Any other words on mercury filling removal?

About '81, after following Huggins' and others claims on the importance of "sequential" removal (removing the most highly "negatively charged" fillings first, positively-charged last), I built an exquisitely sensitive "amalgameter" that measured electrical current from 'fillings" and plotted them in real time, AS THEY changed, instantly on our oscilloscope screen.

Conclusion: If accurately measured, there's ZERO consistency. The charges change from moment to moment and even from one place on a filling to another. I decided that the "sequential removal" concept is useless and potentially harmful, since it exposes people to unnecessary extra procedures, extra local anesthetic, extra time and expense, and extra exposure to dentists' bad jokes. We remove them one quadrant at a time, starting with the largest and most defective silver bullets. In 25 years of that routine, I've never seen a serious problem (and we've LOOKED for and monitored for problems closely since about '80). I DO admire Dr. Huggins 'proper ventilation'.' His "bubble operatories" are beautiful.... for the protection of his DENTISTS.

And by whose determination are the new materials "biocompatible"? Strangely, no one's been able to reproduce the results of Dr. Hal on "biocompatibility". Yes, we use lots of gold and bonded porcelain and I'm waiting for reports showing it's toxic somehow. Won't be surprised. ALL this stuff's foreign to the body. And, yes, it's GOTTA be less harmful than mercury! I greatly respect ANYONE with integrity and courage enough to buck the establishment and search for truth and I ESPECIALLY admire Dr. Huggins, 'cause he's an honest, brave man who's been extremely successful at private dental research. What he's accomplished has been WITHOUT government (aka, "stolen") money. AND I can't accept all his claims.

Do you still have mercury fillings in your mouth? I understand you use a mirror and do all the work in your own mouth, a job which both fascinates and gives me the willies

No, I removed all my mercury fillings. Yes, I did the "drilling" on my own teeth. Seemed easier. I didn't have to wait for an appointment, could do it the way I wanted it done and when and where I determined. For the upper teeth it takes TWO mirrors, one mounted on our treatment light (which our clients can use to watch treatment of their own mouths if they like) & one hand-held, plus our intra-oral video camera. Interesting experience!

I put gold onlays on my lower molars in 1980, which nearly cost me my marriage, because I did that on an evening after our office closed and forgot that it was Valentine's Day. It took longer than expected, working alone and I got home about midnight. I patched together my upper back teeth with a composite resin awaiting my decision on whether to alter my vertical dimension of occlusion (jaw relationship) and veneer my worn front teeth before doing anything irreversible. I have no other restorations/materials in my mouth. I'll probably restore my molars with gold onlays and upper bicuspids with lab-fab Conquest soon, all bonded with an insoluble resin rather than cemented. My gold inlays were made from Firmalay, approximately 75% gold, cemented with whatever I was using at the time.

When we remove mercury from mouths I watch for & ask about changes in systemic health, usually with no observable changes. I'd hoped for lots of improvements in my own health when I removed MY mercury. No noticeable changes at all. Once in a while folks seem to dump a few symptoms after mercury removal, but our experience has been a bit disappointing. I've concluded that Hg is just one more toxin in our individual rain barrels and when those barrels get full, we get symptoms.

While we wrangle around in controversy mode, please share with us your thoughts about the on-going fluoride dispute.

Dental school taught that fluoride was a nutrient for humans, similar to oxygen, vitamin C or water. It's a substance that humans can't make within their bodies and on which they're dependent for optimum health. NOW I'm not so SURE that humans absolutely have to have fluoride to live at optimum health. Since fluoride is rather widely available at trace concentrations in water and various foods, there are probably not enough fluoride-free humans on the planet to study. I presently believe that fluoride in the recommended concentrations (about 1 ppm--as occur naturally in many parts of the world) is not harmful and AT WORST may be a risk factor for susceptible individuals similar to barometric changes, sunspots, electrical storms, pine pollen, etc. The fluoride issue seems to expand into at least five questions:

1) Natural vs. added fluoride?

2) Topical vs. systemic fluoride?

3) Voluntary vs forced use?

4) Sick vs. healthy populations using the stuff?

5) Fluoridationist vs anti-fluoridationist literature?

My opinions on those questions:

1) Natural vs. added--Most fluoride bubbling up out of the ground, leached out of rocks in the soil and which folks in Los Angeles and parts of Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico drink in their "non-fluoridated" water tends to be calcium fluoride. The stuff usually added to water supplies by water companies or government dupes is usually sodium of stannous fluoride. I don't know the significance of that information and won't speculate.

2) Topical vs. Systemic--TOPICAL fluoride is applied to the surface of teeth and is absorbed into the surface 5-15 microns of enamel. It's worn off by using the teeth (chewing, clenching, etc.). It causes teeth already formed to be more resistant to attack by the acids produced by the plaque that causes cavities. More recent studies show that it also destroys the bacteria that cause gum diseases. The fact that it kills bacteria proves that it's poisonous, as are antibiotics and any other drug. It's also proven a great benefit to folks who have rampant caries or chronic or acute periodontal disease in this topical form (rinses, gels, tray-applied pastes, etc.).

SYSTEMIC fluoride is that which is ingested, passes into the blood stream and, for our purposes, integrally combines with the hydroxy-apatite matrix of the developing enamel. In the proper concentrations, this makes the enamel nearly completely caries-resistant.

Practicing dentistry at Tahoe since '72 has enabled me to see mouths of people from most parts of the world. People who spent their first four years on Earth in L.A. or somewhere where there was about one part per million fluoride in their water supply are easy to spot. They have (or have had) a few holes in the grooves of the biting surfaces of their teeth (areas that have a physical break in the enamel and are not protected by strong enamel) and NO caries in the smooth surfaces where most people have cavities.

This pattern is the same whether they grew up on a ranch in Oklahoma and drank their own well water or in the Bay Area where the government forced people to accept fluoride in the drinking water. Incidentally, these folks very often have what I call Los Angeles Syndrome: healthy teeth and sick gums. That's because, as kids, they learn they don't have to brush or floss or eat right to avoid cavities and as a result of the poor habits, the gums fall off. We find systemic fluoride useful for kids from conception through age four and if parents prefer, I have no objections to continuing the supplements to age eight to provide protection to the third molars while they're forming.

3) Voluntary vs. forced use--VOLUNTARY fluoridation is when you CHOOSE to ingest fluoride and thereby fluoridate your own body. Part of parental duty is to make informed choices for one's children who cannot do so themselves. I can only recommend what I'd do for me if I were in the client/patient's position or if the child were my own. I don't force anyone to comply with my recommendations and don't refuse to repair the damage if it shows up later.

FORCED, compulsory fluoridation is when government, a government puppet (utility) or some other criminal, adds fluoride to one's water supply. As long as there is ONE person using the system who objects to having something added to his water supply -- for ANY reason, or NO reason -- I strongly object. CONTINUE