Posted by Larry Hoover on May 8, 2003, at 15:41:27
In reply to Dental Amalgam (longer) » Larry Hoover, posted by mattdds on May 8, 2003, at 14:33:45
> You quoted “The Rocky Mountain Research Institute” a couple of times. One of their articles was attempting to make a link between dental amalgam and Alzheimer’s disease. I thought that they pretty much had the etiology of Alzheimer’s nailed down; having to do with beta-amyloid plaques that accumulate in the brain. You are taking a very controversial and unsupported view on this one. And you will have to do better than one small study containing 48 people, performed by a highly biased “research” group.
I recall posting no article referencing amalgam vis a vis Alzheimer's. I have no idea what you're talking about.
> You quoted the same group as having done some research about a link between multiple sclerosis and amalgam. Boy, these guys are on a roll!
I suggest you re-read the article. It did not relate MS to amalgam, but associated psychological variables to amalgam within a selected population, i.e. subjects with MS. I included it to suggest that subjects with comorbidities may be more vulnerable to the adverse effects of mercury exposure. If only someone would do a similar study on depressives. I don't recall ever seeing one.
> Your comments reveal a mistrust of dentists in general, I am curious as to why. Do you feel **all** dentists are similarly malicious? Or just the ones that use amalgam (almost all of them)?
I don't hold dentists responsible for their training. I hold no negative opinions of dentists per se. Dentists are scientists, and scientists can be the most stubborn people on the planet, IMHO.
>I think the scare about amalgam in the teeth becomes just another source of obsession and hypochondriasis, which in my view are much more pathologic than the actual harm done by the mercury. Either way, I will not be sad to see it go.
I was very careful to suggest that somatization was a valid explanation for many who believe they have amalgam disease. However, that explanation cannot be used to suggest that there are no valid cases, which seems to be the case in the dental literature. I reviewed actual papers some years ago, a stack well more than a metre in height. I no longer have them (their title was part of the research contract), so I'm stuck with sourcing abstracts on the 'net right now. I didn't come to my concerns lightly.
>You even mentioned being aware of major, large epidemiological studies that failed to show correlations between amalgam and disease. How do you reconcile these findings with your beliefs?
I did so in my prior posting (I thought). It may be that there are only a small set of subjects whose sensitivity to mercury make their symptoms directly related to amalgam. Dilution by including these subjects in unselected populations would preclude obtaining significant findings. To paraphrase the axiom, the failure to find significance in a study does not show there was nothing significant to find.
> Sure, you are entitled to opinions. Believe what you will. But in the process, please make sure not to scapegoat people (dentists) for diseases that we know very little about. Who knows, maybe small, chronic doses of mercury from amalgams will indeed turn out to be the root of all evil. When this evidence turns up, I will concede, and resign to hell, which will be my rightful inheritence, along with the other dentists who sold their souls to amalgam for a Lexus. But I just don’t believe this evidence exists or ever will.See you there. <wink>
> Thanks,
>
> MattRegards,
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:223248
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030505/msgs/225180.html