Skip to main content
Category

Featured

How Much Calcium Can We Absorb from Different Foods?

When removing a food group from our diet, we sometimes cannot calculate what we should include instead. For example, think that your breakfast consists of cheese, olives, tomatoes, cucumbers and eggs (typical Turkish breakfast). One day you realize that you are intolerant to dairy. When you only take out the cheese and continue with the rest, you are saved from a food that is harming you, but on the other hand, there is a possibility that some of the nutrients you get with that food will diminish. Therefore, when removing a food group, it is necessary to take a look at which micronutrients come with it. In this article, I will share how much calcium we can get from which alternative calcium sources, especially for those who exclude dairy products from their diet for various reasons.

Normally, you can easily find information about the calcium content of food. However, to find out how much calcium you actually get from a food, we need to take into account how much of the calcium in that food can be absorbed by the body. For example, the absorbable part of 300mg calcium contained in a glass of milk is 32%. This means that we get 96mg of calcium from 1 glass of milk (240g). The same amount of calcium-rich spinach (240g) contains 322mg of calcium, more than 1 glass of milk; However, since only 5% of it can be absorbed, we only get 16mg of it. That’s why I prepared the list below so that we can make our calculation according to this absorbable calcium. Don’t worry, spinach is a bit of an extreme example… You can see that many vegetables on the list have a lot of absorbable calcium.

Of course, before we can use the list, we need to know how much calcium we need. You can find the recommended daily intake of calcium according to age in the table below (1).

Age Male Female
0–6 months* 200 mg 200 mg
7–12 months* 260 mg 260 mg
1–3 years 700 mg 700 mg
4–8 years 1,000 mg 1,000 mg
9–13 years 1,300 mg 1,300 mg
14–18 years 1,300 mg 1,300 mg
19–50 years 1,000 mg 1,000 mg
51–70 years 1,000 mg 1,200 mg
71+ years 1,200 mg 1,200 mg

* adequate intake (this warning in the original source may mean that the ideal intake for these age groups may be higher.)

In this table, the recommended daily intake of 1000mg for an adult, actually refers to dietary calcium, not the absorbable amount. How do we understand this? It is recommended that we consume 3-4 portions of dairy products to meet our daily calcium needs. If all 1000mg were to be absorbed daily, it would be recommended to consume 10 portions of dairy products since we would get 96mg absorbable calcium from 1 serving of dairy products. Based on this, we can say that the recommended amount of calcium to be absorbed daily is 300-400mg (5).

Let’s also briefly mention that there are different opinions about whether this is the amount of calcium we really need. Different factors such as physical activity, estrogen hormone and vitamin D level can also change the amount of calcium we need. Asian and African societies with fewer bone fractures with less calcium intake, raise questions about the recommended amounts of calcium. Of course, there are so many variables in diet and lifestyle that it is difficult to explain this difference with calcium intake alone.

After this detail, we can move on to the table showing the absorbable calcium amounts in foods. Hope this helps you to regulate your diet …

 

 

FOOD PORTION SIZE CALCIUM ABSORBED
Bone (eg. softened bones in chicken bone broth) 3 g 270mg
Collard greens 1 cup cooked( 190g) 173mg
Turnip greens 1 cup cooked( 190g) 102mg
Feta Cheese 30g 96.3mg
Yoghurt 240g 96.3mg
Milk 1 bardak 96.3mg
Sardines (with bones) 106g 95mg
Canned Salmon (with bones) 106g 71mg
Chinese cabbage 1 cup cooked( 170g) 69-85mg
Broccoli 1 cup cooked( 156g) 57mg
Kale 1 cup cooked( 125g) 46mg
Mineral water

(San Pellegrino, one of the highest Ca containing)

500ml 41-45mg
Mustard Greens 1 cup cooked( 190g) 42mg
White Beans 110g 24.7mg
Rutabaga 85g 22mg
Almond 28g 17mg
Red Beans 110g 15.3mg
Spinach 1 cup cooked( 180g) 12mg
Radish 50g 10.4mg
Sesame (hulled) 28g 7.7mg
Sweet potato 164g 9.8mg
[social_buttons facebook=”true” twitter=”true” linkedin=”true” pinterest=”true”]

Why and How to Do Mercury Detox?

Mercury is one of the most toxic chemicals that can underlie the chronic problems we have, and sometimes even start them. Mercury, entering the body in various ways, accumulates in our tissues and organs, causing biochemical events to be disrupted. According to the World Health Organization, “Mercury has a toxic effect on the nervous, digestive and immune systems, lungs, kidneys, skin and eyes.” It should not be forgotten that the last organizations that utter such statements are the World Health Organization and similar organizations. That’s why it is worth noting that this warning is a bit mild to many researchers, and the problems caused by mercury can be much more serious. (You can find my article on amalgam fillings and hence mercury damage here.)

According to some researchers, everyone is exposed to mercury without exception due to environmental pollution, so everyone should detox regularly. However, some people are exposed to much higher amounts of mercury, which may be due to:

  • The presence of amalgam (gray) fillings in the mouth or the removal of these fillings without taking any precautions (During disassembly, high amounts of mercury are released and this mercury can accumulate in the organs. You can read this article for the correct removal technique.)
  • Frequently consuming large fish (More mercury accumulates in fish such as tuna and swordfish, which are at the top of the food chain.)
  • Vaccines (Some vaccines contain mercury as a preservative.)
  • Being in an environment where some items that contain mercury, such as thermometers, light bulbs, are broken
  • Occupational exposure (Being a dentist, dentist or mining profession)

Let us remind you that mercury has different forms. We are most exposed to elemental mercury and methyl mercury. Elemental mercury is found in amalgam fillings. Since it evaporates very easily, it is mostly taken from our lungs. Mouth temperature, chewing, brushing, teeth grinding, etc. When the factors are added, the amount of mercury taken increases. Some of the mercury in the fillings turns into methylmercury and is swallowed. Since elemental mercury dissolves very easily in fat, it can pass through the blood-brain barrier and reach the central nervous system and the unborn baby by passing through the placenta. Mercury crossing the blood-brain barrier is trapped there ionized and begins to have neurotoxic effects. It can stay in the brain for so long that it can be detected here even years after exposure (1).

Another source of exposure to the methyl mercury form is fish. The mercury found in seas – due to pollution – is converted into methyl mercury by plankton. Mercury is stored in the bodies of fish that eat plankton, and the total amount of mercury accumulated increases as the bigger fish eats the smaller fish. We, who are at the last step of the chain, get all that savings when we consume big fish. Methyl mercury is mainly absorbed from the gastrointestinal system. When it enters the circulation, more than 90% of it binds to hemoglobin by entering the erythrocytes. 10% of the methyl mercury load in the body is again in the brain and it gradually turns into an inorganic form. It causes the death of nerve cells in the brain, damage to glial cells, and damages the cerebral and cerebellar cortex. Methyl mercury can also pass through the placenta to the fetus and accumulate in the baby’s brain, causing the damage I mentioned. (one) Although some sources say that the half-life of mercury in the body (the time required for half of it to be excreted from the body) is 20-90 days, autopsy studies have shown that this is not true and mercury can be detected even 17 years after exposure to mercury (2).

For these reasons, it is not enough to simply remove the source of mercury and wait for the body to expel the mercury in time to repair the damage caused by mercury in the body. Especially for those whose detox systems do not work well and who have a lot of mercury accumulation, it is necessary to support the body in various ways and use chelating agents and binders in order to remove mercury from the places where it is stored, especially from the brain. I must say that doing mercury detox is not as easy as mentioned in some social media accounts and blogs. Especially for those who are already battling many chronic conditions, starting a random detox product can do more harm than good. There are patients who experience adverse side effects and worsening even with the lightest protocols. That’s why I recommend you to think and research very well before seeing and using any product in Instagram stories. Mercury detox means activating mercury from the organs it has settled in and making it circulate in the body. As a result of this action, mercury can worsen the situation by being transported from an organ where it will do less harm to an organ where it will do more damage (for example, it can come out of adipose tissue and settle in the brain). So it’s not a job to be taken lightly! Therefore, I will not suggest you a specific protocol in my articles on mercury detox. Instead, I will outline the prominent protocols on this subject and address the criticisms made. Some of these protocols are:

  • Andy Cutler protocol
  • Dietrich Klinghardt protocol
  • Chris Shade / Quicksilver method
  • TRS and similar nano clitilolites
  • Boyd Haley – Emeramide (OSR)
  • HMD
  • IV chelation methods (Almost no one recommends it anymore, but I’ll talk about why it’s dangerous.)

When I write the protocols you will see that there are some common points in all of them. One of them is that you cannot remove mercury from the body in a short time, it is not right to do so. You need to be patient to get rid of the mercury that has accumulated in your body for years. Otherwise, the body may not be able to deal with the large amount of mercury released from the organs. Another common point is that most of the protocols suggest measures to support detox systems and organs in addition to the chelation method used. Before going into the details of the protocols, I am thinking of talking about our detox systems. Because no matter which method you choose, I think that if you make some systems work better in your body, as much as the toxic load allows, the possibility of experiencing the mentioned side effects will decrease. I am waiting for your comments about the points you want me to write and your contributions… See you in the next article …

[social_buttons facebook=”true” twitter=”true”]

Safe (SMART) Mercury Amalgam Removal

It is known that mercury gas released during the removal of amalgam fillings and mercury particles scattered around pose a danger to the patient, physician and the environment (1). I have written a detailed article before about the damages that mercury can cause.

Due to these damages, it has been suggested to take some precautions to prevent the penetration of mercury into the body of the patient and the physician and at the same time to minimize the damage to the environment. IAOMT (International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology), the organization that brought these measures together within the framework of the researches carried out to date and their own experiments, called this application “Smart Protocol”.

Let’s look at these measures recommended to be taken during amalgam removal in terms of patient, physician and environmental safety (1,2):

In terms of the patient:

  • Amalgam removal is not recommended for pregnant women and breastfeeding women.
  • Before the procedure, the patient should rinse his mouth and gargle with activated carbon, chlorella, bentonite, zeolite or similar agents that are said to hold mercury. Although this sentence reflects the general protocol proposed by IAOMT, I use only activated carbon, based on my own research. According to some opinions, chlorella can do more harm than good because it is poorly attached to mercury. According to another experiment, zeolite, which is famous for heavy metal retention, is extremely unsuccessful in this regard (6). There are opinions arguing that bentonite is similar to zeolite. Apart from these, there are also physicians who recommend that a cotton impregnated with the selected agent be placed on the floor of the mouth during the procedure (3). According to some protocols, this chelation agent is given to the patient before the procedure. In my practice, the patient first takes the activated charcoal capsule or tablet and then rinse the mouth with its liquid form.
  •  
  • The contact of the amalgam particles with the mouth should be prevented by applying a rubber dam to the mouth of the patient. In addition to this rubber cover, I think that a gingival barrier, which is in gel form and cured with the lights we fill, will provide better sealing, and I do my application in this way.
  • Positive pressure air or oxygen should be given to the patient in order not to breathe the ambient air.
  • There should be a vacuum device that filters the mercury, as in the photo below, in the immediate vicinity of the mouth.
  • The patient’s hair, face and body should be covered. It was observed that the fragments removed during amalgam removal could jump up to the patient’s chest and knee. Covering the patient will prevent amalgam particles from being carried to the patient’s home through their clothes.
  • During the procedure, a strong aspiration should be provided above and below the rubber cover.
  • Disassembly should be done under plenty of water irrigation, and the filling should be prevented from getting hot and emitting more mercury vapor.
  • It should be aimed to produce amalgam in as large pieces as possible.
  • If possible, the room should be ventilated during the procedure and the windows should be opened.
  • At the end of the procedure, the patient should rinse his mouth again with plenty of water and the binding agents mentioned above and gargle.

From the Perspective of Physicians:

  • The physician should wear a special protective gas mask that can filter mercury vapor, goggles,  bonnet  in addition to the measures such as gowns and gloves that he routinely uses. In my opinion,  fabric masks that are said to filter mercury “smoke” are not enough. We need masks that filter gas, not smoke.

In the Name of Avoiding Environmental Pollution:

  • In order to prevent the disassembled amalgam from harming the environment through the waste water pipe, it is recommended to place a device that can separate the amalgam in the waste water system (4).
  • If amalgam can be removed in one piece, it should be stored in x-ray solution or in a lidded container in water, it should be collected and eliminated by authorized units (5).

The Period Before and After Amalgam Filling Removal

Even if the amalgam fillings are removed properly, some additional protocols may be required to remove mercury from the patient’s body before and after the procedure. Since these protocols will need to be tailored to the patient, ideally, the dentist evaluates the patient with a physician who can administer mercury detox.

In order to remove the mercury that has accumulated in the tissues over the years, both the detox systems must work well and the mercury must be extracted and removed from the tissues with chelation agents that can bind mercury.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to talk about a consensus among doctors about the agents to be used for chelation. Some “natural” products such as chlorella and coriander are widely used for heavy metal detox. recommended chelation agents in basic training I have attended so far in Turkey was always them. But personally, I find it quite remarkable to point out that these are not strongly bound to mercury, and therefore it moves mercury from one place to another. It is difficult to ignore the numerous stories of patients whose health has deteriorated even more with such agents. Apart from these, it is worth mentioning that fast chelation methods using high doses of agents such as DMPS and DMSA are also mentioned. That is why I want to emphasize again and again that one should be careful about chelation and not be taken lightly.

Are Amalgam Fillings Safe ? Facts About Amalgam Fillings

Amalgam fillings have been used for 150 years. Although there is an undeniable literature on its harms, organizations such as FDA and TDB in our country continue to recognize amalgam as a safe and harmless application (1,2). In some serious websites (3), the mentioned damages of amalgam are shown as fraudulent and it is claimed that the real “sensitivity” of dentists on this issue is to make a new profit for themselves by replacing old amalgams.

On the other hand, organizations such as IAOMT (International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology) and IABDM (International Academy of Biological Dentistry and Medicine) and many functional medicine experts say that amalgam fillings should not be applied under any circumstances and that comprehensive safety measures should be taken during removal.

First, let’s look at what exactly amalgam filling is. Some physicians may also name amalgam filling as silver filling. Since both names do not express the mercury content of the filling, it is possible that patients will be incomplete. The definition given on the website of the Turkish Dental Association (TDB) is as follows: “Amalgam fillings are also defined as silver fillings. Amalgam; It is obtained by mixing silver, tin and copper alloy with mercury. Mercury, which constitutes 45-50% of the mixture, creates a durable filling material by binding the metals together ”(4). The American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also defines amalgam similarly (1). The important part of these definitions is that mercury constitutes 50% of the amalgam. Therefore, it is beneficial for patients to be aware that when it comes to silver filling or amalgam filling, a mercury-containing filling is made almost half.

The claim we hear the most is that the mercury released from the fillings is less than the mercury we get from fish and does not exceed the threshold value considered toxic in the body. I still remember how even one of my professors, who was a professor at the university, avoided this subject by saying “You get that much mercury from fish, my dear.” However, according to the 2005 WHO report, there is no specific lower value required for the toxic effects of mercury to begin to appear, so we cannot speak of a safe threshold of “that much mercury”. According to the same report, mercury can damage the nervous system, digestive system, respiratory system and immune system, and cause kidney and lung damage (5). In addition, the form of mercury taken from fish and the mercury in amalgam fillings are different from each other, and there are numerous studies about the damages of mercury from fish. In other words, it does not matter whether it is made of fish or amalgam filling, mercury can cause harm in the body in any way.

Another misconception is that the mercury in amalgam is stable and not released into the body thanks to its connections with other metals. On the contrary, amalgam fillings especially brushing, cleaning, clenching and grinding, chewing, etc. It is known that mercury vapor is released during the laying, renewal and removal of fillings. (6)

According to IAOMT’s review of scientific studies, there is an increase in mercury concentration in the specified tissues in the following cases (6 You can find many references for each of the substances in this report):

  • Chewing, brushing and / or bruxism (teeth grinding)
  • In the breath of those with amalgam filling and in the air in their mouths
  • In the saliva of those with amalgam filling
  • In the blood of those with amalgam filling
  • Various organs including kidneys, liver, pituitary gland, thyroid and brain of those with amalgam filling
  • In the stools of those with amalgam filling
  • Depending on the amount of amalgam in the mother, amniotic fluid, umbilical cord, placenta, various organs of the fetus such as liver, kidney and brain
  • In colostrum and breast milk, depending on the amount of amalgam in the mother

As it can be understood from these, the mercury in amalgam does not stay in its place, it finds new settlements by walking around the body.

Nevertheless, some people probably have no problem by removing mercury from their body easily because they have a well-functioning detox system, while some vulnerable groups are exposed to the severe destructive effects of mercury. The fact that mercury is still considered safe by some quarters is perhaps because these vulnerable groups are getting lost in the statistics. Of course, there are many people who have no problem with amalgam filling. However, there are other groups whose health is severely impaired by mercury, and unfortunately it is often not predictable who will belong to which group. Personally, as a dentist, I don’t want to gamble on anyone!

Below I have mentioned these vulnerable groups, largely referring to IAOMT’s compilation on the subject. I quoted some of the scientific studies included in the report of IAOMT as in the report, and tried to summarize some of the more interesting ones by reading it myself. I have included some other studies not included in the report.

Some genetic variations increase the effects of mercury on the body

Gene polymorphisms, the deviations seen in genes, cause some people to be more sensitive to mercury. This is, in my opinion, the most important part of the research I have read. I conclude that these genetic variations always play a role in the links between mercury and various diseases. On the other hand, since these occur only in a fraction of the population, a direct causal relationship cannot be established between mercury and these diseases, and mercury is still considered safe.

The most common form of polymorphisms are SNPs (read as snips), that is, single nucleotide polymorphisms (single nucleotide polymorphisms). There are about 10 million SNPs in the human genome, and most of them are thought to have no health impact. However, it has been proven that some SNPs can be used to predict information such as how an individual will respond to various environmental factors, drugs, toxins, and which diseases they may be prone to (7).

The following preliminary information in the introduction of the article (8), which was made on the members of the American Dental Association in 2015 and investigated whether there is a relationship between SNPs in physicians and body mercury load, is actually a summary of the situation:

“One of the major difficulties when assessing mercury risk is that although they are exposed to similar amounts of mercury […] there is a huge difference between individuals of communities in terms of mercury levels measured in hair (Canuel et al., 2005). Differences in mercury’s absorption, distribution, and excretion processes (in other words, toxicokinetics) may also play an important role in the occurrence of this distinction, although the difference in mercury content between individuals may explain to some extent the source and dose of mercury exposed. Mercury toxicokinetics may be affected by changes in, for example, functional enzymes and proteins that transport, oxidize or reduce mercury (Gundacker et al., 2010).

The study itself is as follows:

By taking hair, urine and blood samples from 380 dentists, mercury amounts and genetic sequences are obtained. The relationship between the presence of 88 SNPs, which are thought to have a role in mercury toxicokinetics, and the amount of mercury is questioned. A link between mercury levels and 38 SNPs is detected. The genes with these SNPs are genes that play a role in the control of detox systems in the body. According to the researchers, these results are a contribution to the growing literature on genetic factors that affect the accumulation and toxicity of mercury in the body.

According to the study of dentists by Echeverria et al in 2006 (9), a polymorphism in the genes encoding BDNF (brain derived neurotrophic factor) combined with the effect of mercury causes worse results in neurobehavioral tests. This polymorphism does not cause an increasing toxic response to mercury, but it does lead to a lower level of neurobehavioral abilities, and thus an increased exposure of mercury.

A similar effect was found in those with CPOX4 (coproporphorpyrinogen oxidase) polymorphism. Although mercury does not have a direct effect, it contributes to the neurobehavioral response that worsens in those with this polymorphism. (10) (11)

There were also different interpretations of the studies on 507 students aged 8-10 at the Casa Pia School in Lisbon, known as Casa Pia children. In this study, amalgam was applied to 253 children and composite fillings were applied to 254 children (the number of filling surfaces was almost the same). The mercury rate in the urine of children treated with amalgam increased by 1-1.5 micrograms / gram compared to the baseline. However, De Rouen could not detect a difference in memory, attention, visiomotor function and nerve conduction velocity in children, and even suggested that amalgam would be a more preferred option because 50% of composite fillings require renewal (12).

On the other hand, Woods, taking the children in this experiment again, concluded that mercury leads to a decrease in the success of neurobehavioral tests in children who have some gene variations. Moreover, these gene variations are not very rare variations in the general population (13).

As you can see, when the harms of mercury are mentioned, there is a group of people not reflected in the statistics. Although statistics provide us with valuable information, the fact that regulations are based on these statistics causes individual differences to be ignored. While a dentist will not harm his 5 patients who can easily expel mercury from his body and who do not have gene variations that will cause negative consequences when encountering mercury in his genetic sequence, he will not harm his 5 patients with the amalgam fillings he has made or removed without precaution, while another patient who has difficulty in removing mercury from his body and whose genetic sequence is sensitive may inadvertently trigger negative results. .

Studies on the effects of mercury on women

The reaction to mercury can also vary by gender. It has been observed that men and women differ from each other in the rate at which mercury is expelled from the body and the distribution of mercury in the body. Men generally remove mercury from their bodies faster. Also, when mercury enters the body, it tends to pass into the kidneys and urine. In women, mercury stays in the body longer, making toxic effects more likely. More of the mercury taken goes to the brain and central nervous system than in men. Studies on the rate and distribution of mercury in men and women are as follows (14):

Hongo et al. (1994) studied the rate at which mercury was cleared from the kidneys in university staff and students. They found that gender, age, and the number of amalgam fillings correlated with mercury removal rate.
Jokstad (1990), in a study of 849 members of the Norwegian Dental Association, showed that women have a mild but statistically significant urine mercury ratio compared to men (40nmol / L for women, 44nmol / L for men). Factors such as work experience and how many years of last work did not explain this difference.
Pamphlett et al. (1997) compared the uptake of inorganic mercury by motor nerve cells in the mouse brain and concentrations in the kidneys. Female mice had more mercury granules in their motor nerves than male mice, while male mice had more mercury in their kidneys than females. They concluded that the less mercury in the kidneys of the female mice led to an increase in mercury circulating in the body and increased retention by nerve cells.
Pamphlett and Coote (1998) found that mercury was seen in the motor nerves of female mice 6 hours after exposure and 12 hours after exposure in male mice.
Thomas et al. (1986) observed that mercury penetrates the brains of female mice 2.19 times more than male mice.

According to the recommendation of the American Occupational Safety and Health Act, fertile dentistry staff women should not be exposed to air containing mercury more than 10mcg / m3, and pregnant dentistry personnel should not work in a professionally mercury-containing environment. This recommendation was repeated in Koos and Lango’s study of pregnant women, fetuses and newborns, not only for dental staff but for all women (15).

In a study by Sikorski (16), it was found that there was a relationship between the amount of mercury in the hair strands of female dentists and their assistants, reproductive problems and menstrual irregularities. In other studies conducted on women working in a mercury-rich environment, it was found that up to 45% of women suffer from hypermenorrhea and hypomenorrhea (having more or less periods than normal). It has been observed that such irregularities occur in 36-45% of women, 6 months after starting work, and this rate has increased to 67% within 3 years. Moreover, in the control group, these rates are very low, such as 1%. In line with this information, the American Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) also reported that women who are chronically exposed to mercury vapor experience more frequent menstrual irregularities and miscarriages. He also added that the mortality rate increased in the babies of women with mercury poisoning symptoms (17).

In parallel with these studies, 418 female dentist assistants who became pregnant in the last 4 years were evaluated in terms of the time required for them to become pregnant without using birth control methods. It has been determined that those working in clinics with more than 30 amalgam applications per week and poor mercury hygiene get pregnant up to 63% more difficult than the dentist assistant control group who do not apply amalgam. (Age, smoking, history of inflammatory disease in the pelvic region, frequency of sexual intercourse, race, etc. factors were also taken into account, so that it did not affect the result.) (18)

These problems that mercury can cause in women are important, but an even more important consequence of mercury to which women are exposed is that they pass it on to their babies. There are various studies showing that the mercury in the mother is transferred to the baby through amniotic fluid and breast milk.

Mercury passes through amniotic fluid and breast milk to the baby

Vimy, in his study of sheep and monkeys (19), showed that mercury passes through amalgam fillings to the fetus. Berlin stated that the amount of mercury in the blood of the fetus increased significantly at the end of pregnancy and even exceeded the amount in the mother (20).

In a study investigating the relationship between the number of amalgam fillings in the mother and the mercury burden in the fetus, baby and child (21), mercury levels in the liver, renal cortex and cerebral cortex of 108 babies and children aged 1 day to 5 years and 36 fetuses were measured. It was observed that the mercury levels in fetuses were directly proportional to the mercury content in 11-50 weeks old children and the number of amalgam fillings in mothers.

In another study from 2008 (22), the relationship between the number of amalgam fillings in the mother and the amount of mercury the fetus was exposed to was examined. That is, it was looked at whether the baby was exposed to mercury by the amalgam fillings in the mother before she was born. It has been observed that the amount of mercury in cord blood exceeds the mercury in maternal blood, confirming other studies. It has also been found that these rates are higher in newer amalgam fillings. Another interesting point in this study is that mothers consume very little fish during their pregnancy. In other words, in this study, amalgam fillings are almost the only source of mercury in the fetus. In similar studies conducted in northern countries with more fish in their diets, the researchers noted that the total mercury load in the body was even greater.

In the study of Koos et al., Which I mentioned above, examining the effects of mercury on pregnant women and the fetus, the link between mercury and spontaneous abortion and stillbirth was also revealed (15).

In one case, it was reported that during the 35 weeks of her pregnancy, a young dentist working in an amalgam environment gave birth to a baby with severe brain damage due to mercury poisoning. Although this is only about a single woman, it is actually very important in terms of showing once again how important individual differences are. I guess none of us would have wanted that woman to have a relative.

In my next article, I will talk about the effect of mercury on Alzheimer’s, MS and other nervous system diseases and the studies done on dentists and their assistants …

Resources

  1. https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DentalProducts/DentalAmalgam/ucm171094.htm
  2. http://www.tdb.org.tr/icerik_goster.php?Id=1648
  3. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/mercury-amalgam-fillings-and-you/
  4. http://www.tdb.org.tr/tdb/v2/altsayfa_goster.php?id=14&yer_id=6
  5. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/medicalwaste/mercurypolpaper.pdf
  6. https://iaomt.org/wp-content/uploads/IAOMT-Position-Statement-Update-2016-6.16.16.pdf
  7. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/snp
  8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26673400
  9. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036205001285?via%3Dihub
  10. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X05001067
  11. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036205001492?via%3Dihub
  12. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/202707
  13. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161813X14001399?via%3Dihub
  14. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230008002304
  15. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/786026
  16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3679554
  17. https://iaomt.org/wp-content/uploads/article_2012%20IAOMTpositionstatement%20ondentalmercuryamalgam.pdf
  18. http://oem.bmj.com/content/51/1/28.short
  19. http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/258/4/R939.short
  20. https://iaomt.org/wp-content/uploads/article_2012%20IAOMTpositionstatement%20ondentalmercuryamalgam.pdf
  21. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ololo.sci-hub.cc/pubmed/7957411
  22. http://www.nature.com/jes/journal/v18/n3/full/7500606a.html?foxtrotcallback=true
error: İçerik izinsiz kullanılamaz!