neurotoxin Archives - Amazing Health Advances

Mercury-Leaching Fillings: The Dental Industry’s Toxic Secret

The AHA! Team — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 05:12:59 +0000

Lance D Johnson via Natural News – Despite knowing mercury’s toxicity, dentists continue to use silver amalgam fillings, which are approximately 50% mercury. The American Dental Association (ADA) insists on their safety, citing study after study. However, a closer look reveals these studies aren’t always referenced, and the ones that are, often exclude crucial details. Moreover, mercury’s volatility contradicts the ADA’s claim that it remains safely encapsulated within the filling. Silver amalgam fillings are the most common type of dental fillings, containing approximately 50% mercury by weight. Other components include silver, tin and copper. Mercury is classified as a neurotoxin, meaning it affects the nervous system. It’s also strongly connected to various health issues, including autoimmune disorders, respiratory problems, and neurological symptoms. The ADA maintains that amalgam fillings are safe, based on numerous studies. However, many studies cited by the ADA lack robust design or consider only short-term effects, while longer-term and high-quality studies often show negative impacts. Mercury in amalgam fillings does not stay encapsulated; it continually releases mercury vapor, especially under stress (chewing, brushing, drinking hot beverages) or when exposed to heat. Over time, these fillings lose a significant amount of their mercury content. As you sit in the dental chair, expecting a routine check-up, did you know that an everyday procedure could be silently poisoning you? For decades, the dental industry has been using fillings containing mercury, a potent neurotoxin, and downplaying its harmful effects. A growing body of evidence, however, paints a different picture. This investigation aims to unearth the truth about mercury in dental fillings and why it matters today. Why are dentists still using mercury? Despite knowing mercury’s toxicity, dentists continue to use silver amalgam fillings, which are approximately 50% mercury. The American Dental Association (ADA) insists on their safety, citing study after study. However, a closer look reveals these studies aren’t always referenced, and the ones that are, often exclude crucial details. Moreover, mercury’s volatility contradicts the ADA’s claim that it remains safely encapsulated within the filling. Key points: Mercury amalgam fillings contain 50% mercury, a known neurotoxin. The ADA supports their safety, citing inconclusive or incomplete studies. Mercury from fillings can leak, exposing patients, dentists, and techs to vapor. Everyday activities like chewing, brushing, or sipping hot drinks can release more mercury. The toxic truth of mercury fillings Mercury’s harm in dental fillings isn’t in question. The World Health Organization categorizes mercury’s adverse effects on health, including anxiety, depression, and neuro-inflammation. Yet, it’s still used in dentistry, exposing patients and dental professionals to toxic vapor. Disturbingly, the EPA’s mercury exposure limits for pregnant women are exceeded in nearly a third of those with amalgam fillings, as shown in a study by the IAOMT. Many patients develop mysterious symptoms attributed to mercury toxicity, such as fatigue, brain fog, and autoimmune disorders. Even oxidative stress and DNA damage are linked to mercury exposure. The FDA’s 2020 warning to avoid mercury fillings in certain groups is a step in the right direction. Still, critics argue it came decades too late and doesn’t go far enough. Mercury’s link to chronic health issues Patients and dental professionals may experience diverse symptoms related to mercury exposure, including: Neurological: Cognition issues, headaches, depression, anxiety. Respiratory: Wheezing, difficulty breathing. Autoimmune: Multiple sclerosis, alopecia, thyroid disorders. Cardiovascular: Heart issues, chest pains. Reproductive: Impotence, reduced fertility. DNA damage: Mercury can induce oxidative stress and DNA damage, contributing to various diseases, including cancer. FDA Warning: In 2020, the FDA issued a warning discouraging the use of amalgam fillings in certain at-risk groups, such as pregnant women and children. Mercury amalgam removal: Safe practices Standard procedures and risks: Conventional amalgam removal can result in significantly elevated mercury vapor levels, endangering patients and dental staff (Eley et al., 2014). Safe Mercury Amalgam Removal Technique (SMART): This protocol aims to minimize mercury exposure during filling removal. It involves using specialized equipment, such as high-volume suction devices, isolation, and proper waste disposal. The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) promotes the use of the SMART technique and advocates for safer dentistry. The dental industry’s continued use of mercury in fillings is alarming. Mercury’s toxicity is undeniable, and the ADA’s defense of its safety is unfounded. As patients, we deserve better. We must demand safer alternatives and hold the dental industry accountable for its use of known toxins. After all, our health, and potentially our lives, depend on it. Sources include: NaturalHealth365.com PRNewswire.com IAOMPT.org Pubmed.gov ScienceDirect.com To read the original article, click here

The post Mercury-Leaching Fillings: The Dental Industry’s Toxic Secret appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Why You Don’t Want “Normal” Blood Lead Levels

AHA Publisher — Fri, 04 Sep 2020 07:00:44 +0000

Michael Greger M.D. FACLM via Nutrition Facts – “By the 1950s, lead—a dangerous neurotoxin that was once buried deep in the ground, far away from humans—had polluted the entire planet.” We have leaded gasoline to thank for this. It’s hard to imagine “a better strategy for maximizing population exposure to a poison than to have it emitted by a ubiquitous mobile source and to line the surfaces of dwellings” and our neighborhoods with it. “Overall, about 5 million metric tons of lead was deposited in the environment as a result of the combustion of leaded gasoline” by our automobiles before it was regulated. A single busy street could receive more than a metric ton a year, and the lead just built up, decade after decade. Finally, thanks to regulations starting in the 1970s, we stopped spewing so much into the air. As you can see at 0:57 in my video “Normal” Blood Lead Levels Can Be Toxic, as lead use dropped, so did the levels of lead in our blood, resulting in a 98 percent reduction in the percentage of young children with elevated blood lead levels. Of course, the term “elevated” is relative. “Prior to 1970, lead poisoning was defined by a blood lead concentration of 60 mg/dL or higher” but “since then, the blood lead concentration for defining lead toxicity gradually has been reduced” to 40 mg/dL, then 30 mg/dL, then 25 mg/dL, and then further down to 10mg/dL, as lead levels “previously thought to be safe or inconsequential for children have consistently been shown to be risk factors” for cognitive and behavioral problems. Currently, an elevated blood lead level is considered to be more than 5 mg/dL. So, under 5 mg/dL, your lead level is considered to be non-elevated or normal. But what does having a “normal” lead level mean? “Virtually all residents of industrialized countries have bone lead stores that are several orders of magnitude greater than those of our preindustrial ancestors.” If you go to a museum and test the lead levels of ancient skeletons buried a millennium ago, they are a thousand times lower compared to people today, “which indicates the probable existence within most Americans of dysfunctions caused by poisoning from chronic, excessive overexposures to industrial Pb lead.” You can see a graphical representation of “body burdens of lead” in a preindustrial ancestor, a typical American citizen, and a person with overtly symptomatic lead poisoning, where he might be doubled over in pain, at 2:30 in my video. What the medical and research communities had failed to understand is that they had only concerned themselves with people with actual lead poisoning and those at “typical” lead levels, but “the new value for natural lead levels in [preindustrial] humans shows that typical levels of lead in humans are quite definitely not properly described by the term ‘very low levels’ at all, but instead constitute grossly excessive, 1000-fold over-exposure levels.” The bottom line? “No level of lead exposure appears to be ‘safe’ and even the current ‘low’ levels of exposure in children are associated with neurodevelopmental deficits,” including reduced IQ. It could have been a lot worse if we hadn’t started restricting leaded gas. Thanks to falling blood lead levels starting in the 1970s, preschoolers born in the 1990s were two to five IQ points higher than kids like me born before 1976. So, when we see our kids and grandkids being such wizzes at technology that it’s hard to keep up with them, a small part of that may be them not suffering as much lead-induced brain damage as we did. And, what that means for the country is potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of improved productivity because our children are less brain-damaged. If that seems like a lot for just a few IQ points, as you can see at 4:26 in my video, what you have to realize is that even a small shift in average IQ could result in a 50 percent increase in the number of the “mentally retarded,” millions more in need of special education and services. So, “removal of lead from gasoline in the United States has been described as one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century, but it almost did not happen.” Indeed, “tremendous pressure by the lead industry itself was brought to bear to quiet, even intimidate, researchers and clinicians who reported on or identified lead as a hazard.” Decent “scientists and health officials faced enormous opposition but never lost sight of the mandate to protect public health.” Two of the “young, idealistic employees” at the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency, who played key roles in the fight, recount how “naïve [they were] to the ways of Washington”: “Our youth was also used against us. Our inexperience was cited as a reason for rejecting the lead regulatory proposals….Finally, in retrospect, our youth and inexperience also helped us to succeed in taking on a billion dollar industry. We were too young to know, that regulating lead in gasoline was impossible.” To read the original article click here. For more articles from Dr. Greger click here.

The post Why You Don’t Want “Normal” Blood Lead Levels appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.

Reducing Aluminium Intake Can Minimize Potential Health Risks

AHA Publisher — Wed, 15 Jan 2020 08:00:19 +0000

BFR Federal Institute for Risk Assessment via EurekAlert – Consumers can take up aluminium compounds from various sources, such as food, cosmetic products like aluminum containing antiperspirants and toothpaste, food contact materials like uncoated aluminum menu or baking trays and drugs. For the first time, the BfR has now estimated the total aluminum intake for different age groups (infants, children and adolescents as well as adults) and carried out a risk assessment. In addition, the contributions of the various sources of total aluminium intake by the population were compared with one another. A high intake of aluminium compounds can cause, among other things, neurotoxic developmental disorders as well as damage the kidneys, liver and bones. The BfR bases its assessment of the population’s aluminium intake from food on the latest consumption and concentration data. Consumption data are collected through consumer surveys and provide information on which foods and how much of them are eaten by different consumer groups. The concentration data used show the average aluminium concentrations in the different food categories. For non-food products, such as cosmetics or packaging, the exposure assessment is also based on data regarding aluminium contents in the products. Furthermore, typical application forms and quantities are taken into account. For the risk assessment of aluminium intake, the BfR uses the tolerable weekly intake (TWI) derived from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 1 milligram aluminium per kilogram body weight. The BfR’s assessment shows that aluminium intake from food is lower compared to previous studies. Food is still a relevant, but no longer the population’s main source of intake. If other relevant sources of aluminium intake are taken into account, such as aluminium containing cosmetic products and uncoated food contact materials, the total intake can exhaust or even exceed the TWI for all age groups. Consumers can influence their aluminium intake. Those who want to reduce their aluminium intake should use aluminium containing antiperspirants and toothpaste sparingly. When it comes to food, the BfR recommends a varied diet as well as alternating products and brands. This can contribute to reducing the risk of permanently high aluminium intake caused by individual highly contaminated products. The BfR recommends, also for other reasons, exclusively breastfeeding infants in the first six months of life, if possible. The BfR generally advises against the preparation and storage of, in particular, acidic and salty foods in uncoated aluminium articles or aluminium foil. If the aforementioned and avoidable sources of intake are reduced, most consumers are not expected to suffer any adverse health effects. The BfR recommends that manufacturers take appropriate measures to reduce the amount of aluminium in food. These may include, for example, using raw materials with low aluminium content or coated materials for processing and packaging food. There is still a high level of uncertainty in aluminium risk assessment because important data is still missing or can be interpreted differently. This concerns, for example, the question of how much aluminium is actually absorbed through the skin as well as the possible occurrence of certain long-term consequences of chronic exposure to aluminium. To read the original article click here.

The post Reducing Aluminium Intake Can Minimize Potential Health Risks appeared first on Amazing Health Advances.