Lyme Disease and Mercury Fillings
March 26, 2012
I love working outside. Whether it be mowing the lawn or cleaning up brush in the woods, doing outside manual labor is “therapy” for me. However, I have also grown petrified of contracting Lyme disease.
I have seen a steady increase in the number of my patients who say they have contracted Lyme disease. Most of these people said they had the classic “bulls-eye” rash, went on antibiotics for a couple of weeks and were done with it. I have also had other patients who are dealing with long-term issues associated with Lyme disease. Most of the data I found agreed that the success of treating Lyme disease is higher the sooner it is identified and treated. The same data also noted that misdiagnosis of Lyme disease is very high, which often delays treatment.
I think it is pretty safe to say that Lyme disease is bad news. Lyme disease is a multi-system inflammatory disease that affects many of the systems in the body, including the brain. It is most commonly thought to be acquired through the bite of a deer tick that is carrying the dangerous bacteria. However, newer medical evidence shows that the bacteria may also be spread through other means.
Other than the standard antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease, there are also many “alternative” treatments out there. It seems to me that when there are multiple “alternative” treatments to things, where some people show improvement and others do not, the disease itself is not very well understood. I believe this is the case with Lyme disease.
I had a patient recently ask me to review some information about a treatment she is ready to start to battle the symptoms she has from Lyme disease. The process is basically to detoxify the body of heavy metals, including mercury. If you look at stuff on the web about this it brings up the well-known silver/mercury filling debate. Here is an excerpt from one of the websites I found:
“Mercury amalgams are about 55% mercury, and the government makes dentists handle them like nuclear reactor material before it goes into the mouth, and when it comes out of the mouth they have to handle it in the same way, in a bio-hazardous container. But the American Dental Association still tells the dentists and the patients that it’s safe when it’s inside your head. And I think that’s oxymoronic. It doesn’t even make sense.
That means that our heads are considered bio-hazard containers. There’s a device called a mercury vapor analyzer, a device that can be stuck in your mouth after you chew a piece of gum, and it can show you how much mercury is coming off your gum every time you chew. But a lot of people who use that vapor device find that the mercury content in their mouth exceeds the Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendation for safe air.”
There is no published scientific data that I am aware of that shows that removal of silver fillings from your mouth cures anything. Having said that, I have not used the material for over 12 years for basically the same reasons that are described in the quote above.
As far as the Lyme disease issue goes, my recommendation is not to get Lyme disease. It seems that Lyme disease is not well understood. For my patient, and anyone who continues to have symptoms after conventional antibiotic treatment, I guess I would try any alternative treatment that seemed reasonable with little risk.
Should Amalgam Be Banned?
August 30, 2011
I was reading a recently published report entitled “Economic Impact of Regulating the Use of Amalgam Restorations”. The study looked at the effects a ban on the use of dental amalgam (mercury/metal fillings) would have on our society.
Dental caries (decay) is still a widely prevalent oral disease in all ages of the population. Amalgam has been used for more than 150 years for filling back teeth and is composed of a mixture of silver, other metals, and mercury (50% by weight). As of now, the other options for filling teeth include composite resin, porcelain materials, and gold.
One of the concerns with the use of dental amalgam is that increased mercury levels for extended periods of time are associated with neurological, renal, and immunological impairments. It is known that amalgam restorations release mercury vapor during chewing, and that people with amalgam restorations have slightly elevated urine mercury levels. Another concern is the environmental impact that mercury has when it is disposed of from either excess filling material or removal of the material from teeth.
Although amalgam use is declining in the U.S., it is still widely used. Several countries, including Germany and Norway have limited the use of amalgam to adults and non-pregnant women. Denmark and Sweden have completely banned its use.
The debate in this study is the economic impact restricting the use of dental amalgam would have on our society. Materials other than amalgam are typically more expensive, and some of them do not have the same expected life-span of amalgam, which means they may need to be replaced more frequently.
Basically, the results of the study are as follows. Based on several studies, there is no evidence that the use of dental amalgam leads to any adverse neurological impairments. Likewise, according the report, the disposal of mercury from amalgam fillings is not a significant source of environmental mercury. Predictably, based on the increased costs associated with using other materials, lower-income segments of the population would be most affected by a limitation or ban on amalgam use. This in turn would lead to a higher prevalence of untreated dental disease.
If the studies show the stuff is reasonably safe and a ban would have a disastrous effect on a large segment of the population, it should not be banned. I don’t think the government has the right to limit one’s choice of what they fill their teeth with. Look at cigarettes for crying out loud. If the government wants to ban something ban those. We know those are unsafe. Actually, I do not think they should be banned, although I do agree with the limitation of use to decrease exposure to the rest of the population. If someone wants to smoke, knowing the risks, it should be their right.
Back to amalgam. I do not think there should be a ban on the use of amalgam, but I do think it is the right of the dentist to decide whether they offer it or not. It is also the right of the patient to decide who their dentist is and what is put in their mouth.
One more thing to think about….. if studies show that amalgam is perfectly 100% safe, why have the European countries I mentioned limited or banned its use?
Science or Common Sense?
August 16, 2011
Last week I started talking about how these new “squiggly” light bulbs we are all being forced to use by 2014 contain mercury. Because they contain mercury, they come with their own set of disposal instructions. Although I have not used dental amalgam as a restorative material for over 10 years, I can assure you there are no warnings on the packaging for this product before sticking it in your teeth…….and it is 50% mercury.
I had to replace a thermostat at home last weekend. The message below was strategically placed on a piece of paper to make sure it was not missed:
“Mercury Warning and Recycling Notice: Mercury is considered to be a hazardous material. If this product is replacing a thermostat that contains mercury in a sealed tube, contact your local waste management authority for instructions regarding recycling and proper disposal. It may be unlawful in your state to place it in the trash.”
Here is part of the statement posted on the website of the American Dental Association (ADA):
“Dental amalgam is considered a safe, affordable and durable material that has been used to restore the teeth of more than 100 million Americans. It contains a mixture of metals such as silver, copper and tin, in addition to mercury, which binds these components into a hard, stable and safe substance. Dental amalgam has been studied and reviewed extensively, and has established a record of safety and effectiveness.”
The FDI World Dental Federation and the World Health Organization concluded in a 1997 consensus statement – “No controlled studies have been published demonstrating systemic adverse effects from amalgam restorations.” Another conclusion of the report stated that, aside from rare instances of local side effects of allergic reactions, “the small amount of mercury released from amalgam restorations, especially during placement and removal, has not been shown to cause any adverse health effects.”
I don’t know about you but there are some things in life that I wholeheartedly trust science and research for and then there are other things where common sense takes over. Common sense tells me that if mercury has been taken out of all thermometers, and there are warnings on the packaging of all “new” light bulbs and thermostats, why do we still feel comfortable sticking a product that is 50% mercury in teeth?
Despite the fact that mercury vapor is released into the mouths of people who have amalgam fillings, the daily dose of mercury is not enough to cause concern with the ADA or anyone else. However, all dentists in the state of Massachusetts were mandated by the state to install and register an amalgam separating unit. When the filter needs replacement, it is considered hazardous waste and must be disposed of through a licensed waste management company.
Can a dentist advise a patient to have amalgam removed for health/safety reasons? The FDA has concluded that amalgam fillings cause no demonstrated clinical harm to patients and that removing amalgam will not prevent adverse health effects or reverse the course of existing diseases. So, although a dentist cannot legally advise you to remove amalgam fillings, he or she does have the right not to provide them as a service or require the use of certain techniques for their removal.
More next week.
