- Health authorities continue to believe in amalgam
- Decree science
- Allegedly no scientific evidence to the harm of amalgam
- Meta-studies prove the opposite
- Relevant evidence of the fatal effect
- Proponents of amalgam rely on questionable studies
- Special waste dump man
- Official blessing to the poison glut in the dental field
- Fear of ad avalanche
- Where are the media?
- Relevant therapy successes by diversion
- Proof of load barely possible
- Accompaniment by expert therapists is important
- In the cycle of nature
- Your training as a holistic nutritionist
(By Angelika Fischer, Wolfratshausen) - Numerous studies prove that the dental filling material can make amalgam sick. Nevertheless, scientists of the Robert Koch Institute claim in a new statement that there is "no convincing scientific evidence" for this. So many dentists will continue to fill their patients with mercury, the most toxic non-radioactive element. In Germany alone, it is estimated that 10 to 15 tonnes of it are still used each year. This article first appeared in room & time # 152.
Health authorities continue to believe in amalgam
Small side notes can often provide interesting information. At the end of the opinion of the Robert Koch Institute on Amalgam of October 2007, it says: "Prof Dr. F. Daschner and Dr. J. Mutter Institute for Environmental Medicine and Hospital Hygiene, Freiburg University Hospital were initially also involved in the preparation of the opinion but they did not agree with the final version of the Commission's opinion, as they have different views on some points. " How serious the differences were is not mentioned. The commission then sought compensation for the two dissenters and apparently this time in safe waters.
The new experts were known as amalgam friendly. They were co-authors of an opinion against the so-called Kiel amalgam report. In this largest amalgam process to date, the Frankfurt Public Prosecutor's Office commissioned a Kiel research institute to prepare a report. This showed that dental amalgam "is generally suitable for damaging the health of amalgam carriers in a relevant number of cases...".
Chlorella algae tablets
Despite these findings, scientists commissioned by the other party managed to rehabilitate amalgam well. (For further details see the following interview with Joachim Mutter). Has the body of the Robert Koch Institute, which is part of the Federal Ministry of Health, selected the members of the commission and the experts according to the result that should be the end of the scientific considerations?
Allegedly no scientific evidence to the harm of amalgam
Finally, the Amalgam Commission of the Robert Koch Institute's "Methods and Quality Assurance in Environmental Medicine" expressed the conviction in its statement that there are no serious harmful side effects of amalgam. She recommends: "It should be discussed in detail with the patient that there are no convincing scientific evidence regarding the suspicion of relationships between amalgam and certain diseases (such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, autism, multiple sclerosis) or hormonal imbalances gives."
Meta-studies prove the opposite
Daschner and mother came there to completely different results. They have published several meta-studies in recent years analyzing the extensive scientific literature on amalgam. These showed serious evidence of a relationship between amalgam burden and Alzheimer's disease, autism, MS, autoimmune diseases in general, infertility and many other diseases.
Relevant evidence of the fatal effect
For example, a study in the brains of Alzheimer's patients showed a significant increase in mercury levels compared to brains in non-Alzheimer's patients.
Or in studies on nerve cells and animals, adding a very small amount of mercury led to changes that are typical of Alzheimer's disease: the destruction of tubulin (protein that the cell requires) led to the degeneration of the axons (nerve cell processes) and the Formation of pathologically bundled neurofibrils (assembly of destroyed fibers in nerve cells). These studies used only one-thousandth of the amount of mercury that can be measured in the brains of many amalgam carriers.
In addition to experimental studies on cells, animals and humans, the scientists also considered empirical observations. For example, they cited a survey of 24,000 parents of autistic children. They should assess which therapy has best helped their children. Out of 88 types of therapy, including 53 drugs, the release of mercury proved to be the most effective remedy.
Combi Flora SymBIO
Digestion⟩ Probiotics & Cures
Proponents of amalgam rely on questionable studies
Furthermore, the computer and mother revealed blatant deficits, especially in the studies, on which the amalgam proponents are often full-bodied. One of the main criticisms was that the control group used subjects for which their amalgam freedom had to be doubted. Although they did not carry any more amalgam in the mouth at the time of the survey, previous amalgam loads were not taken into account.
For example, in the much-cited twin study, 25 percent of the "non-amalgam group" were toothless. It is obvious that many of these subjects lost their teeth due to tooth decay and that the previous carious holes were filled with amalgam for decades. It is therefore probable that, despite her toothlessness, mercury was present in her organisms, which had accumulated in the body and could not yet be excreted. At scientific institutions and politicians, these counterarguments seem to fall off.
In unison, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices and the Robert Koch Institute are convinced that there are still legitimate reasons for using amalgam. The original text of the Robert Koch Institute states: "The decision as to whether amalgam, another plastic restorative material or another restorative technique is to be used must always be taken in a specific case, taking into account the patient's individual situation Dentists because of its durability and good processability for not yet readily substitutable. "
As so often happens, the counter-movement does not come from state institutions that seek health care. - Strangely, in vaccination, the state always takes this precaution so seriously. - No, the countermovement came primarily from patients. On the reverse suggestion of Daschner and mother, restraint to use with the use of amalgam until its harmlessness would be scientifically proven, the Commission of the Robert Koch Institute answers: "This approach is unscientific, but is accepted epistemological consensus that basically the Proof of harmlessness, ineffectiveness is not to lead. At best, one can try to quantify how small (or large) a risk is. "Let's see how small or big the risk will eventually have turned out to be...
Special waste dump man
Why is dental use of amalgam not prohibited? How do you best derive the poison? What effects does mercury have on the environment? The amalgam expert dr. med. Joachim Mutter explains the background in an interview with Angelika Fischer.
space & time: They have been fighting for six years to officially recognize the dangers of amalgam...
Dr. med. Joachim mother:... I do not fight, I try to find solutions for those affected and just present the scientific data and they show internationally that amalgam is very likely to be very toxic and that it can cause serious side effects.
r z: And you were also in the commission "Quality assurance in environmental medicine" at the Robert Koch Institute...
J. M.: Right, in 2003 I was appointed as an expert on the subject of amalgam. Since then, the Commission has met time and again to discuss and evaluate the problem. The results have just been published.
Official blessing to the poison glut in the dental field
r z: You have not signed the official statement of the Commission. Rather, Mr Daschner and you replied with a special vote...
J. M.: Well, the commission says it's not proven that amalgam is poisonous. It has indeed appointed some experts, who are generally considered well-known amalgam advocates, who previously occurred in some cases already as appraisers for the amalgam industry. Perhaps the commission has called me with the aim of getting the signature of a critical scientist under the amalgam paper. After all, at the beginning I had been working on the paper for nearly two years and made literature suggestions. It was later completely rewritten. And this amalgam paper says very simplified: Amalgam is still acceptable to most people and a poisoning almost never occur, as the limits were always respected. Therefore, it is not recommended to remove amalgam fillings and to remove mercury from the body in case of illness.
r z: How much can one rely on the fact that an enrichment within the limits is harmless?
J. M.: The WHO stated as early as 1991 that no limit on mercury can be given, as readings in the blood or urine may be low, even if high levels of mercury are stored in the brain or other organs. Many subsequent studies confirmed this fact. Nevertheless, the RKI Commission and all official institutions around the world insist that mercury levels in the urine be measured and used to estimate the levels in the body. However, the RKI does not refer to studies but to the personal communication of Prof. Dr. med.Stefan Halbach from the Research Center for Environment and Health.
As the mercury readings are practically below the valid "limit values" for all amalgam carriers, it is claimed that there is no mercury exposure and that the mercury levels are too low to cause health problems. But it is often the opposite is the case: In healthy people can often higher mercury excretions are measured in the urine as in sick people. There are many indications that there are sensitive people who can excrete less mercury than others and are therefore sicker. In particular, this has also been shown in autistic children.
r z: The EU's position on amalgam seems strangely ambivalent. On the one hand, the EU decided in January 2005 to reduce exposure to mercury. The export of mercury is to be banned from 2011, the sale of measuring instruments with mercury from 2009. However, the dental sector does not seem to affect the EU. At the end of last year, a scientific panel of the EU adopted a preliminary statement on the safety of dental amalgam. According to this, there is no indication that amalgam could be beneficial beyond local effects.
J. M.: This was not to be expected, because there were probably senior industry experts in the Commission. As a result of this pre-departure, Jean Huss, an EU Council member and member of the Luxembourg Parliament, launched the Luxembourg appeal, which until 1 January 2008 collected signatures for a global ban on amalgam.
Fear of ad avalanche
r z: What do you think? Is there a chance that the politicians will be retuned?
J. M.: That will be difficult. It's about a lot of money and probably guilt. If it were recognized that millions of people were and will be burdened with toxic amalgam, it would certainly come to ads. These would probably be directed against the amalgam manufacturers and thus against the chemical industry, against the dental organizations, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) and the health insurance companies.
Even the Federal Ministry of Health would probably be in it, because it has always approved the use of amalgam. Since it would be really round. It is assumed that claims for damages would then come in excess of those of the tobacco industry by far. Of course, this should be avoided under all circumstances.
r z: Are not there enough serious studies that have highlighted the relationship between amalgam and various diseases in order to overturn the official accounts?
J. M.: Yes, but they are obviously ignored. They drop you under the table. And then only those studies are acclaimed that apparently did not show any harm. And then one says that is the scientific proof that amalgam is not harmful. This works just as it did in the past with asbestos or smoking and currently with mobile radio.
r z: Prof. Dr. In 1996, Erich Schöndorf, as prosecutor, led a process of amalgam victims against the amalgam manufacturers. But he could only make a comparison. Why are the 1,500 victims he represented missing out, even though the verdict clearly pointed out the harmfulness of amalgam?
J. M.: At that time there was the so-called Kiel amalgam report. The public prosecutor's office Frankfurt am Main commissioned it in the course of the investigations with the toxicological institute of the University of Kiel. This report has clearly demonstrated the harmfulness of amalgam and this was even praised by the then BfArM. Actually, the defendants had no chance anymore. The three accused responsible persons of the company Degussa had to pay in the comparison however only in each case 100,000 DM. Degussa then paid DM 1.2 million for further amalgam research. If you ask Prof. Schöndorf today, he blames himself for agreeing to the settlement and not completing the process. But that's the way it was and the other side got away with a black eye, so to speak.
r z: Would there have been an alternative for Schöndorf?
J. M.: It would have become difficult in any case. As with the wood preservative process, the chemical industry has ultimately been charged and they may have enough resources to influence a legal process in their favor. At first it looked very good for the plaintiffs. The topic was very strong in the public and the then red-green opposition wanted to ban amalgam in case of a government takeover. But the amalgam lobbyists were able to reroute. They bombarded the Kiel amalgam report with a counterfeit paper containing a number of false arguments.
That these had no scientific basis, has been demonstrated, inter alia, in a replica of Kiel toxicologists. But the mistakes were not obvious to politicians or judges. The Kiel scientists were then discredited in the media and their institute was placed on a scientific siding.Even in their own university campus, they were no longer greeted and in the cafeteria members of other faculties put away from the Kiel toxicologists.
They were treated like lepers, but they had only collected the literature on amalgam and pointed out that this material could be harmful. Since then, there are no more critical broadcasts or reports in the media, the topic seems to have been censored. The then Minister of Health Horst Seehofer, together with dental organizations in 1997 created a position paper, the consensus paper amalgam, which - simply put - says that amalgam continues to be the best filling material and continues to be paid as the only filling material fully by the health insurance.
Where are the media?
r z: Would not it be possible for the media to support the Enlightenment now?
J. M.: They do not do that, they depend on the corporations. My colleague dr. Johannes Naumann and I had already interviewed major newspapers. Among other things, but then the facts were twisted or we were portrayed in the newspaper reports quite stupid, including in the Süddeutsche Zeitung 2006 or in the Badische Zeitung 2006. We were in it by the President of the German Society of Dental, Oral and Maxillofacial, The umbrella organization of German dentists, assumes to get money from the plastics industry.
Our corrections, however, were not published, promptly came a threat from a well-known amalgam proverb, Prof. Halbach by e-mail. Therefore, we have also rejected various interviews, because the editors usually due to time constraints can only superficially deal with the issue and therefore often report wrong or give the very serious-looking amalgam proverbs more faith.
Recently, I once again had an interview with Deutschlandfunk, but then they suddenly did not get the interview. I also had an interview with other newspapers like "The World" for example. They rejected that completely. There is probably a certain spell, especially in high-circulation media. The first television program that again critically reported on amalgam was the Landesschau Baden-Württemberg on 6.11.2007 on SWR television, where I was invited.
For many, amalgam is just a taboo topic. This is especially true since the Kiel amalgam critics were muzzled. You risk your career when you say something critical about amalgam. For me it would have been better, I would not have opened my mouth. We, my colleague Johannes Naumann, my former boss Prof. Dr. med. Franz Daschner and I got quite a few attacks here.
Relevant therapy successes by diversion
r z: Nevertheless, many people are sensitized, see connections between their complaints and an amalgam burden and want to get rid of the mercury. Often they have remarkable healing effects. In one of your meta-studies, you refer to a Swedish study of 700 men and women who have been affected by various diseases and who have not previously been helped by therapy. After mercury was released from them, 70 percent of them experienced improvement or even cure of their condition
J. M.: Similar results are shown by other well-founded studies. Then there was a small study on patients with autoimmune diseases who had a similar improvement rate. In the six patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), the recovery rate was even 100 percent. These observations overlap those of many therapists. I have received countless letters of thanks and also on the Internet many patients report their healing by excretion.
However, there are also no improvements, sometimes even some deterioration, especially with unprotected removal of amalgam or misdirection. On the other hand, it is not necessarily to be expected that the removal already heals diseases, since the mercury in the body is very slowly, if at all, broken down or the damage by mercury can not be reversed, just as if you had an alcohol intoxication and thereby a few brain cells have died. Even if the alcohol in the body is completely broken down after some time, the brain damage is still present. That's why I'm amazed at how much improvement can be achieved often, if not always, through intense diversion.
r z: Every day you work with patients who come to you for therapy. What is your success rate?
J. M.: Success rates are difficult to state. You have to see that we have really serious cases, patients with all sorts of diseases. For many years, they have been suffering from chronic pain, tiredness, sleep disorders, high blood pressure, depression, infertility, autoimmune diseases, difficulty concentrating, restlessness, memory problems, susceptibility to infection, attention deficit, hyperactivity, migraine, and much more.
J. M.: Success rates are difficult to state. You have to see that we have really serious cases, patients with all sorts of diseases.For many years, they have been suffering from chronic pain, tiredness, sleep disorders, high blood pressure, depression, infertility, autoimmune diseases, difficulty concentrating, restlessness, memory problems, susceptibility to infection, attention deficit, hyperactivity, migraine, and much more.
It must be stressed, however, that due to time constraints, we have not been able to publish the data scientifically in a systematic way and, on the other hand, we have many stops in the therapy in order to get to the goal as quickly as possible. But we come more and more to the conclusion that many chronic diseases were also caused by toxins or harmful factors at least on the other hand, a discharge of these toxins and the avoidance of, for example, electromagnetic fields can have a surprisingly positive effect on the body's healing powers
Other alternative medical therapies which are supposed to affect the body's ability to regulate, such as neural therapy, acupuncture, fasting, order therapy, psychotherapy or homeopathy, in our experience usually only work properly after the release of heavy metals and other chemical toxins.
r z: Mercury interferes in many ways with the processes of the body. Can you cite the most important known effects?
J. M.: It can hinder all body processes that exist, including the elimination of other toxins. In the end, all the genetic material, the DNA can be damaged. The cell channels can be inhibited or destroyed. The tubulin can be destroyed, that is certain proteins that are involved in the cell structure and the whole transport processes in the cells. The transport of nutrients, messengers or waste materials in or out of the cells can therefore be hindered, the mitochondria can be severely damaged, which can lead to fatigue, but also to cancer. Then many free radicals that are at the center of the development of most diseases can form.
All in all, as early as 1995, a study funded by the Federal Government showed how autoimmune diseases develop: namely by mercury, but also by gold.
r z: And most damaging of all is the mercury vapor, which constantly comes out of amalgam fillings and is increasingly produced during unprotected removal of the amalgam fillings?
J. M.: Yes, in the form of vapor, up to 80 percent of mercury can be absorbed through the lungs, and about 10 percent of it goes directly to the brain through the blood-brain barrier within one to two minutes. This actually protects the brain from harmful influences.
However, mercury vapors and methylmercury, to which amalgam reacts by microorganisms in the mouth, can easily reach this highly sensitive area. Mercury has the property of binding itself immediately to the body's own structures. So it can do a lot of damage in the brain. In fish, mercury combines with selenium or sulfur-containing amino acids and is thereby rendered harmless, which is why the consumption of contaminated fish is less problematic for humans than the inhalation of chemically unbound mercury vapor.
Proof of load barely possible
r z: What is the best way to find out if you are contaminated with mercury?
J. M.: You can not do that while you live. That is at least quantitatively impossible. Most of the time, the patients who store the most mercury in the body at depth are least likely to lead it into the blood and then excrete it through the urine or hair. And these are probably therefore often sicker than the people who excrete more mercury through the urine or hair.
r z: And what do you recommend to your patients if they want to know if their discomfort is caused by mercury?
J. M.: As a doctor you have to have a certain sensitivity. You have to take a medical history. We know that amalgam carriers have up to 12 times more mercury in the body than people who have been spared, and that the half-life is up to 30 years. We know that children of amalgam-bearing mothers have more mercury in their bodies, even though they never wore amalgam fillings themselves.
If a 40-year-old now comes and says that he has had ten amalgam fillings since childhood and had them removed five years ago, then I know he has some mercury left in his body. This is known from studies on animals and human bodies. I myself do the mobilization test with the diversion tools DMPS or DMSA. These are chelating agents whose sulfur content combines with mercury. In this connection, the body can then more easily rid of the mercury.
Sometimes this only shows mercury in the urine. But in the case of seriously ill people, often nothing comes out, that is, the mercury is probably so deep that it can not really be mobilized. That's probably why they're sick.
Nevertheless, the continuous rejection shows again and again that, for example, only after the eighth or 20th DMPS administration is more mercury excreted. Somehow, then, the diversion processes seem to be better off by the persistent removal of mercury.With average amalgam carriers, 50 to 100 ampoules of DMPS can be necessary for success. This is also logical, since with a syringe DMPS or DMSA little of the accumulated for decades by amalgam load mercury deposits can be eliminated.
r z: Against this background, it seems absurd that the experts of the Robert Koch Institute state in their statement that the urine test is a "practicable, well standardized and suitable method" to determine the mercury exposure. And that they even advise against the DMPS test.
J. M.: Yes, because with DMPS, many would suddenly be exposed as mercury-burdened. Therefore, the test is rejected "because of false positives". In addition, about 15-25 percent of the population are poor excretors of environmental toxins because of their inherited enzyme patterns. In those cases, you will usually find even lower values in urine than in people with an average burden. The official medicine then says: "yes look, he has no mercury pollution". Unfortunately, when he dies and is dissected, all the big eyes are aware of how much mercury has appeared in the body.
It is really a mistake to be able to measure the level of mercury in the body via urine, blood or hair. That's scientifically wrong. Nevertheless, all official recommendations or court reports are based on these values. DMPS itself is completely non-toxic, but it mobilizes toxins deposited in the body and, if unfavorable, can only partially excrete them so that they re-attach to other parts of the body. It can also flood enough mercury in the kidney and in the blood that well-known mercury-related symptoms or even acute mercury poisoning leads to kidney failure. But it is not responsible for DMPS, but the poison in the body.
Fortunately, we did not experience anything like that in our ambulance. We've found that with a few precautions, the side effects are significantly less. In addition, the administration of two or three ampoules DMPS seems to be better tolerated at once. Probably the additionally given ampoules no longer mobilize mercury as an ampoule, but can bind more of the released mercury and therefore bring it out better for excretion.
Accompaniment by expert therapists is important
r z: If a patient has decided to expel the mercury, there are several ways to do it. They distinguish between seriously ill people who are, fo