CureZone   Log On   Join
Image Embedded Re: More from Trollville

Free Dentist Alternative!
Professional Powder beats Fluoride!

Free Dentist Alternative!
Professional Powder beats Fluoride!

Google Advertisement
Google Advertisement
Hveragerthi Views: 1,732
Published: 10 years ago
Status:       RR [Message recommended by a moderator!]
This is a reply to # 1,945,274

Re: More from Trollville

Here's a quote of what's titled as "the Truth in Medicine" forum, from this link:

"So what does the actual research say":

Blood and urine mercury levels in adult amalgam patients of a randomized controlled trial: interaction of Hg species in erythrocytes.

"The integrated daily Hg dose absorbed from amalgam was estimated up to 3 microg for an average number of fillings and at 7.4 for a high amalgam load"

OK, did you notice the word "estimated" in the cited article ? Its not hard numbers, its only an ESTIMATE , not a measured quantity ! What assumptions is the estimate based on ? The authors do not say. Would you rely on an estimate as "evidence" ??

I suppose this poster would have preferred that the test subjects were given measured doses of mercury for those hard numbers.  Fortunately, most researchers have a thing called ethics and would not purposely poison someone with something like mercury to get "hard numbers".  So they have to estimate the intake.

This poster also overlooked the part of the study where blood levels of mercury were checked prior to and after the removal of the amalgams, which was the main point.  Not how much mercury they were receiving from their amalgams, which would be impossible to prove anyway.  The levels were still well within acceptable limits.

Think about estimates you've experienced in your life first hand. Are they usually accurate ?? Cui bono as to what if the estimates are low ? Cui bono as to if the estimates are high ?

Moreover, the article discussed "inorganic mercury" and organic mercury from dietary sources, but appears to have totally ignored inorganic mercury from amalgams that has been transformed by the body into organic mercury - another gaping hole.

Again the poster shows his ignorance of the subject.  In order for the mercury to be converted in to an organic form by methylation there are several factors that must be eliminated from the scenario.  First of all some of the mercury has been shown to be exhaled as it leaves the amalgams.  Thus this mercury would not be methylated in to organic mercury.  Then there is binding of heavy metals by common substances in food such as phytates, alginates and pectins that bind and remove mercury from the body.  For that matter this same exact poster was just claiming yesterday that the mercury has a high affinity for what he mistakenly called sulfur atoms instead of the proper sulfide groups in proteins.  So using his own argument we can now include the sulfide groups from the proteins in food that we chew leading to the tiny amounts of mercury being released.  Let's not forget that this same poster also stated that these bonds are so strong that they are nearly impossible to destroy.  So by using this poster's own argument the binding of the mercury to the sulfide groups in the proteins of our diet would create virtually permanent bonds and therefore would not be methylated in to organic mercury in the intestine as earlier claimed by the mercury propagandists.  Instead, proteins from some sources such as red meats are difficult for the body to break down.  Especially when people are deficient in stomach acid, which is quite common.  Between the high affinity of mercury for sulfide groups in our dietary proteins and the poor digestion of proteins due to how common low stomach acid is many of these proteins can be excreted from the body still intact with the mercury still bound to those sulfide groups.  Boy I love it when the people trying to argue subjects they clearly do not understand actually hand me the evidence they are wrong.

As for phytates in food..... where ? I have seen no hard evidence showing any significant dietary phytate intake for all persons having amalgams, so its an unproven proposition, possibly a myth, given that phytates are typically removed during food refining.

ROTFLMAO!!!  Soy according to you processed soy is actually safe since the phytates the soy bashers falsely claim rob the body of minerals are removed.  Better be careful making claims like that.  Your commrades are going to look at you like a traitor for exposing the myths about soy!!!

Of course phytates are not only found in soy.  They are found in all seeds.  Flax, chia, wheat, oats, etc.

Under the Conclusions section of the cited article, this appears:

"The unexpected postremoval increase in erythrocyte organic Hg, which is associated with the depletion of cellular inorganic Hg, might result from binding of organic Hg to cellular sites previously occupied by inorganic Hg."

Did you see the word "might" ? What value is a "conclusion" that says "might" ??? Its a non-concrete statement and is not a conclusion at all. Its like saying that I conclude that you "might" get lucky if you play the lottery. You might !!

One word...... DESPERATION!!!!  What does it matter if they said "might" or "is from".  The point was that there was a rise in levels of mercury in the red blood cells upon removal of the amalgams.  Does it really matter at this point how this occurs?  Or should the focus be on the fact that there was an actual rise in the levels of mercury when the amalgams were removed?

What is funny though is that these same trolls will claims like soy MAY CAUSE.........   and they consider that solid evidence.  Just like how they claim medical studies are flawed unless that medical study happens to say something they agree with.  Such hypocrisy!

What a joke, and article that uses the word "might" in its conclusions. Tells me the article is essentially worthless, if they did all that work and can't say anything concrete from it, only vagaries.

See my last comment.  The study is not worthless at all if you look at the whole picture instead of picking and choosing segments of the study in a poor attempt to find fault with these segments

Also under "conclusions" is this : "This is the first study on adult amalgam patients which continuously monitored the postremoval decline of inorganic Hg and the coexposure from dietary organic Hg in a randomized-controlled-trial design."

What kind of conclusion is that ? Not a conclusion at all, just a statement that they believe it to be the first whatever.

Again, if you would have read the entire conclusion as it should be read you would have seen where it all ties in.  Instead, out of a pure act of desperation you picked one segment of the conclusion in a poor attempt to discredit the entire conclusion.  Reminds me of how Presidential candidates will deliberately try to deceive the public about their opponents by doing commercials that only show a small segment of a statement so it will be taken out of context.  They are showing their pure desperation as well.

Also under "conclusions" is this: "The integrated daily dose of 7.4 microg absorbed from a high amalgam load is well below the tolerable dose of 30 microg (WHO, 1990). "

But wait..... the 7.4 number is an estimate !!!!!!! It says so in the sentence that comes right before the word "conclusions". So they've included an estimate in the conclusions section.


More clear desperation.  What do you think they based those estimates on? Think about it for once.  Oh, what was I thinking making that statement.  Here let me make it easy for you.  They were monitoring the blood levels of the people before, during and after.  If they were absorbing more mercury from their amalgams their blood levels would be higher.  If they were absorbing lower levels of mercury then their blood levels will be lower.   I realize you have a really hard time trying to figure out such simple concepts, but I am still totally surprised that this simple concept was so far over your head!

Is it reasonable to rely on statements that recite "might" and numbers that are stated as estimates, as valid conclusions ?

They sure seem to be to the mercury propagandists and the soy bashers when they find similar claims that fit their needs.

"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." - William Thomson, a.k.a. Lord Kelvin [PLA, vol. 1, "Electrical Units of Measurement", 1883-05-03]

Again, do you think they should have been given mercury laced Kool-Aid to get the exact mercury exposure numbers?


Add To Favorites!
Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Like     Dislike

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


Donate to CureZone

CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with

Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2022

1.969 sec, (7)