The ADA Says The Recent "Nuns" Study Proves Amalgam Is Safe
Description
This article is from the Dental Amalgam FAQ, by anonymous.
The ADA Says The Recent "Nuns" Study Proves Amalgam Is Safe
The ADA are not keen to talk about the previous studies that
showed well above average Hg levels in the brains of Alzhiemer
sufferers performed after death.
The "nuns" study on amalgam was small - around 100 subjects.
Hence a tendancy of around 1% or less would go unnoticed anyway.
Yet 1% would be 2 million people in the USA - so much bigger samples
are needed. The group selected may not be satisfactory - commonsense
tells us that nuns probably do not have the lifestyle that
may provoke Amalgam problems - they do not chew gums, drink
excessive sugary or acid foods/soda drinks spend periods in
front of VDU monitors, (all indicated to increase Hg leakage
from amalgams) and so on. They may be unlikely eat junk-food or
have a poor diet - diet and general health will effect the
bodies natural Hg defence mechanisms such as Glutathione.
Since one of the characteristics of mercury poisoning is
aggression and irritability, a group of nuns may be
"self-censoring" in this respect - ie. Hg victims will drop out.
For this reason, surveys must have large samples, monitoring
a population cross-section in such a manner as not to miss out
potential victims. It may be better to target possible object
groups (ie. Alzheimers, CFS/ME, MS..) directly.
It is extremely hard to differentiate between neurological
and psycological symptoms - a recent survey of top neurologists
showed they got it wrong more than 50% of the time. What chance
does a busy dentist/doctor stand?
I personally believe this is why psyciatric disorders seem
to be so prevalent in Western culture - toxicology (not *just*
amalgam, although its probably the biggest single cause) rather
than stress may be at the root of it..
In fact I think the ADA needs to *prove* that serious
amalgam-related-illness conditions run below 0.001%
(near 2,000 cases US wide) - just because amalgam is so widely used.
Proving a 1% tendancy by random sample is very hard - very large
sample sizes are needed - and proving 0.001% is well nigh impossible.
What work I have done with statistics (in computing)
has shown me just how careful a researcher must be in
building his models. The "nuns" study is a classic
example of a badly constructed model.
Also make sure to read these books: Poison in Your Teeth: Mercury Amalgam (Silver) Fillings...Hazardous to Your Health! and Mercury Detoxification by Tom McGuire
Continue to:
My Books
