The FDA and Mercury/amalgam fillings

[Guest guest]

http://www.jonbarron.org/newsletters/06-23-2008.php

For years, the FDA has marched arm in arm with the American Dental

Association and unflinchingly maintained the joint position that mercury

fillings are perfectly safe, despite ever increasing evidence to the

contrary. But on June 3rd, they finally broke ranks. However, before you

give a big round of applause to the FDA, understand that their statement

was not voluntary. It resulted from the settlement of a lawsuit brought

by the Mercury Policy

Project, Mom's

Against Mercury,

Consumers for Dental

Choice, et al. And although the statement itself was weak and

highly qualified, it certainly represents a breaking of the ranks, and it

absolutely signals the beginning of the end for amalgam fillings -- even

if the ADA can't see it yet.

The Lawsuit and the

FDA

 

On June 3rd, the FDA

posted an

announcement on its website warning that mercury-based amalgam

fillings " may " pose a safety risk for pregnant women and young

children. The FDA posted this precaution on its Website as the result of

a settlement of the lawsuit I mentioned above. Also, as I mentioned

earlier, the warning is not strong; it's highly qualified; and it limits

itself to two groups, pregnant women and children, both of which are

already

urged to

limit their mercury intake from seafood because of concerns that

too much mercury can harm developing brains. Entertainingly,

the FDA also

recommends that " women and young children, in particular,

should include fish or shellfish in their diets due to their many

nutritional benefits. " Whoever said FDA policy needs to be

consistent?

The announcement then goes on to say that the FDA " will examine

evidence concerning whether the release of mercury vapor [released in the

act of chewing food] can cause health problems, including neurological

disorders in children and fetuses. " In their announcement the FDA

also mentioned that in 2002, they had published a " proposed "

rule to classify dental amalgam as a class II device with special

controls. They then went on to say that on April 28, 2008, they had

reopened the comment period for that proposed rule -- six years later,

mind you. Additional controls under consideration include warnings to

alert consumers of the mercury in amalgams before having cavities filled

and/or restricting mercury-containing amalgam fillings in small children

and certain other patients. The FDA is accepting public comments until

July 28 with a final ruling expected a year from now, by July 28, 2009.

Again, this is not voluntary. The FDA is taking these actions because

they were imposed on them as part of the settlement of the Mom's Against

Mercury lawsuit -- not out of a suddenly enlightened vision.

" It's an

open question what we will do, " FDA Deputy Commissioner

Randall Lutter told The Associated Press; however, " what this says

is there's a clear intent on our part on labeling for sensitive

subpopulations. " Certainly a mixed message!

On the other hand, Michael Bender of the Mercury Policy Project called

the settlement " a watershed moment. " And Charles Brown, an

attorney for Consumers for Dental Choice said, " This court

settlement signals the death knell for mercury fillings. "

The American Dental Association disagreeNot surprisingly,

 

the ADA disagrees. In summary, the ADA's position is that the FDA

settlement changes nothing. It merely sets a definite deadline (July 28,

2009) for the FDA to complete the reclassification process for amalgam

fillings that it started in 2002. As far as the ADA is concerned the FDA

has in no way changed its approach to, or position on, amalgam fillings.

As they point out, the FDA is not calling for restrictions on the use of

amalgam in any particular group. They are merely restating their concerns

and have set a timetable for evaluating those concerns.

Also, not surprisingly, the ADA then dredged up a number of studies that

support their position that despite the fact that mercury has long been

linked to brain and kidney damage at certain levels, children with

amalgam fillings do not experience adverse effects related to

neurobehavioral, IQ, and kidney function compared to those with composite

fillings. The ADA believes these studies support the existing scientific

understanding that the minute amount of mercury released by amalgam does

not adversely affect children's health.

Mercury fillingsSo what is the truth about mercury

fillings? Are they safe, or not?

As I detailed in

Lessons from the

Miracle Doctors, the American Dental Association has

resolutely maintained for years that " when mercury is combined with

the metals used in dental amalgam, its toxic properties are made

harmless. " If this were true, it would be miraculously fortuitous.

Amalgam, which consists of mercury, silver, tin, copper, and a trace

amount of zinc, has been used by dentists for hundreds of years -- as far

back, actually, as the 7th century in China. In the United States,

mercury-based fillings made their appearance in the early 1800s.

 

From the beginning, there were a number of dentists who were concerned

by the presence of mercury, since by that time it was fairly well known

that mercury was poisonous. In fact, these concerns were so strong that

by the mid-1940s several dental societies, including the American Society

of Dental Surgeons, had joined together to stop the use of amalgam

fillings. But amalgam was just too easy to work with, and whatever ill

effects people experienced were too far down the road to matter. So, in

1859, the American Dental Association (ADA) was founded primarily to

promote the use of mercury amalgam as a safe and desirable tooth filling

material. (Not surprising, then, that the ADA has continued to support

amalgam fillings no matter the evidence.) There were no tests done at the

time. Amalgam was promoted because it was easy to work with. The reason

the mercury was used was because it serves to " dissolve " the

other metals and make a homogenous whole.

 

It would be miraculous indeed if you could arbitrarily use one of the

most toxic substances in existence with no ill effect. In fact, as a

toxic metal, mercury ranks just behind plutonium! So how did the ADA

defend its use of such a highly toxic substance in your mouth? Well, the

early position was that the mercury reacts with the other metals to form

a " biologically inactive substance " so that none of it ever

makes its way into your body. This was an interesting theory that, of

course, turned out not to be true. Numerous studies conducted in the

1970s and 1980s proved conclusively that the mercury from fillings

(primarily from mercury vapor created when we chew) makes its way into

the body, ending up in your lungs, heart, stomach, kidneys, endocrine

glands, gastrointestinal tract, jaw tissue, and our brains. In effect,

the denser the tissue, the greater the concentration of mercury.

There have been over 12,000 papers published to date elucidating the

dangers of amalgam fillings, but the most compelling of those studies

detailed the use of radioactively tagged amalgam fillings in a controlled

experiment. In less than thirty days, substantial levels of the tagged

mercury was found throughout the body and brain, especially in the liver

and kidneys. Studies have shown that within a month of receiving amalgam

fillings,

 

kidney function is reduced by well over 50 percent.

Once it became irrefutable that mercury from the fillings was ending up

in our bodies, it then became mandatory for the ADA to find a new

theory/defense. Again, not based on clinical studies but rather on

convenience, it became the position of the ADA that, yes, perhaps some

mercury does make its way into the body, but at levels that are so low it

has no effect on our health. Without batting an eye, the FDA also adopted

the new position with no noticeable debate or research. And once again,

it would be miraculous indeed if that were true. Unfortunately, it is

not. Like so many other toxic substances, the real problem with mercury

is that it is a cumulative poison and the body holds onto a significant

percentage of the mercury that enters it. In fact, mercury does not

easily " metabolize " and pass out of the body. It remains for

years and years locked to body tissue. If you want to get rid of it, you

have to

 

chelate it out.

So mercury is one of the most toxic metals known -- even more toxic than

lead, second to plutonium. And while there is no " conclusive "

evidence that the mercury from fillings causes any particular health

problems, there are a number of studies that imply such a relationship.

There is strong evidence that mercury lowers T-cell (white blood cells)

counts. A number of studies have shown removing amalgam fillings can

cause T-cell counts to rise anywhere from 50 to 300 percent. This, alone,

implicates amalgam fillings in cancer, autoimmune diseases, allergies,

Candida overgrowth, and multiple sclerosis (mercury levels in MS patients

are, on average, 7.5 times higher than normal). In fact, there have been

several studies that have shown that white blood cell abnormalities, such

as found in leukemia patients, tend to normalize when amalgam fillings

are removed.

It has also been shown that mercury interferes with the ability of the

blood to carry oxygen -- actually cutting its oxygen-carrying

capabilities by half. This would account for many instances of chronic

fatigue syndrome. Mercury also has an affinity for our brains and, as

already mentioned, is implicated in brain tumors and dementia. The famous

" mad hatters " of England were actually hat makers who worked

with mercury and eventually went insane. Finally, mercury has an affinity

for fetal tissue -- reaching higher levels in the fetus than in the

mother herself -- which accounts for mercury's implication in birth

defects.

What about other sources of mercury entering the body? Well, seafood is,

of course, a source, and some other foods we eat are too. But the amount

of mercury entering our bodies from amalgam fillings represents anywhere

from 50 to 90 percent of the total amount! Each amalgam filling in

your mouth pumps, on average, some 3,000,000,000,000,000 mercury atoms

into your body every day.

So why in the world does the ADA continue to support the use of

amalgam fillings? One simple answer is: if you're in for an inch, you're

in for a mile (or as the English like to say, " In for a penny, in

for a pound " ). What would the legal ramifications be if the ADA

suddenly announced that they, and all the dentists connected with them,

had been wrong for well over 100 years and had been slowly poisoning all

Americans, Canadians (the Canadian Dental Association touts the same

line), or whatever?

So why does a

weenified

FDA announcement mark the beginning of the end for amalgam

fillings?

 

Until this point in time, when it came to amalgam fillings, the

FDA and the ADA marched in lock-step. As already mentioned, their

position was that:

 

Mercury was locked in the filling and couldn't escape And then later, that although some escaped, it wasn't enough to harm

you.

In order for those positions to be tenable, they had to be maintained

fanatically. The FDA's new statement, whether they mean it to or not,

represents a tectonic shift in the landscape. It totally negates their

previous positions. It doesn't matter that the new statement may be

qualified, or that it is restricted to infants and pregnant women. It

doesn't matter, because what it does do is open the door -- even if just

a crack. What it says is that, yes, to some degree the mercury in

fillings presents a threat. We now need to figure out exactly what that

threat is, but after a hundred years of denial, we finally acknowledge

that there is a threat.

To look at it another way, it's a bit like the old joke:

 

Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?

For a million dollars, yes I would?

Okay, I'll give you a dollar. Let's go to bed.

I thought you were going to give me a million dollars?

That was just to determine what you were. Now that we both know what

that is, we're just negotiating the price.

And so it is with the latest FDA announcement. They've opened the

door. If amalgam fillings are dangerous for infants, then what about

toddlers? If they're dangerous for pregnant women, then what about people

with compromised immune systems? Or what about the elderly? Once the door

opens, even if it's just a crack, anything is possible. And besides, as

everyone knows, a class action lawyer can squeeze his ethics through a

crack so small you can't even get an intelligent thought through it. But

given a real opening and a legitimate case, the sky's the limit.

Bottom line: the FDA's announcement marks the beginning of the end for

amalgam fillings -- despite what the ADA may say. It may take a year. It

may take ten, but the writing is on the wall. And besides, it's not like

there aren't alternatives. For just $50 more a filling, you can get a

composite resin filling that actually binds with the tooth, makes it

stronger, and even looks like a natural part of your mouth.

In the meantime, if you have mercury fillings, you probably want to be

doing regular (twice a year)

heavy

metal detoxes to clean the ever accumulating mercury out of your

body.