Fluorosis

I haven’t been over blogging on the IAOMT.blogspot.com site for many months simply because I’ve been besieged by comments on YouTube. In addition, I’ve been working on the problem of Poisoned Babies. No, I don’t have any children but I do care about my country. If you allow the dental industry to poison the brains of the children of this country then we lose the country.

Brain damage is what mercury causes. Only about 1% of the mercury in a human is in the brain but 90% of the symptoms are neurological (brain) symptoms. The classic symptom of mercury poisoning is tremor or shaking. That is because the brain is damaged and not sending the correct signals to the limb.

The classic symptom of overdosing a child during tooth development with fluoride is mottled teeth. In my latest YouTube video Fluorosis you can see several examples of mottled teeth and how it can damage a child’s self-image as well.

Unfortunately mottled teeth also indicates mottled bones and mottled brain. Studies in other countries have found that children with mottled teeth score lower on IQ tests for example than normal children. They also develop skeletal fluorosis at an earlier age than the non-mottled children. Skeletal fluorosis is seldom diagnosed in this country but that does not necessarily mean that it is not occurring.

The most frequently reported symptom of early skeletal fluorosis called Stage I is lower back pain. Millions of people in the US have lower back pain for years. What they get for care are killer drugs like Celebrex or some other kind of kidney destroying anti-inflammatory pain medication. That is like cutting the wires to your car’s oil pressure light because it keeps coming on. Don’t cut the wires . . . add oil.


Michael P. Whyte MD at the Division of Bone and Mineral Diseases, Washington University School of Medicine at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri reported the following case:

A 52-year-old white woman consulted in 1998 for dense lumbar vertebras discovered after twisting her back. Spinal discomfort and stiffness for 5 years reflected “disc disease.” She had never had a fracture. Chest radiographs after exposure to chlorine while manufacturing soap and bleach were unremarkable 16 years previously. She recounted no other chemical or heavy metal exposure. Review of family history revealed no skeletal problems. Only intake of unfiltered well water suggested fluorosis.

Radiographs from 1993 and 1998 documented the appearance of marked osteosclerosis and cortical thickening throughout the entire spine (especially the lumbar region) and pelvis during this 5-year period. The ribs were similarly affected. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry documented markedly elevated bone mineral density in the lumbar spine but normal density in the hip.

Diagnosis: Skeletal fluorosis from drinking natural fluoride from well water and substantial amounts of Lipton Instant ice Tea.

This single case report does not make an epidemic but the epidemic has begun. Heller, Eklund, Burt, all strong fluoridation advocates reluctantly reported in 1997 on the study done in 1987 that 30% of the children in fluoridated communities now have dental fluorosis.

Why reluctantly you ask? Because the study was done in 1987 and although the court under the Freedom of Information Act ordered the National Institute of Dental Research to give up their tooth decay and dental fluorosis data from this study to Dr. John Yiamouyiannis they steadfastly refused. He eventually was able to obtain the decay data which clearly showed that fluoridation was of NO benefit but the NIDR claimed in court that they had “lost” the fluorosis data. (obstruction of justice, perjury come to mind)

Well, apparently they found it and gave it to their go-to spinners to figure out how to make an awful picture look rosy. So the spinners went to work on the data and after 10 years had managed to get the number of damaged children down to that 30% figure I just mentioned. What they did is in my opinion unconscionable. They threw out all the data on children with just one tooth permanently scared by an overdose of fluoride during development. They don’t count.

Next they decided to use the second most damaged tooth as the classification of the child’s injury and us a spinner terminology that calls damage to the entire tooth only ‘moderate’. To get to severe dental fluorosis you had to have at least two teeth missing part of the enamel.

So for example if one tooth were entirely scared from tip to gum and the second most damaged tooth was 49.9% mottled the classification became Mild! Think about it. If I took a blowtorch and removed all the paint from one fender of your car and 49.9% of the second fender and told you that your car has a mild spot would you think I was trying to minimize the harm I had caused?

We now know why so many children in fluoridated communities have dental fluorosis. It is the fluoridation of drinking water that is causing it. If the child was breast fed and didn’t brush their teeth with a fluoridated tooth paste dental fluorosis was rare. If on the other hand the majority of children fed on a baby bottle had dental fluorosis. Dr. Kathleen Thiessen explains before the Metropolitan Water District in LA exactly why this occurs on my YouTube video Poisoned Babies.

Breast milk contains virtually no fluoride while tap water has a big load. Some infants on the bottle get 100 times more fluoride than the amount found in breast milk and 4 times the amount the EPA says causes harm (RfD 0.06 mg/kg).1 it is no wonder that so many children have to bleach their teeth today just to look normal. Fluoridation of water has been great for the dentists business and as the latest report shows tooth decay is increasing at the same rate as increased water fluoridation. I am convinced that fluoridation does nothing but harm our children, our nation and our future. Won’t anybody stand up and protect the children?

What children are fed on a bottle? Poor people’s children are harmed of course. Mom has to work. That makes water fluoridation cause disproportionate harm and this disproportionate harm has been shown in studies since the 1950’s. Go watch the videos and I’ll tell you more soon.

1. EPA (IRIS—the RfD)
Bumper stickers are available from the IAOMT Office.

Smoking Teeth Confusion

Dr. Laidler’s criticism, Response to: "Smoking Teeth" - the truth gets "smoked out", reduces to the following propositions. First, he contends that what is actually being seen is water vapor; and second, since mercury is a heavier molecule than the other constituents of air (i.e. oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc) the mercury vapor could not rise, but would fall toward the floor. This analysis does is not consistent with the Laws of Physics and Chemistry for the following reasons.

First, atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAS) is a well substantiated scientific analytical technique used to measure a wide range of elements in various materials such as metals, pottery and glass. It is based on the simple fact that some elements in the Periodic Table absorb specific wavelengths of light. This constitutes that materials fingerprint. In the case of mercury vapor the absorbance wavelength is 253.7nm.

Thus, when a pure material is vaporized by the application of heat, while specific wavelengths are sequentially shone at it, the wavelength absorbed tells one the element making up the sample. In it simplest form, gold miners employ this principle when mining for gold. In the natural state, gold has a very high attraction for mercury; the miner heats his ore sample in a dark container, while shining an ultraviolet light. If a vaporizing shadow is cast, then mercury is present and the sample is likely gold. The amount of light absorbed is proportional to the concentration of the mercury.

The video “Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas” is simply an application of this Miner’s Test, using an amalgam filling, containing approximately 50% mercury, as the sample. Water vapor will not absorb the wavelength from the Miner’s light; and, it will not cast a shadow. Therefore, for Dr. Laidler to suggest it will is unfounded. In the video, the vaporizing shadow is caused by mercury atoms absorbing the spectrum from the Miner’s light. A light, scientifically designed to identify the presence of mercury, not water. Water vapor cannot be visualized with a 254 mm light.

Secondly, Dr. Laidler is correct when he states, “When molecules vaporize, the volume they fill depends on the number of molecules and their temperature”. This is called the partial pressure and the partial pressure for mercury in air is 0.00185 mm at 250 C. However, Dr. Laidler fails to report that the vapor pressure of mercury doubles for every 100 C increase in temperature. Employing dubious calculations, Dr. Laidler concludes that because mercury is heavier than the other components of air, if what we saw was actually mercury vapor coming off those teeth, and not just water vapor, it should have been SINKING rather than rising - even at 370 degrees C.” This of course is false, since the mercury in the amalgam is being is heated, causing the mercury molecules to become more active and vaporize. Thus, the mercury vapor rises from the amalgam and spreads into the environment in accordance with Boyles Law of Gases, the Guy-Lussac Law, and Avogadro’s Law and the Law of Entropy. These laws indicate that gas molecules by natural law move away from each other. Therefore, concentrated mercury atoms near the tooth naturally move to a location where less mercury atoms reside. These laws of the behavior of gas have nothing to do with gravity as Dr. Laidler improperly assumes.

In conclusion, Dr. Laidler reports that “ever since (he) saw the video, (he) felt that there was something wrong with it.” Indeed, he is absolutely correct! It is wrong to place materials containing 50% poisonous elemental mercury into humans, while calling them “silver” fillings. It is wrong to promote such materials as safe, when there is no level of mercury exposure considered to be “safe”.

Dr. Laidler has tried to “Manufacture Uncertainty” where none actually exists.

FDA Dental Materials Panelist Calls For Informed Consent

Dr. Michael Fleming, an International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology dentist, served as a consumer representative on the recent FDA panel reviewing the so called "White Paper" on 'Silver' fillings. Since these fillings are more than 50% mercury is is consumer deception to call them 'silver'. A recent Zogby poll found that 76% of the public was not even aware that mercury is in an amalgam much less that it is the principle component.

Michael feels actually demands that the public be honestly informed about the risks they will be exposed to from having these mercury leaking, teeth cracking, baby killing fillings implanted in their teeth. His recent editorial published for the entire profession to read is reprinted here with permission of Dental Economics.

President's Message

Greetings from your newly installed president.

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology’s 20 years of effort in funding primary research into the safety of dentistry had a lot to with the recent decision of the FDA advisory panels on amalgam.

I would like to express to you my deep concern over the issue of amalgam not only as a practicing dentist but a caring human being. It is absolutely important to protect the patient, the staff and the dentist during the mercury/silver filling removal process. Lungs are a prime portal of entry for the elemental mercury vapor and particulate amalgam. Surgical masks do not prevent the inhalation of micron-sized particles of pulverized mercury/silver amalgam fillings. The IAOMT has established simple protocols to protect everyone present. Regrettably, these precautions are routinely ignored by the majority of dentists.

If you are not familiar with patient protection I urge you to carefully review the simple procedures on our web site at http://www.iaomt.org. As a physician, be aware that if you suspect that a client may be experiencing an adverse reaction to mercury and merely direct them to their local dentist you may not be doing them a service. In the Wall Street Journal Rod Mackert, spokesperson for the American Dental Association, warned against removal because a large bolus dose of mercury is released during unprotected mercury/silver filling removal. Since the bolus dose is entirely preventable we concur with Dr. Mackert’s warning but certainly not his conclusion. What he failed to mention is that placement of a mercury/silver filling creates a similar bolus dose of mercury and that mercury exposure continues throughout the life of the filling. Do not needlessly allow harm to come to your patient. Protect them from preventable mercury exposure.

This eNewsletter is most likely our last issue before the March 15-17, 2007 meeting in Tucson Arizona. At that meeting we anticipate the star-studded premier of the FDA Neurology/Dental Panel highlights from the review of mercury/silver fillings IAOMT DVD. We have distilled two days and 48 hours of video to show you why 9 out of 10 neurologists and 4 our of 10 dentists voted to reject the FDA White Paper claiming to review the safety of mercury/silver fillings. You bring the Pizza and we’ll bring the beer. See you in Tucson.

The FDA Panel voted 13/7 for:
2) The draft FDA White paper does not objectively and clearly present the current state of knowledge about the exposure (to mercury) and health effects related to dental amalgam.

3) Given the amount and quality of information available for the draft FDA White Paper, the conclusions (amalgam is safe) are not reasonable.


My best regards,
Dr. Janet S. Stopka President IAOMT

IAOMT eNewsletter Vol. 1 #3

The President’s Message

Is it not, therefore, hypocritical for JAMA to publish
the severely flawed, ethically challenged children's
mercury exposure experiments?
more…

JAMA papers perpetuate the myth

Our physician colleagues at the American Medical Association, sadly and surprisingly, allowed two seriously flawed papers about mercury silver dental fillings to be published in its flagship journal, JAMA, on April 19, 2006
more…

NIDCR funded researchers looked for mercury in all the wrong places

Seven major flaws in the two studies, recently published in JAMA, invalidate the authors’ comparison of children with dental mercury fillings with youngsters who were amalgam free.
more…

IAOMT filed ethical complaints with IRBs of universities whose personnel conducted the children’s mercury exposure study of orphans and indigent children.

On the same day the two children mercury exposure studies above were published, the IAOMT filed 5 ethical complaints with the university Institutional Review Boards responsible for allowing these investigators to violate the very basic principles of informed consent and patient protection during human experiments.
more…

Safe removal of amalgam fillings

Mercury-free dentists have devised strategies to reduce the amount of mercury exposure to both patients and dental staff during amalgam removal. The strategies are the barrier and ventilation techniques as well as the “biological support” nutritional methods that “treat” the anti-oxidant and excretory systems stressed by heavy metal exposure.
more…

The Scientific Case Against Amalgam

Since its introduction early in the 19th century, dental amalgam has been controversial because of its poisonous mercury content. Throughout the years, those defending mercury fillings only could claim that the mercury exposure had to be too small to hurt anyone. Over time, though, a great body of evidence has accumulated showing that mercury is release from amalgam in significant quantities, that it spreads around the body, including from mother to fetus, and that the exposure causes physiological harm. A growing number of dentists, physicians, researchers, citizen activists, politicians, and regulators have concluded that the time has come to consign amalgam to the “dustbin of history.”
more…

President's Message

When I received what was then the latest edition of The Merck Manual, the compendium of differential diagnosis and treatment in internal medicine, I discovered that this centenary edition included a facsimile of the first publication printed in 1899. Recently, out of curiosity, I went to the index of that slender volume and counted 19 different mercury compounds listed for various therapeutic applications. Opening to the index in the 1999 edition, I found only one entry for mercury: Mercury Toxicity. Yet, the American Dental Association, in the manner of a strong trade organization, holds onto this 170-year-old technology through ignorance, deceit and denials.

How can it be that the medical profession has totally removed mercury from its pharmacopoeia in the past 100 years, even belatedly beginning to eliminate thimerosal, the ethyl-mercury preservative, from vaccines, while the dental profession is not far removed from the medieval practice our dental forefathers of shaving silver coins into elemental mercury?

Is it not, therefore, hypocritical of the JAMA to publish the severely flawed children’s amalgam trial (which I refer to as the children’s mercury exposure experiments)? How ironic that the AMA that expresses such concern about mercury in the environment and rejects its use in any form of medication, feels that it finds “safe haven” in the mouths of our patients.

To stretch the time line of one of Dr. Boyd Haley’s aphorisms: “is this what it’s like to have a 170-year-long argument with the town drunk?”

Opinion’s of IAOMT President Terrence Messerman <TMesserman@aol.com>

Smoking Teeth