emissions, often exceeding site air mercury standards (420),
while another Swiss study found mercury levels during cremation of a person with
amalgam fillings as high as 200 micrograms per cubic meter (considerably higher
than U.S. mercury standards). The
amount of mercury in the mouth of a person with fillings was on average 2.5
grams, enough to contaminate 5 ten acre lakes to the extent there would be
dangerous levels in fish (151). A
Japanese study estimated mercury emissions from a small crematorium there as 26
grams per day (421). A study in
Sweden found significant occupational and environmental exposures at crematoria,
and since the requirement to install selenium filters, mercury emission levels
in crematoria have been reduced 85% (422).
10.
Studies have found that levels of exposure to the toxic metals mercury,
cadmium, and lead have major effects on classroom behavior, learning ability,
and also in mental patients’ and criminals’ behavior (3, 160). Studies have found that both genetic
susceptibility and environmental exposures are a factor in xenobiotic related
effects and disease propagation.
Large numbers of animal studies have documented that genetically
susceptible strains are more affected by xenobiotic exposures than less
susceptible strains (234, 336, 425, 526, etc.). Some genetic types are susceptible to
mercury induced autoimmunity and some are resistant and thus much less affected
(234, 336, 425, 383). Studies found
that mercury causes or accelerates various systemic conditions in a strain
dependent manner, and that lower levels of exposure adversely affect some
strains but not others, including inducing of autoimmunity. Also when a condition has been initiated
and exposure levels decline, autoimmune antibodies also decline in animals or
humans (233, 234c, 60, 368, 405).
One genetic factor in Hg induced autoimmunity is major histocompatibility
complex (MHC) linked. Both immune
cell types Th1 and Th2 cytokine responses are involved in autoimmunity
(425c). One genetic difference
found in animals and humans is cellular retention differences for metals related
to the ability to excrete mercury (426).
For example, it has been found that individuals with genetic blood factor
type APOE-4 do not excrete mercury readily and bioaccumulate mercury, resulting
in susceptibility to chronic autoimmune conditions such as Alzheimer’s,
Parkinson’s, etc. as early as age 40, whereas those with type APOE-2 readily
excrete mercury and are less susceptible.
Those with type APOE-3 are intermediate to the other 2 types (437,
35). The incidence of autoimmune
conditions has increased to the extent this is now one of the leading causes of
death among women (450).
11.
Long term occupational exposure to low levels of mercury can induce
slight cognitive deficits, lability, fatigue, decreased stress tolerance, etc.
Higher levels have been found to cause more serious neurological problems (119,
128, 160, 285, 457, etc.).
Occupational exposure studies have found mercury impairs the body’s
ability to kill Candida albicans by impairment of the lytic activity of
neutrophils and myeloperoxidase in workers whose mercury excretion levels are
within current safety limits (285, 404).
Such levels of mercury exposure were also found to inhibit cellular
respiratory burst. A population of
plant workers with average mercury excretion of 20 ug/g creatinine was found to
have long lasting impairment of neutrophil function (285, 404). Another study
(59) found such impairment of neutrophils decreases the body’s ability to combat
viruses such as those that cause heart damage, resulting in more inflammatory
damage. Another group of workers
with average excretion rates of 24.7 ug/g creatinine had long lasting increases
in humoral immunological stimulation of IgG, IgA, and IgM levels. Other studies (285b,g, 395) found that
workers exposed at high levels at least 20 years previous (urine peak levels
above 600 ug/L) demonstrated significantly decreased strength, decreased
coordination, increased tremor, decreased sensation, polyneuropathy, etc. Significant correlations between
increasing urine mercury concentrations and prolonged motor and sensory distal
latencies were established (285g).
Elemental mercury can affect both motor and sensory peripheral nerve
conduction and the degree of involvement is related to time‑integrated urine
mercury concentrations. Thirty
percent of dentists with more than average exposure were found to have
neuropathies and visuographic dysfunction (395).
Another
study found that many of the symptoms and signs of chronic candidiasis, multiple
chemical sensitivity and chronic fatigue syndromes are identical to those of
chronic mercurialism and remit after removal of amalgam combined with
appropriate supplementation and gave evidence to implicate amalgam as the only
underlying etiologic factor that is common to all (404).
Other
studies (285c) found that mercury at levels below the current occupational
safety limit causes adverse effects on mood, personality, and
memory—with
effects on memory at very low exposure levels.
More
studies found that long term exposure causes increased micronuclei in
lymphocytes and significantly increased IgE levels at exposures below current
safety levels (128), as well as maternal exposure being linked to mental
retardation (110) and birth defects (23, 35, 37, 38, 142, 241, 361,
338c/241).
III.
Systemic Mercury Intake Level from Amalgam Fillings
1.
The tolerable daily exposure level for mercury developed in a
report for Health Canada is
.014 micrograms/kilogram body weight (ug/kg) or approximately 1 ug/day for
average adult (217). The U.S.
EPA Health Standard for elemental mercury exposure (vapor) is 0.3 micrograms
per cubic meter of air (2). The
U.S. ATSDR health standard (MRL) for mercury vapor is 0.2 ug/m3 of
air, and the MRL for methyl mercury is 0.3 ug/kg body weight/day (217). For the average adult breathing 20
m3 of air per day, this amounts to an exposure of 4 or 6 ug/day for
the two elemental mercury standards.
The EPA health guideline for methyl mercury is 0.1 ug/kg body weight per
day or 7 ug for the average adult (2), or approx. 14 ug for the ATSDR acute oral
toxicity standard. Since mercury is
methylized in the body, some of both types are present in the body. The older World Health Organization
(183) mercury health guideline (PTWI) is 300 ug per week total exposure or
approx. 42 ug/day.
2.
Mercury in the presence of other metals in the oral environment undergoes
galvanic action, causing movement out of amalgam and into the oral mucosa and
saliva (174, 192, 436, 179, 199).
Mercury in solid form is not stable due to low vapor pressure and
evaporates continuously from amalgam fillings in the mouth, being transferred
over a period of time to the host (15-19, 26, 31, 36, 79, 83, 211, 182, 183,
199, 298, 299, 303, 332, 335, 371).
The daily total exposure of mercury from fillings is from 3 to 1000
micrograms per day, with the average exposure being above 10 micrograms per day
and the average uptake over 5 ug/day (183, 199, 209, 18, 19, 77, 83, 85,100,
335, 352, 371,etc.) (See further details continued).
A
large study was carried out at the Univ. of Tubingen Health
Clinic in which the level of mercury in saliva of 20,000 persons with amalgam
fillings was measured (199). The
level of mercury in unstimulated saliva was found to average 11.6 ug Hg/L, with
the average after chewing being 3 times this level. Several were found to have mercury
levels over 1100 ug/L, 1% had unstimulated levels over 200 ug/L, and 10% had
unstimulated mercury saliva levels of over 100 ug/L. The level of mercury in saliva has been
found to be proportional to the number of amalgam fillings, and generally was
higher for those with more fillings.
The following table gives the average daily mercury exposure from saliva
alone for those tested, based on the average levels found per number of fillings
and using daily saliva volumes of 890 ml for unstimulated saliva flow and 80 ml
for stimulated flow (estimated from measurements made in the study and
comparisons to other studies). It
also gives the 84th percentile mercury exposure from saliva for the 20,000
tested by number of fillings. Note
that 16% of all of those tested with 4 amalgam fillings had daily exposure from
their amalgam fillings of over 17 ug per day, and even more so for those with
more than 4 fillings.
Table: Average daily
mercury exposure in saliva by number of amalgam fillings (199)
Number
of fillings:
4 5 6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Av.
Daily Hg (ug): 6.5 8 9.5 11 12.4 14 15.4 16.9 18.3 19.8 21.3 22.8 24.3
84th
percentile (ug): 17 23.5 26 30.5 35 41.5 43.8 48.6 50.3 46.7 56.6 61.4 64.5
Saliva
tests for mercury are commonly performed in Europe, and many other
studies have been carried out with generally comparable results (292, 315, 79,
9b, 335, 179, 317, 352). Another large German study (352) found significantly
higher levels than the study summarized here, with some with exposure levels
over 1000 ug/day. Three studies
that looked at a population with more than 12 fillings found generally higher
levels than this study, with average mercury level in unstimulated saliva of 29
ug/L (18), 32.7 ug/L (292c), and 175 ug/day (352). The average for those with 4 or less
fillings was 8 ug/L (18). While it
will be seen that there is a significant correlation between exposure levels and
number of amalgam surfaces and exposure generally increases as number of
fillings increases, there is considerable variability for a given number of
fillings. Some of the factors that
will be seen to influence this variability include composition of the amalgam,
whether person chews gum or drinks hot liquids, bruxism, oral environmental
factors such as acidity, type of toothpaste used, etc. Chewing gum or drinking hot liquids can
result in 10 to 100 times normal levels of mercury exposure from amalgams during
that period (15, 35).
The
Tubingen study
did not assess the significant exposure route of intraoral air and lungs. One study that looked at this estimated
a daily average burden of 20 ug from ionized mercury from amalgam fillings
absorbed through the lungs (191), while a Norwegian study found the average
level in oral air to be 0.8 ug/m3 (176). Another study at a Swedish University
(335) measured intraoral air mercury levels from fillings of from 20 to 125 ug
per day, for persons with from 18 to 82 filling surfaces. Another study found similar results
(83), and some individuals have been found to have intraoral air mercury levels
above 400 ug/m3 (319).
Most of those whose intraoral air mercury levels were measured exceeded
Government health guidelines for workplace exposure (2).
The
studies also determined that the number of fillings is the most important factor
related to mercury level, with age of filling being much less significant
(319b). Different filling
composition/manufacturer can also make a difference in exposure levels (as will
be further discussed). The authors
of the Tubingen
study calculated that, based on the test results with estimates of mercury from
food and oral air included, over 40% of those tested in the study received daily
mercury exposure higher than the WHO standard (PTWI). As can be seen, most people with several
fillings have daily exposure exceeding the Health Canada TDE and the U.S. EPA
and ATSDR health guideline for mercury (2, 209, 199, etc.), and many tested in
past studies have exceeded the older and higher WHO guideline for mercury (183),
without consideration of exposure from food, etc.
3.
The main exposure paths for mercury from amalgam fillings are absorption
by the lungs from intraoral air; vapor absorbed by saliva or swallowed; amalgam
particles swallowed; and membrane, olfactory, venous, and neural path transfer
of mercury absorbed by oral mucosa, gums, etc. (6, 17, 18, 31, 34, 77, 79, 83,
94, 133, 174, 182, 209, 211, 216, 222, 319, 335, 348, 364, 436). A study at Stockholm Univ. (335) made
an effort to determine the respective parts in exposure made by these
paths. It found that the majority
of excretion is through feces, and that the majority of mercury exposure was
from elemental vapor. Daily
exposure from intraoral air ranged from 20 to 125 ug of mercury vapor, for
subjects with number of filling surfaces ranging from 18 to 82. Daily excretion through feces amounted
to from 30 to 190 ug of mercury, being more variable than other paths. Other studies had similar findings (6,
15, 16, 18, 19, 25, 31, 36, 77, 79, 80, 83, 115, 196, 386). Most with several amalgams had daily
fecal excretion levels over 50 ug/day.
The
feces mercury was essentially all inorganic with particles making up at most
25%, and the majority being mercury sulfhydryl compounds—likely originating as
vapor. Their study and others
reviewed found that at least 80% of mercury vapor reaching the lungs is absorbed
and enters the blood from which it is taken to all other parts of the body (335,
348, 349, 363). Elemental mercury
swallowed in saliva can be absorbed in the digestive tract by the blood or bound
in sulfhydryl compounds and excreted through the feces. A review determined that approx. 20% of
swallowed mercury sulfhydryl compounds are absorbed in the digestive tract, but
approx. 60% of swallowed mercury vapor is absorbed (292, 335, 348). At least 80% of particle mercury is
excreted. Approx. 80% of swallowed
methyl mercury is absorbed (335, 199, etc.), with most of the rest being
converted to inorganic forms apparently.
The primary detoxification/excretion pathway for mercury absorbed by the
body is as mercury-glutathione compounds through the liver/bile loop to feces
(111, 252), but some mercury is also excreted though the kidneys in urine and in
sweat. The range of mercury
excreted in urine per day by those with amalgams is usually less than 15 ug (6,
49, 83, 138, 174, 335, etc.), but some patients are much higher (93). A large NIDH study of the U.S. military population
(49), with an average of 19.9 amalgam surfaces and range of 0 to 60 surfaces,
found the average urine level was 3.1 ug/L, with 93% being inorganic
mercury. The average in those with
amalgam was 4.5 times that of controls and more than the U.S. EPA maximum limit
for mercury in drinking water (218).
The average level of those with over 49 surfaces was over 8 times that of
controls. The same study found that
the average blood level was 2.55 ug/L, with 79% being organic mercury. The total mercury level had a
significant correlation to the number of amalgam fillings, with fillings
appearing to be responsible for over 75% of total mercury. From the study results it was found that
each 10 amalgam surfaces increased urine mercury by approx. 1 ug/L. A study of mercury species found blood
mercury was 89% organic and urine mercury was 87% inorganic (349b), while
another study (363) found on average 77% of the mercury in the occipital cortex
was inorganic. In a population of
women tested In the Middle East (254), the number of fillings was highly
correlated with the mercury level in urine, mean=7 ug/L. Nutrient transport and renal function
were also found to be adversely affected by higher levels of mercury in the
urine.
As
is known from autopsy studies for those with chronic exposure such as amalgam
fillings (1, 14, 17, 20, 31, 34, 85, 94), mercury also bioaccumulates in the
brain/CNS (301, 273, 274, 327, 329, 348, 18, 19, 85), liver, kidneys (85, 273),
(14,85), heart (59, 205, 348), and oral mucosa (174, 192, 436) with the half
life in the brain being over 20 years.
Elemental mercury vapor is transmitted throughout the body via the blood
and readily enters cells and crosses the blood-brain barrier and the placenta of
pregnant women (38, 61, 287, 311, 361), at much higher levels than inorganic
mercury and also higher levels than organic mercury. Significant levels are able to cross the
blood-brain barrier, placenta, and also cellular membranes into major organs
such as the heart since the oxidation rate of Hg0, though relatively fast, is
slower than the time required by pumped blood to reach these organs (290,
370). Thus the level in the brain
and heart is higher after exposure to Hg vapor than for other forms (360,
370). While mercury vapor and
methyl Hg readily cross cell membranes and the blood-brain barrier, once in
cells they form inorganic mercury that does not readily cross cell membranes or
the blood-brain barrier readily and is responsible for the majority of toxicity
effects. Thus inorganic mercury in
the brain has a very long half life (85, 273, 274, etc.).
4.
The average amalgam filling has approximately 0.5 grams (500,000 ug) of
mercury. As much as 50% of mercury
in fillings has been found to have vaporized after 5 years and 80% by 20 years
(182, 204). Mercury vapor from
amalgam is the single largest source of systemic mercury intake for
persons with amalgam fillings, ranging from 50 to 90% of total exposure (14, 16,
17, 19, 36, 57, 61, 77-83, 94, 129, 130, 138, 161, 167, 183, 191, 196, 211, 216,
273, 292, 303, 332), averaging about 80% of total systemic intake. After filling replacement, levels of
mercury in the blood, urine, and feces typically temporarily are increased for a
few days, but levels usually decline in blood and urine within 6 months to from
60 to 85% of the original levels (57, 79, 82, 89, 196, 303). Mercury levels in saliva and feces
usually decline between 80 to 95% (79, 196, 335, 386).
5.
Having dissimilar metals in the teeth (e.g. gold and mercury) causes
galvanic action, electrical currents, and much higher mercury vapor levels and
levels in tissues (182, 192, 292, 348, 349, 390, 19, 25, 27, 29, 30, 35, 47, 48,
100). Average mercury levels in gum
tissue near amalgam fillings are about 200 ppm, and are the result of flow of
mercury into the mucous membrane because of galvanic currents with the mucous
membrane serving as cathode and amalgam as cathode (192). Average mercury levels are often 1000
ppm near a gold cap on an amalgam filling due to higher currents when gold is in
contact with amalgam (30, 25, 35, 48). These levels are among the highest levels
ever measured in tissues of living organisms, exceeding the highest levels found
in chronically exposed chloralkali workers, those who died in Minamata or
animals that died from mercury poisoning.
German oral surgeons have found levels in the jaw bone under large
amalgam fillings or gold crowns over amalgam as high as 5760 ppm with an average
of 800 ppm (436). These levels are
much higher than the FDA/EPA action level for prohibiting use of food with over
1 ppm mercury. Likewise the level
is tremendously over the U.S. Dept. of Health/EPA drinking water limit for
mercury which is 2 parts per billion (218). Amalgam manufacturers, Government health
agencies such as Health Canada, dental school texts, and dental materials
researchers advise against having amalgam in the mouth with other metals such as
gold (446, 35), but many dentists ignore the warnings.
Concentrations
of mercury in oral mucosa for a population of patients with 6 or more amalgam
fillings taken during oral surgery were 20 times the level of controls
(174). Studies have shown mercury
travels from amalgam into dentin, root tips, and the gums, with levels in roots
tips as high as 41 ppm (192).
Studies have shown that mercury in the gums such as from root caps for
root canalled teeth result in chronic inflammation, in addition to migration to
other parts of the body (200, 47, 35).
Mercury and silver from fillings can be seen in the tissues as amalgam
“tattoos”, which have been found to accumulate in the oral mucosa as granules
along collagen bundles, blood vessels, nerve sheaths, elastic fibers, membranes,
striated muscle fibers, and acini of minor salivary glands. Dark granules are also present
intracellularly within macrophages, multinucleated giant cells, endothelial
cells, and fibroblasts. There is in most cases, chronic inflammatory response or
macrophagic reaction to the metals (47), usually in the form of a foreign body
granuloma with multinucleated giant cells of the foreign body and Langhans types
(192).
The
periodontal ligament of extracted teeth is often not fully removed and results
in incomplete jawbone regrowth resulting in a pocket where mouth bacteria in
anerobic conditions, along with similar conditions in the dead tooth, produce
extreme toxins similar to botulism which like mercury are extremely toxic and
disruptive to necessary body enzymatic processes at the cellular level,
comparable to the similar enzymatic disruptions caused by mercury and previously
discussed (35, 437).
The
component mix in amalgams has also been found to be an important factor in
mercury vapor emissions. The level
of mercury and copper released from high copper amalgam is as much as 50 times
that of low copper amalgams (191).
Studies have consistently found modern high copper non gamma-two amalgams
have a high negative current and much greater release of mercury vapor than
conventional silver amalgams and are more cytotoxic (35, 298, 299). Clinics have found the increased
toxicity and higher exposures to be factors in increased incidence of chronic
degenerative diseases (35, etc).
While the non gamma-two amalgams were developed to be less corrosive and
less prone to marginal fractures than conventional silver amalgams, they have
been found to be unstable in a different mechanism when subjected to
wear/polishing/chewing/brushing: they form droplets of mercury on the surface of
the amalgams (182, 297). This has
also been found to be a factor in the much higher release of mercury vapor by
the modern non gamma-two amalgams.
Recent studies have concluded that because of the high mercury release
levels of modern amalgams, mercury poisoning from amalgam fillings is widespread
throughout the population (95, 199, 238).
Numerous other studies also support this finding (Section
IV).
Amalgam
also releases significant amounts of silver, tin, and copper which also have
toxic effects, with organic tin compounds formed in the body being even more
neurotoxic than mercury (51, 222, 262).
6.
The number of amalgam surfaces has a statistically significant
correlation to:
(a)
blood plasma mercury level (17, 22, 23, 49, 79, 89, 133, 211) (usually
not as strong as other measures)
(b)
urine mercury level (38, 49, 57, 76, 77, 79, 82, 83, 134, 138, 167, 176,
254, 303, 332, 335)
(c) oral air (16,
18, 100, 176, 335)
(d)
saliva and oral mucosa (18, 30, 77, 79, 117, 179, 174, 199, 211, 222,
292, 315, 317)
(e)
feces mercury (25, 79, 80, 83, 115, 117, 182, 335, 386)
(f)
pituitary gland (19, 20, 25, 85, 99, 273/274)
(g)
brain occipital cortex (14, 16, 19, 25, 34, 85, 211, 273, 348,
366/274)
(h)
renal (kidney) cortex (14, 16, 19, 20, 85, 254, 273, 348, 366)
(I) liver (14,
19, 85, 366)
(j)
motor function areas of the brain and CNS: brain stem, cerebellum,
rhombencephalon, dorsal root ganglia, and anterior horn motor neurons (48, 291,
327, 329, 442, 35)
(k)
fetal and infant liver/brain levels (61, 112, 186, 231, 22) related to
maternal fillings.
7.
A person with amalgam fillings has daily systemic intake from mercury
vapor of between 3 and 70 micrograms of mercury, with the average being at least
7 micrograms (ug) per day (18, 77, 83, 85, 93, 138, 183, 199, 211, 292, 315,
335). In a large German
study, the median daily exposure for those with fillings through saliva was
approx. 10 ug/day, 4% of those with fillings had daily exposure through saliva
of over 80 ug/day, and 1% had over 160 ug/day (199). The methods and results of
the Tubingen
study (199) were similar to those of other German studies (292, 315, 9, 138,
317, 335). Total intake is
proportional to the number and extent of amalgam surfaces, but other factors
such as chewing gum, drinking hot liquids, brushing or polishing, and using
fluoride toothpaste significantly increase the intake (15, 18, 28, 31,
100,134-137, 182, 183, 199, 209, 211, 292, 317, 319, 348, 349, 350). Vapor emissions range up to 200
ug/m3 (35) and are much higher after chewing (15, 137, 319). After
chewing, those with amalgams had levels over 50 times higher than those without,
and the average level of exposure was 29 ug/day for those with at least 12
occlusal surfaces (18). At least
30% of those having amalgam fillings tested in a large German study had ingested
mercury levels exceeding the WHO PTWI mercury standard of 43 ug/day (199, 183),
and over 50% of those with 6 or more fillings had daily exposures more than the
U.S. EPA health guideline level (199) of 0.1 ug/kg body weight/day (199). The median daily exposure through saliva
for those with 10 or more fillings was over 10 times that of those with no
fillings (199, 292, 315, 318).
Mercury level in saliva has been found to give much better indication of
body levels than blood or urine levels (36). Most people with fillings have daily
exposure levels exceeding the U.S. ATSDR and EPA health guideline levels (2, 36,
83, 89, 183, 199, 209, 217, 261, 292, 335, 93).
8.
The blood and urine mercury load of a person with amalgam fillings is
often 5 times that of a similar person without (14, 16, 17, 79 80, 82, 93, 136,
138, 303, 315, 317, 318). The
average blood level for one large population was 5 ug/l (176). Normal blood levels are less than 20
ppb, but health effects have been observed in patients in the upper part of this
range. A Swedish study estimated
the total amount mercury swallowed per day from intra-oral vapor was 10
micrograms per day (177), and a large German study (199) found median exposure
through saliva alone for those with fillings to be about 10 ug/day, with many
having several fillings with over 10 times that level. Other studies have found similar amounts
(18, 83, 211, 183, 209).
9.
Teeth are living tissue and have massive communication with the rest of
the body via blood, lymph, and nerves.
Mercury vapor (and bacteria in teeth) has paths to the rest of the body
(34, etc.). German studies of
mercury loss from vapor in unstimulated saliva found the saliva of those with
amalgams had at least 5 times as much mercury as for controls (138, 199, 292,
315).
10.
Mercury (especially mercury vapor) rapidly crosses the blood-brain
barrier and is stored preferentially in the pituitary gland, hypothalamus, and
occipital cortex in direct proportion to the number and extent of amalgam
surfaces (14, 19, 20, 25, 34, 38, 85, 99, 273, 274, 287, 348, 366). Thus mercury has a greater effect on the
functions of these areas. The range
in one study was 2.4 to 28.7 ppb (85), and one study found, on average, that 77%
of the mercury in the occipital cortex was inorganic (363).
11.
Some mercury entering nasal passages is absorbed directly into the
olfactory lobe and brain without coming from blood (34, 35, 182, 222, 348,
364). Mercury also is
transported along the axons of nerve fibres (5, 25, 34, 35, 327,
329).
12.
Mercury has a long half life in the body and over 20 years in the brain,
and chronic low level intake results in a slow accumulation in body tissues (20,
34, 35, 38, 85, etc.).
13.
Methyl mercury is more toxic to some body processes than inorganic
mercury. Mercury from amalgam is
methylated by bacteria, galvanic electric currents (35), and Candida albicans in
the mouth and intestines (51, 81, 98, 182, 225). Oral bacteria Streptococommus mitior, S.
mutans and S. sanguis were all found to methylate mercury (81). High levels of vitamin B12 in the system
also have been found to result in increased methyl mercury concentrations in the
liver and brain (51). Methyl
mercury is 10 times more potent in causing genetic damage than any other known
chemical (Ramel, in (35)), and also crosses the blood-brain barrier
readily. Once mercury vapor or
methyl mercury is converted to inorganic mercury in cells or the brain, the
mercury does not readily cross cell membranes or the blood-brain barrier. Thus mercury has a very long half life
in the brain. N-acetylcysteine
(NAC) has been found to be effective at increasing glutathione levels and
chelating methyl mercury (54, 126).
14.
The level of mercury in the tissue of the fetus, newborn, and young
children is directly proportional to the number of amalgam surfaces in the
mother’s mouth (20, 23, 61, 112, 210, 361). The level of mercury in umbilical cord
blood and placenta was higher than that in mother’s blood (22, 186). The saliva and feces of children with
amalgams have approximately 10 times the level of mercury as children without
(25, 315, 386), and much higher levels in saliva after chewing. A group of German children with amalgam
fillings had urine mercury level 4 times that of a control group without
amalgams (76), and in a Norwegian group with average age 12, there was a
significant correlation between urine mercury level and number of amalgam
fillings (167). The level of
mercury in maternal hair was significantly correlated to level of mercury in
nursing infants (279). One study
found a 60% increase in average cord blood mercury level between 1980 and 1990
in Japan
(186).
16.
The fetal mercury content after maternal inhalation of mercury vapor was
found to be higher than in the mother (4, etc.) Mercury from amalgam in the blood
of pregnant women crosses the placenta and appears in amniotic fluid and fetal
blood, liver, and pituitary gland soon after placement (20, 22, 23, 31, 36, 61,
162, 186, 281, 348, 366). Dental
amalgams are the main source of mercury in breast milk (112, 186, 304, 339,
20). Milk increases the
bioavailability of mercury (112, 304, 391) and mercury is often stored in breast
milk and the fetus at much higher levels than that in the mother's tissues (19,
20, 22, 23, 61, 112, 186, 210, 287, 304).
The level of mercury in breast milk was found to be significantly
correlated with the number of amalgam fillings (61), with milk from mothers with
7 or more fillings having levels in milk approx. 10 times that of amalgam-free
mothers. The milk sampled ranged
from 0.2 to 6.9 ug/L. Several
authors suggest use of early mother’s milk as a screen for potential problems
since it is correlated both to maternal and infant mercury levels. The highest level is in the pituitary
gland of the fetus which affects development of the endocrine system. Levels for exposure to mercury vapor has
been found to be approx 10 times that for maternal exposure to an equivalent
dose of inorganic mercury (281, 287), and developmental behavioral effects from
vapor have been found at levels considerably below that required for similar
effects by methyl mercury (20, 49,
119c, 264, 287, 304, 338). The
level of total mercury in nursing infants was significantly correlated to total
mercury level in maternal hair (22, 279).
17.
There is a significant correlation between number of amalgam fillings of
the mother and the level of the fetus and older infants (20, 22, 23, 61, 304),
and also with the level in mother’s milk (19, 20, 38, 112, 304). Fertile women should not be exposed to
vapor levels above government health guidelines (38, 61, 182, 282); the U.S.
ATSDR mercury health MRL of 0.2 mcg/m3 (2, 217); or have amalgams
placed or removed during pregnancy (20, 182, 231, 304, etc.).
IV.
Immune System Effects and Autoimmune Disease
1.
Many thousands of people with symptoms of mercury toxicity have been
found in tests to have high levels of mercury, and many thousands who have had
amalgam fillings removed (most) have had health problems and symptoms alleviated
or greatly improved (see Section VI).
From clinical experience some of the symptoms of mercury
sensitivity/mercury poisoning include chronic fatigue, dizziness, frequent
urination, insomnia, headaches, chronic skin problems, metallic taste,
gastrointestinal problems, asthma (8, 97), stuffy nose, dry crusts in nose,
rhinitis, plugged ears, ringing ears, chest pain, hyperventilation, diabetes
(35), spacey feeling, chilly, chronic skin problems, immune and autoimmune
diseases, cardiovascular problems and many types of neurological problems (26,
34, 35, 36, 38, 45, 59, 60, 69, 70, 71, 75, 91, 109, 148, 165, 204, 212, 199,
246, 255, 268-270, 290, 291, 294, 313, 343). Amalgam results is chronic
exposure rather than acute exposure and accumulation in body organs over time,
so most health effects are of the chronic rather than acute in nature, but
serious health problems have been documented to be related to amalgam and
researchers have attributed some deaths as due to amalgam (356, 32,
245).
2.
Mercury vapor exposure at very low levels adversely affects the immune
system (17, 27, 31, 38, 45, 60, 84, 118, 129, 131, 165, 226, 270, 285, 296, 313,
314, 355, 368, 369). From animal
studies it has been determined that mercury damages T-cells by generating
reactive oxygen species (ROS), depleting the thiol reserves of cells, damaging
and decreasing the dimension of mitochondria, causing destruction of cytoplasmic
organelles with loss of cell membrane integrity, inhibiting ability to secrete
interleukin IL-1 and IL-2R, causing activation of glial cells to produce
superoxide and nitric oxide, and inactivating or inhibiting enzyme systems
involving the sulfhydryl protein groups (226, 424, 442). Mercury caused adverse effects on both
neutrophil and macrophage function and after depletion of thiol reserves,
T-cells were susceptible to Hg induced cellular death (apoptosis) (226, 272,
355). Interferon syntheses
was reduced in a concentration dependent manner with either mercury or methyl
mercury as well as other immune functions (131), and low doses also induce
aggregation of cell surface proteins and dramatic tyrosine phosphorylation of
cellular proteins related to asthma, allergic diseases such as eczema and lupus
(234, 323, 35), and autoimmunity (181, 314). One study found that insertion of
amalgam fillings or nickel dental materials causes a suppression of the number
of
T-lymphocytes
(270), and impairs the T-4/T-8 ratio.
Low T4/T8 ratio has been found to be a factor in lupus, anemia, MS,
eczema, inflammatory bowel disease, and glomerulonephritis. Mercury induced autoimmunity in animals
and humans has been found to be associated with mercury’s expression of major
histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II genes (314, 181, 226, 425c). Both mercuric and methyl mercury
chlorides caused dose dependent reduction in immune B-cell production (316).
B-cell expression of IgE receptors was significantly reduced (316, 165), with a
rapid and sustained elevation in intracellular levels of calcium induced (316,
333). Both forms are immunotoxic
and cytotoxic at very low levels seen in individuals. Mercury also inhibited B-cell and T-cell
RNA and DNA synthesis. The
inhibition of these functions by 50% occurred rapidly at very low levels, in the
range of 10 to 25 ug/L. All types
of cells exhibited a dose dependent reduct in cellular glutathione when exposed
to mercury, inhibiting generation of GSH by lymphocytes and monocytes
(252). Workers occupationally
exposed to mercury at levels within guidelines have been found to have
impairment of lytic activity of neutrophils and reduced ability of neutrophils
to kill invaders such as Candida (285, 404). Immune Th1 cells inhibit Candida by
cytokine related activation of macrophages and neutrophils. Development of Th2 type immune responses
deactivates such defenses (404b).
Mercury inhibits macrophage and neutrophil defense against Candida by its
affects on Th1 and Th2 cytokine effects (181, 285). Low doses also induced
autoimmunity in some species (181, 314, 404, 129, 131, 43). Another effect found is increase in the
average blood white cell count significantly (35). The increased white count usually
normalizes after amalgam removal.
Mercury also blocks the immune function of magnesium and zinc (198, 427,
43, 38). Several studies found
adverse health effects at mercury vapor levels of 1 to 5 mcg/m3 (35).
Large numbers of people undergoing amalgam removal have clinically demonstrated
significant improvements in the immune system parameters discussed here and
recovery and significant improvement in immune system problems in most cases
surveyed (Section VI). Antigen
specific LST-test was performed on a large number of patients with atopic eczema
(323), using T-cells of peripheral blood. 87% showed LST positive reactions to
Hg, 87% to Ni, 38% to Au, and 40% to Pd.
They removed LST positive dental metals from the oral cavities of
patients. Improvement of symptoms
was obtained in 82% (160/196) of the patients within 1-10 months. Similar results have been obtained at
other clinics (455).
3.
Mercury from amalgam interferes with production of cytokines that
activate macrophage and neutrophils, disabling early control of viruses and
leading to enhanced infection (131, 251). Animal studies have confirmed that
mercury increases effects of the herpes simplex virus type 2 for example
(131). Both mercuric and methyl
mercury were equally highly toxic at the cellular level and in causing cell
volume reductions (131). However
methyl mercury inhibits macrophage functions such as migration and phagocytosis
at lower levels.
4.
Body mercury burden was found to play a role in resistant infections such
as Chlamydia trachomatis and herpes family viral infections; it was found many
cases can only be effectively treated by antibiotics after removal of body
mercury burden (cilantro tablets were used with follow up antibiotics) (251,
131). Similar results have been
found for treatment of cancer (35).
5.
Mercury, by its effect of weakening the immune system, contributes to
increased chronic diseases and cancer (91, 180, 237, 239, 222, 234, 355, 35, 38,
40, etc.). Exposure to mercury
vapor causes decreased zinc and methionine availability, depresses rates of
methylation, and increased free radicals—all factors in increased susceptibility
to cancer (14, 34, 38, 43, 143, 144, 180, 237, 239, 251, 256, 283). Amalgam fillings have also been
found to be positively associated with mouth cancer (206, 251, 403). Mercury from amalgam fillings has also
been found to cause increase in white blood cells and in some cases to result in
leukemia (35, 180). White cell
levels decline after total dental revision (TDR) and some have recovered from
leukemia after removal of amalgam fillings in a very short time (35, 180). Among a group of patients testing
positive as allergic to mercury, low level mercury exposure was found to cause
adverse immune system response, including effects on vitro production of tumor
necrosis factor TNF alfa and reductions in interleukin-1 (131, 152).
Nickel
and beryllium are 2 other metals commonly used in dentistry that are very
carcinogenic, toxic, and cause DNA malformations (35, 456). Nickel ceramic crowns and root canals
have also been found to be a factor in some breast cancer and some have
recovered after TDR, which includes amalgam replacement, replacement of metal
crowns over amalgam, nickel crowns, extraction of root canalled teeth, and
treatment of cavitations where necessary (35). Similarly, nickel crowns and gold crowns
over amalgam have been found to be a factor in lupus (456, 35, 229) and Bell’s
Palsy, from which some have recovered after TDR and Felderkrais exercises
(35).
6.
A high correlation has been found between patients subjectively diagnosed
with CNS and systemic symptoms suggestive of mercury intoxication, and immune
reactivity to inorganic mercury (MELISA test, 118, 160) as well as with MRI
positive patients for brain damage.
Controls without CNS problems did not have such positive correlations.
Mercury, nickel, palladium, and gold induce autoimmunity in genetically
predisposed or highly exposed individuals (314, 234, 130, 342). Tests have found a significant portion
of people to be in this category and thus more affected by exposure to amalgam
than others (see Section V).
Mercury
also interrupts the cytochrome C oxidase system, blocking the ATP energy
function (35, 43, 84, 232, 338c).
These effects, along with reductions in red blood cell’s oxygen carrying
capability, often result in fatigue and reduced energy levels as well as
neurological effects (35, 60, 119, 140, 141, 182, 202, 212, 232, 235, 313).
7.
People with chronic and immune reactive problems are increasingly finding
dental materials are a factor in their problems and getting biocompatibility
tests run to test their immune reactivity to the various dental materials used;
a high percentage of such patients test immune reactive to many of the toxic
metals. Of the many thousands who
have had the Clifford immune reactivity test (445), the following percentages
were immune reactive to the following metals that have very common exposures:
aluminum (91%), antimony (36%), arsenic (86%), beryllium (74%), cadmium (63%),
chromium (83%), cobalt (78%), copper( 32%), lead (68%), mercury (93%), nickel
(98%), palladium (32%), silver (25%), tin (32%), zinc (33%).
Toxic/allergic
reactions to metals such as mercury often result in lichen planus lesions in
oral mucosa or gums and play a role in pathogenesis of periodontal disease. Removal of amalgam fillings usually
results in cure of such lesions (60, 75, 78, 82, 86, 87, 90, 94, 101, 118, 133,
168, 313). A high percentage of
patients with oral mucosal problems along with other autoimmune problems such as
CFS have significant immune reactions to mercury, palladium, gold, and nickel
(46, 60, 118, 313, 81, 90, 212, 313, 342, 368, 369, 375, 456), including to
mercury preservatives such as thimerosal.
94% of such patients had significant immune reactions to inorganic
mercury (MELISA test) and 72% had immune reactions to low concentrations of
HgCl2 (<0.5 ug/ml). 61% also had
immune reaction to phenylHg, which has been commonly used in root canals and
cosmetics (313). 10% of controls
had significant immune reactions to HgCl and 8.3% to palladium. Other studies of patients suffering from
chronic fatigue found similar results (369, 375). of 50 patients suffering from serious
fatigue referred for MELISA test (369), over 70% had significant immune reaction
to inorganic mercury and 50% to nickel, with most patients also reactive to one
or more other metals such as palladium, cadmium, lead, and methyl
mercury.
Mercury
has been found to impair conversion of thyroid T4 hormone to the active T3 form
as well as causing autoimmune thyroiditis common to such patients (369, 382,
459, 35). In general, immune
activation from toxics such as heavy metals resulting in cytokine release and
abnormalities of the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis can cause changes in
the brain, fatigue, and severe psychological symptoms (379-382, 385, 369, 375,
381, 382, 453, 118, 60) such as profound fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, sleep
disturbances, gastrointestinal and neurological problems as are seen in CFS,
fibromyalgia, and autoimmune thyroiditis.
Such symptoms usually improve significantly after amalgam removal. Such hypersensitivity has been
found most common in those with genetic predisposition to heavy metal
sensitivity (368, 369, 382, 60), such as found more frequently in patients with
HLA-DRA antigens (375, 383). A
significant portion of the population appears to fall in this
category.
8.
Patients with other systemic neurological or immune symptoms such as
arthritis, myalgia, eczema, CFS, MS, lupus, ALS, diabetes, epilepsy, Hashimodo’s
thyroiditis, scleroderma, etc. also often recover or improve significantly after
amalgam replacement (12, 35, 60, 113, 212, 222, 229, 313, 323, 342, 368, 369,
375, 453, 459, Section VI). of a
group of 86 patients with CFS symptoms, 78% reported significant health
improvements after replacement of amalgam fillings within a relatively short
period, and MELISA test found significant reduction in lymphocyte reactivity
compared to pre removal tests (342, 368, 369, 375). The improvement in symptoms
and lymphocyte reactivity imply that most of the Hg-induced lymphocyte
reactivity is allergenic in nature.
Although patch tests for mercury allergy are often given for unresolved
oral symptoms, this is not generally recommended as a high percentage of such
problems are resolved irrespective of the outcome of a patch test (87, 86, 90,
101, 168, etc.). Also, using
mercury in a patch test has resulted in some adverse health effects. A group of patients that had amalgams
removed because of chronic health problems, was able to detect subjectively when
a patch test used mercury salts in a double blind study (373). Mercury inhibits production of
insulin and is a factor in diabetes and hypoglycemia, with significant
reductions in insulin need after replacement of amalgam fillings and normalizing
of blood sugar (35).
of
the over 3,000 patients tested for lymphocyte reactivity to metals (60, 342,
368, 375), the following were the percentages testing positive: nickel—34%,
inorganic mercury—23%, phenol mercury—13%, gold—12%, cadmium—11%, palladium—11%,
silver—1%. Other studies have also
found relatively high rates of allergic reactions to inorganic mercury and
nickel (81, 35, 445, 456). For
groups with suspected autoimmune diseases such as neurological problems, CFS,
and oral lichen planus, most of the patients tested positive to inorganic
mercury and most of such patients’ health improved significantly and immune
reactivity declined after amalgam removal.
In a group of patients tested by MELISA before and after amalgam removal
at a clinic in Uppsula Sweden, the patients
reactivity to inorganic mercury, palladium, gold, and phenyl mercury all had
highly significant differences from the control group, with over 20 % being
highly reactive to each of these metals (375). A high percentage was also reactive to
nickel in both groups. After
amalgam removal, the immune reactivity to all of these metals other than nickel
declined significantly, and 76% reported significant long term health
improvements after 2 years. Only 2%
were worse. The study concluded
that immune reactivity to mercury and palladium is common and appears to be
allergenic/immune related in nature since immune reactivity declines when
exposure levels are reduced. Such
studies have also found that deficiencies in detoxification enzymes such as
glutathione transferases cause increased susceptibility to metals and other
chemicals (384). Such deficiencies
can be due to genetic predisposition, but are also known to be caused by acute
or chronic toxic exposures. For MS and lupus patients, a high percentage tested
positive to nickel and/or inorganic mercury (MELISA).
A
patch test was given to a large group of medical students to assess factors that
lead to sensitization to mercury (132).
13% tested positive for allergy to mercury. Eating fish was not a significant factor
between sensitive and non-sensitized students, but the sensitized group had a
significantly higher average number of amalgam fillings and higher hair mercury
levels. In a population of dental
students tested, 44% were positive for allergy to mercury (156).
9.
A high correlation has been found between patients subjectively diagnosed
with CNS and systemic symptoms suggestive of mercury intoxication and immune
reactivity to inorganic mercury (MELISA test, 118) as well as with MRI positive
patients for brain damage. 81% of
the group with health complaints had pathological MRI results including signs of
degeneration of the basal ganglia of the brain, but none in the controls. 60% of the symptom group tested positive
for immune system reaction to mercury.
Controls without CNS problems did not have such positive
correlations. The authors concluded
that immune reactions have an important role in development of brain lesions,
and amalgam fillings induce immune reactions in many patients (91, 118) (270,
286). Mercury, nickel, palladium, and gold induce autoimmunity in genetically
predisposed or highly exposed individuals (60, 314, 234, 130, 342, 35). Tests have found a significant portion
of people to be in this category and thus more affected by exposure to amalgam
than others.
10.
Low level mercury exposure (as well as other toxic metals) including
exposure to amalgam fillings has been found to be associated with increased
autoimmune diseases (19, 27, 34, 35, 44, 45, 60, 215, 234, 268, 269, 270, 313,
314), including lupus (12, 33e, 35, 60, 113, 229, 233, 234, 270, 323, 330, 331,
456), Crohn’s Disease, lichen planus (86, 87, 90, 168, 313), endometriosis (1,
9, 38, 229). Silver also is
released from amalgam fillings and stored in the body and has been shown to
cause immune complex deposits, immune reactions, and autoimmunity in animal
studies (77, 78, 129, 314).
11.
Mercury exposure through fillings appears to be a major factor in chronic
fatigue syndrome (CFS) through its effects on ATP and immune system (lymphocyte
reactivity, neutrophil activity, effects on T-cells and B-cells) and its
promotion of growth of Candida albicans in the body and the methylation of
inorganic mercury by Candida to the extremely toxic methyl mercury form which,
like mercury vapor, crosses the blood-brain barrier and also damages and weakens
the immune system (222, 225, 226, 234, 235, 265, 293, 60, 313, 314, 342, 368,
369, 404), and both inorganic and methyl mercury have been shown in animal studies to induce
autoimmune reactions and disease in susceptible types through effects on immune
system T cells (226, 234, 268, 269, 270, 314, 425, 426/272).
V.
Medical Studies Finding Health Problems Related to Amalgam Fillings (other than
immune)
1.
Neurological problems are among the most common and serious and include
memory loss, moodiness, depression, anger and sudden bursts of anger/rage (434),
self-effacement, suicidal thoughts, lack of strength/force to resolve doubts or
resist obsessions or compulsions, etc.
Many studies of patients with major neurological diseases have found
evidence amalgam fillings may play a major role in development of conditions such as depression (94, 107,
109, 212, 222, 271, 294, 212, 229, 233, 285e, 317, 320, 322, 372, 374, 453),
schizophrenia (34, 35, 295), memory problems (212, 222), and other more serious
neurological diseases such as MS, ALS, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s (see #
25). One mechanism by which mercury
has been found to be a factor in aggressiveness and violence is its documented
inhibition of the brain neurotransmitter acetylcholinesterase (175, 451).
Mercury
causes decreased lithium levels, which is a factor in neurological diseases such
as depression and Alzheimer’s.
Lithium protects brain cells against excess glutamate and calcium, and
low levels cause abnormal brain cell balance and neurological disturbances (280,
294, 333, 33, 56). Medical texts on
neurology (27, 295) point out that chronic mercurialism is often not recognized
by diagnosticians and misdiagnosed as dementia or neurosis or functional
psychosis or just “nerves”. “Early
manifestations are likely to be subtle and diagnosis difficult: Insomnia,
nervousness, mild tremor, impaired judgment and coordination, decreased mental
efficiency, emotional lability, headache, fatigue, loss of sexual drive,
depression, etc. are often mistakenly ascribed to psychogenic causes.” Very high levels of mercury are found in
brain memory areas such as the cerebral cortex and hippocampus of patients with
diseases with memory related symptoms (158, 34, 207, etc.).
Mercury
(as well as toxins from root canals and cavitations) interact with brain tubulin
and disassembles microtubules that maintain neurite structure (207b, 35,
437). Thus chronic exposure to low
level mercury vapor can inhibit polymerization of brain tubulin and creatinine
kinase which are essential to formation of microtubules. Studies of mercury studies on animals
give results similar to that found the Alzheimer brain. The effects of mercury with other toxic
metals have also been found to be synergistic, having much more effect than with
individual exposure (35).
Animal
studies of developmental effects of mercury on the brain have found significant
effects at extremely low exposure levels, levels commonly seen in those with
amalgam fillings or in dental staff working with amalgam. One study (175) found mercury vapor
decreased NGF concentration in rat’s forebrain at 4 parts per billion (ppb)
tissue concentration. Another study
(134) found general toxicity effects at 1 micromole (uM) levels in immature cell
cultures, increased immunoreactivity for glial fibrillary protein at 1 nanamole
(0.2 ppb) concentration, and microglial response at even lower levels. Other animal studies on rodents and
monkeys have found brain cellular migration disturbances, behavioral changes,
along with reduced learning and adaptation capacity after low levels of mercury
vapor exposure (210, 264, 287, 149).
The exposure levels in these studies are seen in the fetus and newborn
babies of mother’s with amalgam fillings or who had work involving amalgam
during pregnancy (61).
Epidemiological
studies have found that human embryos are also highly susceptible to brain
damage from prenatal exposure to mercury.
Studies have confirmed that there are vulnerable periods during brain and
CNS development that are especially sensitive to neurotoxic exposures and affect
development processes and results (429). The fetal period is most sensitive, but
neural development extends through adolescence. Maternal hypothyroidism has been found
to cause endocrine system abnormalities in the fetus, and mercury is documented
to commonly cause hypothyroidism, both chronically and as a transient condition
(458). Some conditions found to be
related to such toxic exposures include autism, schizophrenia, ADD, dyslexia,
eczema, etc. Prenatal/early
postnatal exposure to mercury affects level of nerve growth factor (NGF) in the
brain and causes brain damage and imbalances in development of the brain (38,
119, 181, 305, 259, 210, 149, 305, 24/39, 175, 255, 149). Exposure of developing neuroblastoma
cells to sub-cytotoxic doses of mercuric oxide resulted in lower levels of
neurofilament proteins than unexposed cells (305). Mercury vapor exposure causes impaired
cell proliferation in the brain and organs, resulting in reduced volume for
cerebellum and organs and subtle deficiencies (38, 305). Exposure to mercury and 4 other heavy
metals tested for in a study of school children accounted for 23% of the
variation in test scores for reading, spelling, and visual motor skills
(3). A Canadian study found that
blood levels of five metals were able to predict with a 98% accuracy which
children were learning disabled (3). Several studies found that mercury causes
learning disabilities and impairment, and reduction in IQ (3, 21, 38, 110, 264,
285c, 279). Mercury has an effect
on the fetal nervous system at levels far below that considered toxic in adults,
and background levels of mercury in mothers correlate significantly with
incidence of birth defects and still births (23, 38, 287, 338c, 10).
2.
Calcium plays a major role in the extreme neurotoxicity of mercury and
methyl mercury. Both inhibit cellular calcium ATPase and calcium uptake by brain
microsomes at very low levels of exposure (270, 288, 329, 333, 432, 56). Protein Kinase C (PKC) regulates
intracellular and extracellular signals across neuronal membranes, and both
forms of mercury inhibit PKC at micromolar levels, as well as inhibiting phorbal
ester binding (43, 432). They also
block or inhibit calcium L-channel currents in the brain in an irreversible and
concentration dependent manner.
Mercury vapor or inorganic mercury exposure affects the posterior
cingulate cortex and causes major neurological effects with sufficient exposure
(428, 453). Some of the resulting
conditions include stomatitis, tremor, ADD, erethism, etc. Metallic mercury is much more potent
than methyl mercury in such actions, with 50% inhibitation in animal studies at
13 ppb (333, 329).
Spatial
and temporal changes in intracellular calcium concentrations are critical for
controlling gene expression and neurotransmitter release in neurons (432,
412). Mercury alters calcium
homeostasis and calcium levels in the brain and affects gene expression and
neurotransmitter release through its effects on calcium, etc.
Mercury
inhibits sodium and potassium (Na, K) ATPase in dose dependent manner and
inhibits dopamine and norepinephrine uptake by synaptosomes and nerve impulse
transfer (288, 50, 270, 35).
Mercury also interrupts the cytochrome oxidase system, blocking the ATP
energy function (35, 43, 84, 232, 338c), lowering immune growth factor IGF-I
levels and impairing astrocyte function (119, 131). Astrocytes are common cells in the CNS
involved in the feeding and detox of nerve cells. Increases in inflammatory cytokines such
as caused by toxic metals trigger increased free radical activity and damage to
astrocyte and astrocyte function (152).
IGF-I protects against brain and neuronal pathologies like ALS, MS, and
fibromyalgia by protecting the astrocytes from this destructive process.
Mercury
lymphocyte reactivity and effects on glutamate in the CNS induce CFS type
symptoms including profound tiredness, musculoskeletal pain, sleep disturbances,
gastrointestinal and neurological problems along with other CFS symptoms and
fibromyalgia (342, 346, 368, 369, 375).
Mercury has been found to be a common cause of fibromyalgia (293, 346,
369). Glutamate is the most
abundant amino acid in the body and in the CNS acts as excitatory
neurotransmitter (346, 386, 412), which also causes inflow of calcium. Astrocytes, a type of cell in the brain
and CNS with the task of keeping clean the area around nerve cells, have a
function of neutralizing excess glutamate by transforming it to glutamic
acid. If astrocytes are not able to
rapidly neutralize excess glutamate, then a build-up of glutamate and calcium
occurs, causing swelling and neurotoxic effects (119, 131, 152, 333). Mercury and other toxic metals inhibit
astrocyte function in the brain and CNS (119, 131), causing increased glutamate
and calcium related neurotoxicity (119, 152, 333, 226a) which is responsible for
much of the fibromyalgia symptoms and a factor in neural degeneration in MS and
ALS. This is also a factor in
conditions such as CFS, Parkinson’s, and ALS (346, 416). Animal studies have confirmed that
increased levels of glutamate (or aspartate, another amino acid excitatory
neurotransmitter) cause increased sensitivity to pain, as well as higher body
temperature—both found in CFS/fibromyalgia. Mercury and increased glutamate activate
free radical forming processes like xanthine oxidase which produce oxygen
radicals and oxidative neurological damage (346, 142, 13). Extremely toxic anaerobic bacteria from
root canals or cavitations formed at incompletely healed tooth extraction sites
have also been found to be common factors in fibromyalgia and other chronic
neurological conditions such as Parkinson’s and ALS, with condensing osteitis
which must be removed with a surgical burr along with 1 mm of bone around it
(35, 437). Cavitations have been
found in 85% of sites from wisdom tooth extractions tested and 55% of molar
extraction sites tested (35, 437).
The incidence is likely somewhat less in the general population. Medical studies and doctors
treating fibromyalgia have found that supplements which cause a decrease in
glutamate or protect against its effects have a positive effect on fibromyalgia
and other chronic neurologic conditions.
Some that have been found to be effective include vitamin B6, methyl
cobalamine (B12), L-carnitine, choline, ginseng, Ginkgo biloba, vitamins C and E, nicotine, and omega 3
fatty acids (fish and flaxseed oil) (417).
3.
Numerous studies have found long term chronic low doses of mercury cause
neurological, memory, behaviour, sleep, and mood problems (3, 34, 60, 69, 70,
71, 74, 107, 108, 109, 119, 140, 141, 160, 199, 212, 222, 246, 255, 257, 258,
282, 290, 453). Neurological
effects have been documented at very low levels of exposure (urine Hg< 4
ug/L), levels commonly received by those with amalgam fillings (290). One of the studies at a German University (199)
assessed 20,000 people. There is
also evidence that fetal or infant exposure causes delayed neurotoxicity
evidenced in serious effect at middle age (255, 306). Organic tin compounds formed from
amalgam are even more neurotoxic than mercury (222, 262). Studies of groups of patients with
amalgam fillings found significantly more neurological, memory, mood, and
behavioral problems than the control groups (3, 34, 107, 108, 109, 140, 141,
160, 199, 212, 222, 290, 453).
4.
Mercury binds to hemoglobin oxygen binding sites in the red blood cells
thus reducing oxygen carrying capacity (332, 35) and adversely affects the
vascular response to norepinephrine and potassium. Mercury’s effect on pituitary gland
vasopressin is a factor in high blood pressure (35). Mercury also increases cytosolic free
calcium levels in lymphocytes in a concentration dependant manner causing influx
from the extracellular medium (270c), and blocks entry of calcium ions into the
cytoplasm (1, 16, 17, 21, 33, 35, 333), and at 100 ppb can destroy the membrane
of red blood cells (35, 22, 17, 270c) and damage blood vessels, reducing blood
supply to the tissues (34, 202, 306).
Amalgam fillings have been found to be related to higher blood pressure,
hemoglobin irregularities, tachycardia, chest pains, etc. (201, 202, 205, 212,
222, 306, 310, 35). Mercury also
interrupts the cytochrome oxidase system, blocking the ATP energy function (35,
43, 84, 232, 338c) and impairing astrocyte function (119). These effects often result in fatigue
and reduced energy levels (35, 60, 119, 140, 141, 182, 202, 212, 232, 235,
313). Mercury also accumulates in
the heart and damages myocardial and heart valves (Turpayev, in (35)) & (59,
201, 205, 306, 351, 370). Both
mercury and methyl mercury have been shown to cause depletion of calcium from
the heart muscle and to inhibit myosin ATPase activity by 50% at 30 ppb (59), as
well as reducing NK-cells in the blood and spleen. The interruption of the ATP
energy chemistry results in high levels of porphyrins in the urine (260). Mercury, lead, and other toxins have
different patterns of high levels for the 5 types of porphyrins, with pattern
indicating likely source and the level extent of damage. The average for those with amalgams is
over 3 time that of those without, and is over 20 times normal for some severely
poisoned people (232, 260). The FDA
has approved a test measuring porphyrins as a test for mercury poisoning. However, some other dental problems such
as nickel crowns, cavitations, and root canals also can cause high
porphyrins. Cavitations are
diseased areas in bone under teeth or extracted teeth, usually caused by lack of
adequate blood supply to the area.
Tests by special equipment (Cavitat) found cavitations in over 90% of
areas under root canals or extracted wisdom teeth that have been tested, and
toxins such as anaerobic bacteria and other toxins which significantly inhibit
body enzymatic processes in virtually all cavitations (437). These toxins have been found to have
serious systemic health effects in many cases, and significant health problems
to be related such as arthritis, MCS, and CFS. These have been found to be factors
along with amalgam in serious chronic conditions such as MS, ALS, Alzheimer’s,
MCS, CFS, etc. (35, 204, 222, 292, 437).
The problem occurs in extractions that are not cleaned out properly after
extraction (437). Supplements such
as glucosamine sulfate and avoidance of orange juice and caffeine have been
found to be beneficial in treating arthritic conditions as well
(35).
A
study funded by the Adolf Coors Foundation (232) found that toxicity such as
mercury is a significant cause of abnormal cholesterol levels, increasing as a
protective measure against metals toxicity, and that cholesterol levels usually
normalize after amalgam replacement.
However, lowering cholesterol levels by other means below 160 correlates
with much higher rates of depression, suicide, cancer, violent deaths, cerebral
hemorrhage, and deaths—all known to be affected by mercury effects (35). The study also found that mercury has
major adverse effects on red and white blood cells, oxygen carrying capacity,
and porphyrin levels (232), with most cases seeing significant increase in
oxyhemoglobin level and reduction in porphyrin levels along with 100%
experiencing improved energy.
5.
Patch tests for hypersensitivity to mercury have found from 2% to 44% to
test positive (87, 154, 156, 178, 267), much higher for groups with more amalgam
fillings and length of exposure than those with less. In studies of medical and dental
students, those testing positive had
significantly higher average number of amalgam fillings than those not
testing positive (and higher levels of mercury in urine) (132, 156). of the dental students with 10 or more
fillings at least 5 years old, 44% tested allergic. Based on these studies and statistics
for the number with 10 or more fillings, the percent of Americans allergic to
mercury just from this group would be about 17 million people especially
vulnerable to increased immune system reactions to amalgam fillings. However, the total would be much larger
and patch tests do not measure the total population getting toxic reactions from
mercury. The most sensitive
reactions are immune reactions, DNA mutations, developmental, enzyme inhibition,
and systemic effects (34, 38, 61, 149, 186, 226, 263, 264, 270, 272, 296, 305,
410-412/357).
6.
People with amalgam fillings have an increased number of intestinal
micro-organisms resistant to mercury and many standard antibiotics (35, 116,
117, 161, 389). Mercury is
extremely toxic and kills many beneficial bacterial, but some forms of bacteria
can alter their form to avoid being killed by adding a plasmid to their DNA,
making the bacteria mercury resistant. But this transformation also increases
antibiotic resistance and results in adversely altered populations of bacteria
in the intestines. Recent studies
have found that drug resistant strains of bacteria causing ear infections,
sinusitis, tuberculosis, and pneumonia more than doubled since 1996, and similar
for strains of bacteria in U.S. rivers (53). Studies have found a significant
correlation between mercury resistance and multiple antibiotic resistance (116,
117, 161, 369), and have found that after reducing mercury burden, antibiotic
resistance declines (251, 389, 40).
The alteration of intestinal bacterial populations necessary for proper
digestion, along with other
damage
and membrane permeability effects of mercury, are major factors in creating
“leaky gut” conditions with poor digestion and absorption of nutrients and toxic
incompletely digested compounds in the bloodstream (338, 35, etc.).
7.
Mercury from amalgam binds to the -SH (sulfhydryl) groups, resulting in
inactivation of sulfur and blocking of enzyme function, producing sulfur
metabolites with extreme toxicity that the body is unable to properly detoxify
(33, 114), along with a deficiency in sulfates required for many body
functions. Sulfur is essential in
enzymes, hormones, nerve tissue, and red blood cells. These exist in almost every enzymatic
process in the body. Blocked or
inhibited sulfur oxidation at the cellular level has been found in most with
many of the chronic degenerative diseases, including Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s,
ALS, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, MCS, autism, etc. (330, 331, 33, 35, 56), and
appears to be a major factor in these conditions. Mercury also blocks the metabolic action
of manganese and the entry of calcium ions into cytoplasm (333). Mercury from amalgam thus has the
potential to disturb all metabolic processes (25, 21, 33, 35, 56, 60, 111, 180,
194, 197). Mercury is transported
throughout the body in blood and can affect cells in the body and organs in
different ways.
8.
A large study of 20,000 subjects at a German university found a
significant relation between the number of amalgam fillings with periodontal
problems, neurological problems, and gastrointestinal problems (199). Allergies and hair-loss were found to be
2-3 times as high in a group with large number of amalgam fillings compared to
controls (199, 9). Levels of
mercury in follicular fluid were significantly higher for those with amalgam
fillings (9, 146). Based on this
finding, a Gynecological Clinic that sees a large number of women suffering from
alopecia/hair loss that was not responding to treatment had amalgams replaced in
132 women who had not responded to treatment. 68% of the women then responded to
treatment and alopecia was alleviated (187). In other studies involving amalgam
removal, the majority had significant improvement (40, 317). Higher levels of hormone disturbances,
immune disturbances, infertility, and recurrent fungal infections were also
found in the amalgam group. The
results of hormone tests, cell culture studies, and intervention studies agree
(9, 146). Other clinics have also
found alleviation of hair loss/alopecia after amalgam removal and detox (40,
317). Another study in Japan found significantly
higher levels of mercury in gray hair than in dark hair (402).
9.
Mercury accumulates in the kidneys with increasing levels over time. One study found levels ranging from 21
to 810 ppb. A study of levels in
kidney donors found an average of 3 times higher mercury level in those with
amalgams versus those without (14c).
Mercury exposure has been shown to adversely affect kidney function in
occupational and animal studies (20, 203, 211, 260, 438), and also in those with
more than average number of amalgam fillings (254). Inorganic mercury exposure has been
found to exert a dose-dependent cytotoxicity by generating extremely high levels
of hydrogen peroxide, which is normally quenched by pyruvate and catalase
(203). HgCl2 also has been found to
impair function of other organelles such as lysosomes that maintain
transmembrane proton gradient, and to decrease glutathione peroxidase activity
in the kidneys while upregulating heme oxidase function. The Government's toxic level for mercury
in urine is 30 mcg/L (189), but adverse effects have been seen at lower levels
and low levels in urine often mean high mercury retention and chronic toxicity
problems.
10.
Amalgam fillings produce electrical currents which increase mercury vapor
release and may have other harmful effects (19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, 100, 192,
194). These currents are measured
in micro amps, with some measured at over 4 micro amps. The central nervous system operates on
signals in the range of nano-amps, which is 1000 times less than a micro amp
(28). Negatively charged fillings
or crowns push electrons into the oral cavity since saliva is a good electrolyte
and cause higher mercury vapor losses (35, 192). Patients with autoimmune conditions like
MS, or epilepsy, depression, etc. are often found to have a lot of high negative
current fillings (35). The Huggins
total dental revision (TDR) protocol calls for teeth with the highest negative
charge to be replaced first (35).
Other protocols for amalgam removal are available from international
dental associations like IAOMT (153) and mercury poisoned patients organizations
like DAMS (447). For these reasons,
it is important that no new gold dental work be placed in the mouth until at
least 6 months after replacement.
Some studies have also found persons with chronic exposure to
electromagnetic fields (EMF) to have higher levels of mercury exposure and
excretion (28).
11.
Mercury from amalgam fillings is transferred to the fetus of pregnant
women and children who breast feed, at levels often higher than those of the
mother (18, 19, 20, 23, 31, 38, 61, 112, 186, 281). Mercury has an effect on the fetal
nervous system at levels far below that considered toxic in adults, and
background levels of mercury in mothers correlate significantly with incidence
of birth defects and still births (10, 23, 38, 197, 210, 287, 338c, 361). Mercury vapor exposure causes impaired
cell proliferation in the brain and organs, resulting in reduced volume for
cerebellum and organs and subtle deficiencies (38, 305).
12.
Since mercury (all forms) is documented from studies of humans and
animals to be a reproductive and developmental toxin (23, 38, 61, 105, 186, 224,
255, 287, 305, 381,etc.), mercury can reduce reproductive function and cause
birth defects and developmental problems in children (2, 4, 9, 10, 20, 23, 24,
31, 37, 38, 39, 41, 55, 61, 104, 146, 159, 162, 224, 255, 458). Clinical
evidence indicates that amalgam fillings lead to hormone imbalances that can
reduce fertility (9, 38, 55, 4, 105, 146, 367). Mercury has been found to cause
decreased sperm volume and motility, increased sperm abnormalities and
spontaneous abortions, increased uterine fibroids/endometritis, and decreased
fertility in animals (4, 104, 105, 162) and in humans (9, 10, 23, 31, 37, 105,
146, 159, 395, 433, 27, 35, 38). In
studies of women having miscarriages or birth defects, husbands were found to
typically have low sperm counts and significantly more visually abnormal sperm
(393). Studies indicate an increase
in the rate of spontaneous abortions with an increasing concentration of mercury
in the fathers' urine before pregnancy (37). Studies have found that mercury
accumulates in the ovaries and testes, inhibits enzymes necessary for sperm
production, affects DNA in sperm, causes aberrant numbers of chromosomes in
cells, causes chromosome breaks, etc.—all of which can cause infertility,
spontaneous abortions, or birth defects (10, 31, 35, 296). Subfertile males in Hong Kong were found to have
40% more mercury in their hair than fertile controls (55). Studies in monkeys have found decreased
sperm motility, abnormal sperm, increased infertility and abortions at low
levels of methyl mercury (162, 365).
Researchers advise pregnant women should not be exposed to mercury vapor
levels above government health standards (2, 19, 25, 227, 61, 100, 182, 282,
366); currently U.S. ATSDR mercury health MRL of 0.2 mcg/m3 which is
exceeded by any dental work involving amalgam (Section III). Many governments have bans or
restrictions on use of amalgam by women of child-bearing age.
13.
Mercury causes breaks in DNA (4, 38, 41, 42, 197, 272, 296). Low non-cytotoxic levels of mercury
induce dose dependent binding of mercury to DNA and significantly increased cell
mutations (142, 4) and birth defects (197, 38, 105). In addition to effects on DNA, mercury
also promotes cancer in other ways. Mercury depletes and weakens the immune
system in many ways documented throughout this paper.
14.
Mercury has been well documented to be an endocrine system disrupting
chemical in animals and people, disrupting function of the pituitary gland,
hypothalamus, thyroid gland (50, 369, 35), enzyme production processes (111,
194, 33, 56), and many hormonal functions at very low levels of exposure (9,
105, 146, 210, 312, 369). The
pituitary gland controls many of the body’s endocrine system functions and
secretes hormones that control most bodily processes, including the immune
system and reproductive systems (105, 312, 381). The hypothalamus regulates body
temperature and many metabolic processes.
Mercury damage thus commonly results in poor bodily temperature control,
in addition to many problems caused by hormonal imbalances. Such hormonal secretions are affected at
levels of mercury exposure much lower than the acute toxicity effects normally
tested. Mercury also damages the
blood-brain barrier and facilitates penetration of the brain by other toxic
metals and substances (311). Low
levels of mercuric chloride also inhibit ATPase activity in the thyroid, with
methyl mercury inhibiting ATP function at even lower levels (50, 35). Both types of mercury were found to
cause denaturing of protein, but inorganic mercury was more potent. These effects result commonly in a
reduction in thyroid production (50) and an accumulation in the thyroid of
radiation. Toxic metal exposure’s
adverse influence on thyrocytes can play a major role in thyroid cancer etiology
(144). Among those with chronic
immune system problems with related immune antibodies, the types showing the
highest level of antibody reductions after amalgam removal include
thyreoglobulin and microsomal thyroid antigens (91).
15.
There has been no evidence found that there is any safe level of mercury
in the body that does not kill cells and harm body processes (WHO, 183, 189,
etc.). This is especially so for
the pituitary gland of the developing fetus where mercury has been shown to
accumulate and which is the most sensitive to mercury (2-4, 19-24, 30, 31,
36-44, 61, 186).
16.
Low levels of mercury and toxic metals have been found to inhibit
dihydroteridine reductase, which affects the neural system function by
inhibiting transmitters through its effect on phenylalanine, tyrosine and
tryptophan transport into neurons (27, 98, 122, 257, 289, 372, 342, 372,
412). This was found to cause
severe impaired amine synthesis and hypokinesis. Tetrahydrobiopterin, which is essential
in production of neurotransmitters, is significantly decreased in patients with
Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, MS, and autism.
Such patients have abnormal inhibition of neurotransmitter
production. Such symptoms improved
for most patients after administration of R-tetrahydrobiopterin (412), and some
after 5-formyltetrahydrofolate, tyrosine (257), and 5-HTP (412).
17.
The level of mercury released by amalgam fillings is often more than the
levels documented in medical studies to produce adverse effects and above the
U.S. government
health guidelines for mercury exposure (see previous text).
18.Many
studies of patients with major neurological or degenerative diseases have found
evidence amalgam fillings may play a major role in development of conditions
such as Alzheimer’s (66, 67, 158, 166, 204, 207, 221, 238, 242, 244, 257, 295,
300, 35), ALS (92, 97, 229, 325, 346, 416, 423, 35), MS (102, 163, 170, 183,
184, 212, 285, 291, 302, 324, 326, 35), Parkinson’s (98, 169, 248, 250, 258,
363, 56, 84, 35), ADD (285e), etc.
Mercury exposure causes high levels of oxidative stress/reactive oxygen
species (ROS) (13, 442), which has been found to be a major factor in
neurological disease (56, 442).
Mercury and quinones form conjugates with thiol compounds such as
glutathione and cysteine and cause depletion of glutathione, which is necessary
to mitigate reactive damage. Such
conjugates are found to be highest in the brain substantia nigra with similar
conjugates formed with L-Dopa and dopamine in Parkinson’s disease (56). Mercury depletion of GSH and damage to
cellular mitochondria and the increased lipid peroxidation in protein and DNA
oxidation in the brain appear to be a major factor in Parkinson’s disease (33,
346). One study found higher than
average levels of mercury in the blood, urine, and hair of Parkinson’s disease
patients (363). Another study (169)
found blood and urine mercury levels to be very strongly related to Parkinson’s
with odds ratios of approx. 20 at high levels of Hg exposure. Increased formation of reactive oxygen
species (ROS) has also been found to increase formation of advanced glycation
end products (AGEs) that have been found to cause activation of glial cells to
produce superoxide and nitric oxide, they can be considered part of a vicious
cycle, which finally leads to neuronal cell death in the substantia nigra in PD
(424). Another study (145) that
reviewed occupational exposure data found that occupational exposure to
manganese and copper have high odds rations for relation to PD, as well as
multiple exposures to these and lead, but noted that this effect was only seen
for exposure of over 20 years.
Mercury
has been found to accumulate preferentially in the primary motor function
related areas such as the brain stem, cerebellum, rhombencephalon, dorsal root
ganglia, and anterior horn motor neurons, which enervate the skeletal muscles
(48, 291, 327, 329, 442). There is
considerable indication this may be a factor in ALS development (48, 325, 405,
416, 423, 442). Mercury penetrates
and damages the blood-brain barrier allowing penetration of the barrier by other
substances that are neurotoxic (20, 38, 85, 105, 162, 301, 311/262). Such damage to the blood-brain barrier’s
function has been found to be a major factor in chronic neurological diseases
such as MS (286, 289, 291, 302, 324, 326).
MS patients have been found to have much higher levels of mercury in
cerebrospinal fluid compared to controls (163, 35, 139). Large German studies
including studies at German universities have found that MS patients usually
have high levels of mercury body burden, with one study finding 300% higher than
controls (271). Most recovered
after mercury detox, with some requiring additional treatment for viruses and
intestinal dysbiosis. Studies have
found mercury related mental effects to be indistinguishable from those of MS
(207, 212, 222, 244, 271, 289, 291, 302, 183, 184, 324, 326).
Low
levels of toxic metals have been found to inhibit dihydroteridine reductase,
which affects the neural system function by inhibiting brain transmitters
through its effect on phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan transport into
neurons (122, 257, 289, 372). This
was found to cause severe impaired amine synthesis and hypokinesis. Tetrahydro-biopterin, which is essential
in production of neurotransmitters, is significantly decreased in patients with
Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and MS.
Such patients have abnormal inhibition of neurotransmitter production
(supplements which inhibit breach of the blood-brain barrier such as
bioflavonoids have been found to slow such neurological damage).
Clinical
tests of patients with MND, ALS, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Lupus (SLE),
rheumatoid arthritis and autism have found that the patients generally have
elevated plasma cysteine to sulphate ratios, with the average being 500% higher
than controls (330, 331, 56, 33e), and in general being poor sulphur
oxidizers. This means that these
patients have insufficient sulfates available to carry out necessary bodily
processes. Mercury has been shown
to diminish and block sulphur oxidation and thus reducing glutathione levels
which is the part of this process involved in detoxifying and excretion of
toxins like mercury (33).
Glutathione is produced through the sulphur oxidation side of this
process. Low levels of available
glutathione have been shown to increase mercury retention and increase toxic
effects (111), while high levels of free cysteine have been demonstrated to make
toxicity due to inorganic mercury more severe (333, 194, 56, 33e). Mercury has also been found to play a
part in inducing intolerance and neuronal problems through blockage of the P-450
enzymatic process (84, 33e).
In
one subtype of ALS, damaged, blocked, or faulty enzymatic superoxide dismutase
(SOD) processes appear to be a major factor in cell apoptosis involved in the
condition (443).
Mercury is known to damage or inhibit SOD activity (441, 33,
111).
19.
Mercury at extremely low levels also interferes with formation of tubulin
producing neurofibrillary tangles in the brain similar to those observed in
Alzheimer’s patients, with high levels of mercury in the brain (207), and low levels of zinc (363, 43). Mercury and the induced neurofibrillary
tangles also appear to produce a functional zinc deficiency in the of AD
sufferers (242), as well as causing reduced lithium levels which is another
factor in such diseases.
Lithium protects brain cells against excess glutamate induced
excitability and calcium influx (280, 56).
Also, mercury binds with cell membranes interfering with sodium and
potassium enzyme functions, causing excess membrane permeability, especially in
terms of the blood-brain barrier (155, 207, 311). Less than 1ppm mercury in the blood
stream can impair the blood- brain barrier. Mercury was also found to accumulate in
the mitochondria and interfere with their vital functions, and to inhibit
cytochrome C enzymes which affect energy supply to the brain (43, 84, 232, 338c,
35). Persons with the Apo-E4 gene
form of apolipoprotein E which transports cholesterol in the blood, are
especially susceptible to this damage (207, 221, 346), while those with Apo-E2
which has extra cysteine and is a better mercury scavenger have less
damage. The majority have an
intermediate form Apo-E3. This
appears to be a factor in susceptibility to Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s
disease and multiple sclerosis.
One’s susceptibility can be estimated by testing for this condition. In many cases (many thousand
documented), removal of amalgam fillings and treatment for metal toxicity led to
“cure” or significant improvement in health (see Section V). Mercury causes an increase in white
blood cells, with more created to try to react to a foreign toxic substance in
the body. There is evidence that
some forms of leukemia are abnormal response to antigenic stimulation by mercury
or other such toxins, and removal of amalgam has led to remission very rapidly
in some cases (35, 38, 180, 239).
20.
Mercury and methyl mercury impair or inhibit all cell functions and
deplete calcium stores (96). This
can be a major factor in bone loss of calcium (osteoporosis). Mercury (like copper) also accumulates
in areas of the eyes such as the endothelial layer of the cornea and macula and
is a major factor in chronic and degenerative eye conditions such as iritis,
astigmatism, myopia, black streaks on retina, cataracts, macula degeneration,
etc. Most of these conditions have
been found to improve after amalgam replacement (35, 212, 271, 322,
etc.)
VI.
Results of Removal of Amalgam Fillings
1.
For the week following amalgam removal, body mercury levels increase
significantly, depending on protective measures taken, but within 2 weeks levels
fall significantly (82, 89). Chronic conditions can worsen temporarily, but
usually improve if adequate precautions are taken to reduce exposure during
removal.
2.
Removal of amalgam fillings resulted in a significant reduction in body
burden and body waste product load of mercury (75, 82, 88, 89, 93, 95,
115). Total reduction in mercury
levels in blood and urine is often over 80% within a few months (79, 82, 89, 93,
115, 57).
3.
For the following case studies of amalgam replacement, some clinics
primarily replaced amalgam fillings using patient protective measures and
supportive supplements, whereas some clinics do something comparable to Hal
Huggins total dental revision where in addition to amalgam replacement,
patients’ gold or nickel crowns over amalgam are replaced by biocompatible
alternatives, root canals extracted and cavitations checked for and
cleaned. There are extensive
documented cases (many thousands) where removal of amalgam fillings led to cure
or significant improvement of serious health problems such as periodontal
diseases (35, 40, 46, 57, 60, 75, 78, 82, 86, 87, 90, 94, 95, 100, 101, 115,
133, 168, 212, 222, 233, 271, 313, 317, 321, 322, 376), oral keratosis (pre
cancer) (87, 251), immune system/autoimmune problems (8, 35, 60, 222, 270, 271,
313, 323, 368, 91, 212, 229, 291, 452), allergies (8, 26, 35, 40, 46, 94, 95,
97,165, 212, 222, 228, 229, 233, 271, 317, 322, 349, 376), asthma (8, 75, 97,
222, 228, 271, 322), chronic headaches/migraines (5, 34, 35, 95, 212, 222, 229,
233, 271, 317, 322, 349, 354, 115, 376, 440, 453), multiple chemical
sensitivities (26, 35, 95, 222, 229, 232, 233, 115, 313, 368), epilepsy (5, 35,
309, 229), blood conditions (212, 222, 232, 233, 271, 35, 95), eczema (60, 212,
222, 271, 313, 317, 323, 94, 376, 341, 459), Crohn’s disease (222, 229), stomach
problems (35, 95, 212, 222, 228, 229, 233, 271, 317, 322, 440, 35), lupus (12,
35, 113, 222, 229, 233, 323), dizziness/vertigo (40, 95, 212, 222, 271, 322,
376, 453), arthritis (35, 95, 103, 212, 222, 271, 313, 322, 358), MS (94, 95,
102, 170, 212, 222, 271, 291, 302, 34, 35, 229), ALS (97, 229, 423, 405, 35),
Parkinson’s/muscle tremor (222, 248, 229, 271, 212, 94, 98, 35), Alzheimer’s
(204, 35), muscular/joint pain/fibromyalgia (35, 222, 293, 317, 322, 369, 440,
94), infertility (9, 35, 38, 229, 367), depression (94, 107, 222, 271, 294, 212,
229, 233, 285e, 317, 322, 376, 453, 35, 40), schizophrenia (294, 34, 35),
insomnia (35, 94, 212, 222, 271, 317, 322, 376), anger (212, 233, 102, 35),
anxiety and mental confusion (94, 212, 222, 229, 233, 271, 317, 322, 440, 453,
35, 57), susceptibility to infections (35, 40, 222, 251, 317, 349, 350),
antibiotic resistant infection (251), endometriosis (229, 35, 38), Chronic
Fatigue Syndrome (8, 35, 60, 212, 293, 229, 222, 232, 233, 271, 313, 317, 323,
368, 369, 375, 376, 440), tachycardia and heart problems (205, 35, 59, 94, 115,
212, 222, 232, 233, 271, 306, 310, 212), memory disorders (35, 94, 212, 222,
440, 453), cancer (breast, etc.)/leukemia (35, 38, 94, 180),
neuropathy/paresthesia (35, 94, 212, 222, 322), alopecia/hair loss (40, 187,
271, 317, 322, 349), sinus problems (35, 40, 94, 222, 271, 322), tinnitus (35,
94, 222, 271, 349, 376), chronic eye conditions: inflammation/
iritis/astigmatism/myopia/cataracts/macula degeneration (35, 222, 271, 322),
vision disturbances (35, 212, 271, 322), psoriasis (323, 385, 375, 408, 459),
skin conditions (212, 222), urinary/prostrate problems (212, 222), hearing loss
(102, 35), Candida (26, 35, 404, etc.), PMS (35, 6, etc.), diabetes (35, etc.),
etc. The above over 60,000 cases of
cure or significant improvements were not isolated cases of cures; the clinical
studies indicated a large majority of most such type cases treated showed
significant improvement. (Details
available and case histories.) Some
of the above cases used chemical or natural chelation to reduce accumulated
mercury body burden in addition to amalgam replacement. Some clinics using DMPS for chelation
reported over 80% with chronic health problems were cured or significantly
improved (222, 271, 359). Other
clinics reported similar success.
But the recovery rate of those using dentists with special equipment and
training in protecting the patient reported much higher success rates than those
with standard training and equipment, 97% versus 37 to 88% (435). The Huggins TDR protocol includes
testing teeth with metal for level of galvanic current caused by the mixed
metals, and removal of the teeth with highest negative galvanic current first
(35). This has been found to
improve recovery rate for chronic conditions like epilepsy and autoimmune
conditions. Metals are being pushed
into the body from negatively charged metal dental work with saliva as
electrolyte and the highest charged teeth lose the most metal to the body
(35).
Clinical
studies have found that patch testing is not a good predictor of success of
amalgam removal, as a high percentage of those testing negative also recovered
from chronic conditions after replacement of fillings (86, 87, 168,
etc.).
The
Huggins Clinic using TDR has successfully treated over a thousand patients with
chronic autoimmune conditions like MS, Lupus, ALS, AD, diabetes, etc. (35),
including himself with the population of over 600 (approx. 85%) who experienced
significant improvement in MS. In a large German study of MS patients after
amalgam revision, extraction resulted in 85% recovery rate versus only 16% for
filling replacement alone (222, 302). Other cases have found that recovery from
serious autoimmune diseases, dementia, or cancer may require more aggressive
mercury removal techniques than simple filling replacement due to body
burden. This appears to be due to
migration of mercury into roots and gums that is not eliminated by simple
filling replacement. That such
mercury (and similarly bacteria) in the teeth and gums have direct routes to the
brain and CNS has been documented by several medical studies (34, 325,
etc.).
Among
those with chronic immune system problems with related immune antibodies, the
types showing the highest level of antibody reductions after amalgam removal
include glomerular basal membrane, thyreoglobulin, and microsomal thyroid
antigens (91). TDR and other
measures used in metals detox have been found to increase T-cells and immune
function in AIDS patients (35).
Swedish
researchers have developed a sophisticated test for immune/autoimmune reactions
that has proved successful in diagnosing and treating environmentally caused
diseases such as lichen planus, CFS, MS, etc. related to mercury and other
immunotoxins (60, 313, etc.).
Interviews
of a large population of Swedish patients that had amalgams removed due to
health problems found that virtually all reported significant health
improvements and that the health improvements were permanent (233) (study period
17 years). A compilation of an even
larger population found similar results (212, 282). For example, 89% of those reporting
allergies had significant improvements or total elimination; extrapolated to
U.S. population
this would represent over 17 million people who would benefit regarding
allergies alone.
VII.
Tests for Mercury Level or Toxicity and Treatments
1.
Feces is the major path of excretion of mercury from the body, having a
higher correlation to systemic body burden than urine or blood, which tend to
correlate with recent exposure level (35, 36, 79, 80, 183, 278). For this reason many researchers
consider feces to be the most reliable indicator of daily exposure level to
mercury or other toxins. The
average level of mercury in feces of those with fillings is over 1 ppm and
approx. 10 times that of a similar group without fillings (79, 80, 83, 335, 386,
25), with significant numbers of those with several fillings having over 10 ppm
and 170 times those without fillings (80).
For those with several fillings, daily fecal mercury excretion levels
range between 20 to 200 ug/day. The
saliva test is another good test for daily mercury exposure, done
commonly in Europe and representing one
of the largest sources of mercury exposure.
There
is only a weak correlation between blood or urine mercury levels and body burden
or level in a target organ (36, 157, 183, 278, 11, etc.). Mercury vapor passes through the blood
rapidly (half-life in blood is 10 seconds, 370) and accumulates in other parts
of the body such as the brain, kidneys, liver, thyroid gland, pituitary gland,
etc. Thus blood test measures
mostly recent exposure. As damage
occurs to kidneys over time, mercury is less efficiently eliminated (11, 36, 57,
183, 216, 260), so urine tests are not reliable for body burden after long term
exposure. Some researchers suggest
hair offers a better indicator of mercury body burden than blood or urine (279),
though still not totally reliable and may be a better indicator for organic
mercury than inorganic. In the
early stages of mercury exposure before major systemic damage other than slight
fatigue results you usually see high hemoglobin, hemocrit, alkaline phosphatase,
and lactice dehydroganese; in later states you usually see marginal hemoglobin,
hemocrit, plus low oxyhemoglobin (35).
Hair
was found to be significantly correlated with fish consumption, as well as with
occupational dental exposure and to be a good medium for monitoring internal
mercury exposure, except that external occupational exposure can also affect
hair levels. Mercury hair level in
a population sampled in Madrid Spain ranged from 1.3
to 92.5 ppm. This study found a
significant positive correlation between maternal hair mercury and mercury level
in nursing infants. Hair mercury
levels did not have a significant correlation with urine mercury in one study
(340) and did not have a significant correlation to number of fillings
(350). One researcher suggests that
mercury levels in hair of greater than 5 ppm are indicative of mercury
intoxication.
A
new test approved by the FDA for diagnosing damage that has been caused by toxic
metals like mercury is the fractionated porphyrin test (260, 35), that measures
amount of damage as well as likely source.
Mercury blocks enzymes needed to convert some types of porphyrins to
hemoglobin and adenosine triphosphate (ATP). The pattern of which porphyrins are high
gives an indication of likely toxic exposure, with high precoproporphyrin almost
always high with mercury toxicity and often coproporphyrin.
Provocation
challenge tests after use of chemical chelators such as DMPS or DMSA also are
effective at measuring body burden (57, 58), but DMPS can be dangerous to some
people—especially those still having amalgam fillings or those allergic to
sulfur drugs or sulfites. Many studies using chemical chelators such as DMPS or
DMSA have found post chelation levels to be poorly correlated with prechelation
blood or urine levels (57, 115, 303), but one study (340) found a significant
correlation between pre and post chelation values when using DMPS. Challenge tests using DMPS or DMSA
appear to have a better correlation with body burden and toxicity symptoms such
as concentration , memory, and motor deficits (290)—with many studies finding a
significant correlation between post chelation mercury level and the number of
amalgam surfaces (57, 172, 173, 222, 290, 292, 273, 303). Several doctors use 16 ug/L as the upper
bound for mercury after DMPS challenge, and consider anyone with higher levels
to have excess body burden (222, 352).
However, one study (290) found significant effects at lower levels. Some researchers believe DMSA has less
adverse side effects than DMPS and prefer to use DMSA for chelation for this
reason. Some studies have also
found DMSA as more effective at removing mercury from the brain (58). A common protocol for DMSA (developed to
avoid redistribution effects) is 50 mg orally every 4 hours for 3 days and then
off 11 days.
Another
chelator used for clogged arteries, EDTA, forms toxic compounds with mercury and
can damage brain function (307).
Use of EDTA may need to be restricted in those with high Hg levels. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has been found to
be effective at increasing cellular glutathione levels and chelating mercury
(54). Experienced doctors have also
found additional zinc to be useful when chelating mercury (222) as well as
counteracting mercury’s oxidative damage (43). Zinc induces metallothionein which
protects against oxidative damage and increases protective enzyme activities and
glutathione which tend to inhibit lipid peroxidation and suppress mercury
toxicity (430). Also, lipoic acid
has been found to dramatically increase excretion of inorganic mercury (over 12
fold), but to cause decreased excretion of organic mercury (54) and copper. Lipoic acid has a protective effect
regarding lead or inorganic mercury toxicity through its antioxidant properties,
but should not be used with high copper.
Zinc is a mercury and copper antagonist and can be used to lower copper
levels and protect against mercury damage.
2.
Tests suggested by Huggins/Levy (35) for evaluation and treatment of
mercury toxicity:
(a)
hair element test (386) (low hair mercury level does not indicate low body
level) (more than 3 essential minerals out of normal range indicates likely
metals toxicity)
(b)
CBC blood test with differential and platelet count
(c)
blood serum profile
(d)
urinary mercury (for person with average exposure with amalgam fillings, average
mercury level is 3 to 4 ppm; lower test level than this likely means person is
poor excretor and accumulating mercury, often mercury-toxic) (35)
(e)
fractionated porphyrin (note test results sensitive to light, temperature,
shaking)
(f)
individual tooth electric currents (replace high negative current teeth
first)
(g)
patient questionnaire on exposure and symptom history
(h)
specific gravity of urine (test for pituitary function, s.g.>1.022 normal;
s.g.<1.008 consistent with depression and suicidal tendencies
(35)
3.
Note: during initial exposure to mercury, the body marshals immune system
and other measures to try to deal with the challenge, so many test indicators
will be high; after prolonged exposure, the body and immune system inevitably
lose the battle and measures to combat the challenge decrease—so some test
indicator scores decline. Chronic
conditions are common during this phase.
Also, high mercury exposures with low hair mercury or urine mercury level
usually indicates body is retaining mercury and likely toxicity problem
(35). In such cases where calcium>1100 or
< 300 ppm and low test mercury, manganese, zinc, potassium; mercury toxicity
likely and hard to treat since retaining mercury.
Test
results indicating mercury/metals toxicity (35):
(a)
white blood cell count > 7500 or < 4500
(b)
hemocrit > 50% or < 40%
(c)
lymphocyte count > 2800 or < 1800
(d)
blood protein level > 7.5 gm/100 ml
(e)
triglycerides > 150 mg/ml
(f)
BUN > 18 or < 12
(g)
hair mercury > 1.5 ppm or < .4 ppm
(h)
oxyhemoglobin level < 55% saturated
(I)
carboxyhemoglobin > 2.5% saturated
(j)
T lymphocyte count < 2000
(k)
DNA damage/cancer
(l)
TSH > 1 ug
(m)
hair aluminum > 10 ppm
(n)
hair nickel > 1.5 ppm
(o)
hair manganese > 0.3 ppm
(p)
immune reactive to mercury, nickel, aluminum, etc.
(q)
high hemoglobin and hemocrit and high alkaline phosphatase (alk phos) and lactic
dehydrogenase (LDA) during initial phases of exposure; with low/marginal
hemoglobin and hemocrit plus low oxyhemoglobin during long term chronic fatigue
phase.
4.
Huggins Total Dental Revision Protocol (35):
(a)
history questionnaire and panel of tests.
(b)
replace amalgam fillings starting with filling with highest negative current or
highest negative quadrant, with supportive vitamin/mineral
supplements
(c)
extract all root canalled teeth using proper finish protocol
(d)
test and treat cavitations and amalgam tattoos where relevant
(e)
supportive supplementation, periodic monitoring tests, evaluate need for further
treatment (not usually needed)
(f)
avoid acute exposures/challenges to the immune system on a weekly 7/14/21 day
pattern.
Note:
after treatment of many cases of chronic autoimmune conditions such as MS, ALS,
Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, CFS, Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis, etc., it has been
observed that often mercury along with root canal toxicity or cavitation
toxicity are major factors in these conditions, and most with these conditions
improve after TDR if protocol is followed carefully (35). Other measures in addition to TDR that
have been found to help in treatment of MS in clinical experience are avoidance
of milk products, get lots of sunlight, supplementation of calcium AEP (448) and
alpha lipoic acid (448b).
Progesterone creme has been found to promote regrowth of myelin sheaths
in animals (448c).
VIII.
Health Effects from Dental Personnel Exposure to Mercury Vapor
1.
It is well documented that dentists and dental personnel who work with
amalgam are chronically exposed to mercury vapor, which accumulates in their
bodies to much higher levels than for most non-occupationally exposed. Adverse health effects of this exposure
including subtle neurological effects have also been well documented that affect
most dentists and dental assistants, with measurable effects among those in the
lowest levels of exposure. Mercury
levels of dental personnel average at least 2 times that of controls for hair
(397-401), urine (25d, 57, 64, 69, 99, 123, 124, 138, 171, 173, 222, 249, 290,
362, 397-399) and for blood (124, 195, 253, 249, 397). Sweden, which has banned use
of mercury in fillings, is the country with the most exposure and health effects
studies regarding amalgam, and urine levels in dental professionals from Swedish
and European studies ranged from 0.8 to 30.1 ug/L with study averages from 3.7
to 6.2 ug/L (124, 172, 253, 64, 68).
The Swedish safety guideline for mercury in urine is 5.6 nmol Hg/mmol
(11.6 ug/L). Study averages for
other countries ranged from 3.3 to 36 microgram/liter (ug/L) (69, 70, 171, 290,
397). A large survey of dentists at
the Norwegian Dental Assoc. meeting (171) found that the mean mercury level in
1986 was 7.8 ug/L with approx. 16% above 13.6ug/L, and for 1987 found an average
of 8.6 ug/L with approx. 15% above 15.8 ug/L, with women having higher levels
than men in general. A U.S.
national sample of dentists provided by the American Dental Association had an
average of 5.2 ug/L (70, 290). In
that large sample of dentists, 10% of dentists had urine mercury levels over
10.4 ug/L and 1% had levels over 33.4ug/L (290, 25c), indicating daily exposure
levels of over 100 ug/day.
Mercury excretion levels were found to have a positive correlation with
the number of amalgams placed or replaced per week, the number of amalgams
polished each week, and with the number of fillings in the dentist (171, 172,
173). In one study, each filling
was found to increase mercury in the urine approx. 3%, though the relationship
was non-linear and increased more with larger number of fillings (124). Much higher accumulated body burden
levels in dental personnel were found based on challenge tests than for controls
(303), with excretion levels after a dose of a chelator as high as 10 times the
corresponding levels for controls (57, 69, 290, 303). Autopsy studies have found similar high
body accumulation in dental workers, with levels in pituitary gland and thyroid
over 10 times controls and levels in renal cortex 7 times controls (99, 363,
38). Autopsies of former
dental staff found levels of mercury in the pituitary gland averaged as high as
4,040 ppb. They also found much
higher levels in the brain occipital cortex (as high as 300 ppb), renal cortex
(as high as 2,110 ppb) and thyroid (as high as 28,000 ppb). In general, dental assistants and women
dental workers showed higher levels of mercury than male dentists (171, 172,
173, 253, 303, 362).
Mercury levels
in blood of dental professionals ranged from 0.6 to 57 ug/L, with study averages
ranging from 1.34 to 9.8 ug/L (124, 195, 253, 249). A review of several studies of mercury
level in hair or nails of dentists and dental workers found median levels were
50 to 300% more than those of controls (38, p287-288,& 10, 16, 178). A group of dental students taking a
course involving work with amalgam had their urine tested before and after the
course was over. The average urine
level increased by 500% during the course (63). Allergy tests given to another group of
dental students found 44% of them were allergic to mercury (156). Studies have found that the longer
time exposed, the more likely to be allergic. Another group of dental students had
similar results (362), while another group of dental student showed compromised
immune systems compared to medical students. The total lymphocyte count, total T cell
numbers (CD3), T helper/inducer (CD4+CD8-), and T suppressor/cytotoxic
(CD4-CD8+) numbers were significantly elevated in the dental students compared
to the matched control group (408).
Similar results have been seen in other studies as well
(408).
Urinary
porphyrin profiles were found to be an excellent biomarker of level of body
mercury level and mercury damage neurological effects, with coporphyrin
significantly higher in those with higher mercury exposure and urine levels (70, 260). Coporphyrin levels have a higher
correlation with symptoms and body mercury levels as tested by challenge test
(69, 303), but care should be taken regarding challenge tests as the high levels
of mercury released can cause serious health effects in some, especially those
who still have amalgam fillings or high accumulations of mercury. Screening tests that are less burdensome
and less expensive are now available as first morning void urine samples have
been found to be highly correlated to 24 hour urine test for mercury level or
porphyrins (73).
2.
The average dental office exposure affects the body mercury level at
least as much as the workers on fillings (57, 64, 69, 123, 138, 171, 173, 303),
with several studies finding levels approximately the same as having 19 amalgam
fillings (123, 124, 173). Many
surveys have been made of office exposure levels (1, 6, 7, 10, etc.). The level of mercury at breathing point
in offices measured ranged form 0.7 to over 300 micrograms per cubic meter
(ug/m3) (120, 172, 253, 249).
The average levels in offices with reasonable controls ranged from 1.5 to
3.6 ug/m3, but even in Sweden, which has had more
office environmental controls than others, spot levels of over 150
ug/m3 were found in 8 offices (172). Another study found spot readings as
high as 200 ug/m3 in offices with few controls that only used saliva
extractor (120). OSHA surveys find
6-16% of U.S. dental offices exceed the OSHA dental office standard of 50
ug/m3, and residual levels in equipment sterilizers often exceed this
level (454). The U.S. ATSDR mercury
vapor exposure MRL for chronic exposure is much lower, 0.2 ug/m3
(217) (giving approx. 4 ug/day exposure), similar to U.S. EPA and Health Canada
guidelines (2, 209). Thus most
office mercury levels were found to far exceed the U.S. guidelines for chronic
mercury exposure.
Use
of high speed drill in removal or replacement has been found to create high
volume of mercury vapor and respirable particles, and dental masks to only
filter out about 40% of such particles (219, 247). This produces high levels of exposure to
patient and dental staff. Use of
water spray, high velocity evacuation and rubber dam reduce exposure to patient
and dental staff significantly, as seen in previous discussion. In addition to these measures,
researchers also advise all dental staff should wear face masks and patients be
supplied with outside air (120,153).
Some studies note that carpeting in dental offices should be avoided as
it is a major repository of mercury (188, 7). Use of such measures along with a
Clean-UpTM aspirator tip was found to reduce exposure to patient and
staff approximately 90% (397).
3.
Dentists were found to score significantly worse than a comparable
control group on neurobehavioral tests of motor speed, visual scanning, and
visuomotor coordination (69, 70, 123, 249, 290, 395, 1b), concentration, verbal
memory, visual memory (68, 69, 70, 249, 290, 395, 1b), and emotional/mood tests
(70, 249, 290, 395, 1b). Test
performance was found to be proportional to exposure/body levels of mercury (68,
70, 249, 290, 395, 1b). Significant
adverse neurobehavioral effects were found even for dental personnel receiving
low exposure levels (less than 4 ug/L Hg in urine) (290). This study was for dental personnel
having mercury excretion levels below the 10th percentile of the overall dental
population. Such levels are also
common among the general population of non-dental personnel with several
fillings. This study used a new
methodology which used standard urine mercury levels as a measure of recent
exposure, and urine levels after chelation with a chemical, DMPS, to measure
body burden mercury levels. Thirty
percent of dentists with more than average exposure were found to have
neuropathies and visuographic dysfunction (395).
Chelators
like DMPS have been found after a fast to release
mercury from cells in tissue to be available for excretion. This method was found to give enhanced
precision and power to the results of the tests and correlations. Even at the low levels of exposure of
the subjects of this study, there were clear demonstrated differences in test
scores involving memory, mood, and motor skills related to the level of exposure
pre and post chelation (290). Those
with higher levels of mercury had deficits in both memory, mood, and motor
function compared to those with lower exposure levels. And the plotted test results gave no
indication of there existing a threshold below which effects were not
measurable. Mood scores including
anger were found to correlate more strongly with pre-chelation urine mercury
levels; while toxicity symptoms, concentration, memory (vocabulary, word), and
motor function correlated more strongly with post-chelation mercury levels.
Several
dentists have been documented to suffer from mercury poisoning (72, 74, 193,
246, 247, 248, 369), other than the documented neurological effects. One of the common effects of chronic
mercury exposure is chronic fatigue due to immune system overload and
activation. Many studies have found
this occurs frequently in dentists and dental staff along with other related
symptoms—lack of ability to concentrate, chronic muscular pain, burnout, etc.
(249, 369, 377, 378, 1b). In a
group of dentists and dental workers suffering from extreme fatigue and tested
by the immune test MELISA, 50% had autoimmune reactions to inorganic mercury and
immune reactions to other metals used in dentistry were also common (369). Tests of controls did not find such
immune reactions common. In another
study, nearly 50% of dental staff in a group tested had positive autoimmune ANA
titers compared to less than 1% of the general population (35).
One
dentist with severe symptoms similar to ALS improved after treatment for mercury
poisoning (246), and another with Parkinson’s disease recovered after reduction
of exposure and chelation (248).
Similar cases among those with other occupational exposure have been
seen. A survey of over 60,000
U.S. dentists
and dental assistants with chronic exposure to mercury vapor and anesthetics
found increased health problems compared to controls, including significantly
higher liver, kidney, and neurological diseases (99, 193). Other studies reviewed found increased
rates of brain cancer and allergies (99, 193). Swedish male dentists were found to have
an elevated standardized mortality ratio compared to other male academic
groups(284). Dental workers and other workers exposed to mercury vapor were
found to have a shortening of visual evoked potential latency and a decrease in
amplitude, with magnitudes correlated with urine excretion levels (190). Dentists were also found to have a high
incidence of radicular muscular neuralgia and peripheral sensory degradation
(190, 395).
4.
Both dental hygienists and patients get high doses of mercury vapor when
dental hygienists polish or use ultrasonic scalers on amalgam surfaces (240,
400). Pregnant women or pregnant
hygienist especially should avoid these practices during pregnancy or while
nursing since maternal mercury exposure has been shown to affect the fetus and
to be related to birth defects, SIDS, etc. (10, 23, 31c, 37, 38, 110, 142, 146,
401, 19, 31). Amalgam has been
shown to be the main source of mercury in most infants and breast milk, which
often contain higher mercury levels than in the mother’s blood (20, 61, 112,
186, 287). Because of high
documented exposure levels when amalgam fillings are brushed (182, 222, 348), dental hygienist are advised not
to polish dental amalgams when cleaning teeth. Face masks worn by dental workers filter
out only about 40% of small dislodged amalgam particles from drilling or
polishing, and very little mercury vapor (247). Dental staff have been found to have
significantly higher prevalence of eye problems, conjunctivitis, atopic
dermatitis, and contact urticaria (247, 156, 74).
An
epidemiological survey conducted in Lithuania on women working
in dental offices (where Hg concentrations were < 80 ug/m3) had
increased incidence of spontaneous abortions and breast pathologies that were
directly related to the length of time on the job (277a). A large U.S. survey also found higher
spontaneous abortion rate among dental assistants and wives of dentists (193),
and another study found an increased risk of spontaneous abortions and other
pregnancy complications among women working in dental surgeries (277b). A study of dentists and dental
assistants in the Netherlands found 50% higher rates of spontaneous abortions,
stillbirths, and congenital defects than for the control group (394), with
unusually high occurrence of spina bifida.
A
study in Poland
also found a significant positive association between mercury levels and
occurrence of reproductive failures and menstrual cycle disorders, and concluded
dental work to be an occupational hazard with respect to reproductive processes
(401).
5.
Body burden increases with time and older dentists have median mercury
urine levels about 4 times those of controls, as well as higher brain and body
burdens (1, 34, 68-74, 99), and poor performance on memory tests (68, 69, 70,
249, 290). Some older dentists have
mercury levels in some parts of the brain as much as 80 times higher than normal
levels (14, 34, 99). Dentists and
dental personnel experience significantly higher levels of neurological, memory,
musculoskeletal, visiomotor, mood, and behavioral problems, which increase with
years of exposure (1, 34, 68-73, 88, 123, 188, 246, 247, 248, 249, 290, 369,
395). Even dental personnel with
relatively low exposure (urine Hg<4 ug/L) were found to have significant
neurological effects (290) and was found to be correlated with body burden of
mercury. Most studies find dentists
have increased levels of irritability and tension (1), high rates of drug
dependency and disability due to psychological problems (15, 1b), and higher
suicide rates than the general white population (284, 1b), but one study found
rates in same range as doctors.
6.
Female dental technicians who work with amalgam tend to have increased
menstrual disturbances (275, 401, 10, 38), significantly reduced fertility and
lowered probability of conception (10, 24, 38, 121), increased spontaneous
abortions (10, 31, 38, 277, 433), and their children have significantly lower
average IQ compared to the general population (1, 279, 38, 110). Populations with only slightly increased
levels of mercury in hair had decreases in academic ability (3). Effects are directly related to length
of time on the job (277). The level
of mercury excreted in urine is significantly higher for female dental
assistants than dentists due to biological factors (171, 172, 173, 247,
124a). Several dental assistants
have been diagnosed with mercury toxicity and some have died of related health
effects (32, 245, 246, 247, 248). From the medical
register of births since 1967 in Norway, it can be seen that
dental nurses/assistants have a clearly increased risk of having a deformed
child or spontaneous abortion (433).
Female dentists have increased rates of spontaneous abortion and
perinatal mortality (193, 38, 10, 433) compared to controls. A study in Poland found a much higher
incidence of birth defects among female dentists and dental assistants than
normal (10). A chronically ill
dental nurse diagnosed with mercury sensitivity recovered after replacement of
fillings and changing jobs (60), and a female dentist recovered from Parkinson’s
after mercury detox (248). Some
studies have found increased risk of lung, kidney, brain, and CNS system cancers
among dental workers (14, 34, 99, 143, 283).
7. Many homes of dentists have been found
to have high levels of mercury contamination used by dentists bringing mercury
home on shoes and clothes (188).
IX. Scientists and Government Panels or
Bodies That Have Found Amalgam Fillings to be Unsafe.
1.
A World Health Organization Scientific Panel concluded that there is no
safe level of mercury exposure (183, 189, 208). The Chairman of the panel, Lars Friberg,
stated that “dental amalgam is not safe for everyone to use (208, 238). A study of dental personnel having very
low levels of mercury excretion found measurable neurological effects including
memory, mood, and motor function related to mercury exposure level as measured
by excretion levels (290), and found no threshold level below which effects were
not measurable. Other studies have
found measurable effects to the immune, cardiovascular, hormonal, and
reproductive systems from common levels of exposure (Section IV). Studies have found significant
measurable adverse health effects at levels far below current government
regulatory levels for mercury (290).
2.
In 1987 the Federal Dept. of Health in Germany issued an advisory
warning against use of dental amalgam in pregnant women (61). Most major countries other than the U.S.
have similar or more extensive bans or health warnings regarding the use of
amalgam, including Canada, Great
Britain, France, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
(164, 435). A Swedish National
Mercury Amalgam Review Panel and a similar Norwegian panel found that "from a
toxicological point of view, mercury is too toxic to use as a filling material"
(164,435). Both countries have
indicated plans to ban or phase out use of amalgam. A major amalgam manufacturer, Caulk
Inc., advises that amalgam should not be used as a base for crowns or for
retrograde root fillings as is commonly done in some countries (387). A Swedish medical panel unanimously
recommended to the government “discontinuing the use of amalgam as a dental
material” (282). The U.S. EPA found
that removed amalgam fillings are hazardous and must be sealed airtight and
exposed of as hazardous waste (214).
Most European countries require controls on dental waste amalgam
emissions to sewers or air. A
Canadian Government study for Health Canada concluded that any person with any
number of amalgam fillings receives exposure beyond that recommended by the
USPHS Standard (209). Many of those
researching amalgam related health effects, including several very prominent
scientists, have concluded that the health effects are widespread and serious so
that mercury should not be used as a filling material (1, 18, 19, 20, 36, 38,
57, 60, 61, 88, 94, 99, 125, 148, 153, 164, 170, 183, 208, 209, 210, 212, 222,
227, 236, 238, 282).
3.
The Legislature of the State of California passed a law,
Proposition 65, which requires all dentists in the state to discuss the safety
of dental materials with all patients and to post the following warning about
use of amalgam on the wall of their office:
“This office uses amalgam filling materials which contain and expose you
to a chemical known to the State of California to cause birth
defects and other reproductive harm.”
4.
The use of mercury amalgams has been banned for children and women of
child-bearing age or put on a schedule for phase out by several European
countries. The use of amalgam is
declining in Europe and Germany’s largest
producer of amalgam has ceased production.
The director of the U.S. Federal program overseeing dental safety advises
against using mercury amalgam for new fillings.
REFERENCES
(1)
Denton S (MD) & Butler J, Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of North Texas;
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Biocompatibility, Life
Sciences Press, Oct 1990, p133-145.
(2) U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999, "Integrated Risk Information
System, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, Ohio,
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/iris.htm.
(3)
Marlowe M, et al., “Main and
interactive effects of metallic toxins on classroom behavior”, J Abnormal Child
Psychol, 1985, 13(2):185-98; & Moon C, et al., “Main and Interactive Effect of
Metallic Pollutants on Cognitive Functioning”, Journal of Learning Disabilities,
April, 1985; & Pihl RO, et al., “Hair element content in
learning disabled children”, Science, Vol 198, 1977, 204-6; & Gowdy JM, et al., “Whole blood mercury in mental
hospital patients”, Am J Psychiatry, 1978, 135(1):115-7.
(4) Lee
IP, ”Effects of Mercury on
Spermatogenesis”, J Pharmacol Exp Thera 1975, 194(1);171- 181; & H. Ogura, et al., “A comparison of chromosome
aberrations and micronucleus techniques for the assessment of the genotoxicity
of mercury compounds in human blood lymphocytes”, Mutat Res, 1996
Jun;340(2‑3):175‑82.
(5) D.
Klinghardt (MD), “Migraines, Seizures, and Mercury Toxicity”, Future Medicine
Publishing, 1997.
(6) T.M.
Schulein, et al., ”Survey of Des
Moines area dental offices for mercury vapour”, Iowa Dent. J., 70(1):35‑36,
1984; & D.W. Jones, et al.,
“Survey of mercury vapour in dental
offices in Atlantic Canada”, Can. Dent. Assoc. J., 4906:378‑395, 1983; & R.W. Miller,
et al., ”Report on independent survey
taken of Austin
dental offices for mercury contamination”, Texas Dent. J., 100(1):6‑9, 1983;
& A. Skuba, “Survey for mercury vapour in Manitoba dental offices”, J. Can.Dent. Assoc., 50(7):517‑522,
1984; & R.H. Roydhouse, et al.,
”Mercury in dental offices”, J Can Dent
Assoc, 51(2):156‑158, 1985; & R.T. McNerney, et al., "Mercury Contamination in the
Dental Office: A Review", NYS
Dental Journal, Nov 1979, p457-458.
(7) L.
Kantor, et al., “Mercury vapour in
the dental office‑does carpeting
make a difference?”, JADA , 103(9):402‑407, 1981; & G.F.Chop, et al., “Mercury vapour related to manipulation of amalgam and to floor
surfaces”, Oper. Dent., 8(1):23‑27, 1983; & G.C. Battistone, et al., “Mercury as occupational hazard
in dentistry”, Clinical Chemistry and Chemical Toxicity of Metals, 1977,
219:205-8.
(8)
Redhe, O., Sick From Amalgam R-Dental Ab, Frejavagen 33, S-79133
Falun, Sweden(100 cases). Olle Redhe; [olle.redhe@telia.com]
(9) Dr.
I. Gerhard, Dr. E. Roller, et al.,
Tubingen Univ. Gynecological Clinic, Heidelberg, 1996; & “Heavy Metals and Fertility”, J of
Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 54(8):593-611, 1998; & “Impact
of heavy metals on hormonal and immunological factors in women with repeated
miscarriages”, & I. Gerhard,
“Ganzheitiche Diagnostik un Therapie bie Infertilitat”, Erfahrungsheilkunde,
1993, 42(3):100-106; & “Unfruchtbarkeit bei Frauen durch Umweltgifte” in
Pravention, Diagnose und Therapie von Umwelterkrankungen, JD Kruse-Jarres (Ed.),
1993, p51-68; & Gerhard I, Waldbrenner P, Thuro H, Runnebaum B, [Diagnosis
of heavy metal loading by the oral DMPS and chewing gum tests], Klinisches
Labor, 38:404-411 (1992).
(10) Editorial, J California
Dental Assoc., 1984, 12:37.; & Proceedings of Intl Conference on Mercury
Hazards in Dental Practice, Sept 2‑4,1981, Glasgow Scot, Dept. of Clinical
Physics and Bio-Engineering, (Gordon - Pregnancy in Female Dentists‑ a Mercury
Hazard) & (several survey studies comparing level of mercury in hair of
dental staff vs. controls); & Gordon HP, Cordon LD, “Reduction in mercury
vapour levels in Seattle dental offices”,
J Dent Res Abstract, 1092, 57A:347, 1981.
(11) Lamm O, et al., “Subclinical effects of exposure
to inorganic mercury revealed by somatosensory‑evoked potentials”, Eur Neurol,
24:237-243; & (b) Altmann L, Sveinsson K, “Visual evoked potentials in 6
year old children in relation to mercury and lead levels”, Neurotoxicol Teratol, 1998, 20(1):9-17;
& (c) Chang YC, Yeh CY, Wang JD, “Subclinical neurotoxicity of mercury vapor
revealed by a multimodality potential study of chloralkali workers”, Immunol,
1999, 117(3):482-8.
(12) Dimaval Scientific monograph, sixth Ed., Jan
1997, Dr Johann Ruprecht, Heyl Corporation.
(13) S. Hussain, et al., “Mercuric chloride‑induced
reactive oxygen species and its effect on antioxidant enzymes in different
regions of rat brain”, J Environ Sci Health, B 1997 May;32(3):395‑409; & S.
Tan, et al., “Oxidative stress
induces programmed cell death in neuronal cells”, J Neurochem, 1998,
71(1):95-105; & J.S. Bains, et al., “Neurodegenerative disorders in
humans and role of glutathione in oxidative stress mediated neuronal death”,
Brain Res Rev, 199, 25(3):335-58; & P. Bulat, “Activity of Gpx and SOD in
workers occupationally exposed to mercury”, Arch Occup Environ Health, 1998, Sept,
71 Suppl:S37-9; & Stohs SJ, Bagchi D, “Oxidative mechanisms in the toxicity
of metal ions”, Free Radic Biol Med, 1995, 18(2): 321-36.
(14)
(a) Magnus Nylander,
“Mercury concentrations in the human brain and kidneys in relation to exposure
from dental amalgam fillings”, Proceedings, ICBM 1988; & M. Nylander, et al., "Mercury concentrations in the
human brain and kidneys and exposure from amalgam fillings", Swed Dent J, 1987,
11:179-187; & Prosth Dent, 1987, 58:704-707; & (b) Schupp, Riedel, et al., “Amalgamfullungen auf die
Quecksilberkonzentration in menschlichen”, Organen.Dt Zahnarztl.Z., 1992,
47:490-496.; & (c) Barregard L, Svalander C, Schutz A, Westberg G, Sallsten
G, Blohm, Molne J, Attman PO, Haglind P, "Cadmium, mercury, and lead in kidney
cortex of the general Swedish population: A study of biopsies from living kidney
donors", Environ Health Perspect, 1999 Nov;107(11):867-871.
(15)
Svare CW, et al., Univ. of Iowa, “The effects
of dental amalgam on mercury levels in expired air”, J. Dent. Res., 1981,
60(9):1668‑1671; & Patterson JE, "Mercury in human breath from dental
amalgams", Bull Env Contam Toxicol, 34 1985 459.
(16)
K. Ott, et al., “Mercury burden due to amalgam
fillings”, Dtsch. Zahnarztl. Z.,
39(9):199‑205, 1984; & Lichtenberg H, "Mercury vapour in the oral
cavity in relation to number of amalgam surfaces and the classic symptoms of
chronic mercury poisoning",
J Orthomol Med, (1996), v11, n.2, 87-94.
(17) J. Abraham,
C.Svare, et al., “The effects of
dental amalgam restorations on blood mercury levels”, J. Dent.Res., 1984,
63(1):71‑73; & Snapp KR, Boyer DB, Peterson LC, Svare CW, "The contribution
of dental amalgam to mercury in blood", J Dent Res, 1989,
May;68(5):780-5
(18) M.J. Vimy, F.L. Lorscheider, ”Intra oral
mercury released from dental amalgams and estimation of daily dose”, J. Dent
Res., 1985, 64(8):1069‑1075; & Res, 1985,
64(8):1072-5.
(19)
Matts Hanson, Dept
of Zoophysiology, University of
Lund, Sweden, “Amalgam hazards in your teeth”, J. Orthomolecular Psychiatry, 1983,
2(3): 194-201; & F.L. Lorscheider, et
al., “Evaluation of the safety issue of mercury release from amalgam
fillings”, 1993, FASEB J, 7:1432-33.
(20)
M.J. Vimy,
Takahashi Y, Lorscheider FL, Maternal‑Fetal Distribution of Mercury Released
From Dental Amalgam Fillings, Dept of Medicine and Medical Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Univ of
Calgary, Calgary Alberta Canada, 1990;
& Amer. J. Physiol., 1990,
258:R939-945; & N.D. Boyd, J. Vimy, et al., ” Mercury from dental silver
tooth fillings impairs sheep kidney function”, Am. J. Physiol, 261 (Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol. 30):R1010‑R1014, 1991; &
L.Hahn, et al., Distribution of
mercury released from amalgam
fillings into monkey tissues”, FASEB J., 1990, 4:5536.
(21)
R.A. Goyer,
”Toxic effects of metals” in: Cassarett and Doull’s Toxicology - The Basic
Science of Poisons, McGraw-Hill Inc., N.Y., 1993.
(22)
P.Kuhnert, et al., “Comparison of mercury levels in
maternal blood fetal cord blood and placental tissue”, Am. J. Obstet. and
Gynecol., 139:209‑212, 1981; & Vahter M, Akesson A, Lind B, Bjors U, Schutz
A, Berglund M, "Longitudinal study of methylmercury and inorganic mercury in
blood and urine of pregnant and lactating women, as well as in umbilical cord
blood", Environ Res, 2000, Oct;84(2):186-94.
(23) W.D. Kuntz, “Maternal and chord blood mercury
background levels; Longitudinal surveillance”, Am J Obstet and Gynecol,
143(4):440‑443, 1982.
(24)
J.B. Brodsky,
“Occupational exposure to mercury in dentistry and pregnancy outcome”, JADA
111(11):779‑780, 1985.
(25)
C. Malmström, M.
Hansson, M. Nylander, Conference on Trace Elements in Health and Disease,
Stockholm May 25‑1992; & C. Malmstrom, et al., “Silver amalgam: an unstable
material”, Swedish paper translated in Bio-Probe Newsletter, Vol 9(1):5-6, Jan.
1993; & C. Malmström,
“Amalgam derived mercury in feces”, Journal of Trace Elements in Experimental
Medicine, 5, (Abs 122), 1992; Nylander, et al., Fourth International Symposium
Epidemiology in Occupational Health, Como Italy, Sept 1985.
(26) A.F. Zamm, “Removal of dental mercury: often an
effective treatment for very sensitive patients”, J Orthomolecular Med, 1990,
5(53):138-142 (22 patients).
(27)
Matts Hanson,”
Why is mercury toxic?: Basic chemical and biochemical properties of
mercury/amalgam in relation to biological effects”, ICBM conference Colorado
Springs, Co,1988, Proceedings; & Hartman DE, “Missed diagnoses and
misdiagnoses of environmental toxicant exposure”, MCS, Psychiatr Clin North Am,
1998, 21(3):659-70; & Merritt’s Textbook of
Neurology, 9th Ed., Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, 1995, p668-; &
Clinical Management of Poisoning, 3rd Ed. (p753), Haddad, Shannon, and
Winchester, W.B. Saunders and Company, Philadelphia, 1998; & U.S. EPA,
Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Mercury Health Effects, Update
Health Issue Assessment, Final Report, 1984, EOA-600/8-84f.
(28) F. Schmidt, et al., “Mercury in urine of employees
exposed to magnetic fields”, Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen, 1997, 117(2):199-202; &
Sheppard AR and Eisenbud M, Biological effects of electric and
magnetic fields of extremely low frequency, New York University Press, 1977;
& Ortendahl TW, Hogstedt P, Holland RP, "Mercury vapor release from dental
amalgam in vitro caused by magnetic fields generated by CRT's", Swed Dent J,
1991, p 31 Abstract 22.
(29) Mareck and Hockman,
“Simulated crevice corrosion experiment for pH and solution chemistry
determinations”, Corrosion, 1974, 23:1000‑1006.
(30)
T.Till, et al., "Mercury release from amalgam
fillings and oral dysbacteriosis as a cause of resorption phenomena", Zahnarztl
Welt/Reform (ZWR), 1978, 87:1130‑1134; & S. Olsson, et al., “Release of elements due to
electrochemical corrosion of dental amalgam”, J of Dental Research, 1994, 73:33-43;
& T. Fusayama, et al., J Dental
Res, 1963, 42:1183-1197; & H.
Freden, et al., “Mercury in gingival
tissues adjacent to amalgam fillings”,
Odontal Revy, 1974, 25(2):207-210; & H. Reden, Odontal Revy, 25,1971,
207-210.
(31) Langan, Fan, Hoos, “The
use of Mercury in dentistry: a critical review of the literature”, JADA, Vol 115 December
1987, 867 Donated by The ADA; & Health damage due to exposure to mercury
vapour (Mercury) Szkody zdrowotne wywolane narazeniem na pary rteci (Mercury).
Moszczynski‑P Jr; Moszczynski‑P Czas‑Stomatol. 1989 Apr; 42(4): 233‑81989, POLISH; & I
Mandel, Assoc Dean for Research, School of Dental and Oral Surgery, Columbia
Univ., N.Y., JADA, Vol 122, Aug 1991.
(32) T.A. Cook, et al., “Fatal mercury intoxication in a
dental surgery assistant”, British
Dent Journal, 1969, 127:533-555.
(33) S.C. Langley-Evans, et al., “SO2: a potent glutathione
depleting agent”, Comp Biochem Physiol Pharmocol Toxicol Endocrinol,
114(2):89-98; & (b) P.E. Emory, et
al., “Increased prevalence of poor sulphoxidation in patients with
rheumatoid arthritis”, Ann Rheum Dis, 1992, 51(3):318-20; & (c) Markovich, et al., "Heavy metals (Hg, Cd) inhibit
the activity of the liver and kidney sulfate transporter Sat‑1", Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 1999, 154(2):181‑7;
& (d) S.A. McFadden, “Xenobiotic metabolism and adverse environmental
response: sulfur-dependent detox pathways”, Toxicology, 1996, 111(1-3):43-65;
& (e) Alberti A, Pirrone P, Elia M, Waring RH, Romano C, “Sulphation deficit in ‘low-functioning’
autistic children”, Biol Psychiatry, 1999, 46(3):420-4.
(34) Patrick Störtebecker,
Associate Professor of Neurology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Mercury
Poisoning from Dental Amalgam—A Hazard to the Human
Brain,
ISBN: 0-941011001-1, & Dental Caries as a Cause of Nervous Disorders,
Bioprobe, Inc., http://www.bioprobe.com; & Neurology for Barefoot
Doctors, Störtebecker Foundation for Research, 1988; & J Canadian Dental
Assoc, 33(6):300-.
(35) Huggins HA, Levy TE,
Uniformed Consent: the hidden dangers in dental care, 1999, Hampton Roads
Publishing Company Inc; & Hal Huggins, Its All in Your Head, 1997;
& Center for Progressive Medicine, 1999, http://www.hugnet.com.
(36) Sam Queen; Chronic
Mercury Toxicity—New Hope Against an Endemic
Disease,
http://www.bioprobe.com; & F.L. Lorscheider, et al., "Mercury exposure from silver
tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions a paradigm", FASEB J, 9:504-508,
1995.
(37) A. Anttila, et al., Finnish Inst. of Occupational
Health, “Effects of paternal occupation exposure to lead or mercury on
spontaneous abortion”, J of Occup & Environ Med, 1995, 37(8):915-21; &
Cordier S, Deplan F, Mandereau L, Hemon D, “Paternal exposure to mercury and
spontaneous abortions”, Br J Ind
Med, 1991 Jun, 48(6):375‑81; & Savitz DA, Sonnenfeld NL, Olshan AF, “Review
of epidemiologic studies of paternal occupational exposure and spontaneous
abortion”, Am J Ind Med, 1994 Mar,
25(3):361‑83; & Mohamed, et al.,
“Laser light scattering study of the toxic effects of methylmercury on sperm
motility”, J Androl, 7(1):11‑15, 1986.
(38) S. Ziff and M. Ziff,
Infertility and Birth Defects: Is Mercury from Dental Fillings a Hidden
Cause?, Bio-Probe, Inc., ISBN: 0-941011-03-8.1987.
(39) M. Inouye, et al., “Behavorial and
neuropathological effects of prenatal methyl mercury exposure in mice”,
Neurobehav. Toxicol. Teratol.,
1985,7:227‑232; & P. Grandjean, et al., “MeHg and neurotoxicity in
children”, Am J Epidemiol, 1999,
150(3):301-5; & Z. Annau, et al.,
Johns Hopkins Univ., School of Public Health, “Mechanisms of neurotoxicity and
their relationships to behavioral changes”, Toxicology, 1988, 49(2):219-25;
& S.D. Vanay, et al., “CNS
arylsulfatases inhibited by methyl mercury”, Pharmacol Toxicol, 1991,
69(1):71-4.
(40) F. Perger, Amalgamtherape, in Kompendiu der
Regulationspathologie und Therapie, Sonntag-Verlag, 1990; & “Belastungen
durch toxische Schwermetalle”, 1993, 87(2):157-63; & K.H. Friese,
”Homoopathische Behandlung der Amalgamvergiftung”, Allg. Homoopathische Z, 241(5):184-187, &
Erfahrungsheikunde, 1996, (4):251-253; & “Amalgamvergiftung_moglicher”, Der
Naturazt, 1995, 135(8):13-15; & “Schnupfen-Was tun?”, Therapeutikon, 1994,
8(3):62-68; & Homoopathische Behandlung de Amalgamvergiftung & “Polemik
und Wirklichkeit”, Allgemeine Homoopathische zeitschrift, 1994, 239(6): 225-233
; & “Amalgamtherapie fur Arzte und Zahnarzte”, Panta 3, 1992, Haug-Verlag.;
& Natura Med, 1992, 7(4):295-306; & M. Strassburg, et al., “Generalized allergic reaction
from silver amalgam fillings”, Dtsche Zahnarztliche Zeit, 22:3-9, 1967 (total:
over 1200 cases).
(41) Khera, et al., Teratogenic and genetic effects
of mercury toxicity. The biochemistry of mercury in the environment, Nriagu,
J.O. Ed, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 503‑18,1979; & Teratology, 8:293-304.
(42) Babich, et al., ”The mediation of mutagenicity
and clastogenicity of heavy metals by physiochemical factors”, Environ Res,
1985, 37:253‑286; & K. Hansen, et
al., “A survey of metal induced mutagenicity in vitro and in vivo”, J Amer
Coll Toxicol, 1984, 3:381‑430.
(43) Knapp LT, Klann E,
“Superoxide‑induced stimulation of protein kinase C via thiol modification and modulation of
zinc content”, J Biol Chem, 2000 May 22; & B. Rajanna, et al., “Modulation of protein kinase C
by heavy metals”, Toxicol Lett, 1995, 81(2-3):197-203; & A. Badou, et al., “HgCl2-induced IL-4 gene
expression in T cells involves a protein kinase C-dependent calcium influx
through L-type calcium channels”, & D.B. Veprintsev, 1996, Institute for
Biological Instrumentation, Russian Academy of Sciences, “Pb2+ and Hg2+ binding
to alpha‑lactalbumin”, Biochem Mol Biol Int, 1996 Aug, 39(6):255‑65.
(44) L. Verchaeve, et al., Comparative in vitro cytogenetic
studies in mercury exposed human lymphocytes”, Mutation Res., 1985, 157:221‑226; & G.A.
Caron, et al., “Lymphocyte
transformation induced ...”, Int Arch Allergy, 37:76-87, 1970.
(45) L. Pelletier, et al.., ”In vivo self reactivity of
mononuclear cells to T cells and macrophages exposed to Hg Cl2", Eur. J Immun.,
1985, 460‑465; & Pelletier, et
al., “Autoreactive T cells in mercury induced autoimmune disease”, J
Immunol,1986, 137(8):2548-54; & Scand J Immunology, 1990, 31:65-74;&
M. Kubicka, et al., “Autoimmune
disease induced by mercuric chloride”, Int Arch Allergy Immunol, Jan 1996,
109(1):11-20.
(46) Veron, et al., “Amalgam dentaires et
allergies”, J Biol Buccale., 1986, 14:83‑100 (41 cases); & D.E.
Swartzendruber, Med Hypotheses, 1993, vol. 41, no. 1, p31-34.
(47) A. Buchner, et al., “Amalgam tattoo of the oral
mucosa: a clinicopatholigic study of 268 cases”, Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol,
1980, 49(2):139-47; & M. Forsell, et
al., “Mercury content in amalgam tattoos of human oral mucosa and its
relation to local tissue reactions”,
Eur J Oral Sci, 1998, 106(1):582-7; & J.D. Harrison, et al., “Amalgam tattoos: light and
microscopy and electron-probe micro-analysis”; & T. Kanzaki, et al., Electron microscopic X-ray
microanalysis of metals deposited in oral mucosa”, J Dermatol, 1992, 19(8):487-92; & K. Nilner, et al., “In vitro testing of dental
materials by means of macrophage cultures”, J Biomed Mater Res, 1986,
20(8):1125-38.
(48) K. Arvidson, ”Corrosion
studies of dental gold alloy in contact with amalgam”, Swed Dent J, 68:135-139, 1984; &
Skinner EW, The Science of Dental Materials, 4th Ed. revised, W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia,
p284-285, 1957.
(49) A. Kingman, et al., National Institute of Dental
Research, “Mercury concentrations in urine and blood associated with amalgam
exposure in the U.S. military population”,
Dent Res, 1998, 77(3):461-71.
(50) J. Kawada, et al., “Effects of inorganic and methyl
mercury on thyroidal function”, J Pharmacobiodyn, 1980, 3(3):149-59; & Ghosh
N, “Thyrotoxicity of cadmium and mercury”, Biomed Environ Sci, 1992,
5(3):236-40.
(51) Heintze, et al., “Methylation of mercury from
dental amalgam and mercuric chloride by oral
Streptococci”, Scan. J. Dent. Res., 1983, 91:150‑152; & Rowland, Grasso, Davies, “The
methylation of mercuric chloride by human intestinal bacteria”,
Experientia, Basel 1975,
31:1064‑1065; & M.K. Hamdy, et
al., “Formation of methyl mercury by bacteria”, App Microbiol, 1975, Sept.;
& W. Forth, “Toxikologie von Quecksilberverbindungen”, in Quecksilber in
der Umwelt-Hearing zur Amalgamprolematik, Niedersachsisches
Umweltministerium, 1991.
(52) “Bacterial growth on
dental restorative materials in mucosal contact”, Orstavic, Arneberg,
Valderhaug, Acta Odontol. Scand.,1981, 39:267‑274.
(53) C. Thornsberry, MRL
Services, Franklin, Tenn, Proceedings of Infectious Diseases Soc. of America,
San Francisco, Ca.; & USA Today, April, 1997; & Science News, Vol 155,
June 5, 1999, p356.
(54) M.E. Lund, et al., “Treatment of acute MeHg
poisoning by NAC”, J Toxicol Clin Toxicol, 1984, 22(1):31-49; & Livardjani
F, Ledig M, Kopp P, Dahlet M, Leroy M, Jaeger A, “Lung and blood superoxide
dismutase activity in mercury vapor exposed rats: effect of N‑acetylcysteine treatment”, Toxicology,
1991 Mar 11, 66(3):289‑95; & G. Ferrari, et al., Dept. of Pathology, Columbia
Univ., J Neurosci, 1995, 15(4):2857-66; & R.R. Ratan, et al., Dept. of Neurology, Johns
Hopkins Univ., J Neurosci, 1994, 14(7):4385-92; & Z. Gregus, et al., “Effect of lipoic acid on
biliary excretion of glutathione and metals”, Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 1992,
114(1):88-96; & J.F. Balch, et
al., Prescription for Nutritional Healing, 2nd Ed., 1997.
(55)
Dickman MD, Leung
KM, “Hong Kong
subfertility links to mercury in human hair and fish”, Sci Total Environ, 1998,
214:165- 74; & “Mercury
and organochlorine exposure from fish consumption in Hong Kong”, Chemosphere,
1998 Aug, 37(5):991‑1015.
(56) X.M. Shen, et al., “Neurobehavioral effects of NAC
conjugates of dopamine: possible relevance for Parkinson’s Disease”, Chem Res Toxicol, 1996, 9(7):1117-26;
& Chem Res Toxicol, 1998, 11(7):824-37; & A. Nicole, et al., “Direct evidence for glutathione
as mediator of apoptosis in neuronal cells”, Biomed Pharmacother, 1998,
52(9):349-55; & J.P. Spencer, et
al., “Cysteine and GSH in PD; mechanisms involving ROS”, J Neurochem, 1998,
71(5):2112-22; & P. Jenner, “Oxidative mechanisms in PD”, Mov Disord, 1998,
13(Supp1):24-34; & D. Offen, et
al., “Use of thiols in treatment of PD”, Exp Neurol, 1996,141(1):32-9; &
A.D. Owen, et al., Ann NY Acad Sci,
1996, 786:217-33; & J.J.
Heales, et al., Neurochem Res,
1996, 21(1):35-39.
(57) N. Campbell, M.Godfrey,
“Confirmation of mercury retention and toxicity using DMPS provocation”, J of
Advancement in Medicine, 7(1), 1994, (80 cases); & (b) D. Zander, et al., “Mercury mobilization by DMPS in
subjects with and without amalgams”, Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed, 1992,
192(5):447-54(12 cases).
(58)
Kostial K, et al., “Decreased Hg retention with
DMSA”, J Appl Toxicol, 1993,
13(5):321-5; & Kostyniak PJ, Soiefer AL, J Appl Toxicol, 1984, 4(4):206-10;
& Butterworth RF, et al., Can J
Neurol Sci, 1978, 5(4):397-400.
(59) A. Frustaci, et al., “Marked elevation of myocardial
trace elements in Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy”, J of American College of
Cardiology, 1999, 33(6):1578-83; & Husten L., “Trace elements linked to
cardiomyopathy”, Lancet, 1999, 353(9164):1594; & D.V. Vassalo, “Effects of
mercury on the isolated heart muscle are prevented by DTT and cysteine”, Toxicol
Appl Pharmacol, 1999 Apr 15, 156(2):113‑8; & N.G. Ilblack, et al., “New aspects of murine coxsackie
B3 mycocarditis: focus on heavy metals”, European Heart J, 1995, 16:supp
O:20-4.
(60) V.D.M. Stejskal, Dept.
of Clinical Chemistry, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, “Lymphocyte immuno‑stimulation
assay—MELISA”, & VDM Stejskal, et al., "MELISA: tool for the study of
metal allergy", Toxicology in Vitro, 8(5):991-1000, 1994.
(61) E. Lutz, et al., “Concentrations of mercury in
brain and kidney of fetuses and infants”, Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine
and Biology, 1996, 10:61-67; & G.Drasch, et al., “Mercury burden of human fetal
and infant tissues”, Eur J Pediatr, 153:607-610, 1994.
(62) W. Kostler, President of the
Austrian Oncology Society, Paper presented at the World Congress on Cancer,
April 1994, Sydney, Australia.
(63) K. Peiper, et al., “Study of mercury uptake in
dental students”, Dtsch Zahnarzt Z, 1989, 44(9):714-.
(64) Steinberg D, Grauer F,
Niv Y, Perlyte M, Kopolivic K, Dept. of Oral Biology, Hebrew Univ. “Mercury
among dental personnel in Israel”, Med Sci, 1995, 31(7):428-32.
(65) Y.K. Fung, et al., “In vivo mercury and methyl
mercury levels in patients at different intervals after amalgam restorations”,
Carlson‑MP College of Dentistry,
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Lincoln, Northwest‑Dent, 1991 May‑Jun,
70(3):23‑6.
(66) C.M Thompson, W.R.
Markesbery, et al., Univ. of Kentucky
Dept. of Chemistry, “Regional brain trace‑element studies in Alzheimer's
disease”, Neurotoxicology, 1988 (Spring),
9(1):1‑7; & Hock, et al.,
“Increased blood mercury levels in
Alzheimer’s patients”, Neural.
Transm., 1998, 105:59-68; & Cornett, et al., “Imbalances of trace elements
related to oxidative damage in Alzheimer’s diseased brain”, Neurotoxicolgy,
1998, 19:339-345.
(67) Vance DE, Ehmann WD,
Markesbery WR, “A search for longitudinal variations in trace element levels in
nails of Alzheimer's disease patients”, Biol Trace Elem Res, 1990 Jul‑Dec,
26‑27:461‑70; & Ehmann, et al.,
1986, Neurotoxicology, 7:195-206; & Thompson, et al., Neurotoxicology, 1988,
9:1-7.
(68) K.A. Ritchie, et al., Univ. of Glasgow,
"Psychomotor testing of dentists with chronic low level mercury exposure", J Dent Res, 74:420, IADR Abstract 160
(1995); & Occup Environ Med, 1995, 52(12):813-7.
(69) D.
Gonzalez-Ramirez, et al., "Urinary
mercury, porphyrins, and neurobehavioral changes of dental workers in
Monterrey,
Mexico”, J Pharmocology and Experimental Therapeutics, 272(1):264-274,
1995.
(70) D. Echeverria, et al., Batelle Center for Public Health
Reseach, Seattle, "Behavioral effects of low level exposure to Hg vapor among
dentists", Neurotoxicology & Teratology, 17(2):161-168, 1995.
(71) S.C. Foo, et al., "Neurobehavioral effects in
occupational chemical exposure",
Environmental Research, 60(2):267-273, 1993; & D.G. Mantyla, et al., "Mercury toxicity in the dental
office: a neglected problem", JADA,
92:1189-1194, 1976.
(72) D.L. Smith,
"Mental effects of mercury poisoning", South Med J, 71:904-5, 1978.
(73) M.E. Cianciola,
et al., “Epidemiologic assessment of
measures used to indicate exposure to mercury vapor”, Toxicol Eniviron Health,
1997, 52(1):19-33.
(74) A.C. Bittner, et al., “Behavior effects of low level
mercury exposure among dental professionals”, Neurotoxicology & Teratology,
1998, 20(4):429-39.
(75) Katsunuma, et al., “Anaphylaxis improvement after
removal of amalgam fillings”, Annals of Allergy, 1990, 64(5):472-75; &
Yoshida S, Mikami H, Nakagawa H, Amayasu H, “Amalgam allergy associated with
exacerbation of aspirin-intolerant asthma”, Clin Exp Allergy, 1999,
29(10):1412-4; & M. Drouet, et
al., “Is mercury a respiratory tract allergen?”, Allerg Immunol(Paris), 1990,
22(3):81.
(76) A. Schulte, et al., "Mercury concentrations in
children with and without amalgam restorations", J Dent Res, 73(4):980 A-334;
& Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed, 1994, 104(11):1336-40.
(77) I. Skare, "Mass
balance and systemic uptake of mercury released from dental fillings", Water,
Air, and Soil Pollution, 80(1-4):59-67, 1995.
(78) G. Drasch, et al., "Silver concentrations in human
tissues: the dependence on dental amalgam", J Trace Elements in Medicine and
Biology, 9(2):82-7, 1995; & L.J. Calsakis, et al., "Allergy to silver amalgams",
Oral Surg, 46:371-5, 1978.
(79) L. Bjorkman, et al., "Mercury in saliva and feces
after removal of amalgam fillings", Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 1997,
144(1):156-62; & (b) J Dent Res, 75:38-, IADR Abstract 165,
1996.
(80) M. Osterblad, et al., "Antimicrobial and mercury
resistance among persons with and without amalgam fillings", Antimicrobial
Agents and Chem, 39(11):2499, 1995.
(81) L.I. Liang, et al., "Mercury reactions in the human
mouth with dental amalgams", Water, Air, and Soil Pollution,
80:103-107.
(82) J. Begerow, et al., "Long-term mercury excretion in
urine after removal of amalgam fillings", Int Arch Occup Health, 66:209-212,
1994.
(83) I. Skare, et al., Swedish National Board of
Occupational Safety and Health, "Human exposure to Hg and Ag released from
dental amalgam restorations", Archives of
Environmental Health, 1994, 49(5):384-394.
(84) J.C. Veltman, et al., “Alterations of heme, cytochrome
P-450, and steroid metabolism by mercury in rat adrenal gland”, Arch Biochem Biophys, 1986,
248(2):467-78; & A.G. Riedl et
al., Neurodegenerative Disease Research Center, King’s College,UK, “P450 and
hemeoxygenase enzymes in the basal ganglia and their role’s in Parkinson’s
disease”, Adv Neurol, 1999, 80:271-86; & Alfred V. Zamm, “Dental mercury: a
factor that aggravates and induces xenobiotic intolerance”, J. Orthmol. Med., vol. 6, no. 2, p67-77,
1991.
(85) J.A. Weiner, et al., “The relationship between
mercury concentration in human organs and predictor variables", Sci Tot Environ,
138(1-3):101-115,1993; & "An estimation of the uptake of mercury from
amalgam fillings in Swedish subjects", Science of the Total Environment,
v168,n3, p255-265, 1995.
(86) E.R. Smart, et al., "Resolution of lichen planus
following removal of amalgam
restorations", Br Dent J, 178(3):108-112, 1995 (12 cases); & H.
Markow, ”Regression from orticaria following dental filling removal”, New York
State J Med, 1943, 1648-1652; & G. Sasaki, et al., “Three cases of oral lichenosis
caused by metallic fillings”, J Dermatol, 23 Dec, 1996, 12:890-892; & J.
Bratel, et al., “Effect of
replacement of dental amalgam on OLR”, Journal of Dentistry, 1996, 24(1-2):41-45
(161 cases).
(87) A. Skoglund,
Scand J Dent Res, 102(4):216-222, 1994; and 99(4):320-9, 1991 (40 cases); &
P.O. Ostman, et al., “Clinical and
histologic changes after removal of amalgms”, Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, and
Endodontics, 1996, 81(4):459-465; & S.H.bIbbotson, et al., “The relevance of amalgam
replacement on oral lichenoid reactions”, British Journal of Dermatology,
134(3):420-3, 1996 (270 cases).
(88) M.E. Godfrey,
”Chronic ailments related to amalgams”, J Adv Med,1990, 3:247.
(89) Berglund A, Molin
M, "Mercury levels in plasma and urine after removal of all amalgam
restorations: the effect of using rubber dams", Dent Mater, 1997 Sep,
13(5):297-304; & M. Molin, et
al., "Kinetics of mercury in blood and urine after amalgam removal", J Dent
Res, 74:420, IADR Abstract 159, 1995; & (b) M. Molin, et al., “Mercury, selenium, and GPX
before and after amalgam removal”,
Acta Odontol Scand, 1990, 48:189-202.
(90) P. Koch, et al., “Oral lesions and symptoms
related to metals”, Dermatol, 1999, 41(3):422-430; & "Oral lichenoid
lesions, mercury hypersensitity, ...", Contact Dermatitis, 1995, 33(5): 323-328;
& S. Freeman, et al., “Oral
lichenoid lesions caused by allergy to mercury in amalgam”, Contact Dermatitis,
33(6):423-7, Dec 1995 (Denmark); & H. Mobacken, et al., Contact Dermatitis, 10:11-15,
1984; & M. Jolly, et al.,
“Amalgam related chronic ulceration of oral mucosa”, Br Dent J,
1986,160:434-437; & C. Camisa, et
al., “Contact hypersensitivity to mercury”, Cutis, 1999,
63(3):189-.
(91) B. Lindqvist, et al., "Effects of removing amalgam
fillings from patients with diseases affecting the immune system", Med Sci Res,
24(5):355-356, 1996.
(92) L. Tandon, et al., "Elemental imbalance studies by
INAA on ALS patients", J Radioanal Nuclear Chem, 195(1):13-19, 1995; & Y.
Mano, et al., “Mercury in the hair of
ALS patients”, Rinsho Shinkeigaku, 1989, 29(7):844-848; & Mano, et al., Rinsho Shinkeigaku, 1990,
30:1275-1277; & Khare, et al.,
“Trace element imbalances in ALS”,
Neurotoxicology, 1990, 11:521-532.
(93) L. Barregard, et al., "People with high mercury uptake
from their own dental amalgam fillings",
Occup Envir Med, 52:124-128, 1995; & S.Langworth, et al., “A case of high mercury exposure
from dental amalgam”, European J Oral Sci, 1996, 104(3):320-321; & R.
Stromberg, et al., "A case of
unusually high mercury exposure from amalgam fillings", Tandlakartidningen,
88(10): 570-572, 1996; & McCann, et
al., “Intravenous gamma globulin (IVIG) treatment of autoimmune kidney
disease associated with mercury (Hg++) toxicity”, J Allergy Clin Immunol, 95(1)(Pt
2):145.
(94) F.Berglund, Case reports
spanning 150 years on the adverse effects of dental amalgam, Bio-Probe, Inc.,
Orlando, FL, 1995, ISBN 0-9410011-14-3 (245 cured); & Tuthill JY, "Mercurial
neurosis resulting from amalgam fillings", The Brooklyn Medical Journal,
December 1898, vol.12, no.12, p725-742.
(95) Lichtenberg HJ, "Elimination of
symptoms by removal of dental amalgam from mercury poisoned patients", J
Orthomol Med, 8:145-148, 1993; & Lichtenberg H, "Symptoms before and after
proper amalgam removal in relation to serum-globulin reaction to metals",
Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 1996, 11(4):195-203 (119 cases).
(96)
A.F. Goldberg, et al., “Effect of amalgam restorations
on whole body potassium and bone mineral content in older men”, Gen Dent, 1996,
44(3):246-8; & K. Schirrmacher,1998, “Effects of lead, mercury, and methyl
mercury on gap junctions and [Ca2+]i in bone cells”, Calcif Tissue Int, 1998
Aug, 63(2):134‑9.
(97)
Redhe O, Pleva J,
"Recovery from ALS and from asthma after removal of dental amalgam fillings",
Int J Risk & Safety in Med, 1994, 4:229-236; & Vanacore N, Corsi L,
Fabrizio E, Bonifati V, Meco G, "Relationship between exposure to environmental
toxins and motor neuron disease: a case report", Med Lav, 1995 Nov-Dec,
86(6):522-33.
(98) A. Seidler, et al., “Possible environmental factors
for Parkinson's disease", Neurology, 46(5):1275-1284, 1996; & Vroom FO,
Greer M, "Mercury vapor intoxication", 95:305-318, 1972; & Ohlson, et al., “Parkinson’s disease and
occupational exposure to mercury”, Scand J of Work Environment Health, Vol. 7,
No. 4, 252-256, 1981; & L.G. Golota, “Therapeutic properties of Unitihiol”,
Farm.Zh., 1980, 1:18-22.
(99) M. Nylander, et al., “Mercury accumulation in tissues
from dental staff and controls”,
Swedish Dental Journal, 13:235-243, 1989; & M. Nylander, et al., Br J Ind Med, 1991,
48(11):729-34; & “Mercury in pituitary glands of dentists”, Lancet, 442, Feb
26, 1986.
(100) M.Hanson, et al., "The dental amalgam issue: a
review", Experientia, 47:9-22, 1991; & J.A. Weiner, et al., “Does mercury from amalgam
restorations constitute a health hazard”, Sci Total Environ, 1990, 99(1-2):1-22;
& R. Marxkors, “Korrosionserscheinungen an Amalgamf llungen und Deren
Auswirkungen auf den Menschlichen Organismus”, Das Deutsche Zahn rztebl., 24,
53, 117 and 170, 1970.
(101) E. Henriksson, et al., "Healing of lichenoid reactions
following removal of amalgam", J
Clinical Periodontol, v22,n4, p287-94, 1995; & M. Forsbec, et al., Journal of Clinical Immunology,
16(1):31-40, Jan 1996; & A. Larsson, et al., “The histopathology of oral
mucosal lesions associated with amalgam”, Oral Dis, 1995,
1(3):152-8.
(102) R.L. Siblerud, et al., "Evidence that mercury from
silver fillings may be an etiological factor in multiple sclerosis", Sci Total
Environ, 1994, v142,,n3, p191-; & “Mental health, amalgam fillings, and MS”,
Psychol Rep, 1992, 70(3 Pt2):1139-51; & T. Engalls, Am J Forensic Med
Pathol, 1983 Mar, 4(1):55-61; & Siblerud R.L. and Kienholz E., “Evidence
that mercury from dental amalgam may cause hearing loss in multiple sclerosis
patients”, J. Orthomol. Med, v12, n4, p240-4, 1997.
(103) A.P. Tanchyk, "Amalgam
removal for treatment of arthritis", Gen Dent, v42, n4, July 1994,
p354-.
(104) C.F. Facemire, et al., “Reproductive impairment in the
Florida panther”, Health Perspect, 1995, 103 (Supp4):79-86; & J.M. Yang, et al., “The distribution of HgCl2 in
rat body and its effect on fetus”, Environ Sci, 1996, 9(4):437-42; M. Maretta,
et al., “Effect of mercury on the
epithelium of the fowl testis”, Vet Hung, 1995, 43(1):153-6.
(105) T. Colborn (Ed.),
Chemically Induced Atlerations in Functional Development, Princeton
Scientific Press, 1992; & ”Developmental effects of endocrine-disrupting
chemicals", Environ Heath Perspectives, v101, n5, Oct 1993; & B. Windham, "Health, Hormonal, and
Reproductive Effects of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals" (including mercury),
Annotated Bibliography, 1996; & Giwercman A, Carlsen E, Keiding N,
Skakkabaek NE, “Evidence for increasing incidence of abnormalities of the human
testis: a review”, Environ Health Perspect, 1993, 101 Suppl(2):65-71; &
Trachtenberg IM, Chronic effects of mercury in ogranisms, U.S. Dept. of
Health, Eductation, and Welfare, Publ 74-473, 1974.
(106) G.R. Bruce,"Cytotoxicity of
retrofil materials", J Endodont., v19, n6, p288-92, 1993.
(107) R.L. Siblerud, et al., ”Psychometric evidence that
mercury from dental fillings may be a factor in depression, anger, and anxiety",
Psychol Rep, v74, n1, 1994; & Amer. J. Psychotherapy, 1989, 58:575-87;
Poisoning and Toxicology Compendium, Leikin & Palouchek,
Lexi-Comp,1998, p705.
(108) M.Henningsson, et al., "Defensive characteristics in
individuals with amalgam illness", Acta Odont Scand, 54(3):176-181,
1996.
(109) Y.X. Liang, et al., "Psychological effects of low
exposure to mercury vapor", Environmental
Med Research, 60(2):320-327, 1993; & T. Kampe, et al., "Personality traits of
adolescents with intact and repaired
dentitions", Acta Odont Scand, 44:95-, 1986; & R. Kishi, et al., “Residual neurobehavioral
effects of chronic exposure to mercury vapor”, Occupat. Envir. Med., 1994,
51:35-41; & A. Sikora, et al.,
“Evaluation of mental functions in workers exposed to metalic mercury”, Med Pr,
1992, 43(2):109-21.
(110) N. Roeleveld, et al., "Mental retardation and parental
occupation", Br J Ind Med, 50(10):945-954, 1993.
(111) T.W. Clarkson, et al., "Billiary secretion of
glutathione‑metal complexes", Fundam Appl Toxicol,
1985, 5(5):816‑31; & D. Quig, Doctors Data Lab, "Cysteine metabolism and
metal
toxicity", Altern Med Rev,
1998, 3:4, p262‑270; & J. de Ceaurriz, et al., "Role of gamma‑ glutamyltranspeptidase (GGC) and
extracellular glutathione in disopition of inorganic mercury", J Appl Toxicol,
1994, 14(3): 201‑; & W.O. Berndt, et
al., "Renal glutathione and mercury uptake", Fundam Appl Toxicol, 1985, 5(5):832‑9; &
R.K. Zulups, et al., J Toxicol
Environ Health, 1995, 44(4): 85-99; & D. Jay, “Glutathione inhibits SOD
activity of Hg”, Arch Inst Cardiol Mex, 1998, 68(6):457-61.
(112) A. Oskarsson, et al., “Mercury in breast milk in
relation to fish consumption and amalgam”,
Arch Environ Health, 1996, 51(3):234-41; & “Risk assessment in
relation to neonatal metal exposure”, Analyst, 1998, 123(1):19-23; & Drasch,
et al., “Mercury in human colostrum
and early breast milk”, J.,Trace
Elem. Med. Biol., 1998, 12:23-27; & Grandjean P, Jurgensen PJ, Weihe P,
“Milk as a source of methylmercury exposure in infants”, Environ Health
Perspect, 1994 Jan, 102(1):74‑7.
(113) T.A. Glavinskiaia, et al., “Complexons in the treatment of
lupus erghematousus”, Dermatol Venerol, 1980, 12:24-28; & A.F. Hall, Arch
Dermatol, 47, 1943, 610-611.
(114) M. Aschner, et al., “Metallothioein induction in
fetal rat brain by in utero exposure to elemental mercury vapor”, Brain
Research, 1997, Dec 5, 778(1):222-32; & T.V. O’Halloran, “Transition metals
in control of gene expression”, Science, 1993, 261(5122):715-25; & Matts RL,
Schatz JR, Hurst R, Kagen R, “Toxic heavy metal ions inhibit reduction of
disulfide bonds”, J Biol Chem,
1991, 266(19):12695-702; & Boot JH, “Effects of SH-blocking compounds on the
energy metablolism in isolated rat hepatocytes”, Cell Struct Funct, 1995,
20(3):233-8.
(115) G. Hall, V-TOX, Mercury
levels excreted after Vit C IV as chelator‑ by number of fillings, Int Symposium "Status Quo and
Perspectives of Amalgam and Other Dental Materials", European Academy,
Ostzenhausen/Germany, April 29 ‑ May 1, 1994; & Heavy Metal Bulletin, Apr
1996, Vol.3, Issue 1, p6-8 (200 cured or significantly improved).
(116) Liebert CA, Wireman J, Smith
T, Summers AO, "The impact of mercury released from dental ‘silver’ fillings on
antibiotic resistances in the primate oral and intestinal bacterial flora", Met
Ions Biol Syst, 1997, 34:441-60; & A.O. Summers, et al., Antimicrobial Agents and
Chemotherapy, 37(4):825-834, 1993; & The Physiologist, 33(4), A-116, 1990;
& J. Wireman, et al., Appl
Environ Microbiol, 1997, 63(11):4494-503; & M. Vimy, et al.,”Silver dental fillings provoke
an increase in mercury and antibiotic resistant bacteria in the mouth and
intestines of primates”, APUA Newsletter, Fall, 1991.
(117) C. Edlund, et al., "Resistance of the normal human
microflora to mercury and antimicrobials", Clin Infect Dis, 22(6):944-950,
1996.
(118) Tibbling L, Stejskal VDM, et al., “Immunolocial and brain MRI
changes in patients with suspected metal intoxication", Int J Occup Med Toxicol,
4(2):285-294, 1995.
(119) L. Ronnback, et al., "Chronic encephalopathies
induced by low doses of mercury or lead", Br J Ind Med, 49:233-240, 1992;
& H. Langauer‑Lewowicka, ”Changes in the nervous system due to occupational
metallic mercury poisoning”, Neurol Neurochir Pol, 1997 Sep‑Oct, 31(5):905‑13;
& Kim P, Choi BH, “Selective inhibition of glutamate uptake by mercury in
cultured mouse astrocytes”, Yonsei Med J, 1995, 36(3):299-305; & Brookes N.
“In vitro evidence for the role of glutatmate in the CNS toxicity of mercury”,
Toxicology, 1992, 76(3):245-56.
(120) L.Pohl, Dept. of Dental
Materials Science, Umea Univ., Sweden, "The
dentist's exposure to elemental mercury during clinical work", Acta Odontol
Scand, v53, n1, p44-48, 1995.
(121) A.S. Rowland, et al.,“The effect of occupational
exposure to mercury vapor on the fertility
of female dental assistants", Occupational & Environmental Medicine,
v55, n1, 1994.
(122) B. Ono, et al., “Reduced tyrosine uptake in
strains sensitive to inorganic mercury”, Genet, 1987, 11(5):399-.
(123) I. Skare, et al., "Mercury exposure of different
origins among dentists and dental nurses", Scand J Work Environ Health,
16:340-347, 1990.
(124) I. Akesson, et al., Dept. of Occupational Medicine,
"Status of mercury and selenium in dental personnel", Arch Environ Health, 46(2):102-109, 1991; & Chang SB, et al., “Factors affecting blood mercury
concentrations in practicing dentists”, Dent Res, 1992, 71(1):66-74; &
“Examination of blood levels of mercurials in practicing dentists”, Anal
Toxicol, 1987, 11(4):149-53.
(125) G. Hall, "Perspectives of
Amalgam and Other Dental Materials", European Acadamy Symposium Article,
Ostzenhausen,
Germany, April 29, 1994.
(126) K.R. Hoyt, et al., “Mechanisms of dopamine-induced
cell death and differences from glutamate induced cell death”, Exp Neurol, 1997,
143(2):269-81; & P.Froissard, et
al., Universite de Caen, “Role of glutathione metabolism in the
glutamate-induced programmed cell death of neuronal cells”, Eur J Pharacol,
1997, 236(1): 93-99.
(127) Moszczynski, et al., "The behavior of T-Cells in the
blood of workers exposed to mercury", Med Lav, 85(3):239-241,1994; &
"Lymphocytes, T and NK cells in men exposed to mercury", Int J Occup Med Environ
Health, 8(1):1995.
(128) M.L.S. Queiroz, et al., "Immunoglobulin levels in
workers exposed to inorganic mercury", Pharmacol Toxicol, 74:72-75, 1994;
& “Presence of micronuclei in lymphocytes of mercury exposed workers”,
Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol, 1999, 21(1):141-50; & D.C. Santos,
“Immunoglubulin E in mercury exposed workers”, 1997, 19(3):383-92.
(129) P. Hultman, et al., Dept. of Pathology, Linkoping
Univ., Sweden, ”Adverse immunological effects and immunity induced by dental amalgam", FASEB J, 8:1183-1190,
1994; & Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 1992, 113(2):199-208.
(130) S. Enestrom, et al., "Does amalgam affect the immune
system?", Int Arch Allergy Immunol,
106:180-203, 1995.
(131) Christensen MM, Ellermann-Eriksen
S, Mogensen SC, “Influence of
mercury chloride on resistance to generalized infection with herpes simplex
virus type 2 in mice”, Toxicology, 1996, 114(1): 57-66; &
S.Ellermann-Eriksen, et al., "Effect
of mercuric chloride on macrophage-mediated resistance mechanisms against
infection", Toxicology, 93:269-297,1994; & M. Kubicka-Muranyi, et al., “Systemic autoimmune disease
induced by mercuric chloride”, Int Arch Allergy Immunol, 1996, 109(1):11-20;
& M.M.Christensen, et al.,
Institute of Medical Microbiology, “Comparision of interaction of MeHgCl2 and
HgCl2 with murine macrophages”, Arch Toxicol, 1993, 67(3):205-11.
(132) K. Sato, et al., "An epidemiological study of
factors relating to mercury sensitization", Arerugi, 44(2):86-92, 1995; &
T. Mori, et al., “Mercury
sensitization caused by environmental factors”, Nippon Eiseigaku Zasshi, 1998,
52(4):661-6.
(133) M. Molin, et al., "Mercury in plasma in patients
allegedly subject to oral galvanism",
Scand J Dent Res, 95:328-334, 1987.
(134) A.M. Aronsson, et al., "Dental amalgam and mercury",
Biol Metals, 2:25-30,1989.
(135) L. Bjorkman, et el, "Factors
influencing mercury evaporation rate from dental amalgam fillings", Scand J Dent
Res, 100(6):354-360, 1992.
(136) D. Gay, et al., "Chewing releases mercury",
Lancet, 8123:985-98, 1979.
(137) B. Fredin, "Studies on the
mercury release from dental amalgam fillings", Swed J Biol Med, No.3, 1988,
p8-15; & Summers, Science News, 4-10-93; & G. Sallsten, et al., "Long term use of
nicotine chewing gum and mercury exposure from dental amalgam", J Dent
Res, 75(1):598, 1996; & (b) T. Gebel, et al., “Influence of chewing gum on
urine mercury content”, Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed, 1996, 199(1):69-75.
(138) D. Zander, et al., "Studies on human exposure to
mercuy amalgam fillings", Ubl Hyg, 1990, 190: 325-.
(139) G. Sallsten, et al., “Mercury in cerebrospinal fluid
in subjects exposed to mercury vapor”, Environmental Research, 1994;
65:195-206.
(140) R.L. Siblerud, "Health
effects after dental amalgam removal", J Orthomolecular Med, 5(2): 95
-106.
(141) L. Siblerud, et al., "Evidence that mercury from
dental fillings may be an etiological factor in smoking", Toxicol Lett, v68, n3,
1993,p307-, & v69(3):305.
(142) Ariza ME, Bijur GN, Williams
MV, “Lead and mercury mutagenesis: role of H2O2, superoxide dismutase, and
xanthine oxidase”, Environ Mol Mutagen, 1998, 31(4):352‑61; & M.E. Ariza, et al., “Mercury mutagenisis”, Biochem
Mol Toxicol, 1999, 13(2):107-12; &
M.E. Ariza, et al., "Mutagenic
effect of mercury", In Vivo, 8(4):559-63, 1994.
(143)
P. Boffetta, et al., "Carciagenicity of mercury",
Scand J Work Environ Health, 1993, 19(1):1-7; & “Study of workers
compensated for mercury intoxication”, J Occup Med, 1994, 36(11):1260-4; & J
Occup Med, 36(11):1260-64, 1994.
(144) Y Zaichick, et al., ”Trace elements and thyroid
cancer", Analyst, 120(3), 1995.
(145) J.M. Gorell, et al., “Occupational exposure to
mercury, manganese, copper, lead, and the risk of Parkinson’s disease”,
Neurotoxicology, 1999, 20(2-3):239-47; & J.M. Gorell, et al., ”Occupational exposures to
metals as risk factors for Parkinson's disease”, Neurology, 1997 Mar, 48:3,
650‑8.
(146) Gerhard, et al., Zentralbl Gynakol, 1992, 114,
593-602; & I. Gerhard, Therapeutikon, 1993, 7, 478-91; & E. Roller, et al., J Fert Reprod, 1995, 3, 31-33;
& U. Vallon, et al., J Fert
Reprod, 1995, 3, 31.
(147) M. Wood, "Mechanisms for the
neurotoxicity of mercury", in Organotransitional Metal Chemistry, Plenum Publishing Corp,
N.Y, N.Y, 1987; & R.P. Sharma, et
al., “Metals and neurotoxic effects”, J of Comp Pathology, vol 91,
1981.
(148) H.R. Casdorph, Toxic Metal
Syndrome, Avery Publishing Group, 1995.
(149) B. Choi, et al., "Abnormal neuronal migration of
human fetal brain", Journal of Neurophalogy, vol 37, p719-733, 1978; & F.
Monnet-Tschudi, et al., “Comparison
of the developmental effects of 2 mercury compounds on glial cells and neurons
in the rat telencephalon”, Brain Research, 1996, 741:52-59; & Chang LW,
Hartmann HA, “Quantitative cytochemical studies of RNA in experimental mercury
poisoning”, Acta Neruopathol (Berlin), 1973, 23(1):77-83.
(150) U.S. Public Health Service,
"Toxicological Profile of Mercury", 1988; & J. Leiskir, ”Cytotoxity of silver amalgam”,
Scand J Dental Res, 1974.
(151) Electric Power Research
Institute, EPRI Technical Brief: "Mercury in the Environment", 1993; & EPRI Journal,
April 1990.
(152) Pons S, Torres-Aleman I,
“Insulin-like growth factor-I stimulates
dephosphorylation of ikappa B through the serine phosphatase calcineurin”, J
Biol Chem, 2000 Dec 8, 275(49):38620-5; & Langworth, et al., “Effects of low exposure to
inorganic mercury on the human immune system”, Scand J Work Environ Health,
19(6):405-413, 1993.
(153) International Academy of Oral
Medicine and Toxicology, “A Scientific Response to the American Dental
Association Special Report and Statement of Confidence in Dental Amalgam”,
IAOMT, POB 608531, Orlando,32860-8531,
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/PDHA/mercury/asr.htm; & IAOMT,
Protocol for Mercury/Silver Filling Removal,
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/PDHA/mercury/iaomt.htm.
(154) K. Nordlind, et al., “Patch test reactions to metal
salts in patients with oral mucosal lesions associated with amalgal fillings”,
Contact Dermatitis, 1992, 27:3, 157-160; & E. Djerasci, et al., Int Dent J, 19:481-8, 1969;
& A.M. Robinson, et al., “Contact
dermatitis due to amalgam fillings”, Arch Dermatol Syphilol, 59:116-8, 1949;
& R.R. White, et al., J Amer Dent
Assoc, 92:124-7, 1976.
(155) L.D. Koller,
“Immunotoxicology of Heavy Metals”, Int J of Immunopharm, 2:269-279, 1980; &
Amer J Vet Res, v34, p1457-, 1973.
(156) E.G. Miller, et al., “Prevelence of mercury
hypersensitivity among dental students”, J Dent Res, 64:Abstract 1472, p338, 1985;
& D. Kawahara, et al.,
“Epidemiologic study of occupational contact dermatitis in the dental clinic”,
Contact Dermatitis, v 28, n2, p114-5, 1993.
(157)
L.J Goldwater, “Toxicology of
inorganic mercury”, Annals NY Acad Sci, 65:498-503, 1957; & J.B. Nielsen, et al., “Evaluation of mercury in hair
and blood as biomarkers for methylmercury exposure”, Arch Toxicology, 1994,
65(5):317-321.
(158) Wenstrup, et al., “Trace element imbalances in the
brains of Alzheimers patients”, Research, Vol 533, p125-131, 1990; & F.L.
Lorscheider, B. Haley, et al.,
“Mercury vapor inhibits tubulin binding...”, FASEB J, 9(4):A-3485, 1995; &
Vance, et al., Neurotoxicology, 1988,
9:197-208; & l. de Saint-Georges, et
al., “Inhibition by mercuric chloride of the in vitro polymerization of
microtubules”, CR Seances Soc Biol Fil, 1984, 178(5):562-6.
(159) W. Eggert-Kruse, et al., “Effect of heavy metals on in
vitro interaction between human sperm and cervical mucus”, Dtsch Med Wochenschr,
1992, 117(37):1383-9 (German); E. Ernst, et al., “Effect of mercury on human
sperm motility”, Toxicol, 1991, 68(6):440-4; & A. Daily, et al., “Declining sperm count: evidence
that Young’s syndrome is associated with mercury”, BMJ, 1996,
313(7048):44.
(160) B.Windham, "Health Effects of Toxic
Metals: An Annotated Bibliography", 1999; & B. Windham, “Cognitive and
Behavioral Effects of Toxic Metals”, 2000 (over 100 medical study
references).
(161) F.L. Lorscheider, et al., “Inorganic mercury and the CNS:
genetic linkage of mercury and antibiotic resistance”, Toxicology, 1995,
97(1):19-22; & M.C. Roberts, Dept. of Pathobiology, Univ. of Washington,
“Antibiotic resistance in oral/respiratory bacteria”, Crit Rev Oral Biol Med,
1998, 9(4):522-.
(162)
N.K. Mottet, et al., “Health risks
from increases in methylmercury exposure”, Health Perspect, v63:133-140, 1985;
& M.K. Mohamed, et al., “Effects
of methyl mercury on testicular functions in monkeys”, Toxicol, 1987,
60(1):29-36; & M.K. Mohamed, et
al., Toxicol (Copenhagen), 1986, 58(3):219-24; & N.F. Ivanitskaia,
”Evaluation of effect of mercury on reproductive function of animals”, Gig
Sanit, 1991, 12:48-51.
(163)
Ahlrot-Westerlund B, Multiple
sclerosis and mercury in cerebrospinal fluid, Second Nordic Symposium on Trace
Elements and Human Health, Odense, Denmark, Aug 1987; & Nutrition Research, 1985
Supplement.
(164) Swedish National Dept. of
Health, Mercury Amalgam Review Panel, 1987.
(165)
Anneroth G, Ericson T,
Johansson I, Mornstad H, Skoglund A , “Comprehensive medical examination of
patients with alleged adverse effects from dental amalgams”, Acta Odontal Scand,
1992, 50(2):101-11.
(166)
H. Basun, et al., “Metals in plasma and
cerebrospinal fluid in normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease”, J Neural Transm
Park Dis Dement Sect, 1991, 3(4):231-58.
(167)
M.L. Olsted, et al., “Correlation between amalgam
restorations and mercury in urine”, J Dent Res, 66(6):1179-1182,
1987.
(168) J. Laine, et al., “Immunocompetent cells in
amalgam-associated oral licheinoid contact lesions”, Oral Pathol Med, 1999;
28(3):117-21; & “Contact
allergy to dental restorative materials in patients with oral lichenoid
lesions”, Contact Dermatitis, 1997, 36:3, 141-6; & “Resolution of OLL after
replacement of amalgam restorations”, Br J Dermatol, 1992, 126(1):10-15 (20
cases); & A. Adachi, et al.,
“Efficacy of dental metal elimination in the management of atopic dermatitis”, J
Dermatology, 1997, 24:1,141-6.
(169) C.H. Ngim, et al., ”Epidemiologic study on the
association between body burden mercury level and idiopathic Parkinson’s
disease”, Neuroepidemiology, 1989, 8(3):128-41.
(170) R.L. Siblerud, “A comparison
of mental health of multiple sclerosis patients with silver dental fillings and those with
fillings removed”, Psychol Rep, 1992, 70(3), Pt2, 1139-51.
(171) A. Jokstad, “Mercury
excretion and occupational exposure of dental personnel”, Community Dent Oral
Epidemiology, 18(3):143-8, 1990.
(172) B. Nilsson, et al., Dept. of Environmental Medicine,
Univ. of Umea,
“Urinary mercury excretion in dental personnel”, Swed Dent J, 1986,
10(6):221-32; & Swed Dent J, 1986, 10(1-2):1-14; & Science of the Total
Environment, 1990, 94(3):179-85.
(173) D. Zander, et al., “Mercury exposure of male
dentists, female dentists, and dental aides”, Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed, 1992,
193(4):318-28.
(174) B. Willershausen, et al., “Mercury in the mouth mucosa of
patients with amalgam fillings”, Dtsch Med Wochenschr, 1992, 117:46,
1743-7.
(175) L. Larkfors, et al.,"Methylmercury induced
alterations in the nerve growth factor level in the developing brain ", Res Dev Res,
62(2), 1991, 287-; & Soderstrom S, Fredriksson A, Dencker L, Ebendal T, “The
effect of mercury vapor on cholinergic neurons in the fetal brain”, Brain
Research & Developmental Brain Res, 1995, 85:96-108; & Toxicol Lett,
1995, 75(1-3):133-44.
(176) A. Jokstad, et al., "Dental amalgam and mercury",
Pharmacol Toxicol, 70(4), 1992, 308-13; & L. Barregard, et al., “Mercury exposure from dental
amalgam”, Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen, 1998, 118(1):58-62.
(177) S. Olsson, et al., "Daily dose calculations from
measurements of intra-oral mercury
vapor", J Dent Res, 71(2):414-23, 1992.
(178) J. Lenihan, et al., “Mercury hazards in dental
practice”, Br Dent J, 1973, 135:363-376; & G.S. Nixon, et al., J Oral Ther Pharm, 1965, 1:512;
& Gelbier S, Ingram J, "Possible foetotoxic effects of mercury vapour: a
case report", Public Health, 1989, 103, 35-40.
(179) A. Lussi, "Mercury release
from amalgam into saliva", Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed, 1993, 103(6):722-29; &
Kindl A, Zinecker S, "Amalgam: Quecksilberdamfe bis ins Gehrin", der
Kassenarzt, 4, 23,
1992.
(180) Pinto OF, et al., J Intl Acad Prev Med, v3, n2,
1976; & Huggins HA, “Proposed role of dental amalgam toxicity in leukemia
and hemotopoietic dyscrasias”,
International J of Biosocial and Medical Research, 1989, 11:84-93; &
Schimpff SC, Young WH, Greene WH, “Origin of infections in acute nonlymphocytic
leukemia”, Annals of International
Medicine, 1972, 77:707-711; & Y. Kinjo, et al., “Cancer mortality in patients
exposed to methylmercury through fish diet”, J Epidemiol, 1996,
6(3):134-8.
(181) P.W. Mathieson, “Mercury: god
of TH2 cells”, Clinical Exp Immunol, 1995, 102(2):229-30; & Parronchi P,
Brugnolo F, Sampognaro S, Maggi E, “Genetic and environmental factors
contributing to the onset of allergic disorders”, Int Arch Allergy Immunol, 2000
Jan, 121(1):2-9.
(182) Pleva J, "Dental
mercury—a public health hazard", Rev
Environ Health, 10(1):1-27, 1994; & J Pleva, “Mercury from dental amalgams:
exposure and effects”, Int J Risk & Safety in Med, 1992, 3:1-22; &
“Mercury—a public health hazard”,
Reviews on Environmental Health, 1994, 10:1-27; & “Mercury poisoning from
dental amalgam”, J. Orthomol. Medicine, 1989, 4(3):141-148; & J Orthomol
Psych, v12, n3, 1983; & Emler, Cardone, Oral Roberts Univ., “An assessment
of mercury in mouth air”, Journal of Dental Research, March 1985; & Vimy M,
and Lorschieder, University of Calgary, " Intra oral mercury released from
dental amalgam", Journal of Dental Research, 1985, 64:1069-1071; & "Serial
measurements of intra oral mercury", Journal Dental Research, 1985,
64:1072-1075.
(183) World Health Organization
(WHO),1991, Environmental Health Criteria 118, Inorganic Mercury, WHO, Geneva; & Envir. H.
Crit. 101, Methyl Mercury.
(184) T.H. Ingalls, J Forensic Medicine
and Pathology, v4, n1, 1953; & “Epidemiology, etiology and prevention of
MS”, Am J For Med & Pathology, 1983, 4:55-61; & “Endemic clustering of
MS”, Am J For Med Path, 1986, 7:3-8; & Craelius W, “Comparative epidemiology
of multiple sclerosis and dental caries”, J of Epidemiological and Community
Health, 32:155-65.
(185) L. Jones, “Health outcomes
following amalgam removal”, New Zealand Psychology Journal,
Sept.,1999.
(186) Yang J, Wang Yl,
“Maternal-fetal transfer of metallic mercury via the placenta and milk”, Annals
of Clin & Lab Sci, 1997, 27(2):135-41; & C.N. Ong, et al., "Concentrations of heavy metal
in maternal and umbilical cord blood",
Biometals, 6(1):61‑66, 1993; & Y.K. Soong, et al., J of Formosa Medical Assoc,
1991, 90(1):59-65; & T. Suzuki, et
al., Dept. of Human Ecology, Univ. of Tokyo, “Mercury in human amnotic
fluid”, Scand J Work Environ & Health, 3:32-35, 1977; & D.A. Spencer, et al., “Mercury concentration in cord
blood”, Arch Dis Child, 1988, 63(2):202-3; & S. Sugiyama, et al., “Comparison of heavy metal
concentrations in human umbilical cord blood in 1980 and 1990”, Kinki Univ.
School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan; & R. Sikorski, et al.,”The intrapartum content of toxic
metals in maternal and umbilical cord blood”, Ginekol Pol, 1989,
60(3):151-5.
(187) Klobusch J, Rabe T, Gerhard
I, Runnebaum B, "Alopecia and
environmental pollution", Klinisches Labor, 1992, 38:469‑476; &
“Schwermetallbelastungen bei Patientinnen mit Alopezie”, Arch Gynecol Obstet,
1993, 254(1-4):278-80; & G. Kunzel. et al., “Arch Gynecol Obstet, 1993,
254:277-8.
(188) I.I. Ship, et al., School of Dental Research, Univ
of Penn, Mar 1983; & P.A. Gronla, et
al., JADA, 1970, 81:923-25.
(189) U.S. CDC, Toxicology
Division, Atlanta, Ga. and WHO, Environmental Health Criteria
101,1990.
(190) P.Urban, et al., “Neurological examination on
three groups of workers exposed to mercury vapor”, Eur J Neurology, 1999,
6(5):571-7; & B. Polakowska, “Neurological assessment of health status in
dentists”, Med Pr, 1994, 45(3):221-5; & L. Ekenvall, et al., “Sensory perception in the hands
of dentists”, J Work Environ Health, 1990, 16(5):334-9.
(191) D. Brune, et al., Gastrointestinal and in vitro
release of metals from conventional and copper-rich amalgams”, Scand J Dent Res,
1983, 91:66-71; & Sci Tot Envir, 1985,44:...; & “Metal release from
dental materials”, Biomaterials, 1986, 7:163-175.
(192) N. Nogi, “Electric current
around dental metals as a factor producing allergic metal ions in the oral
cavity”, Nippon Hifuka Gakkai Zasshi, 1989, 99(12):1243-54; & M.D. Rose, et al., Eastman Dental Institute, “The
tarnished history of a posteria restoration”, Br Dent J, 1998, 185(9):436; &
J. Bergdahl, A.J. Certosimo, et al.,
National Naval Dental Center, “Oral electricity”, Gen Dent, 1996, 44(4):324-6;
& R.H. Ogletree, et al., School
of Materials Science, GIT, Atlanta, ”Effect of mercury on corrosion of eta’
Cu-Sn phase in dental amalgams”, Dent Mater, 1995, 11(5):332-6; & R.D.
Meyer, et al., “Intraoral galvanic
corrosion”, Prosthet Dent, 1993, 69(2):141-3; & B.M. Owens, et al., “Localized galvanic shock after
insertion of an amalgam restoration”, Compenium, 1993, 14(10):1302,1304,1306-7;
& Johansson E, Liliefors T, "Heavy elements in root tips from teeth with
amalgam fillings", Department of Radiation Sciences, Division of Physical
Biology, Box 535, 751 21 Uppsala, Sweden.
(193) E.N. Cohen, et al., “Occupational disease in
dentistry”, Amer Dent Assoc, 1980, 101(1):21-31; & G. Bjorklund, “Risk
evaluation of the occupational environment in dental care”, Tidsski Nor
Laegeforen, 1991, 111(8):948-50; &
A. Ahlbom, et al., “Dentists,
dental nurses, and brain tumors”, Br Med J, 1986, 202(6521):662.
(194) Lu SC, “Regulation of hepatic
glutathione synthesis: current concepts and controversies”, FASEB J, 1999,
13(10):1169‑83; & R.B. Parsons, J Hepatol, 1998, 29(4):595-602; & R.K.
Zalups, et al.,"Nephrotoxicity of
inorganic mercury co‑administered with L‑cysteine", Toxicology, 1996,
109(1):15‑29; & T.L. Perry, et
al., “Hallevorden-Spatz Disease: cysteine accumulation and cysteine
dioxygenase deficiency”, Ann Neurol, 1985, 18(4):482-489.
(195) B. Moller-Madsen, et al., “Mercury concentrations in blood
of Danish dentists”, Scand J Dent Res, 1988, 96(1):56-9.
(196) G. Sandborgh-Englund,
“Pharmakinetics of mercury from dental amalgam”, Medical School Disertation,
Dept. of Basal Oral Sciences, Karolinska Institute (Stolckholm), 1998, 1-49;
& G. Sandborgh-Englund, et al.,
“Mercury in biological fluids after amalgam removal”, J Dental Res, 1998,
77(4):615-24.
(197) J.Taylor, A Complete Guide
to Mercury Toxicity from Dental Fillings, Scripps Pullishing.
(198) E.S. West, et al., Textbook of Biochemistry,
MacMillan Co, 1957, p853; &
B.R.G. Danielsson, et
al.,”Ferotoxicity of inorganic mercury: distribution and effects of nutrient
uptake by placenta and fetus”, Biol Res Preg Perinatal, 5(3):102-109, 1984;
& Danielsson, et al., Neurotoxicol Teratol,
18:129-134.
(199) Dr. P. Kraub, M. Deyhle, University at Tubingen—Institut fur
Organische Chemie, “Field study on
the mercury content of saliva”, 1997,
http://www.uni‑tuebingen.de/KRAUSS/amalgam.html (20,000 people tested for mercury level
in saliva and health status/symptoms compiled).
(200) V. Nadarajah, et al., “Localized cellular inflammatory
response to subcutaneously implanted dental mercury”, J Toxicol Environ Health,
Oct 11,
49(2):113-25.
(201) J.T. Salonen, et al., “Intake of mercury from fish and
the risk of myocardial
infarction and cardiovasculr disease in eastern Finnish men”, Circulation, 1995,
91(3):645-55.
(202) T. Kishimoto, et al., “Methylmercury injury of
cultured human vascular endothelial cells”, Journal of Trace Elements in
Experimental Medicine, 6(4):155-163, 1993.
(203) M.J.Vimy, et al., “Renal function and amalgam
mercury”, Amer J Physiol, 1997, 273(3/2):1199- ; & (b) Miller DM, Lund BO,
Woods JS, “Reactivity of Hg(II) with superoxide: evidence for the catalytic
dismutation of superoxide by Hg(II)”, J Biochem Toxicol, 1991, 6(4):293‑8; &
K.A. Nath, et al., Dept. of Medicine,
Univ. of Minnesota, “Renal oxidant injury induced by mercury”, Kidney Int, 1996,
50(3):1032-43; & (c)are RA, et
al., “Ultrastructural changes in renal proximal tubules after chronic
organic and inorganic mercury intoxication”, Environ Res, 1975, 10(1):121-40;
& (d) McCann, et al.,
“Intravenous gamma globulin (IVIG) treatment of autoimmune kidney disease
associated with mercury (Hg++) toxicity”,
J Allergy Clin Immunol, 95(1)(Pt 2):145; & (e) G.D. Nuyts, et al., “New occupational risk factors
for chronic renal failure”, Lancet, 1995, 346(8966):7-11.
(204) Tom Warren, Beating
Alzheimer’s, Avery Publishing Group, 1991.
(205) M.F. Ziff, et al., A Persuasive New Look at Heart
Disease as it Relates to Mercury, Bio- Probe, Inc., ISBN 0-941011-08-9;
& J. of American College of Cardiology, v33,n 6, p1578‑1583,
1999.
(206) R. Ma, et al., “Association between dental
restorations and carcinoma of the tongue”, European Journal of Cancer, Part B,
Oral Oncology, 1995, 31B(4):232-4.R.
(207) Pendergrass JC, Haley BE, Univ.of
Kentucky Dept. of Chemistry, “The Toxic Effects of Mercury on CNS Proteins:
Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer’s Disease”, IAOMT Symposium paper, March
1997; & “Mercury vapor inhaltion inhibits binding of GTP ...-similarity to
lesions in alzheimers diseased brains”, Neurotoxicology, 1997,
18(2):315-24; & Met Ions
Biol Syst, 1997, 34:461-.
(208) L.T. Friberg, “Status Quo and
Perspectives of Amalgam and Other Dental Materials”, International Symposium
Proceedings, G.Thieme Verlag Struttgart, 1995.
(209) Mark Richardson,
Environmental Health Directorate, Health Canada, Assessment of Mercury
Exposure and Risks from Dental Amalgam, 1995, Final Report; & G.M.
Richardson, et al., ”A Monte Carlo
assessment of mercury exposure and risks from dental amalgam”, Human and
Ecological Risk Assessment, 2(4):709-761.
(210) Mats Berlin, “Is amalgam in
dental fillings hazardous to health?”, Lakartidningen, 1992, 89(37):2918-23; &
“Prenatal exposure to mercury vapor: effects on brain development”, Fundamental
and Applied Toxicology, 1, 112, 1:7(?)
& M. Berlin, “Mercury in
dental filling
materials—environmental medicine risk analysis”, paper for the Swedish Council for Coordinating and
Planning Research, 1998.
(211) M.J. Vimy and F.L.
Lorscheider, Faculty of Medicine, Univ. of Calgary, July
1991(Study findings); & J. Trace Elem. Exper. Med., 1990, 3,
111-123.
(212) Ziff M.F., “Documented
clinical side effects to dental amalgams”, Adv. Dent. Res., 1992, 1(6):131-134; & S. Ziff,
Dentistry Without Mercury, 8th Edition, 1996, Bio-Probe, Inc., ISBN
0-941011-04-6; & Dental Mercury Detox, Bio-Probe, Inc.,
http://www.bioprobe.com. (cases: FDA Patient Adverse Reaction Reports—762; Dr.
M. Hanson, Swedish patients—519 (includes many MS); Dr. H. Lichtenberg—100
Danish patients; Dr. P. Larose—80 Canadian patients; Dr. R.Siblerud—86
Colorado
patients; Dr. A.V. Zamm—22 patients—see (26)).
(213) Dr. C. Kousmine, Multiple
Scherosis is Curable, 1995.
(214) “Amalgam Declared Hazardous”,
Dentistry Today, February, 1989, p1.
(215) K.W. Sehnert, “Autoimmune
Disorders”, Advance, Jan 1995, p47-48.
(216) T.W. Clarkson, et al., in Biological Monitoring of Toxic Metals, 1988,
Plenum Press, N.Y., “The prediction of intake of mercury vapor from amalgams”,
p199-246 & p247-260; &
Environmental Health Perspective, 1993 April, 100:31-8; & F.L. Lorscheider,
et al., Lancet, 1991, 337,
p1103.
(217) Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry, U.S. Public Health Service, Toxicological Profile for
Mercury , 1999; & Apr 19, 1999, Media Advisory, New MRLs for toxic
substances, MRL:elemental mercury vapor/inhalation/chronic & MRL:methy
mercury/ oral/acute; & http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html.
(218) U.S. Dept. of Health, ASTDR
ToxFAQ CAS# 7349-97-6.
(219) D.E. Cutright, et al., Dept. of Prosthodontics, Temple
Univ., “Systemic mercury levels caused by inhaling mist during high-speed
amalgam grinding”, J Oral Med, 28(4):100-104,1973; & A. Nimmo, et al., “Inhalation during removal of
amalgam restorations”, J Prosthet
Dent, 1990 Feb, 63(2):228-33.
(220) Sellars WA, Sellars R,
Univ.of Texas Southwestern Medical School, “Methyl mercury in dental amalgams in
the human mouth”, Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine, 1996,
6(1):33-37; & C Arch Environmental Health, 19, 891-905, Dec
1969.
(221) R. Golden, et al., Duke Univ., “Dementia and
Alzheimer’s Disease”, Minnesota Medicine, 78: 25-29, 1995.
(222) M. Daunderer, Handbuch der
Amalgamvergiftung, Ecomed Verlag, Landsberg, 1998, ISBN 3‑609‑71750‑5 (in
German); & “Improvement of nerve and immunological damages after amalgam
removal”, Amer. J. of Probiotic Dentistry and Medicine, Jan 1991; &
Toxicologische erfahrungen am menchen; Quecksilber in der umwelf-hearing
zum amalgamproblem”,
Niedersachsiscles Umweltministerium, 1991; & “Amalgam”, Ecomed-Verlag,
Landsberg, 1995; & “Amalgamtest”, Forum Prakt. Allgen. Arzt, 1990,
29(8):213-4; & “Besserung von Nerven—und Immunschaden nach
Amalgamsanierung”, Dtsch. Aschr. F. Biologische Zahnmedzin, 1990, 6(4):152-7
(amalgam removal & DMPS, over 3,000 cases).
(223) Nicholson, et al., “Mercury nephrotoxicity”,
Nature, Vol 304:633, 1983; & Friberg, et al., “Kidney injury after chronic
exposure to inorganic mercury”, Archives of Environ Health, Vol 15: 64, 1967;
& Kazantis, et al., “Nephrotic
syndrome following exposure to mercury”, Quarterly J. of Medicine, Vol
31:403-418, 1962; & L.H. Lash, Environmental Health Perspective, 1994, 102(11).
(224) M.S. Hughes, Amer. J. of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, v143, n4, 440-443, 1982.
(225) S. Yannai, et al., “Transformations of inorganic
mercury by Candida albicans and Saccharomyces cerevisiae”, Applied Envir
Microbiology, 1991, 7:245-247; & N.E. Zorn, et al., “A relationship between Vit
B-12, mercury uptake, and methylation”, Life Sci, 1990, 47(2):167-73; & W.P.
Ridley, et al., Environ Health
Perspectives, 1977, Aug 19, 43-6; & R.E. DeSimone, et al., Biochem Biophys Acta, 1973, May
28; & Yamada, Tonomura, “Formation of methyl mercury compounds from
inorganic mercury by Clostridium cochlearium”, J Ferment Technol, 1972,
50:159‑1660.
(226) (a) B.J. Shenker, et al., Dept. of Pathology, Univ. of
Penn. School of Dental Med., ”Immunotoxic effects of mercuric compounds on human
lymphocytes and monocytes: alterations in cell viability”,
Immunopharmacologicol
Immunotoxicol, 1992, 14(3):555-77;
& M.A. Miller, et al.,
“Mercuric chloride induces apoptosis in human T lymphocytes”, Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 153(2):250‑7,
1998; & Rossi AD, Viviani B, Vahter M, “Inorganic mercury modifies Ca2+
signals, triggers apoptosis, and potentiates NMDA toxicity in cerebral granule
neurons”, Cell Death and Differentiation, 1997, 4(4):317-24; & Goering PL,
Thomas D, Rojko JL, Lucas AD, “Mercuric chloride-induced apoptosis is dependent
on protein synthesis”, Toxicol Lett, 1999, 105(3):183-95; & (b) B.J.
Shenker, et al., “Immune suppression
of human T-cell activation”, Immunopharmacologicol Immunotoxicol, 1992, 14(3):555-77 &
14(3):539-53, & 1993, 15(2-3):273-90.
(227) Dr. Pierre Blais, Health
Canada, 1976
& Discovery, Feb 1997 (TV,Quebec).
(228) Dr. T. Rau, Paracelsus
Allergy Clinic, Lustmuhle, Switzerland, 1996 (www); & Dr. B. Shelton,
Director, The Allergy Center, Phoenix, Arizona, in (293); & E. Cutler,
Winning the War Against Asthma & Allergies, DAMS
(800-311-6265).
(229) M.Davis, Editor, Defense
Against Mystery Syndromes, Chek Printing Co., & March, 1994 (case
histories documented); & Kantarjian A, "A syndrome clinically resembling
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis following chronic mercurialism", Neurology,
11:639‑644, 1961.
(230) S. Rogers, M.D., Chemical
Sensitivity, Keats Publishing.
(231) Larsen, A.H., et al., “Mercury discharge in waste
water from dental clinics”, Water Air and Soil Pollution, Jan 1996,
86(1-4):93-99; & Rubin P.G., et
al., Archives of Environmental Health, Jul 1996, 51(4):335-337; & A.
Lindvall, et al., “Mercury in the
Dental Practice: Contamination of Ambient Air and Waste Water”, FDI World Dental
Congress, Aug 19, 1993, Goteborg,Swe.
(232) Adolph Coors Foundation,
“Coors Amalgam Study: Effects of Placement and Removal of Amalgam Fillings”,
1995 (www); & Internations DAMS Newsletter, p17, Vol VII, Issue 2, Spring
1997 (31 cases).
(233) Sven Langworth, et al., ”Amalgamnews and
Amalgamkadefonden, 1997 and Svenska Dogbladet, 1997 (286 cases); &
F.Berglund, Bjerner/Helm, Klock, Ripa, Lindforss, Mornstad, Ostlin, “Improved
health after removal of dental amalgam fillings”, Swedish Assoc. of Dental
Mercury Patients, 1998 (www.tf.nu) (over 1000 cases) (Sweden has banned amalgam
fillings & Gov’t maintains health records on all citizens); & Heavy
Metal Bulletin, No.3, 1996 and No.1, 1999, p7,8; & Klock B, Blomgren J, Ripa
U, Andrup B, "Effekt av amalgamavlägsnande på patienter som misstänker att de
lider eller har lidit av amalgamförgiftning", Tandläkartidn, 81(23):1297-1302,
1989.
(234) P.E. Bigazzi, “Autoimmunity
and heavy metals”, Lupus, 1994, 3:449-453; & Pollard KM, Pearson Dl, Hultman
P, “Lupus-prone mice as model to study xenobiotic-induced autoimmunity”, Environ
Health Perspect, 1999, 107(Suppl 5):729-735; & Nielsen JB, Hultman P,
“Experimental studies on genetically determined susceptibility to
mercury‑induced autoimmune response”, Ren Fail, 1999 May‑Jul, 21(3‑4):343‑8;
& Hultman P, Enestrom S, “Mercury induced antinuclear antibodies in mice”,
Clinical and Exper Immunology, 1988, 71(2):269-274.
(235) H.J. Hamre, “Mercury from
Dental Amalgam and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome”, The CFIDS Chronicle, Fall 1994,
p44-47.
(236) G.J. Murphy, American Academy of Head,
Neck, and Facial Pain, Oct 21, 1994.
(237) H.D. Foster, “The
calcium-selenium-mercury connection in cancer and heart disease”, Hypotheses,
1997, 48(4):335-60.
(238) World Health Organizaition
Scientific Panel Members (Dr. Lars Friburg, chairman; Dr. Fritz Lorscheider,
Professor of Medical Physiology, Univ. of Calgary; Dr. Murray Vimy, Professor of
Oral Biology and Dental Medicine, Univ. of Calgary Medical School; Dr. Vasken
Aposhian, Dept. Head, Molecular and Cellular Biology, Univ. of Arizona; Dr.
David Eggleston, Univ. of Califoria, researcher on mercury in the brain; Dr.
Boyd Haley, Univ.of Kentucky, reasearcher on mercury in the brain and
Alzheimer’s Disease (http://www.altcorp.com/); Dr. Gustav Drasch, Univ. of
Munich, researcher on mercury in
brains of dead infants and fetuses; Dr. D. Echeverria,
Neuro-Toxicologist, researcher on
reproductive problems and birth defects in dental workers; BBC Panorama
Program on Dental Amalgam: ”The
Poison in Your Mouth”, June 1994.
(239) J.M. Varga, et al., “High incidence of cross
stimulation by natural allergens of
rat basophilic leukemia cells sensitized with IgE antibodies”, Int Arch
Allergy Immunol, 1995, 108(2):196-9; & J.H. Gainer, “Activation of Rauscher
leukemia virus by metals”, J Natl Cancer Inst, 1973, 51(2):609-13.
(240) K.W. Hinkleman, et al., “Mercury release during
ultrasonic scaling of amalgam”, J Dent Res, 74(SE):131, Abstract 960, 1995;
& Haikel Y, Gasser P, Salek P, Voegel JC, "Exposure to mercury vapor during
setting, removing, and polishing amalgam restorations", J Biomed Mater Res, 1990
Nov, 24(11):1551-8.
(241) R. Schoeny, U.S. EPA, “Use of
genetic toxicology data in U.S. EPA risk assessment: the mercury study”, Environ
Health Perspect, 1996, 104, Supp 3: 663-73; & C.H. Lee, et al., “Genotoxicity of phenylHg
acetate in humans as compared to other mercury compounds”,
392(3):269-76.
(242) J. Constantinidis, et al., Univ. of Geneva Medical School,
“Hypothesis regarding amyloid and zinc in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer
Disease”, Alzheimer Dis Assoc
Disord, 1991, 5(1):31-35; & G.
Bjorklund, “Can mercury cause
Alzheimer’s”, Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen,1991.
(243) P.R. Walker, et al., National Research Council of
Canada, “Effects of aluminum and mercury on the structure of chromatin”, Biochemistry, May 2 1989,
28(9):3911-3915.
(244) H. Basun, et al., Dept. of Geriatric Medicine,
Huddinge Hospital, Sweden, “Trace metals
in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid in Alzheimer’s disease”, J Neural
Transm Park Dis Dement Sect, 1991, 3(4):231-.
(245) P.,Lokken, “Lethal mercury
poisoning in a dental assistant”, Nor Tannlaegeforen Tid, Apr 1971, 81(4):275-288; & R. Wronski,
et al., “A case of panarteritis nodoa
associated with chronic mercury poisoning”, Dtsch Med Wohenschr, Mar 1977,
102(9):323-325.
(246) K. Iyer, et al., “Mercury poisoning in a
dentist”, Arch Neurol, 1976, 33:788-790.
(247) E.C. Lonnroth, et al., “Adverse health reactions in
skin, eyes, and respiratory tract among dental personnel in Sweden”, Swed Dent J, 1998,
22(1-2):33-45; & L. Kanerva, et
al., ”Occupational contact urticaria”, Contact Dermatitis, 1996,
35(4):229-33.
(248) Y. Finkelstein, “The enigma
of parkinsonism in chronic borderline mercury intoxication, resolved by challenge with
penicillamine”, Neurotoxicology, 1996, Spring, 17(1):291-5.
(249) C.H. Ngim, et al., Dept. of Occupational Medicine,
Univ. of
Singapore, “Chronic neurobehavioral effects of elemental mercury in dentists”, British Journal of Industrial Medicine,
1992, 49(11):782-790.
(250) B.A. Rybicki, et al., ”Parkinson's disease mortality
and the industrial use of heavy metals in Michigan”, Mov Disord, 1993,
8(1):87‑92; & Yamanaga H, “Quantitative analysis of tremor in Minamata
disease”, Tokhoku J Exp Med, 1983 Sep, 141(1):13‑22.
(251) Y. Omura, et al., Heart Disease Research
Foundation, NY, NY, “Role of
mercury in resistant infections and recovery after Hg detox with
cilantro”, Acupuncture &
Electro-Therapeutics Research, 20(3):195-229, 1995; & “Mercury exposure from
silver fillings”, Acupuncture & Electrotherapy Res, 1996, 133-.
(252) B.J. Shenker, et al., Dept. of Pathology, Univ. of Pennsylvania,
“Immunotoxic effects of mercuric compounds on human lymphocytes and monocytes:
alterations in cellular glutathione content”, Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol,
1993, 15(2-3):273-90.
(253) S. Langworth, et al., “Exposure to mercury vapor and
impact on health in the dental profession in Sweden”, J Dent Res, 1997,
76(7):1397-404.
(254)
al-Saleh I, Shinwari N,
“Urinary mercury levels in females: influence of dental amalgam fillings”,
Biometals, 1997, 10(4):315-23.
(255) D.C. Rice, “Evidence of
delayed neurotoxicity produced by methylmercury developmental exposure”,
Neurotoxicology, Fall 1996, 17(3-4), p583-96.
(256) D.B. Alymbaeva, et al., Med Tr Prom Ekol, 6:13-15, 1995
(Russian).
(257) I. Smith, et al., “Pteridines and mono-amines:
relevance to neurological damage”, Postgrad Med J, 62(724):113-123, 1986;
& A.D. Kay, et al, “Cerebrospinal fluid biopterin is
decreased in Alzheimer’s disease”,
Arch Neurol, 43(10):996-9, Oct 1986; & T. Yamiguchi, et al., “Effects of tyrosine administration on serum
biopterin in patients with Parkinson’s disease and normal controls”, Science,
219(4580):75-77, Jan 1983; & T. Nagatsu, et al., “Catecholoamine-related enzymes
and the biopterin cofactor in Parkinson’s”, Neurol, 1984, 40:
467-73.
(258) J.M. Aguiar, et al., “Heavy metals and antibiotic
resistance in Escherichia coli isolates from ambulatory patients”, Chemother,
1990, 2(4):238-40.
(259) C.K. Mittal, et al., “Interaction of heavy metals
with the nitric oxide synthase”, Mol Cell Biochem, 149-150:263-5, Aug 1995;
& J.P. Bolanos, et al., “Nitric
oxide mediated mitochondrial damage in the brain”,
(260) J.S. Woods, et al., “Urinary porphyrin profiles as
biomarker of mercury exposure: studies on dentists”, J Toxicol Environ Health,
1993, 40(2-3):235-; & “Altered porphyrin metabolites as a biomarker of
mercury exposure and toxicity”, Physiol Pharocol, 1996, 74(2):210-15, &
Canadian J Physiology and Pharmacology, Feb 1996; & M.D. Martin, et al., “Validity of urine samples for
low-level mercury exposure assessment and relationship to porphyrin and
creatinine excretion rates”, J Pharmacol Exp Ther, Apr 1996; & J.S. Woods,
et al., “Effects of porphyrinogenic
metals on coproporphyrinogen oxidase in liver and kidney”, Toxicology and
Applied Pharmacology, Vol 97, 183-190, 1989.
(261) New Scientist: This Week,
Nov 22, 1997,
p4 (and editorial), and Jan 10, 1998; & Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Jan
1998, Vol 19, p417.
(262) Chang LW, “The
neurotoxicology and pathology of organomercury, organolead, and organotin”, J
Toxicol Sci, 1990, 15 Suppl 4:125-51; & “Latent effects of methyl mercury on
the nervous system after prenatal exposure”, Environ Res, 1977,
13(2):171-85.
(263) H. Iioka, et al., “The effect of inorganic mercury
on placental amino acid transport”, Nippon sanka Fujinka Gakkai
Zasshi, 1987, 39(2):202-6.
(264) B.R. Danielsson, et al., ”Behavioral effects of prenatal
metallic mercury inhalation exposure in rats”, Neurotoxicol Teratol, 1993,
15(6):391-6; & A. Fredriksson, et
al., ”Prenatal exposure to metallic mercury vapour and methylmercury produce
interactive behavioral changes in adult rats”, Neurotoxicol Teratol, 1996,
18(2):129-34; & “Behavioral
effects of neonatal metallic mercury exposure in rats”, Toxicology, 1992,
74(2-3):151‑160.
(265) K. Lohmann, et al., “Multiple chemical sensitivity
disorder in patients with neurotoxic illnesses”, Gesundheitswesen, 1996,
58(6):322-31.
(266) N. Matsuo, et al., “Mercury concentration in organs
of contemporary Japanese”, Environ Health, 1989, 44(5):298-303; & R.
Schiele, et al., “Study on the normal
mercury concentrations of human organs”, Zentralbl Bakteriol Mikrobiol Hyg (B),
1981, 173(1-2:45-62; & T. Suzuki, et
al., “The hair-organ relationship in mercury concentration in contemporary
Japan”, Arch Environ Health, 1993, 48(4):221-9; & K. Schmid, et al., ”Hazardous burden by country”,
Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed, 1996, 199(1):24-37.
(267) R. Brun, “Epidemiology of
...”, Contact Dermatitis, 1975,
1(4):214-217; & L. Nebenfuhrer, et
al., “Hg allergy ...”, Contact Dermatitis, 1984, 10(2):121-.
(268) J.J. Weening, et al., “Mercury induced immune complex
glomerulopathy”, Chap 4, p36-66, VanDendergen, 1980; & P. Duuet, et al., “Glomerulonephritis induced by
heavy metals”, Arch Toxicol, 50:187-194,1982 & Transplantation Proceedings,
Vol XIV(3), 1982,482-.
(269) (a) C.J.G.Robinson, et al., “Mercuric chloride induced
anitnuclear antibodies in mice”, Toxic Appl Pharmacology, 1986, 86:159-169;
& (b) P. Andres, “IgA-IgG disease in the intestines of rats ingesting
HgCl”, Clin Immun Immunopath,
30:488-494, 1984; & (c) F. Hirsch, et
al., J Immun, 136(9), 3272-3276, 1986; & (d) J Immun, 136(9):3277-3281;
& (e) J Immun, 137(8):2548-, 1986; & (f) Cossi, et al., “Beneficial effect of human
therapeutic IV-Ig in mercury induced
autoimmune disease”, Clin Exp Immunol, Apr 1991; & (g) El-Fawai HA,
Waterman SJ, De Feo A, Shamy MY, “Neuroimmunotoxicology: humoral assessment of
neurotoxicity and autoimmune mechanisms”, Contact Dermatitis, 1999,
41(1):60-1.
(270) D.W. Eggleston, “Effect of
dental amalgam and nickel alloys on T-lymphocytes”,nJ Prosthet Dent,
51(5):617-623, 1984; & D.W. Eggleston, et al., J Prosthet Dent, 1987,
58(6):704-7; & J American Medical Assoc, Sept 96; & Tan XX, Tang C,
Castoldi AF, Costa Lg, “Effects of inorganic and organic mercury on
intracellular calcium levels in rat T lymphocytes”, J Toxicol Environ Health,
1993, 38(2):159-70.
(271) B.A. Weber, “The Marburg
Amalgam Study”, Arzt und Umwelt, Apr 1995 (266 cases); & (b) “Amalgam and Allergy”, Institute for
Naturopathic Medicine, 1994; & (c) “Conjunctivitis Sicca (dry eye study)”,
Institute for Naturopathic Medicine, 1994; & “Alternative Treatment of
Multiple Sclerosis, Tumor, or Cancer”, Institute for Naturopathic Medicine,
1997
(40 MS cases),
http://home,t‑online.de/home/Institut_f._Naturheilverfahren/patinf.htm.
(272) BJ Shenker, “Induction of
apoptosis in human T-cells by methyl mercury”, Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 1999,
157(1):23-35; Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol, 1992, 14(3):555-77; &
Immunotoxicol, 1992, 14(3):539-53; & “Low-level MeHg exposure causes human
T-cells to undergo apoptosis: evidence of mitochondrial disfunction”, Environ
Res, 1998, 77(2):149-159; & O. Insug, et al., “Mercuric compounds inhibit
human monocyte function by inducing apoptosis: evidence for formation of
reactive oxygen species (ROS), development of mitochondrial membrane
permeability, and loss of reductive reserve”, Toxicology, 1997,
124(3):211-24.
(273) R. Schiele, et al., Institute of Occupational
Medicine, Univ. of Erlamgem- Nurnberg, “Studies of organ mercury content related
to number of amalgam fillings”,
Symposium paper, March 12, 1984, Cologne, Germany; (& 38) ; &
“Quecksilber-Mobiliztion durch DMPS
bei Personen mit und ohne Amalgamfullungen”, Zahnarztl. Mitt, 1989, 79(17):
1866-1868; & J.J. Kleber, “Quecksilberverkonzen- tration im Urin nach DMPS”
in [Status Quo and Perspectives of Amalgam], L.T. Friberg (Ed.), Georg-Thieme
Verlag, Stuttgart, New York, 1005,
p61-69.
(274) L. Friberg, et al., “Mercury in the brain and CNS in
relation to amalgam fillings”, Lakartidningen, 83(7):519-521, 1986 (Swedish
Medical Journal); & T. Suzuki, et
al., Ind Health, 4:69-75, 1966.
(275) L.M. Mikhailova, et al., “Influence of occupational
factors on disease of reproductive organs”, Pediatriya Akusherstvoi
Ginekologiya, 33(6):56-58, 1971.
(276) ATSDR/EPA Priority List for 1999: Top 20
Hazardous Substances, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/99list.html;
& U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Air Pollutant Hazard
Summary Fact Sheets, EPA: In Risk Information System, 1995.
(278) NIDR/ADA Workshop, Biocompatibility
of Metals in Dentistry, JADA, 109(3):469-471, Sept 1984; (& 38).
(279) M.J. Gonzalez, et el,
“Mercury in human hair; residents of Madrid, Spain”, Arch Environ Health, 1985,
40(4):225-8; & D. Airey, “Mercury in human hair: a review”, Environmental
Health Perspectives, 1983, 52:303-316; & “Total mercury concentrations in
human hair from 13 countries”, Sci Total Environ, 1983, 32(2):157-80; & S.A.
Katz, et al., “Use of hair analysis
for evaluating mercury intoxication of the human body”, J Appl Toxicol, 1992,
12(2):79-84; & Wilhelm M, Muller F, Idel H, ”Biological monitoring of
mercury vapour exposure by scalp hair analysis in comparison to blood and
urine”, Toxicol Lett, 1996 Nov, 88(1‑3):221‑6.
(280) S. Nonaka, et al., Nat. Inst. of Mental Health,
Bethesda Md., “Lithium treatment protects neurons in CNS from glutamate induced
excitability and calcium influx”,
Neurobiology, 95(5):2642-2647, Mar 3, 1998.
(281) T.W. Clarkson, et al., “Transport of elemental mercury
into fetal tissues”, Biol Neonate,
21:239-244, 1972; & M.R. Greenwood, et al., “Transfer of metallic mercury
into the fetus”, Experientia,
28:1455-1456, 1972.
(282) Press Release, Swedish
Council for Planning and Coordinating Research (FRN), Stockholm, 19 February,
1998.
(283) A. Ahlbom, et al., “Dentists, dental nurses, and
brain tumors”, British Medical Journal, Vol 292, March 8, 1986,
p262.
(284) R. Glass, “Mortality of New
England Dentists”, U.S. Dept. of Health, Public Health Service, Washington D.C.,
1966; & R. Simpson, et al.,
“Suicide rates of Iowa dentists”, J. of Amer. Dental Assoc., 1983, 107:441-;
& B.B. Arnetz, et al., “Suicide among Swedish
dentists”, Scand J Soc Med, 1987, 15(4):243-6.
(285) R.C. Perlingeiro, et al., “Polymorphonuclear phagentosis
in workers exposed to mercury
vapor”, Int J Immounopharmacology, 1994, 16(12):1011-7; & Hum Exp Toxicol,
1995, 14(3):281-6; & M.L. Queiroz, et
al., Pharmacol Toxicol, 1994, 74(2):72-5; & (b) J.W. Albers, et al., “Neurological abnormalities
associated with remote occupational elemental mercury exposure”, Ann Neurol,
1988, 24(5):651-9; & (c) L. Soleo, et
al., “Effects of low exposure to inorganic mercury on psychological
performance”, Br J Ind Med, 1990, 47(2):105-9; & (d) P.J. Smith, et al., “Effect of exposure to elemental
mercury on short term memory”, Br J Ind Med, 1983, 40(4):413-9; & (e) M.S.
Hua, et al., “Chronic elemental
mercury intoxication”, Brain Inj, 1996, 10(5):377-84; & (f) Gunther W, et al., “Repeated neurobehavioral
investigations in workers ...”, Neurotoxicology, 1996, 17(3-4):605-14; & (g)
Levine SP, Cavender GD, Langolf GD, Albers JW, “Elemental mercury exposure:
peripheral neurotoxicity”, Br J Ind Med, 1982 May, 39(2):136‑9.
(286) M. Lai, et al., “Sensitivity of MS detections by
MRI”, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 1996,
60(3):339-341.
(287) M.C. Newland, et al., ”Behavioral consequences of in
utero exposure to mercury vapor in squirrel monkeys”, Toxicology & Applied
Pharmacology, 1996, 139:374-386; & “Prolonged behavioral effects of in utero
exposure to methyl mercury or lead”, Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 1994, 126(1):6-15;
& K. Warfvinge, et al., “Mercury
distribution in neonatal cortical areas ...after exposure to mercury vapor”,
Environmental Research, 1994, 67:196-208.
(288) Rajanna B, Hobson M, Harris
L, Ware L, Chetty CS, “Effects of cadmium and mercury on Na(+)-K(+)ATPase and
uptake of 3H-dopamine in rat brain synaptosomes”, Arch Int Physiol Biochem,
1990, 98(5):291-6; & M. Hobson, B. Rajanna, “Influence of mercury on uptake
of dopamine and norepinephrine”, Toxicol Letters, Dep 1985, 27:2-3:7-14; &
McKay SJ, Reynolds JN, Racz WJ, “Effects of mercury compounds on the spontaneous
and potassium-evoked release of [3H]dopamine from mouse striatial slices”, Can J
Physiol Pharmacol, 1986, 64(12):1507-14; & Scheuhammer AM, Cherian MG,
“Effects of heavy metal cations, sulfhydryl reagents and other chemical agents
on striatal D2 dopamine receptors”, Biochem Pharmacol, 1985 Oct 1,
34(19):3405‑13; & Lewis RN, Bowler K, “Rat brain (Na+‑K+)ATPase: modulation
of its ouabain‑sensitive K+‑PNPPase activity by thimerosal”, Int J Biochem,
1983, 15(1):5‑7; & Anner BM, Moosmayer M, “Mercury inhibits Na-K-ATPase
primarily at the cytoplasmic side”, Am J Physiol, 1992, 262(5
Pt2):F84308.
(289) J.Mai, et al., Biological Trace Element
Research, 1990, 24:109-117.
(290) D. Echeverria, et al., “Neurobehavioral effects from
exposure to dental amalgam: new distinctions between recent exposure and Hg body
burden”, FASEB J, Aug 1998, 12(11):971-980; & Amalgam and Health, Swedish
Council for Planning and Coordination of Research, 1999, p297-307.
(291) H.A. Huggins, TE Levy,
“Cerebrospinal fluid protein changes in MS after dental amalgam removal”,
Alternative Med Rev, Aug 1998, 3(4):295-300.
(292) M. Daunderer, H. Schiwara, et al., “Quecksilber, Methylquecksilber,
... in Korpermaterial von Amalgamtrager”, Klin Lab, 1992, 38:391-403; & M.
Gradl, et al., in Akute und
chronische Toxizitat von Spurenelemente, Wissenschaftliche
Verlagsgesellschaft nbH, Stuttgart, 1993, p65-71; & A. Gebhardt, “Ermittlung
der Quecksilberbelastung aus Amalgamfullurngen”, Labormedizin, 1992, 16:384-386; & R.
Mayer, et al., “Zur Ermittlung de
Quecksilberfreisetzung aus Amalgamfullungen”, Die Quintessenz, 1994,
45:1143-1152; & K. Mayer, “Risikobestimmung der Amalgambelastung”, ZWR,
105(4):213-218 & 105(5):280-283; & “Amalgam: zeitbombe in mund?”, ZWR,
1995, 104(3):209-214; & JGD Birkmayer, et al., “Quecksilberdepots im Organismus
korrelieren mit der Anzahl der Amalgamfullungen”, Biol. Zahnmedizin, 1990,
6(2):57-61.
(293) H. Huggins, Burton Goldberg,
& Editors of Alternative Medicine Digest, Chronic Fatigue Fibromyalgia & Environmental
Illness, Future Medicine Publishing, Inc, 1998, p197-; &
U. Dorffer, “Anorexia Hydragyra: ...”, Monatsschr. Kinderheilkd., 1989,
137(8):472.
(294) “Do amalgam fillings
influence manic depression?”, Journal of Orthomol. Medicine, 1998,
http://www.depression.com/news/news_981116.htm.
(295) Cecil Textbook of Medicine,
20th Ed., Bennett & Plum, W.B. Saunders and Company, Philadelphia, 1996, p
69; & Comprehensive Psychiatry,
18(6), 1977, p595-598; & Poisoning & Toxicology Compendium,
Leikin and Palouchek, Lexi-Comp., Cleveland, 1998; & Harrison’s Principles
of Internal Medicine, 14th Ed., McGraw-Hill, N.Y., 1998; & Sunderman FW, “Perils of mercury”, Ann
Clin Lab Sci, 1988 Mar‑Apr, 18(2):89‑101.
(296) L. Bucio, et al., “Uptake, cellular distribution
and DNA damage produced by mercuric chloride in a human fetal hepatic cell
line”, Mutat Res, 1999 Jan 25, 423(1‑2):65‑72; & L. Verschaeve, et al., “Comparative in vitro
cytogenetic studies in mercury-exposed human lymphocytes”, Muta Res, 1985,
157(2-3):221-6; & L. Verschaeve, “Genetic damage induced
by low level mercury exposure”, Envir Res, 12:306-10, 1976.
(297) P.E. Schneider, et al., “Mercury release from
dispersalloy amalgam”, IADR Abstracts #630, 1982; & N. Sarkar, “Amalgamation
reaction of dispersalloy
reexamined”, IADR Abstracts #217, 1991; & N.K. Sarkar, et al., IADR Abstracts # 895, 1976;
& R.S. Mateer, et al., IADR Abstracts #240, 1977;
& N.K. Sarkar, et al., IADR Abstracts #358, 1978; &
N.W. Rupp, et al., IADR Abstracts #
356, 1979.
(298) C. Toomvali, “Studies of
mercury vapor emission from different dental amalgam alloys”, LIU-IFM-Kemi-EX 150, 1988;
& A. Berglund, ”A study of the release of mercury vapor from different types
of amalgam alloys”, J Dent Res, 1993, 72:939-946; & D.B. Boyer, “Mercury
vaporization from corroded dental
amalgam”, Dental Materials, 1988, 4:89-93; & V. Psarras, et al., “Effect of selenium on mercury vapour released
from dental amalgams”, Swed Dent J, 1994, 18:15-23; & L.E. Moberg, “Long
term corrosion studies of amalgams
and casting alloys in contact”, Acta Odontal Scand, 1985, 43:163-177;
& L.E. Moberg, “Corrosion
products from dental alloys”, Published Dissertation, Stockholm,
1985.
(299) H. Lichtenberg, “Mercury
vapor in the oral cavity in relation to the number of amalgam fillings and
chronic mercury poisoning”, Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 1996, 11:2,
87-94.
(300) C. Hock, et al., “Increased blood mercury levels
in patients with Alzheimer’s disease”, J Neural Transm, 1998,
105(1):59-68.
(301) Chang LW, “Neurotoxic effects of mercury”,
Environ. Res., 1977, 14(3):329-73; &
“Histochemical study on the localization and distribution of mercury in
the nervous system after mercury intoxication”, Exp Neurol, 1972, 35(1):122-37;
& “Ultrastructural studies of the nervous system after mercury
intoxication”, Acta Neuropathol(Berlin), 1972, 20(2):122-38
and 20(4):316-34.
(302) D. Klinghardt, IAOMT
Conference & tape, 1998; “Large study by M. Daunderer (Germany) of MS patients
after amalgam removal”.
(303)
H.V. Aposhian, et al., “Mobilization
of mercury in humans by DMPS”, Envir. Health Perspectives, Vol 106, Supp. 4,
Aug.1998; & Toxicology, 1995, 97(1-3):23-38; & “Urinary mercury after
administration DMPS”, FASEB J., 6:2472-2476, 1992.
(304) M.J. Vimy, et al., “Mercury from maternal silver
tooth fillings: a source of neonatal exposure”, Biological Trace Element
Research, 56:143-52, 1997.
(305) S. Soederstroem, et al., “The effect of mercury vapor on
chloinergic neurons in the fetal
brain”, Developmental Brain Research, 85(1):96-108, 1995; & E.M.
Abdulla, et al., “Comparison of
neurite outgrowth with neurofilament protein levels in neuroblastoma cells
following mercuric oxide exposure”, Clin Exp Pharmocol Physiol, 1995,
22(5):362-3.
(306) E.M. Oliveira, et al., “Mercury effects on the
contractile activity of the heart muscle”, Toxicol Appl Pharmacol,
1:86-91,1994.
(307) Duhr EF, Pendergrass JC,
Slevin JT, Haley BE, “HgEDTA complex inhibits GTP interactions with the E‑site
of brain beta‑tubulin”, Toxicology & Applied Pharmacology, 1993,
122(2):273‑80.
(308) N. Sorenson, et al., “Prenatal methyl mercury
exposure as a cardiovascular risk factor at 7 years of age”, Epidemiology, 1999,
10(4):370-4; & D.O. Marsh, et
al., “Fetal methylmercury poisoning”, Ann Neurol, 1980,
7:348-55.
(309) The Tribune, Mesa, Az., 13 Apr 1998,
(Paul Mills, Apalachee Junction); & Kyle BP, Nordic J of Biological Med,
2000.
(310) R.L. Siblerud, “The
relationship between mercury from dental amalgam and the cardiovascular system”,
Science of the Total Envir., 1990, 99(1-2):23-35.
(311) Chang LW, Hartmann HA,
”Blood-brain barrier dysfunction in experimental mercury intoxication”, Acta
Neuropathol (Berl), 1972, 21(3):179-84; & Ware RA, Chang LW, Burkholder PM,
“An ultrastructural study on the blood-brain barrier dysfunction following
mercury intoxication”, Acta Neurolpathol(Berlin), 1974, 30(3):211-214; &
Prenatal and neonatal toxicology and pathology of heavy metals”, Adv Pharmacol Chemother., 1980,
17:195-231.
(312) Richard Hanson, The Key to
Ultimate Health, 1999;& J. Lee(MD), What Your Doctor May Not Tell You
About Hormones, DAMS, (800-311-6265).
(313)
V.D.M. Stejskal, et al., “Mercury-specific lymphocytes:
an indication of mercury allergy
in man”, J. of Clinical
Immunology, 1996, 16(1):31-40.
(314)
M. Goldman, et al., “Chemically induced autoimmunity
...”, Immunology Today, 1991, 12:223-; & K. Warfyinge, et al., “Systemic autoimmunity due to
mercury vapor exposure in genetically susceptible mice”, Toxicol Appl Pharmacol,
1995, 132(2):299-309; & L.M. Bagentose, et al., “Mercury induced autoimmunity in
humans”, Immunol Res, 1999, 20(1):67-78; & “Mercury-induced autoimmunity”,
Clin Exp Immunol, 1998, 114(1):9-12.
(315)
B. Engin-Deniz, et al., ”Die queckssilberkonzentration
im spichel zehnjariger kinder in korrelation zur anzahl und Grobe iher
amalgamfullungen”, Zeitschrift fur Stomatologie, 1992, 89:471-179.
(316) B.J. Shenker, et al., Dept. of Pathology, Univ. of
Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, “Immunotoxic effects of mercuric
compounds on human lymphocytes and monocytes: alterations in B-cell function and
viability”, Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol, 1993, 15(1):87-112; & J.R. Daum,
”Immunotoxicology of mercury and cadmium on B-lymphocytes”, Int J
Immunopharmacol, 1993, 15(3):383-94.
(317) S. Zinecker, “Amalgam:
Quecksilberdamfe bis ins Gehirn”, der Kassenarzt, 1992, 32(4):23; &
“Praxiproblem Amalgam”, Der Allgermeinarzt, 1995, 17(11):1215-1221 (1800
patients).
(318) V. Schneider, “Untersuchungen ...”,
Dissertation, Frankfurt, a>M.,
1976.
(319) H.D. Utt, “Mercury breath”, Journal of
Calif. Dental Assoc., 1984, 12(2):41; & (b) Motorkina, AV, Barer GM,
Volozhin AI, “Hg release from amalgam fillings into oral cavity”, Stomatologiiia (Mosk), 1997,
76(4):9-11.
(320) U.F. Malt, et al., “Physical and mental problems
attributed to dental amalgam fillings”, Psychosomatic Medicine, 1997, 59:32-41
(99 cured).
(321) R.L. Siblerud, “Relationship
between dental amalgam and health”, Toxic Substances Journal, 1990b, 10:425-444; &
“Effects on health following removal of dental amalgams”, J Orthomolecular Med,
5(2):95-106, & “Relationship between amalgam fillings and oral cavity
health”, Ann Dent, 1990, 49(2):6-10 (86 cured).
(322) P. Engel, “Beobachtungen uber
die gesundheit vor und nach
amalgamentfernug”, Separatdruck aus Schweiz. Monatsschr Zahnm, 1998,
108(8) (75 cases amalgam removal) http://soho.globalpoint.ch/paul‑engel (89%
sigificant improvement).
(323) Dr. Kohdera, Faculty of
Dentistry, Osaka Univ, International Congress of Allergology and Clinical
Immunology, EAACI, Stockholm, June 1994; & Heavy Metal Bulletin, Vol 1, Issue 2, Oct 1994
(160 cases cured—eczema); & Tsunetoshi
Kohdera, MD, dermatology, allergology,
31 Higashitakada‑cho Mibu Nakagyo‑ku Schimazu Clinics Kyoto 604
Japan
e‑mail:smc‑inet@mbox.kyoto‑inet.or.jp; & P. Dallmann,”kon nen durch
Quecksilber entstehen?”, PeDa_Eigenverisg, 1995; & G. Ionescu, Biol Med,
1996, (2):65-68; & SS Tsyganok, “Unithiol in treatment of dermatoses”,
Vestn.Dermatol.Venerol., 1978, (9):67-69; & (these clinics use MELISA test
for diagnosis of immune reactivity) Neukirchen (clinic)(Germany, near Czech
border), Director: Gruia Ionescu, owns 2 Clinics, cases paid by insurance
companies in Germany. Email: Spezialklinik‑Neukirchen@toolpool.de fax: 0049
9947 10 51 11
(324) D. Bangsi, et al., “Dental amalgam and multiple
sclerosis”, International J of
Epidemiology, 1998 Aug, 27(4):667-71; & E. Mauch, et al., “Umweltgifte und multiple
sklerose”, Der Allgremeinarzt, 1996, 20:2226-2220.
(325) B. Arvidson (Sweden), “Inorganic mercury
is transported from muscular nerve terminals to spinal and brainstem
motorneurons”, Muscle Nerve, 1992, 15(10);1089-94; & Mitchell JD, “Heavy
metals and trace elements in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis”, Neurol Clin,
1987 Feb, 5(1):43‑60; & M. Su,
et al., “Selective involvement of
large motor neurons in the spinal cord of rats treated with methylmercury”, J
Neurol Sci, 1998, 156(1):12-7.
(326) E. Baasch, “Is multiple
sclerosis a mercury allergy?”, Schweiz arch Neurol Neurochir Psichiatr, 1966, 98:1-19; & J.
Clausen, “Mercury and MS”, Acta Neurol Scand, 1993, 87:461-; & "Sur un cas
de mercurialisme chronique simulant la sclerose en plaque", Nord med Ark
Stockholm 1880 xii no 17 1‑48 1 pl; & P. Le Quesne, “Metal-induced diseases
of the nervous system”, Br J Hosp Med, 1982, 28:534-.
(327) G. Danscher, et al., Environ Res, “Localization of
mercury in the CNS”, 1986, 41:29-43; & Danscher G, Horsted‑Bindslev P,
Rungby J, “Traces of mercury in organs from primates with amalgam fillings”, Exp Mol Pathol, 1990,
52(3):291‑9; & ”Ultrastructural localization of mercury after expsoure to
mercury vapor”, Prog Histochem Cytochem, 1991, 23:249-255; & R. Pamphlett,
et al., “Entry of low doses of
mercury vapor into the nervous system”, Neurotoxicology, 1998, 19(1):39-47;
& Pamphlett, et al., “Oxidative
damage to nucleic acids in motor neurons containing Hg”, J Neurol Sci, 1998,
159(2):121-6 (rats & primates); & Pamphlett R, Waley P, "Motor neuron
uptake of low dose inorganic mercury", J. Neurological Sciences, 135:63‑67
(1996); & Schionning JD, Danscher G, "Autometallographic inorganic mercury
correlates with degenerative changes in dorsal root ganglia of rats intoxicated
with organic mercury", APMIS, 1999 Mar, 107(3):303‑10.
(328) P. McKeever, et al., “Patterns of antigenic
expression in human glioma cells”, Crit Rev Neurobiology, 1991,
6:119-147.
(329) B. Arvidson, et al., Acta Neurol Scand, “Retrograde
axonal transport of mercury in primary sensory neurons”, 1990, 82:324-237; &
Neurosci Letters, 1990, 115:29-32; & S.M. Candura, et al., “Effects of mercuric chloride
and methyl mercury on cholinergic neuromuscular transmission”, Pharmacol
Toxicol, 1997, 80(5):218-24; & Castoldi AF, et al., “Interaction of mercury
compounds with muscarinic receptor subtypes in the rat brain”, Neurotoxicology,
1996, 17(3-4):735-41; & C Rouleau, et
al., Environmental Science and Technology, Oct 1, 1999; & Arvidson B,
Arvidsson J, Johansson K, "Mercury deposits in neurons of the trigeminal ganglia
after insertion of dental amalgam in rats", Biometals, 7(3):261-263,
1994.
(330) C.M. Tanner, et al., “Abnormal liver enzyme
metablolism in Parkinson’s”, Neurology,
1991, 41(5):Suppl 2, 89-92; & M. Watanabe, et al., Amino Acids, 1998, 15(2):143-50;
& M.T. Heafield, et al., "Plasma cysteine and sulphate
levels in patients with motor neuron disease”, Parkinson's Disease and
Alzheimer's Disease", Neurosci Lett, 1990, 110(1‑2):216,20; & A.Pean, et al., "Pathways of cysteine metabolism
in MND/ALS", J Neurol Sci, 1994, 124,Suppl:59‑61.
(331) C. Gordon, et al., “Abnormal sulphur oxidation in
systemic lupus erythrmatosus (SLE)”, Lancet, 1992, 339:8784, 25-6; & P.
Emory, et al., “Poor sulphoxidation
in patients with rheumatoid arthitis”, Ann Rheum Dis, 1992, 51:3, 318-20; & P. Emory, et al., Br J Rheumotol, 1992, 31:7,
449-51.
(332) Trepka MJ, Heinrich J, Krause C, Schulz
C, Wjst M, Popescu M, Wichmann HE, “Factors affecting internal mercury burdens
among German children”, Arch Environ Health, 1997, 52(2):134-8; & L. Soleo,
et al., “Influence of amalgam
fillings on urinary mercury excretion” (S.Italy), G Ital Med Lav Ergon, 1998,
20(2):75-81.
(333) A.J. Freitas, et al., “Effects of Hg2+ and CH3Hg+ on
Ca2+ fluxes in the rat brain”, Brain Research,
1996, 738(2):257-64; & P.R. Yallapragoda, et al., “Inhibition of calcium transport
by Hg salts in rat cerebellum and cerebral cortex”, J Appl Toxicol, 1996,
164(4):325-30; & E.Chavez, et
al., “Mitochondrial calcium release by Hg+2", J Biol Chem, 1988, 263:8,
3582-; A. Szucs, et al., Cell Mol
Neurobiol, 1997, 17(3):273-8; & D. Busselberg, “Calcium channels as target
sites of heavy metals”, Toxicol Lett, 1995 Dec, 82‑83:255‑61; & Cell Mol
Neurobiol, 1994 Dec, 14(6):675‑87.
(334) T. Nguyen, et al., Mol Immunol, 1996, 3(4):379-86;
& P. Eggleton, et al.,
“Pathophysicological roles of calreticulin in autoimmune disease”, Scand J
Immunol, 1999, 49(5):466-73.
(335) A. Engqvist, et al., “Speciation of mercury excreted
in feces from individuals with amalgam fillings”, Arch Environ Health, 1998,
53(3):205-13; & Dept. of Toxicology & Chemistry, Stockholm Univ.,
National Institute for Working Life, 1998
(www.niwl.se/ah/1998-02.html).
(336) G.S. Hill, “Drug associated
glomerulopathies”, Toxicol Pathol, 1986, 14(1):37-44; & M. Monestier, et al., European J Immunology, 1994,
29(3):723-30; & Adler SG, et al., “Hypersensitivity phenomena and the
kidney: role of drugs and environmental agents”, Am J Kidney Dis, 1985
Feb.
(337) H.G. Abadin, et al., U.S. ATSDR, “Breast-feeding
exposure of infants to mercury, lead, and cadmium: a public health perspective”,
Toxicol Ind Health, 1997, 13(4):495-517.
(338) (a) W.Y. Boadi, et al., Dept. of Food Engineering and
Biotechnology, T-I Inst of Tech., Haifa, Israel, “In vitro effect of mercury on
enzyme activities and its accumulation in the first-trimester human placento”,
Environ Res, 1992, 57(1):96-106; & “In vitro exposure to mercury and cadmium
alters term human placental membrane fluidity”, Pharmacol, 1992, 116(1):17-23;
& (b) J. Urbach, et al., Dept. of
Obstetrics & Gynecology, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel, “Effect of
inorganic mercury on in vitro placental nutrient transfer and oxygen
consumption”, Reprod Toxicol, 1992, 6(1):69-75; & (c) Karp W, Gale TF, et al., “Effect of mercuric acetate on
selected enzymes of maternal and fetal hamsters”, Environmental Research,
36:351-358; & W.B. Karp, et al.,
“Correlation of human placental enzymatic activity with trace metal
concentration in placenta”, Environ Res, 1997, 13:470-477.
(339) H. Drexler, et al., “The mercury concentration in
breast milk resulting from amalgam fillings and dietary habits”, Environ Res,
1998, 77(2):124-9.
(340) Herrman M, Schweinsberg
F, “Mercury burden from amalgam
fillings”, Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed, 1993, 194(3):271-91.
(341) A.Tosti, et al., “Contact stomatitis”, Semin
Cutan Med Surg, 1997, 16(4):314-9; & T. Nakada, et al., “Patch test materials for
mercury allergic contact dematitis”, Dermatitis, 1997, 36(5):237-9.
(342) V.Stejskal, “MELISA: A New Technology
for Diagnosing and Monitoring of Metal Sensitivity”, Proceedings: 33rd Annual
Meeting of American Acadamy of Environmental Medicine, Nov. 1998, Baltimore,
Maryland.
(343) P.L. Bigazzi, “Autoimmunity induced by
metals”, in Chang, L., Toxicology of Metals, Lewis Publishers, CRC Press
Inc.,1996, p835-52.
(344) G.A.Caron, et al., “Lymphocytes transformation
induced by inorganic and organic mercury”, Int Arch Allergy, 1970,
37:76-87.
(345) N.H.Nielsen, et al., “The relationship between
IgE-mediated and cell-mediated hypersensitivities”, The Glostrup Allergy Study,
Denmark,
British J of Dermatol, 1996, 134:669-72.
(346) Clauw DJ, “The pathogenesis of chronic
pain and fatigue syndrome: fibromyalgia”, Med Hypothesis, 1995, 44:369-78; &
Hanson S, “Fibromyalgia, glutamate, and mercury”, Heavy Metal Bulletin, Issue 4,
1999, p5,6.
(347) G.Benga, “Water exchange through
erythrocyte membranes”, Neurol Neurochir Pol, 1997 Sep‑Oct,
31(5):905‑13.
(348) A Kistner, “Quecksilbervergiftung durch
Amalgam: Diagnose und Therapie”, ZWR, 1995, 104(5):412-417; & Mass C, Bruck
W, “Study on the significance of mercury accumulation in the brain from dental
amalgam fillings through direct mouth-nose-brain transport”, Zentralbl Hyg
Umweltmed, 1996, 198(3):275-91.
(349)
M. Schaeffer, et al., “Risikofaktor
Amalgam-Ein Problemstoff”, Schriftenreihe mweltmedizin, Forum Medizin
Verlagsgesellschaft, 1996; & (b) Nixon DE, Mussmann GV, Moyer
TP, “Inorganic, organic, and total mercury in blood and urine”, J Anal Toxicol,
1996, 10(1):17-22.
(350) F. Schweinsberg, “Risk estimation of
mercury intake from different sources”, Toxicol. Lett., 1994, 72:45-51; &
L.D. Pzheusskaia, “Disintoxication therapy of patients with nonspecific
inflammatory diseases of the the female genital organs”, Akush. Ginekol, 1977,
(4):30-34.
(351) S. Halbach, et al., “Thiol chelators and mercury
effects on isolated heart muscle”, Plzen.Lek. Sborn, 1990, 62(Supp):39-41; &
“Sulhydryl-induced restoration of myocardial contractility after alteration by
mercury”, Arch. Toxicol., 63(Supp 13):349-352, 1989; & N.V. Klykov,
“Treatment of patients with mycardial infarction”, Vrach. Delo., 1979,
(12):50-3; & “Treatment of patients with chronic circulatory insufficiencey”
,Kardiologila, 1972, 12(1):126-31.
(352) B. Arnold, Eigenschaften und
Einsatzgebiete des Chelatbildners:DMPS”, Z. Umweltmedizin, 1997, 5(1):38- ;
& Diagnostik un Monitorung vonSchwermetallbelastungen, I, II, ZWR, 1996,
105(10):586-569 & (11):665-; & Therapie der
Schwermetallbelastung, Mineraloscope, 1996, (1):22-23.
(353) P.P Guida, “Therapeutic efficacy of
unithiol in Buschke’s sclerodrma”, Vrach. Delo.,1983, (8):36-38; & A.A.
Dubinskii, et al., “Morphological
changes in the skin in scleroderma after treatment with unithiol”, Vrach.Delo.,
1978, (10):112-114.
(354) W. Behnke, “Kopfschmerz un Migrane:
Schon mal an Amalgam gegcht?”, Der Allgemeinarzt, 1995, 17(11):1222-1223; &
J. Lechner, “Quecksilberbelastung,...”, Dtsch. Z. Biol. Zahnmed., 1992,
8(1):8-14.
(355) W. Kostler, “Beeinflubung der zellularen
Immunabwehr drch Quecksilberfreisetzung”, Forum Prakt. Allgem. Arzt, 1991,
30(2):62-3; & P. Schleicher, “Schwermetalle schadigen das Immunsystem”,
Mineraloscope, 1996, (1):37; & “Immunschaden durch Toxine”, Argumente+Fakten
der Medizin, 1992, 05; & W. Scheicher, Dissertation, Universitat Karlsruhe,
1977.
(356) M. Daunderer, Die Amalgamvergiftung und
ihre medizinische Folgen”, Forum Prakt. Allgem. Arzt, 1991, 30(2):44-66; &
M. Daunderer, “Jugendicher starb an Amalgam”, Forum Prakt. Allgen. Arzt,
29(11):294.
(357) S.B. Elhassani, “The many faces of
methylmercury poisoning”, J Toxicol Clin Toxicol, 1982(8):875-9; & N.
Neuburger, et al., “Kompendium
Umweltmedizin”, MediVerlagsgesellschaft, Hamburg, 1996; & O. Oster, et al., “Die Pathobiochemie, Diagnose
und Therapie der Metall- und
Metalloidintoxikation-2. Die Quecksilberintoxikation, Intensivmed, 1985,
22(3):130-9.
(358) N.I. Shtelmakh, et al., “Comparative treatments of
rheumatoid arthities”, Vrasch. Delo., 1982, (1):49-52.
(359) G. Tapparo, “Toxische Untersunchungen zu
Amalgam”, Die Zahn Arztwoche, 1992.
(360) Buchet JP, Lauwerys RR, “Influence of
DMPS on the mobilization of mercury from tissues of rats pretreated with
mercuric chloride, phenylmercury acetate, or mercury vapor”, Toxicology, 1989,
54(3):323-33.
(361) K.H. Friese, “Konnen Amalgamplomben
angebornene Innenohrschaden verusachen?”, Therapeutikon, 1993, 7(11):492-496;
& “Amalgamvergiftung-moglicher Zusammenhang mit angeborener Schwerhorlgkeit,
Der Naturarzt, 1995, 135(8):13-15; & E. Bonnet, “Okopadiatrie-Verbindung zur
Naturheilkunde”, Arztezeitschr Naturheikunde, 1995, 36(4): 272-78.
(362) G. Bohmer, et al., “Quecksilber-Mobilisation mit
dern DMPS bei arztlichem und zahnarztlichem Personal im Vergleich”, Der
Artikulator, 1989, (30):11-12; & W. Legrum, “Wie problematisch ist der
Dentalwerkstoff Amalgam?”, Dtsch. Med. Wochenschr., 1990, 115(39):1490-1494;
& M. Cikrt, et al., “Mobilization
of mercury using DMPS”, 1993, Plzen Lek. Sborn., 68(Supp), 119; & R. Hickel,
et al., “Die Quecksilberbelastung von
Zahnmedizinstudenten anch beruflicher Amalgaexposition, Dtsch. Zahnarztl. Z.,
1995, 50(7):506-10.
(363) J.W. Reinhardt, Univ. of Iowa College of
Dentistry, “Side effects: mercury contribution to
body burden from dental amalgam”, Adv Dent Res, 1992,
6:110-3.
(364) W. Bayer, Erfahrungsheikunde, 1992,
41(10):628-633; & B. Gabard, Arch Toxicol, 1978, 39(4):289-298; & H.
Pscheidl, “Amalgamvergiftung- eine chronische Krankheit und ihre Therapie”, ACD,
1994, 3(4):153-166.
(365) C. Schulte-Uebbing, “Umweltbedingte
Frauenkranheiten”, Sonntag-Verlag, Stuttgart, 1996; &
Umweltmedizin in der Frauenheilkunde, Arztezeitschr. Naturheilkunde,
35(2):9-17.
(366) “Zahnamalgam und Schwangerschaft”,
Geburtshilfe Frauenheikd, 1995, 55(6):M63-M65; & T. Zinke, “Gibt es neue
Erkenntnisse zur Amalgamproblematic?”, in Status Quo and Perspectives of
Amalgam and Other Dental Materials, L.F. Friberg (Ed.), Georg=Thieme-Verlag,
Stuttgart, New
York, 1995, p1-7.
(367) I. Gerhard, “Amalgam aus gynakologischer
Sicht”, Der Frauenarzt, 1995, 36(6):627-28; & “Schdstoffe und
Fertillitatsstorungen”, Schwermetalle und Mineralstoffe, Geburtshilfe
Frauenheikd, 1992, 52(7):383-396; & “Reproductive risks of heavy metal and
pesticides in women”, in: Reproductive Toxicology, M.Richardson (Ed.),
VCH Weinhelm, 1993, 167-83;
& “Unfruchtbarkeit bei Frauen durch Umwelterkrankungen, JD
Kruse-Jarres (Ed.), 1993, 51-68.
(368) Stejskal VDM, Danersund A, Lindvall A,
Hudecek R, Nordman V, Yaqob A, et
al., “Metal- specific memory lymphocytes: biomarkers of sensitivity in man”,
Neuroendocrinology Letters, 1999.
(369) Sterzl I, Prochazkova J, Stejskal VDM,
et al., “Mercury and nickel allergy:
risk factors in fatigue and autoimmunity”, Neuroendocrinology Letters, 1999,
20:221-228.
(370) Magos L, Clarkson TW, Hudson AR, “The effects of
dose of elemental mercury and first pass circulation time on organ distribution
of inorganic mercury in rats”, Biochim Biophys Acta, 1989,
991(1):85-9.
(371) Halbach S, “Estimation of mercury dose
by a novel quantitation of elemental and inorganic species released from
amalgam”, Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 1995, 67(5):295-300.
(372) Atchison WD, “Effects of neurotoxicants
on synaptic transmission”, Neuroltoxicol Teratol, 1998, 10(5):393-416; &
Sidransky H, Verney E, “Influence of lead acetate and selected metal salts on
tryptophan binding to rat hepatic nuclei”, Toxicol Pathol, 1999, 27(4):441-7;
& Shukla GS, Chandra SV, “Effect of interaction of Mn2+ with Zn2+, Hg2+, and
Cd2+ on some neurochemicals in rats”, Toxicol Lett, 1982, 10(2-3):163-8; &
Brouwer M, et al., “Functional
changes induced by heavy metal ions”, Biochemistry, 1982,
21(20):2529-38.
(373) Marcusson JA, “Psychological and somatic
subjective symptoms as a result of dermatological patch testing with metallic
mercury and PHA”, Toxicol
Lett, 1996, 84(2):113-22; & “The frequency of mercury intolerance in
patients with CFS and healthy controls”, Contact Dermatitis, 1999 Jul,
41(1):60‑1.
(374) Benkelfat C, et al., “Mood lowering effect of
tryptophan depletion”, Arch Gen Psychiatry, 1994, 51(9):687-97; & Young SN,
et al., “Tryptophan depletion causes
a rapid lowering of mood in normal males”, Psychopharmacology, 1985,
87(2):173-77; & Smith KA, et al.,
“Relapse of depression after depletion of tryptophan”, Lancet, 1997,
349(9056):915-19; & Delgado PL, et
al., “Serotonin function, depletion of plasma tryptophan, and the mechanism
of antidepressant action”, Arch Gen Psychiatry, 1990, 47(5):411-18.
(375) Stejskal VDM, Danersund A, Lindvall A,
“Metal-specific memory lymphocytes: biomarkers of sensitivity in man”,
Neuroendocrinology Letters, 1999; &
Stejskal V, Hudecek R, Mayer W, "Metal-specific lymphocytes: risk factors
in CFS and other related diseases", Neuroendocrinology Letters, 1999,
20:289-298.
(376) Melchart D, Wuhr E, Weidenhammer W,
Kremers L, “A multicenter survey of
amalgam fillings and subjective complaints in non-selected patients in the
dental practice”, Eur J Oral Sci, 1998,106:770-77 (6,744 patients in 34
clinics).
(377) Murtomaa H, Haavio-Manila E, Kandolin I,
“Burnout and its causes in Finnish dentists”, Comunity Dental Oral Epidemiol, 1990,
18:208-12.
(378) Cheraskin E, Ringsdorf WM, Medford FH,
“Daily vitamin C consumption and fatigability”, J Am Gerialr Soc, 1976,
24:136-37.
(379) MacDonald EM, Mann AH, Thomas HC,
“Interferons as mediators of psychiatric morbidity”, The Lancet, 1978 Nov 21,
1175-78; & Hickie I, Lloyd A, “Are cytokines associated with
neuropsychiatric syndrome in humans?”
Int J Immunopharm, 1995, 4:285-294.
(380) Komaroff AL, Buchwald DS, “Chronic
fatigue syndrome: an update”, Ann Rev Med, 1998, 49:1-13; & Buchwald DS,
Wener MH, Kith P, “Markers of inflammation and immune activation in CFS”, J
Rheumatol, 1997, 24:372-76.
(381) Demitrack MA, Dale JK, “Evidence for
impaired activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in patients with
chronic fatigue sydrome”, J Clin Endocrinol Metabol, 1991, 73:1224-1234; &
Turnbull AV, Rivier C, “Regulation of the HPA axis by cytokines”, Brain Behav
Immun, 1995, 20:253-75; & Ng TB, Liu WK, “Toxic effect of heavy metals on
cells isolated from the rat adrenal and testis”, In Vitro Cell Dev Biol, 1990
Jan, 26(1):24‑8.
(382) Sterzl I, Fucikova T, Zamrazil V, “The
fatigue syndrome in autoimmune thyroiditis with polyglandular activation of
autoimmunity”, Vnitrni Lekarstvi, 1998, 44:456-60.
(383) Saito K, “Analysis of a genetic factor
of metal allergy-polymorphism of HLA-DR-DO gene”, Kokubyo Gakkai Zasschi, 1996, 63:53-69;
& Prochazkova J, Ivaskova E, Bartova J, Stejskal VDM, “Immunogentic findings
in patients with altered tolerance to heavy metals”, Eur J Human Genet, 1998,
6:175.
(384) Kuklinski B, “Glutathione Transferasen
und Krankheit”, Seitschrift fur Umweltmedizin, 1999, 7:39-45.
(385) Kohdera T, Koh N, Koh R,
“Antigen-specific lymphocyte stimulation test on patients with psoriasis
vulgaris”, XVI International Congress of Allergology and Clinical Immunology,
Oct 1997, Cancun, Mexico; & Ionescu G, “Schwermetallbelastung bei atopischer
Dermatitis und Psoriasis, Biol Med, 1996, 2:65-68.
(386) Great Smokies Diagnostic Lab, research
web pages (by condition) http://www.gsdl.com; & Doctors Data Lab,
http://www.doctorsdata.com, inquiries @doctors data.com, & MetaMetrix Lab,
http://www.metametrix.com; & Biospectron Lab, LMI, Lennart Månsson
International AB, lmi.analyslab@swipnet.se.
(387) Caulk, Inc. (amalgam manufacturer),
http://www.caulk.com/mSDSDFU/DISPERSDFU.html.
(388) Sata K, Kusada Y, Zhang Z, Ueda K, Ishi
Y, Mori T, et al., “An
epidemiological study of mercury sensitization”, Allergology International,
1997, 46:201-6.
(389) Brunker P, Rother D, Sedlmeier R, J Mol
Gen Genet, 1996, 251(3); & Williams MV, Environ Mol Mutagen, 1996,
27(1):30-3.
(390) Ellingsen DG, Nordhagen HP, Thomassen Y,
“Urinary selenium excretion in workers with low exposure to mercury vapour”, J
Appl Toxicol, 1995, 15(1):33-6.
(391) Schumann K, “The toxicological
estimation of heavy metal content (Hg,Cd,Pb) in food for infants and small
children”, Z Ernahrungswiss, 1990, 29(1):54-73 (article in German with English
abstract).
(392) Gebbart E, “Chromosone damage in
individuals exposed to heavy metals”, Curr Top Environ Toxicol Chem, 1985,
8:213-25.
(393) Furuhjelm M, Jonson B, Int J of
Fertility, 1962, 7(1):17-21; & Dr. J.K Sherman, Univ. of Arkansas, study
reported in Washington Star Newspaper, Jan 7, 1979.
(394) Blatter B, van der Star M, Roeleveld N,
Int Archives of Occup and Environ Health, 1987, 59:551-7.
(395) Baranski B, Environmental Health
Perspectives, 1993, 101(suppl 2): 85-90; & Baranski B, “Effect of mercury on
the sexual cycle and prenatal and postnatal development of progeny”, Med Pr,
1981, 32(4):271-6.
(395) Shapiro IM, Cornblath DR, Sumner AJ,
“Neurophysiological and neuropsychological function in mercury-exposed
dentists”, The Lancet, 1982, 1:1147-1150; & Szzell BP, Oler J, “Chronic
low-level mercury exposure and neuropsychological functioning”, J of Clin and
Exper Neuropsych, 1986, 8:581-93.
(396) Epidemiologisk undersokning av
fosterkador hos 1.2 milj. barn, fodda sedan 1967; Norgeyrkesmed. Avd. Haukelands
sykehus. Aftenposton 6 mpv 1997.
(397) Hudecek R, Danersund A, Removal of
Incompatible Dental Material in Patients with Intolerance of Dental Materials,
In: Amalgam and Health: The Swedish Council for Planning and Research
Coordination, 1999, p78-84.
(398) Saengsirinavin C, Pringsulaka P,
“Mercury levels in urine and head hair of dental personnel”, J Dent Assoc Thai,
1988, 38(4):170-9.
(399) Herber RF, Wibowo AA, “Exposure of
dentists and assistants to mercury: levels in urine and hair related to
conditions of practice”, Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 1988,
16(3):153-8.
(400)
Kim DE, Song KB, Kim YJ, “Mercury contents in hair of dental personnel and
evaluation of various agents suppressing mercury vaporization”, Taehan Chikkwa
Uisa Hyophoe Chi, 27(7):
649-59.
(401) Sikorski R, Juszkiewicz T, “Women in
dental surgeries: reproductive hazards in occupational exposure to mercury”, Int
Arch Occup Environ Health, 1987, 59(6):551-7.
(402) Ando T, Wakisaka I, Hatano H, “Mercury
concentration in gray hair”, Nippon Eiseigaku Zasshi, 1989,
43(6):1063-8.
(403) Mayall FG, Hickman J, Knight LC,
Singharo S, "An amalgam tattoo of the soft palate: a case report with energy
dispersive X-ray analysis”, J Laryngol Otol, 1992 Sep, 106(9):834-5; &
Pierson HF, "Pharmacological perturbation of murine melanoma growth by copper
chelates”, Cancer Lett, 1985 Mar, 26(2):221-33.
(404) M.E. Godfrey, “Candida, dysbiosis and
amalgam”, J. Adv. Med., vol 9, no 2 (1996); & Romani L, “Immunity to Candida
albicans: Th1,Th2 cells and beyond”, Curr Opin Microbiol, 1999, 2(4):363-7;
& Alfred V. Zamm, “CANDIDA ALBICANS THERAPY: Dental mercury removal, an
effective adjunct”, J. Orthmol.
Med., v1, n4, p261-5 (1986).
(405) Jenny Stejskal, Vera Stejskal, “The role
of metals in autoimmune diseases and the link to neuroendocrinology”,
Neuroendocrinology Letters, 1999, 20:345‑358 (see #218).
(406) Goering Pl, Rowland AS,
“Toxicity assessment of mercury vapor drom dental amalgams”, Fundam Appl
Toxicol, 1992, 19:319-329.
(407) Wehner‑Caroli J, Scherwitz C,
Schweinsberg F, Fierlbeck G, “Exacerbation of pustular psoriasis in mercury poisoning”, Hautarzt, 1994 Oct,
45(10):708‑10.
(408) Eedy DJ, Burrows D, Dlifford T, Fay A,
“Elevated T cell subpopulations in dental students”, J Prosthet Dent, 1990,
63(5):593-6; & Yonk LJ, et al.,
“CD+4 helper T-cell depression in autism”, Immunol Lett, 1990, 25(4):341-5;
& Jaffe JS, Strober W, Sneller MC, “Functional abnormalites of CD8+ T cells
define a unique subset of patients with common variable immunodeficiency”,
Blood, 1993, 82(1):192-20.
(409) Autism: a unique form of mercury
poisoning, http://www.canfoundation.org/newcansite/sciwatch/invest.html; &
Yazbak FE (MD, FAAP) Autism 99: A
National Emergency, http://www.garynull.com/documents/autism_99.htm.
(410) J.R. Cade, et al., “Autism and schizophrenia linked
to malfunctioning enzyme for milk protein digestion”, Autism, Mar
1999.
(411) Puschel G, Mentlein R, Heymann E,
“Isolation and characterization of dipeptidyl peptidase IV from human placenta”,
Eur J Biochem, 1982 Aug, 126(2):359-65; & Kar NC, Pearson CM,
“Dipeptyl peptidases in human muscle disease”,Clin Chim Acta, 1978,
82(1-2):185-92; & Seroussi K, Autism and Pervasive Developmental
Disorders, 1998, p174,etc.
(412) Moreno-Fuenmayor H, Borjas L, Arrieta A,
Valera V, “Plasma excitatory amino acids in autism”, Invest Clin, 1996,
37(2):113-28; & Rolf LH, Haarman FY, Grotemeyer KH, Kehrer H, “Serotonin and
amino acid content in platelets of autistic children”, Acta Psychiatr Scand,
1993, 87(5):312-6; & Naruse H, Hayashi T, Takesada M, Yamazaki K, “Metabolic
changes in aromatic amino acids and monoamines in infantile autism and a new
related treatment”, No To Hattatsu, 1989, 21(2):181-9; & Carlsson ML, “Is
infantile autsim a hypoglutamatergic disorder?”, J Neural Transm, 1998,
105(4-5):525-35.
(413) Autism-Mercury@egroups.com, web group of
parents with autistic kids and autism doctors and researchers; &
http://www.edelsoncenter.com; & Edelson SB, Cantor DS, “Autism: xenobiotic
influences”, Toxicol Ind Health, 1998, 14(4):553-63; & Liska DJ, “The
detoxification enzyme systems”,
Altern Med Rev, 1998, 3(3):187-98.
(414)
Wecker L, Miller SB, Cochran SR, Dugger DL, Johnson WD, “Trace element
concentrations in hair from autistic children”, Defic Res, 1985, 29(Pt
1):15-22.
(415) Reichrtova E, et al., “Cord serum immunoglobulin E
related to enviornmental contamination of human placentas with organochlorine
compounds”, Envir Health Perspec, 1999, 107(11):895-99; & Gavett SH, et al., “Residual oil fly ash amplifies
allergic cytokines, airway responsiveness, and inflammation in mice”, Am J
Respir Crit Care Med, 1999, 160(6):1897-1904; & Kramer U, et al., “Traffic-related air pollution
is associated with atopy in children living in urban areas”, Epidemiology, 2000,
11(1):64-70.
(416) Rothstein JD, Martin LJ, Kuncl RW,
“Decreased glutamate transport by the brain and spinal cord in ALS”, New Engl J
Med, 1992, 326:1464-8.
(417) Folkers K, et al., “Biochemical evidence for a
deficiency of vitamin B6 in subjects reacting to MSL-Glutamate”, Biochem Biophys
Res Comm, 1981, 100:972; & Felipo V, et al.,
“L-carnatine increases the affinity of glutamate for quisqualate
receptors and prevents glutamate neurotoxicity”, Neurochemical Research, 1994,
19(3):373-377; & Akaike A, et
al., “Protective effects of a vitamin-B12 analog (methylcobalamin) against
glutamate cytotoxicity in cultured cortical neurons”, European J Pharmacology,
1993, 241(1):1-6.
(418) Srikantaiah MV, Radhakrishnan AN,
“Studies on the metabolism of vitamin B6 in the small intestine. Purification
and properties of monkey intestinal pyridoxal kinase”, Indian J Biochem, 1970
Sep, 7(3):151‑6.
(419) Lipozencic J, Milavec‑Puretic V, Pasic
A, “Contact allergy and psoriasis”, Arh Hig Rada Toksikol, 1992 Sep,
43(3):249‑54; & Roujeau JC, et
al., “Acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis. Analysis of 63 cases”,
Arch Dermatol, 1991 Sep, 127(9):1333‑8; & Yiannias JA, Winkelmann RK,
Connolly SM, “Contact sensitivities in palmar plantar pustulosis
(acropustulosis)”, Contact Dermatitis, 1998 Sep, 39(3):108‑11.
(420) Rivola J, Krejci I, Imfeld T, Lutz F,
“Cremation and the environmental mercury burden”, Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed,
1990, 100(11):1299‑303; & Matter‑Grutter C, Baillod R, Imfeld T, Lutz F,
“Mercury emission measurements in a crematorium. The dentistry aspects”, Schweiz
Monatsschr Zahnmed, 1995, 105(8):1023‑8.
(421) Yoshida M, Kishimoto T, Yamamura Y, Tabuse M, Akama Y, Satoh H, “Amount of
mercury from dental amalgam filling released into the atmosphere by
cremation”,
Nippon
Koshu Eisei Zasshi, 1994 Jul, 41(7):618‑24.
(422) Reese KM, “Mercury emissions from
crematoria”, Chem & Engin News,
12-7-98,
p80-81; & Lancet, 1998, 352:1602.
(423) C.R. Adams, et al., “Mercury intoxication simulating
ALS”, JAMA, 1983, 250(5):642-5; & T. Barber, “Inorganic mercury
intoxification similar to ALS”, J of Occup Med, 1978, 20:667-9.
(424) Munch G, Gerlach M, Sian J, Wong A,
Riederer P, “Advanced glycation end products in neurodegeneration: more than
early markers of oxidative stress?”, Ann Neurol, 1998 Sep, 44(3 Suppl
1):S85‑8.
(425) Hu H, Abedi‑Valugerdi M, Moller G,
“Pretreatment of lymphocytes with mercury in vitro induces a response in T cells
from genetically determined low‑responders and a shift of the interleukin
profile”, Immunology, 1997 Feb, 90(2):198‑204; & Hu H, Moller G,
Abedi‑Valugerdi M, “Major histocompatibility complex class II antigens are
required for both cytokine production and proliferation induced by mercuric
chloride in vitro”, J Autoimmun, 1997 Oct, 10(5):441‑6; & Hu H, Moller G,
Abedi‑Valugerdi M, “Mechanism of mercury‑induced autoimmunity: both T helper 1‑
and T helper 2‑type responses are involved”, Immunology, 1999 Mar,
96(3):348‑57.
(426) Hultman P, Nielsen JB, “The effect of
toxicokinetics on murine mercury-induced autoimmunity”, Environ Res, 1998,
77(2):141-8.
(427) Chetty CS, McBride V, Sands S, Rajanna
B, “Effects in vitro on rat brain Mg(++)-ATPase”, Arch Int Physiol Biochim, 1990,
98(5):261-7; & M.Burk, et al.,
Magnesium, 4(5-6):325-332, 1985?
(428) O’Carroll RE, Masterton G, Goodwin GM,
“The neuropsychiatric sequelae of mercury poisoning. The Mad Hatter’s disease
revisited”, Br J Psychiatry, 1995, 167(1):95-8; & PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTS, PUBLIC HEALTH
BULLETIN #263,March 28, 1941, “Mercurialism and its control in the felt hat
industry”.
(429) Rodier P.M., “Developing brain as a
target of toxicity”, Environ Health Perspect, 1995, 103(Supp 6):73-76; &
Rice DC, “Issues in developmental neurotoxicology: interpretation and
implications of the data”, Can J Public Health, 1998, 89(Supp1):S31-40; &
Rice DC, Barone S, “Critical periods of vulnerability for the developing nervous
system: evidence from human and animal models”, Environ Health Persect, 2000,
108(supp 3):511-533; & Crinnion
WJ, “Environmental toxins and their common health effects”, Altern Med Rev,
2000, 5(1):52-63.
(430) Fukino H, Hirai M, Hsueh YM, Yamane Y,
“Effect of zinc pretreatment on mercuric choride-induced lipid peroxidation in
the rat kidney”, Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 1984, 73(3):395-401.
(431) Smith T, Pitts K, McGarvey JA, Summers
AO, “Bacterial oxidation of mercury metal vapor”, Appl Environ Microbiol, 1998,
64(4):1328-32.
(432) Sutton KG, McRory JE, Guthrie H, Snutch
TP, “P/Q-type calcium channels mediate the activity-dependent feedback of
syntaxin-1A”, Nature, 1999, 401(6755):800-4.
(433) Epidemiologisk undersokning av
fosterkador hos 1.2 milj. barn, fodda sedan 1967; Norge yrkesmed. Avd.
Haukelands sykehus. Aftenposton 6 mpv 1997.
(434) Echeverria D, et al., “Neurobehavioral effects from
exposure to dental amalgam vapor (Hg0): new distinctions between recent exposure
and Hg body burden”, Swedish Council for Coordinating and Research,
1999.
(435)
Norwegian Dept. of Health, “The Use of Dental Restoration Materials in Norway”,
Oct 1998, IK-2652, & Press Release, Australian NHMRC, Mar 1999; & Heavy
Metal Bulletin, Issue 1, 1999.
(436) Schiwara, H.-W. (Medical Laboratory)
Arzte fur Laboratoriumsmedizen, D-28357 Bremen; & Heavy Metal Bul, 1999,
1:28.
(437) Affinity Labeling Technology, Inc.
(Dental Lab), oral toxicity testing technology and tests,
see research web pages on amalgam toxicity, root canals, cavitaions, http://www.altcorp.com.
(438) Stefanovic V., et al., “Kidney ectopeptidases in
mercuric chloride-induced renal failure”,
Cell Physiol Biochem, 1998, 8(5):278-84.
(439) “Part 1, mercuric chloride
intoxication”, Bull Environ Contam Toxicol, 1978, 20(6):729-35; & Mondal MS,
Mitra S, “Inhibition of bovine xanthine oxidase activity by Hg2+ and other metal
ions”, J Inorg Biochem, 1996, 62(4):271-9; & Sastry KV, Gupta PK, “In vitro
inhibition of digestive enzymes by heavy metals and their reversal by chelating
agents”.
(440) Kidd RF, “Results of dental amalgam
removal and mercury detoxification”, Altern Ther Health Med, 2000 Jul,
6(4):49‑55.
(441) National Acadamy of Sciences, National
Research Council, Committee on Developmental Toxicology, Scientific Frontiers
in Developmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment, June 1, 2000, 313 pages.
& PR.
(442) Olanow CW, Arendash GW, “Metals and free
radicals in neurodegeneration”, Curr Opin Neurol, 1994, 7(6):548-58; &
Kasarskis EJ (MD), “Metallothionein in ALS Motor Neurons (IRB #91-22026), FEDRIP
DATABASE, NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE (NTIS), ID:
FEDRIP/1999/07802766.
(443) Troy CM, Shelanski ML, “Down-regulation
of copper/zinc superoxide dismutase causes apototic dealth in PC12 neuronal
cells”, Proc National Acad Sci, USA, 1994, 91(14):6384-7; & Rothstein JD,
Dristol LA, Hosier B, Brown RH, Kunci RW, “Chronic inhibition of superoxide
dismutase produces apoptotic death of spinal neurons”, Proc Nat Acad Sci, USA,
1994, 91(10):4155-9.
(444) Beal MF, “Coenzyme Q10 administration
and its potential for treatment of neurodegenerative diseases”, Biofactors,
1999, 9(2-4):262-6; & Nagano S, Ogawa Y, Yanaghara T, Sakoda S, “Benefit of
a combined teatment with trientine and ascorbate in famial amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis model mice”, Neurosci Lett, 1999, 265(3):159-62.
(Note: 442-4 not used, look at als paper)
(445) Clifford Consulting & Research, Inc,
Dental Materials Reactivity Testing, Colorada Springs, Colo,
http://www.ccrlab.com; & Peak
Energy Performance, Inc., Dental Materials Biocompatibility Testing,
http://www.peakenergy.com.
(446) P.W. Phillips, Skinner’s Science of
Dental Materials, 1980; & ImmunoSciences Lab.
(447) Amalgam/mercury poisoned patients
organizations, DAMS: Assoc. of Dental Mercury Patients-U.S.,
http://www.amalgam.org; & Swedish Association of Dental Mercury Patients,
http://www.tf.nu/eng/infoeng1.html.
(448) Dr. J. Mercola, Optimal Center
Newsletter, Aug 2000, http://www.mercola.com; & (b) “Decreased phagocytosis
of myelin by macrophages with ALA”, Journal of
Neuroimmunology, 1998, 92:67-75; & (c) (Human Reproduction, Jun 2000,
Supp1:1-13; & J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol, 1999, 69:97-107; & Mult Scler,
1997, 3:105-12).
(449)
(450) Dr. S J Walsh and L M Rau, University of
Connecticut Health Center, “Autoimmune disease overlooked as a leading cause of
death in women”, Am J Public Health, 2000, 90:1463‑1466.
(451) Miszta H, Dabrowski Z, “Effect of
mercury and combined effect of mercury on the activity of acetylcholinesterase
of rat lymphocytes during in vitro incubation”, Folia Haematol Int Mag Klin
Morphol Blutforsch, 1989, 116(1):151‑5; & Bear D, Rosenbaum J, Norman R,
“Aggression in cat and human precipitated by a cholinesterase inhibitor”, The
Journal Psychosomatics, July 1986, vol 27, no 7, p535‑536; & Devinsky O,
Kernan J, Bear D, “Aggressive behavior following exposure to cholinesterase
inhibitors”, Journal of Neuropsychiatry, vol 4, no 2, Spring 1992,
p189‑199.
(452) Uppsala Amalgam Clinic, Sweden, (www.melisa.org)
(over 800 patients, CFS, MCS, neurological).
(453) Blumer W, "Mercury toxicity and dental
amalgam fillings", Journal of Advancement in Medicine, v.11, n.3, Fall 1998,
p.219.
(454) Cooley RL, Stilley JS, Lubow RM,
"Mercury vapor produced during sterilization of amalgam-contaminated
instruments", The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, March 1985, v53, n3, p304-
308.
(455) Lindvall A, Lindh U, Danersund A, Metal
Profiles in 25 Patients with Long-Term Illness, Presented at Eurotox 93
Congress; & Lindh U, Nucl Instr and Meth,1988, B30:404; & Hallgren R,
Feltelius N, Lindh U, J. Rheumatol., 1988, 15:308.
(456) Panasiuk J, “Peripheral blood lymphocyte
transformation test in various skin diseases of allergic origin” (nickel &
lupus), Przegl Dermatol, 1980, 67(6):823‑9 [Article in Polish]; & Barnett
JH, “Discoid lupus erythematosus exacerbated by contact
dermatitis”, Cutis, 1990 Nov, 46(5):430‑2 (nickel &
lupus).
(457) International Labor Organization, Mental
health in the workplace in Finland, Germany, United Kingdom and United States, Oct
2000,
www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/pr/2000/37.htm (not
used).
(458) Dowling AL, Iannacone EA, Zoeller RT,
“Maternal hypothyroidism selectively affects the expression of
neuroendocrine‑specific protein A messenger ribonucleic acid in the
proliferative zone of the fetal rat brain cortex”, Endocrinology, 2001 Jan
1,142(1):390‑399.
(459) Isny Clinic (South Germany), Kurt
Muller, MD, member of Editorial Board for Ganzheitliches Medicine Journal,
Wassertornstrasse 6 , Isny, BRD
fax: 0049 7562 550 52