Ilona V edited the summary of The Big Dental Lie Wednesday, January 5, 2011.
Introduction to THE BIG DENTAL LIE by Dr Ilona Visser
This book started out in 2005 as a series of lectures delivered by the author over three days to dentists, specialists and doctors in Pretoria, South Africa. The lecture series was based upon the concepts of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology’s lectures on an Introduction to Biological Dentistry. After this she was requested to present the lectures as a series of papers for publication in dental journals.
As it turned out, the information was just too lengthy to publish in a dental journal (and the reader base was also very small). She then undertook to compile it in book form and make it available to both the profession and the public. The first draft of the manuscript was more than 550 pages, including more than 100 pages of references. It was cut to about 300 pages. So what’s the difference between this book and its predecessors? The answer is simple. Most other books on the topic, if not all of them, have focussed on either Joe Public or the scientist.
The result in the first case, as you may imagine, is that the scientist will not read the book as it contains minimal ‘scientific, peer-reviewed evidence’ (that’s the stuff dentists and scientists want to see). As you read through the book, visit www.ctss.co.za and refer to the list of scientific papers (in an effort to save costs and some trees the extensive list is not printed in this book). You will realize from the name of each journal in which country it was published, and thus where the research was done. Note that not much research has been conducted in the United States. In fact, U.S. researchers have complained that, once they mention the topic of mercury from amalgam to the National Institute of Health and other such bodies, who finance research, they cannot obtain funds. That is why so much research has been done in Scandinavian countries who are many years ahead on research concerning amalgams and mercury toxicity from amalgams compared to that which is currently conducted in the U.S.
Joe Public will not read a book aimed at the dentist and scientist, as it will most likely contain terminology and concepts with which he is unfamiliar, making reading and the understanding thereof impossible.
The aim of this book is to reconcile the two concepts (scientific proof and ‘plain English’), by providing a book that is easy to read, uncomplicated, and unproblematic to verify, by referring to ‘scientific, peer-reviewed’ literature.
In this book you will find sufficient evidence to realise that you have been lied to for nearly 200 years by the ADA, the FDI and dentists (the latter believing the lies taught during their training).
What follows is a short synopsis of the main lies.
Lie Number 1Dentists trained some years ago will tell you that amalgam does not release mercury, and that set amalgam is an inert, stable product.
This was the official viewpoint until a few years ago. Actually, if you view the video ‘Smoking Tooth’ on www.iaomt.org you must wonder how they could really tell you that lie with a poker-straight face. The ‘smoke’ is actually mercury vapor coming off a 25-year old amalgam, and is not a magic trick or illusion.
Lie Number 2These days organised dentistry acknowledges that amalgams do release mercury, but “the amount is too small to cause harm”.
A report that contains the collective views of an international group of experts was published in 2003. Their findings were that “Dental amalgam fillings are the primary source of mercury exposure for the general population”.
Lie number 3The dental profession is now taught: “So OK, amalgams release mercury, but you know what, it is only a problem in those people that are allergic to it, and very few people are.”
In 1984 the ADA reported that the number of people allergic to amalgam was only 5%, which would, according to the statistics of epidiomolgy, be considered an epidemic. In the USA that would amount to more than 14 million people. In 1989 the ADA lowered the figure to 1.1 million and in 1991 it increased the percentage again to 3 %. These figures were based on the results of patch tests, which, as you will see later, are grossly inaccurate to determine allergies to heavy metals. If a blood analysis is done, it is more likely to be near 90%.
Even SADA, the South African version of the ADA, has maintained that the general population of some 44 million people should not be concerned about amalgams, as less than 10% of the population is ‘sensitive to the mercury from their amalgams’. SADA’s less than 10% of the population in South Africa alone would imply that, in South Africa with a population of 44 million, up to 4 million people could be sensitive to the mercury from their amalgams. No small number. If a drug affected less than 10% of people it would be taken off the market, as was the fate of Vioxx, a tailormade drug specifically designed to treat painful joints, and approved by the FDA.
Lie number 4 “Risk studies have, however, indicated that a possibility for health damage caused by mercury from amalgam fillings exists in a small minority of the population.”
Some dental researchers have claimed: “No data has been presented that proves it likely that mercury impacts from amalgam lead to health effects other than allergic reactions. Risk studies have, however, indicated that a possibility for health damage caused by mercury from amalgam fillings exists in a small minority of the population.” What they fail to say is that this ‘small minority’ consists of millions of people!
In South Africa, as in the rest of the world, dentists such as the Director of Oral Medicine from the Department of Health maintain that “I have not seen scientific evidence in the literature or at dental conferences that mercury in such fillings (amalgams) can cause problems such as chronic fatigue.” Well, actually there is enough evidence – sufficient to fill a book! And no dental conference organized by the SA Dental Association since 1990 (when the auhtor became a member) has really debated the issue of amalgam toxicity.
But then they are also quick to warn you to not just have the amalgams removed, as a lot of mercury is released during the cutting of the filling. "But don’t worry, just don’t inhale (too) much of it". In any case, the greatest risk, according to them, is to the dentist drilling out the filling, not to you, the patient.
Numerous dental academics have acknowledged: ‘The margin of safety between the mercury burdens some persons with amalgam fillings experience and the burden that can set off illness, is small’. The Norwegian National Institute for Public Health points out that “Although the overall judgment is that it is unlikely that the metals of lead, mercury and cadmium represent a significant health risk in the Norwegian population, it must be said that the safety margin for all of these metals is relatively small in relation to the potential for triggering subtle health effects”.
During the last 10-15 years, documentation has become available indicating that mercury from amalgam fillings is traced to (or found in) locations in the human body where it is unwanted. It has been shown that the amount of mercury in the brains of deceased persons correlates with their number of amalgam fillings. Also, the mother’s mercury passes through the placenta, and the mercury concentration of fetuses correlate with the number of amalgam fillings in their mothers. The amount of mercury in breast milk increases with increasing numbers of amalgam fillings in the mother. Those who have amalgam fillings have more mercury in their body fluids than persons without amalgam fillings. This is critical as it is well-known that the brain of the developing fetus is its most vulnerable to toxins during the formative months.
The research referred to in this book relates mostly to elemental mercury or vapur, since it is that form of mercury that is released by amalgams (there are three main forms of mercury). Some time is also spent on other issues, apart from mercury toxicity, relating to amalgam toxicity, such as the galvanic action of metals in the mouth. The reference list is so extensive that it can be used by scholars wishing to learn more about mercury toxicity.