Mercury ~ By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. 2000

[Guest guest]

By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. 2000

Recently, I reported on the methodology and machinations involved in

_vaccine-related injury cover-ups_

(http://www.mercola.com/2004/sep/22/blaylock_vaccine_coverup.htm) by the top

researchers in science and government at the

_Simpsonwood Conference_ (http://www.safeminds.org/research/past.html) on

Thimerosal in vaccines.

Just as the smoke has cleared, however, a brand new scandal has recently come

to light concerning the safety of mercury contained in dental amalgams,

which is of equal magnitude and again shows the modus operandi of the

government/elitist scientists’ coalition. The official name of the report is

“Dental

Amalgam: A Scientific Review and Recommended Public Health Service Strategy for

Research, Education and Regulation.â€

This report is described as the Trans-agency Working Group on the Health

Effects of Dental Amalgam, which included representatives of the National

Institutes of Health, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health of the FDA,

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Office of the Chief

Dental Officer of the Public Health Service.

These organizations requested the Life Sciences Research Office (LSRO) as a

subcontractor of BETAH Associates undertake an independent third-party review

of the topic. BETAH received the contract from the Department of Health and

Human Services without bidding, as is proscribed by law. To carry out this

mandate, they were asked to consider peer-reviewed, primary scientific and

medical literature published between 1996-2003 addressing this specific

question.

Thus begins a lesson in how to cover-up a major health disaster using

scientific, “evidence-based†methods meant to impress the media and public

at

large. (In this review, I will consider only the Executive Summary, which was

written for the media and the lay public.)

Overwhelm Them with Your Credentials

Students of this methodology will always be impressed by the length the

designers of these “independent studies†will go to convince the public and,

particularly, the media they have assembled the world’s greatest experts to

study the matter in question. As we saw in the case of the Simpsonwood Vaccine

Study, they assembled similar “experts†to study the effects of mercury in

vaccines, only to find out their experts were not so expert after all and that

many of the true experts were not invited.

In the Executive Summary, they list the types of experts collected for this “

independent study.†Invited were experts in the fields of immunotoxicology,

immunology, allergy, neurobehavioral toxicology, neurodevelopment, pediatrics,

developmental and reproductive toxicology; toxicokinetics and modeling;

epidemiology; pathology; and general toxicology, all very impressive titles.

Yet, most critical in all these specialties is their expertise in the area of

mercury toxicology, pathology and developmental pathology. Or, perhaps, a lack

of it...

You can be a world expert in immunology and not know a single thing about

mercury toxicity, especially on neuronal and neuroglial systems. It is

interesting to note, in the Executive Summary they state, “No member of the

Expert

Panel expressed a public opinion regarding the potential adverse effects of

dental amalgam prior to or during the review period.â€

While this might imply impartiality, it can also indicate a lack of expertise

in the area of mercury and its pathophysiological effects. One would think

that, if you were truly an expert in the field, sometime along the line you

would have expressed an opinion publicly either on its safety or its danger.

Even so, I will accept this as an expression of impartiality since the names

and institutions of the review panel are not disclosed in the Executive

Summary.

Now let’s look at some of the deceptive tactics these studies use.

Control the Information

As stated, the literature review was limited between January 1, 1996 and

December 2003. Immediately, one has to ask the most obvious question: Why were

the dates of the literature limited?

In fact, a number of very important studies concerning the immunological, as

well as other addressed, effects of mercury appeared just before the

beginning date. For example, Queiroz and Perlingeiro published a study in 1994

on the

immunologic effects of inorganic mercury (the same kind found in dental

amalgam) in workers exposed to mercury. 1 At least a half-dozen similar

studies

on both animals and humans were eliminated by this date-limitation method.

Similarly, a significant number of studies were excluded that concerned the

effects of mercury on the brain. This was not only done by using an

exclusionary dating limit, but also by severely restricting the types of

studies that

would be accepted. Out of some 961 studies found within these dates, more than

two-thirds were excluded.

Dr. Boyd Halley’s studies were excluded, even though he has conducted some of

the most important research on the biochemical effects of inorganic mercury,

specifically from dental amalgams. His results have never been refuted.

In addition, Dr. Halley has proven, beyond any challenge, that mercury vapor

is released from dental amalgam fillings in large concentrations, even in

fillings more than 20 years old. Also, he has proven that mercury -- even in

very low-concentrations -- can produce the very same pathological change seen in

Alzheimer’s disease (neurofibrillary tangles). 2

It is interesting the “expert panel†excluded studies on organic mercury,

citing the difference in toxicokinetics as the reason. They point out that they

failed to find quantifiable amounts of inorganic mercury being converted to

methylmercury in the body, which is strange since Charleston and Body

reported the conversion of methylmercury to inorganic mercury within the

brain’s

microglial cells. 3 This study was reported in the 1996 issue of

Neurotoxicology, an issue that should have been included in the study’s time

frame.

What this means: Inorganic mercury can produce the very same damage in brain

cells as methylmercury, which totally refutes their assertion. Likewise,

other studies have shown (in 1995) that a portion of the inorganic mercury in

dental amalgam is converted into methylmercury in the tissues of the mouth.

Another tactic was to exclude all studies in which mercury body burdens were

measured by means other than urine mercury levels, This excluded all studies

using saliva, hair and nail clippings, all of which have shown to be

reliable. By doing so, they were able to exclude a major smoking gun. That is,

research showing a baby’s hair mercury level correlated with the number of

dental

amalgam fillings in the mother.

Imply Unsupported “Factsâ€

Throughout this report, the authors imply that only chewing nicotine gum

significantly increases mercury vapor release in the mouth. The purpose of this

is to remove any concerns by those who chew ordinary gum. In fact, a number

of studies have shown blood levels and oral levels of mercury are

substantially increased by chewing ordinary gum and even a piece of rubber

tubing. Hot

liquids or foods also have been proven to substantially raise oral mercury

vapor levels as well as blood levels.

Another example is their insistence that there are insufficient studies to

indicate a correlation between mercury exposure from dental amalgams and human

disease, especially autoimmunity. While recognizing allergic

hypersensitivity in some individuals, they insist it is rare. A recent study

completed just

after their literature 2003 cut-off period, states patients with certain

autoimmune diseases such as lupus, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune thyroiditis

and

allergic disease “often show increased lymphocyte stimulation by low doses

of inorganic mercury in vitro.†4

In their study, they removed amalgams from a group of 35 patients with

autoimmune diseases and replaced them with composites. When examined six months

later, 71 percent had shown an improvement in health, with the greatest

improvement in those with multiple sclerosis. Their conclusion:

“Mercury-containing

amalgam may be an important risk factor for patients with autoimmune diseases.

â€

A similarly glaring manipulation of reality occurred when the writers of the

Executive Summary stated the following:

 

In total, these studies failed to support the hypothesis that Hg0 (mercury

vapor) exposure, at the levels released by dental amalgam interferes with

human neuropsychological function or acts as an etiological factor for the

neurodegenerative diseases-Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease.

This is a total lie based on cleverly worded distortions of study conclusions

and the elimination of studies that really show a strong correlation.

In fact, a 1998 study by the prestigious Battelle Centers for Public Health

Research found that mercury levels commonly seen among dental professionals

with very low levels of mercury vapor exposure, demonstrated alterations in

mood, motor function and cognition (thinking). 5 These, they emphasized, were

symptoms that can be subtle and missed by conventional neuropsychological

testing. These results have been confirmed by a number of other independent

laboratories and reported in peer-reviewed journals.

As for the scientific connection to neurodegenerative disorders, a number of

such studies abound in the literature. One of the most impressive lines of

evidence is one pursued by Pendergrass and Haley in a 1997 study published in

the journal Neurotoxicology.

In their study, they showed concentrations of mercury vapor, known to be

released by dental amalgams in people, increased mercury concentrations in rat

brains from 11- to 47-fold higher than controls. At this level, the mercury

produced the identical lesions seen in Alzheimer’s disease (neurofibrillary

tangles) by interfering with normal tubulin maintenance.

A second mechanism of producing neurodegenerative diseases is even more

impressive, called excitotoxicity. Excitotoxicity, a mechanism by which excess

glutamate accumulates outside the neuron, thereby leading to death of the cell

by an excitation process, has been linked to mercury neurotoxicity as early

as 1993. 6 More recent studies have confirmed this mechanism and clearly

demonstrate, even in concentrations below that known to cause cell injury,

mercury

can paralyze the glutamate removal mechanism, leading to significant damage

to synapses, dendrites and neurons themselves.

This glutamate removal mechanism is critical to brain protection.

Additionally, mercury in very low concentrations increases glutamate release,

primarily

by stimulating the brain’s immune cell, the microglia. Chronic microglial

activation, as seen with mercury exposure, has been solidly linked to all of

the neurodegenerative diseases.

At least two studies have shown that mercury increases the toxicity of

glutamate. 7,8 Interestingly, excess glutamate can also produce the same

neurofibrillary tangles seen with mercury exposure.

In essence, we have the mechanism by which these diseases are produced by

mercury vapor and know that it can occur in concentrations commonly found in

people having dental amalgam fillings. The reason even more people are not

devastated by these diseases: A number of nutritional and genetic factors offer

substantial protection. For example, selenium has been shown to significantly

lower brain mercury levels and reduce its toxicity.

Pick the Most Vulnerable Group/Imply Safety

I see this tactic being used here and in vaccine studies. In both cases, the

scientific elites used studies on babies or pregnant animals as instances of

implied safety. For example, they cite studies showing behavioral deficits in

offspring of mothers exposed to high levels of mercury vapor, but then state

studies of the effects of lower levels do not exist, giving the impression

that lower-levels of mercury are safe.

If this were true, then you would think in a situation in which any damage

produced in these exposed babies would be irreversible, one would opt for

safety. But, not these " experts. " Instead, they conclude we should continue to

expose these babies to potentially devastating risks without any benefits.

As far back as 1972, careful studies demonstrated mercury levels in the

fetuses of pregnant rats exposed to elemental mercury vapor (Hg0) were 10- to

40-times higher than in animals exposed to equivalent doses of inorganic mercury

(Hg 2+), meaning elemental mercury easily passes through the placenta and

into the baby. (9)

At least two studies have shown elemental mercury accumulation within the

fetus increases with time during gestation, so that the levels of mercury in the

fetal organs are significantly higher toward the end of the pregnancy than

during early pregnancy. (10,11) In fact, it is now confirmed that mercury

levels in the brain reach even higher levels following birth, despite the end

of

exposure to the mother's mercury. This is thought to be due to redistribution

of the mercury from the fetus' liver to its brain.

This transfer of mercury from mother to child has been confirmed in at least

two human studies as well, so it is not peculiar to animals. (12,13) Another

case involved a female surgeon exposed to 0.05mg/M3 mercury vapor at work who

bore a baby with severe brain damage. The baby's blood mercury was shown to

be elevated.

This dose of mercury can come from a pregnant mother who has a large number

of dental amalgam fillings, chews gum and is exposed to hot food and drinks.

(The Executive Summary considers a low dose of mercury half this value:

0.025mg/M3.)

Studies by Dr. Haley and his peers have shown brushing teeth filled with

amalgams can increase mercury vapor levels to 4.5 mg/M3, substantially higher

than the levels claimed by the Executive Summary. It is important to appreciate

mothers with amalgam fillings will be exposed to these levels of mercury

vapor throughout their pregnancy and during breast-feeding. Mercury vapor easily

enters breast milk.

A careful study done by Morgan and his peers, using pregnant rats exposed to

mercury vapor, found, because of the short distance to the brain, most of the

mercury remained in its elemental, highly absorbable form, thus it easily

enters the fetus' brain. (11) Yet, once in the brain it is converted by the

enzyme catalase into the ionic form (Hg2+), which binds to cellular components

(sulfhydral units) making it very difficult to remove from the brain.

They also found the concentration of the elemental mercury increased

significantly in the uterus and placenta throughout the pregnancy. Because of

the

extreme toxicity of elemental mercury, this can interfere with normal functions

of the uterus and placenta (an extremely metabolic organ and critical to

fetal health and development).

Of special importance is the observation that mercury in the brain tends to

accumulate mostly in astrocytes and microglia, cells critical for brain

immunity. A recent study lends even more importance to this observation: In 11

autopsied brains from individuals who had autism, all demonstrated diffuse,

chronic activation of microglia and astrocytes, the exact effect of elevated

brain mercury levels. (14) Ironically, chronic microglial activation has also

been described in all of the neurodegenerative diseases, as well as multiple

sclerosis.

False Comparisons/Ignore Critical Data

Under the " conclusions " section, the authors of the Executive Summary admit

mercury vapor is released from dental amalgam restorations (fillings) and

absorbed by the human body. To cover their main lie -- that mercury amalgams are

safe -- they point out, in their review of the studies, 95 percent of the

urine mercury levels were below World Health Organization estimates of toxicity

in 1996. This was to convince the media and the public that these were safe

levels.

What was ignored, among many things, was the fact that mercury is

fat-soluble. This is important because the brain contains 60 percent fats and,

therefore, accumulates mercury over time, so that even small daily doses

gradually

become larger concentrations. Even distribution in the brain varies. Studies

have shown that the hippocampus (critical for memory) is one of the areas

preferentially accumulating mercury. The cerebellum and occipital lobes of the

brain also accumulate mercury in higher concentrations.

The cerebellum is one of the areas most frequently damaged in autism. Mercury

accumulates in higher levels in the nuclei (clusters of neurons in the

cerebellum), leading to a loss of critical neurons. (15) There is also evidence

methylmercury enhances the toxicity of elemental mercury. There also appears to

be a sex difference in mercury brain absorption, with females being more

susceptible.

If All Else Fails...

Protection of the brain by the blood-brain barrier (BBB) is the favorite

claim for the unscrupulous to fall back on. This was used by the defenders of

MSG safety, until I proved that tens of millions of people had conditions that

impaired the function of their BBB, including the following:

* Hypertension

* Diabetes

* Head injury

* Strokes

* Taking certain drugs

* Bad reactions to pesticides, herbicides and MSG itself

* Immune overstimulation (vaccines and autoimmune diseases)

* Brain tumors

* Alzheimer's disease

* Parkinson's disease

* Aging

In addition, critical parts of the brain have no BBB protection

(circumventricular organs).

Not only can elemental mercury enter under these conditions, but it also has

a special mechanism to sneak into the brain. Mercury vapor, when absorbed by

the lining of the mouth and nasal cavities, is taken up by the terminal

filaments of the trigeminal nerves and olfactory nerves, respectively.

Then, it travels along the nerve axons to the olfactory bulb underneath the

brain and trigeminal ganglion. (16) Pathways connect this bulb to several

critical areas of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex, amygdala and

entorhinal area. Mercury has been shown to travel into the brain when absorbed

through the nasal passages.

In fact, a number of metals, chemicals, neurotransmitters, toxins and even

untrafine particles have been shown to travel by way of the olfactory nerves

into the brain, leading to injury in critical areas of the brain. Dental

amalgam fillings are constantly releasing mercury vapor and 80 percent of this

elemental mercury is absorbed into the tissues of the mouth. (As stated,

chewing

and drinking hot foods and liquids greatly increase the release of mercury

vapor. Even this present study recognized that you have your amalgam filling

with you 24 hours a day, which can make the danger even greater than some cases

of industrial exposure.)

Should WebMD be called " QuackMD " ?

So-called " orthodox medicine " likes to imply that traditional medical

practice is based on hard scientific evidence, which they tout as

" evidence-based

medicine " and that everything outside their control is unscientific. However,

several studies have shown at least 80 percent or more of standard medical

practices have no scientific basis whatsoever.

WebMD posted their take on this study on their Web site, implying it was

definitive and based on hard science by the best experts in the world.

Ironically, they had Cynthia Trajtenberg, a professor of restorative dentistry

and

dental biomaterials at the University of Texas Dental Branch at Houston, add

her

" idiotic " commentary.

She resorts to the ADA's standby nonsense, which they used to brainwash their

dental members more than a half-century ago. It goes like this: You can

think of it like chloride, which alone is a serious toxin, but when bound with

sodium it becomes harmless salt. She goes on to say, " It's the same with

mercury. Mercury in dental fillings is combined with silver and copper, and is

transformed into a stable metal material that is not easily released into the

oral cavity. Therefore, it is not harmful. "

This laughable nonsense is not even endorsed by the report, which clearly

says mercury vapor easily escapes the filling and is absorbed into the blood by

way of the tissues of the mouth and lungs. She obviously slept through her

chemistry courses.

Sodium chloride is a compound, bound by strong bonds. An amalgam is a mixture

of metals not in an ionic state. Metallic mercury has a very low evaporation

temperature and readily turns into a vapor. This truly is hard science.

Why would WebMD, which professes to be " evidence-based, " print such obvious

idiocy easily exposed by even a freshmen in high school? Could it be that they

are prejudiced against the idea of amalgam toxicity? Or perhaps, could it be

the editors have friends in the dental community who asked for their help

against " charlatans " in alternative medicine? It is obvious there is little

here in the way of " hard science. "

Conclusions

This is just another piece of " junk science " to come out of the

government/industry coalition. An avalanche of such phony studies have come from

some

prestigious institutions, like the Institute of Medicine, Health and Human

Services, CDC, Life Sciences Research Office and FDA.

By cleverly restricting the information (scientific research), excluding real

experts in the area in question and by forcefully implying clear-cut

conclusions where none exist, they deceive the media and public. In all of

these

studies, they provide the media with an Executive Summary, which often has

conclusions that present the opposite of what was shown in the body of the

report,

knowing the media are often too lazy or not sophisticated enough to

understand the subtleties of the science being discussed.

As a result, the public is assured dental amalgams are perfectly safe and

that question has been carefully examined by some of the best scientific minds

in the world in every way it could be done. In essence, the issue is closed.

How many times do we have to face a medical disaster resulting from this

errant thinking before we learn?

While I have analyzed only the Executive Summary and not the body of the

report, this Executive Summary is what will reach the public. The LSRO is

charging $75 for the report itself, if you include the references. This is

outrageous for a study funded by taxpayer monies, and printed on a computer.

Then again, they hope none of their critics will ever read the report