I've read that it's a kind of no-win situation i.e. the choice is between either risking getting worse with removal or worse with keeping them in. I'm convinced that having the amalgams gave me OCD and a host of other problems. Therefore, removal is the only chance of getting better. Since first round of removal I have had 3 female cycles (albeit very short ones) in 6 months, whereas before I was lucky to get one in 2 years. So, I feel it has had a benefit. However, others get worse from the mercury removal, especially if they don't get it done properly and follow poor diet.

Like a lot of people, I have no doctor to help so have to do it alone. NHS doctors don't deal with mercury poisoning and I can't afford to pay for a doctor. I got the best dentist I could find who uses all precautions and test for diamondlite compatibility, and I hope that helps me.

I have had both improvement and worsening of some symptoms after removal. I think a lot of things come into play i.e. how fast body excretes mercury. To have got as sick as I did as quick as I did after amalgam placement, I think my problems is extreme sensitivity to mercury. But I think I excrete it fairly quickly. Others might have an excretion problem, and no so much a sensitivity problem, and therefore removal might make things worse for them because they can't excrete what's in their system - and then they get more at removal. So, my personal view is that mercury doesn't behave in people the same (hence why some people are affected and otehrs not appear to be). Just my humble views.