For your edification.
WB
Found here:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html
Full text follows
#################################################
The Mercury Amalgam Scam:
How Anti-Amalgamists Swindle People
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
More than half a century ago, Orson Welles panicked his radio audience
by reporting that Martians had invaded New Jersey. On
December 23, 1990, CBS-TV's "60 Minutes" achieved a similar effect by
announcing that toxins have invaded the American mouth.
There was, however, a big difference. Welles' broadcast was intended
to be entertaining. The "60 Minutes" broadcast, narrated by
veteran reporter Morley Safer, was intended to alarm -- to persuade
its audience that the mercury in dental fillings is a poison. It was
the most irresponsible report on a health topic ever broadcast on
network television.
Mercury is a component of the amalgam used for "silver" fillings. The
other major ingredients are silver, tin, copper, and zinc. When
mixed, these elements bond to form a strong, stable substance. The
difference between bound and unbound chemicals can be
illustrated by a simple comparison. Elemental hydrogen is an explosive
gas. Elemental oxygen is a gas that supports combustion. When
combined, however, they form water, which has neither of these
effects. Saying that amalgam will poison you is as incorrect as saying
that drinking water will make you explode and burst into flames.
Very sensitive instruments can detect billionths of a gram of mercury
vapor in the mouth of a person with amalgam fillings. However,
the minuscule amount of mercury the body absorbs from amalgams is far
below the level that exerts any adverse health effect [1-6].
One study found that people with symptoms they related to amalgam
fillings did not have significant mercury levels. The study
compared ten symptomatic patients and eight patients with no reported
health complaints. The symptom group had neither a higher
estimated daily uptake of inhaled mercury vapor, nor a higher mercury
concentration in blood and urine than in the control group. The
amounts of mercury detected by the tests were trivial [6]. Some
studies have shown that the problems patients attribute to amalgam
restorations are psychosomatic in nature and have been exacerbated
greatly by information from the media or from a dentist [7-11]
An extensive review published in 1993 by the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services concluded that "there is scant evidence
that the health of the vast majority of people with amalgam is
compromised or that removing fillings has a beneficial effect on
health."
[12] In January 1998, the American Dental Association Council on
Scientific Affairs issued a report on dental amalgam safety, with
emphasis on studies that had been published since the 1993 review. The
report concluded:
Millions of people have amalgam restorations in their mouths, and
millions more will receive amalgam for restoring their
carious [decayed] teeth. Over the years, amalgam has been used
for dental restorations without evidence of major health
problems. Newly developed techniques have demonstrated that
minute levels of mercury are released from amalgam
restorations, but no health consequences from exposure to such
low levels of mercury released from amalgam
restorations have been demonstrated. Given the available
scientific information and considering the demonstrated benefits
of dental amalgams, unless new scientific research dictates
otherwise, there currently appears to be no justification for
discontinuing the use of dental amalgam [13].
Dubious Claims
Despite these facts, a small but vocal group of dentists, physicians
and various other "holistic" advocates claim that mercury-amalgam
fillings are a health hazard and should be replaced. The leading
advocate of such advice is Hal Huggins, D.D.S., of Colorado Springs,
Colorado. Dr. Huggins graduated from the University of Nebraska School
of Dentistry in 1962 and received a master of science
degree from the University of Colorado in 1989.
Huggins has held many seminars for dentists on his notions about
"balancing body chemistry" by nutritional methods. The basic premise
of this approach is that many diseases and conditions can be prevented
or cured by diet alone. In 1975, the American Dental
Association Council on Dental Research concluded that there was little
or no evidence to support Huggins' dietary claims.
In 1985 Huggins and his wife Sharon published a book, It's All In Your
Head, which combines the discredited theories of balancing
body chemistry with the assertion that mercury in silver fillings is
toxic. The book states that he became interested in this subject in
1973 when a dentist from Argentina told him that leukemia, Hodgkin's
disease, bowel disorders and a host of other diseases had been
cured by removing silver-mercury amalgams. Huggins says early results
were "sporadic and unpredictable. At best only 10% of the
patients responded." Later he claimed that some fillings have
"negative electrical current" and that removing fillings in the proper
sequence and supplementing with nutrients would improve success rates.
Since then he has crusaded against the use of amalgam and
limited his practice to advice on these matters.
An information packet distributed during 1985 by Huggins' Toxic
Element Research Foundation claims that, "Everyone reacts to the
presence of mercury . . . . Some 80% of the population will experience
only a slight change of their immune system which will result in
three colds per winter instead of only two, or an elevation of
2000-3000 count in their white blood cells. Those sensitive 20% might
experience a drastic drop in immunocompetence to the point of
autoimmune disease, or an elevation of white blood cells of 30,000 or
more."
According to Huggins, "sensitive" individuals can develop emotional
problems (depression, anxiety, irritability), neurological disorders
(facial twitches, muscle spasms, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis),
cardiovascular problems (unexplained rapid heart rate, unidentified
chest
pains), collagen diseases (arthritis, scleroderma, lupus
erythematosus), allergies, digestive problems (ulcers, regional
ileitis), and
immunologic disorders (which he claims include leukemia, Hodgkin's
disease, and mononucleosis). He recommends replacing mercury
fillings with other materials and taking vitamins and other
supplements to prevent trouble following amalgam removal.
Dubious Tests
Anti-amalgam dentists typically use a mercury vapor analyzer to
convince patients that "detoxification," is needed. To use the device,
the dentist asks the patient to chew vigorously for ten minutes, which
may generate tiny amounts of mercury from the fillings. Although
this exposure lasts for just a few seconds and most of the mercury
will be exhaled rather than absorbed by the body, the machines give
a falsely high readout, which the anti-amalgamists interpret as
dangerous.
The most commonly used analyzer is an industrial device which
multiplies the amount of mercury it detects in a small sample of air
by a
factor of 8,000. This gives a reading for a cubic meter, a volume far
larger than the human mouth. The proper way to determine
mercury exposure is to measure urine levels, which indicate how much
the body has absorbed and then excreted. Scientific testing has
shown that the amount of mercury absorbed from fillings is too small
to be significant.
Some antiamalgamists administer a "patch test" with a dilute solution
of mercuric chloride. Redness of the skin or any of a large number
of other symptoms are then misinterpreted as signs of "mercury
poisoning," and the patient is advised to have all amalgam fillings
removed.
Some anti-amalgamists have used a voltmeter to measure supposed
differences in the electrical conductivity of the teeth. One such
device -- the "Amalgameter" -- was sold by Huggins during the early
1980s. In 1985, after another company took over its marketing,
the FDA concluded that the device was misbranded because accompanying
literature alleged that it could be used to recommend the
removal of dental fillings. In a regulatory letter, the agency said:
There is no scientific basis for the removal of dental amalgams
for the purpose of replacing them with other materials as
described in your leaflet . . . . We consider your device as
being directly associated with . . . . a process that may have
adverse health consequences when used for the purposes for which
it was intended.
FDA action appears to have driven Amalgameters from the marketplace
[14]. However, many anti-amalgam dentists use other
devices for the same purpose.
Dubious Consultations
In addition to seeing patients, Huggins operated a consultation
service through which patients were evaluated and received advice by
telephone or mail. The advice centered around a "Mercury Assist
Program," based on the results of hair analysis, a complete blood
count, a chemistry profile, a urine mercury test, and a detailed
questionnaire about diet, lifestyle, past medical history, and current
symptoms. The resultant data were incorporated into a lengthy report
containing recommendations for diet, supplementation, lifestyle,
and amalgam removal. Huggins claims that to successfully rid the body
of mercury, one must be on a restrictive diet, take supplements
that stimulate the cell membrane, and have the mercury fillings
removed in the proper sequence.
In the late 1980s, when Huggins charged $1,500 for an in-office
consultation and $378 for the assist program, I went through the
assist program by mail. The report claimed that my urine mercury level
"suggested toxicity" (because it was too low!), and that my hair
sample showed "deficiencies" in chromium, iron, manganese, potassium,
and lithium, and "excesses" in calcium, zinc, and copper. The
report included 17 pages of biochemical nonsense related to these
findings and more than 30 pages of other advice. The accompany
instructions said to contact Huggins' facility for the name of a
dentist who would replace my amalgam fillings. The report recommended
that I begin taking vitamin C (3 grams per day), potassium, and three
of Huggins' special supplement products two days before the old
fillings were removed and that I have blood, urine, and hair tests
three weeks after removal is completed. The cost of the follow-up
interpretation would be $100 plus the cost of tests done through
Huggins's office.
Neither hair analysis nor computerized nutrition questionnaires
provide a legitimate basis for determining the body's nutritional
state or
for recommending supplements. Nor can a low urine mercury level
"suggest toxicity." Robert S.. Baratz, M.D., D.D.S., an expert on
dental materials, has reviewed about a dozen "Mercury Assist" reports
and concluded: "They vary only slightly from person to person.
All advise that the sender has mercury poisoning. The Assist Program
was a scam." [15]
Huggins also claimed that many alternative dental materials contain
toxic substances and recommended his Serum Compatibility
Testing⢠to determine which materials were least likely to cause
trouble. This test is also invalid [16].
Dubious Ethics
There is overwhelming evidence that mercury-amalgam fillings are safe.
Since 1905, although billions have been used successfully,
fewer than fifty cases of allergy to the amalgam have been reported in
the scientific literature. In 1986, the American Dental
Association Council on Ethics, Bylaws, and Judicial Affairs concluded
that "removal of amalgam restorations for the alleged purpose
of removing toxic substances from the body, when such treatment is
performed at the recommendation of the dentist, presents a
question of fraud or quackery in all but an exceedingly limited
spectrum of cases." The ruling was triggered in part by the case of an
Iowa dentist who had extracted all 28 teeth of a patient with multiple
sclerosis. The dentist received a 9-month license suspension
followed by 51 months of probation.
Removing good fillings is not merely a waste of money. In some cases,
it results in loss of teeth. In 1985 a $100,000 settlement was
awarded to a 55-year-old California woman whose dentist removed her
silver fillings. Based on testing with a Dermatron (a phony
electrodiagnostic device), the dentist claimed that six of her
fillings were a "liability" to her large intestine [17]. In removing
the fillings
from five teeth, the dentist caused severe nerve damage necessitating
root canal therapy for two teeth and extraction of two others.
"Mercury-free" dentists typically use scare tactics to promote their
services. For example, a February 1998 newspaper ad by a
Michigan dentist stated: "After ten years, 85% of the mercury can be
lost. Should we allow our bodies to become a toxic waste
dump?" The National Council Against Health Fraud has pointed out that
practitioners who do not wish to use amalgam can still
practice ethically by giving appropriate advice and and referring
patients elsewhere when amalgam is the best choice. But advertising a
practice as "mercury-free" is unethical because it falsely implies
that amalgam fillings are dangerous and that "mercury-free" methods
are superior [18].
What makes antiamalgamists tick? James R. Berry, associate publisher
of the American Dental Association's newspaper, has
characterized them this way:
We know that some few of them are sincere, though confused by the
Scientific Method. They read nonsense and accept
it. Others have clearer vision and no excuses. They see plainly
enough, and what they see is opportunity, which comes in
green. When the universal quest for health collides with greed,
the collision is loud and dangerous. People get hurt by
those they expect, at minimum, to do no harm.
The anti-amalgamists -- with their mercury meters . . . would be
comical figures if they weren't so insidious. They prey on
easy targets: the desperately ill grasping for hope against a
dark alternative [19].
Dr. Baratz has also pointed out:
Dentists who engage in attempting to "diagnose" or "treat" "heavy
metal toxicity", or who test patients for heavy metals by
any means are not practicing dentistry. These activities fall
outside the scope of dental licensure. Any dentist who believes
a patient requires diagnosis or treatment for any medical
condition outside of the scope of dentistry is obliged to make a
referral to a physician or other health professional as
appropriate. Failure to make such a referral is considered negligent
practice in most jurisdictions [20].
Dubious Research
In 1990, researchers at the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada,
reported on an experiment in which they placed 12 amalgam
fillings in each of six sheep. Within two months, the researchers
claimed, the sheep lost much of their kidney function while a control
group (two sheep) had lost none. Newsweek, which accepted the report
at face value, described it as the first evidence that the
amount of mercury escaping from fillings and winding up in body
tissues is harmful. (Newsweek's article was coauthored by very same
writer who had panned fluoridation earlier in the year.) However,
experts in biochemistry, toxicology, dentistry, and veterinary
medicine consider the sheep study meaningless.
Two weeks before the 60 Minutes program aired, Dr. Baratz mailed a
warning to its producer:
The Canadian researchers prepared their amalgam with a method
that has been obsolete for more than 40 years. The resultant
amalgam contained excess mercury and was softer and therefore
more easily worn by chewing, especially in a cud-chewing
animal such as a sheep.
The amalgams were placed in opposing teeth, so they would grind
against each other. This enhanced the already enhanced rate
of release of materials.
Because rubber dams were not used when the fillings were placed,
scrap amalgam was free to enter the sheeps' mouth and be
swallowed.
The methods used to detect and calculate the amount of mercury
absorbed were not valid.
Although the researchers claimed that body mercury levels rose
during the experiment, they had not measured the levels that
were present in the beginning. The data actually showed that the
animals swallowed a lot of free mercury during the placement
of the fillings.
Their claim of kidney toxicity was based on urinary findings that
show just the opposite of what is known to occur in mercury
poisoning in humans.
Baratz and at least one other knowledgeable critic also spoke by
telephone to "60 Minutes" producer Patti Hassler before the
program was aired. But they encountered a stone wall.
Toxic Television
The "60 Minutes" segment on dental amalgam, which was considerably
longer than most of its reports, was called "Poison In Your
Mouth." It interspersed remarks from an American Dental Association
representative with statements by three amalgam critics and
four patients who claimed to have made a remarkable recovery from
arthritis or multiple sclerosis after their amalgam fillings were
removed. The most powerful segment featured a woman who said that her
symptoms of multiple sclerosis had disappeared overnight.
The fact that arthritis and multiple sclerosis normally have ups and
downs was not mentioned during the program. Neither was the fact
that removal of fillings temporarily raises body mercury load, so that
no "overnight cure" could possibly be caused by mercury removal
[21,22].
The American Dental Association's representative was interviewed by
Morley Safer at ADA headquarters. It was obvious from
Safer's questions that the program would be a hatchet job. After
American Dental News published a lengthy article about the
interview, a sharp-eyed dentist noted that an accompanying photograph
showed Safer smoking a cigarette despite the fact that ADA
headquarters has an obvious no-smoking policy.
After the program was aired, I wrote to Don Hewitt, executive producer
of 60 Minutes, explaining why "the overnight cure" was a
hoax. My letter also asked whether Morley Safer had mercury fillings
and, if so, whether he followed his own advice and had them
removed. CBS's director of audience services replied:
Our aim was not to condemn dentists or their use of silver
amalgam fillings. . . . Rather, the 60 MINUTES staff made
every effort to ensure that our report was balanced in presenting
arguments from both sides of the issue.
Not surprisingly, the broadcast triggered an avalanche of queries to
dentists and induced many viewers seek replacement of their
fillings with other materials. Consumer Reports, American Health,
Prevention, and many health newsletters reassured their readers
that amalgam is safe. But the program's damage cannot be undone. In
August, Consumer Reports published the following letter:
"My mother, who was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease more than
two years ago, had her mercury fillings removed
immediately after the show aired. After she had spent $10,000 and
endured more than 18 hours of dental work so
painful she once fainted in the waiting room, her condition did
not improve. The pain was outweighed only by the
monumental disappointment she and the whole family experienced as
we lived through one false hope."
In 1990, Consumer Reports Books published Health Schemes, Scams, and
Frauds, a book on quackery that I helped to write. The
book concluded:
In CU's view, dentists who purport to treat health problems by
ripping out fillings are putting their own economic interests
ahead of their patients' welfare. The false diagnosis of
mercury-amalgam toxicity has such harmful potential and shows
such poor judgment on the part of the practitioner that CU
believes dentists who engage in this practice should have their
license revoked [23].
In recent years, Hal Huggins has also targeted root canal therapy,
claiming that it can make people susceptible to arthritis, multiple
sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and other autoimmune
diseases. As with mercury-amalgam fillings, there is no objective
evidence that teeth treated with root canal therapy have any adverse
effect on the immune system or any other system or part of the
body. Huggins's dental license was revoked in 1996. During the
revocation proceedings, the administrative law judge concluded:
Huggins had diagnosed "mercury toxicity" in all patients who
consulted him in his office, even some without mercury fillings.
He had also recommended extraction of all teeth that had had root
canal therapy.
Huggins's treatments were "a sham, illusory and without
scientific basis." [24]
He then worked as a part-time consultant at the Center for Progressive
Medicine, a Mexican clinic that claimed to treat "diseases
frequently created or exacerbated by adverse reactions to common
dental materials and procedures."
For Additional Information
NCAHF Position Paper on Amalgam Fillings
Dental Amalgam page of the American Dental Association
Dental Amalgam Fact Sheet of the California Dental Association
Serum Compatibility Testing
Hugnet: Current views and activities of Hal Huggins
Consumers for Dental Choice: A group crusading to protect
dentists who promote or practice what it calls "mercury-free
dentistry."
References
1.Mackert JR. Dental amalgam and mercury. Journal of the American
Dental Association 122:54-61, 1991.
2.The mercury in your mouth. Consumer Reports 56:316-319, 1991.
3.Olsson S, Bergman M. Daily dose calculations from measurements of
intra-oral mercury vapor. Journal of Dental Research
71:414-423, 1992.
4.Mackert JR. Factors affecting estimation of dental amalgam
exposure from measurements of mercury vapor in levels in intraoral
and expired air. Journal of Dental Research 66:1175-1180, 1987.
5.Mackert JR Jr, Berglund A. Mercury exposure from dental amalgam
fillings: absorbed dose and the potential for adverse health
effects. Critical Review of Oral Biology and Medicine 8:410-436,
1997.
6.Berglund A. Molin M. Mercury vapor release from dental amalgam in
patients with symptoms allegedly caused by amalgam
fillings. European Journal of Oral Science 104:56-63, 1996.
7.Herrstrom P, Hogstedt B. Clinical study of oral galvanism: No
evidence of toxic mercury exposure but anxiety disorder an
important background factor. Scandinavian Journal of Dental
Research 101:232-237, 1993.
8.Lindberg NE, Lindberg E, Larsson G. Psychological factors in the
etiology of amalgam illness. Acta Odontologica Scandinavia
52:219-228, 1994.
9.Bagedahl-Strindlund M and others. A multidisciplinary clinical
study of patients suffering from illness associated with mercury
release from dental restorations: Psychiatric aspects. Acta
Psychiatr Scandinavia 96:475-482, 1997.
10.Malt UF and others. Physical and mental problems attributed to
dental amalgam fillings: a descriptive study of 99 self-referred
patients compared to 272 controls. Psychosomatic Medicine
59:32-41, 1997.
11.Bailer J and others. Adverse health effects related to mercury
exposure from dental amalgam fillings: toxicological or
psychological causes? Psychological Medicine 31:255-263, 2001.
12.Benson JS and others. Dental Amalgam: A Scientific Review and
Recommended Public Health Strategy for Research,
Education and Regulation. Washington, D.C., 1993, US Public
Health Service.
13.ADA Council on Scientific Affairs. Dental amalgam: Update on
safety concerns. Journal of the American Dental Association
129:494-501, 1998.
14.Dentist's device. FDA Consumer 23(8):35-36, 1989.
15.Baratz RS. Personal communication to Stephen Barrett, M.D.,
December 21, 1999.
16.Baratz RS. "Serum compatability" testing. Quackwatch, posted Dec
23, 1999.
17.Sherry v Doe. Calif Sonoma County Superior Court, No. 134740,
March 1, 1985.
18.NCAHF Position Paper on Amalgam Fillings. NCAHF Web site, Oct
2002.
19.Berry JR. False hope suffers a setback. ADA News 27(22):4, 1996.
20.Baratz RS. Important points regarding dental amalgam. Testimony
to the Florida Board of Dentistry,
September 29, 2001.
21.Molin M and others. Mercury, selenium and glutathione peroxidase
before and after amalgam removal in man. Acta
Odontologica Scandinavia 48:189-202, 1990.
22.Sandborgh-Englund G, Elinder C, Langworth S, Schutz A, Ekstrand
J. Mercury in biological fluids after amalgam removal.
Journal of Dental Research 77:615-624. 1998.
23.Barrett S and the editors of Consumer Reports Books. Health
Schemes, Scams, and Frauds. Mount Vernon, N.Y.: Consumer
Reports Books, 1990.
24.Connick N. Before the State Board of Dental Examiners, State
Board of Colorado. Case No. 95-04. In the matter of the
disciplinary proceedings regarding the license to practice
dentistry in the State of Colorado of Hal A. Huggins, D.D.S., License
No. 3057. Feb 29, 1996.