Hi Guys,

I've been developing this theory about how a lot of mercury remains in our teeth even after amalgams have been removed. I was going to post it here but I stumbled across Google Pages and decided to put it up there as a web page. Here is the link:

Pulp Theory

Here is a quotation from the first paragraph:

"This page presents a theory I have been developing about amalgam poisoning through the roots of teeth. I've noticed that most websites about amalgam poisoning refer to mercury released from the surface of an amalgam filling but I haven't read much about mercury being transported up through the roots of teeth. This is critical because I believe that a significant amount of mercury remains in the tooth after the amalgam filling has been removed and is still releasing mercury into the system on a daily basis through the root of the tooth. It would explain why many people don't feel an immediate improvement after having their amalgams removed and would explain why people feel significantly worse chelating because all it is doing is speeding up the release of mercury from the teeth into the system."

I've put an X-ray of my teeth on the page and have found some scientific papers that seem to back up the theory.

I would be interested to know what you guys think.

Thanks,

Jolon.

this makes a lot of sense to me, my fillings fell out when I lost my teeth when I was about 10, I'm 20 now, however I always was suspicious that I still had mercury in my mouth. I would still get symptoms like metallic taste in my mouth even though I had no fillings there, and chewing gum would make me feel real bad. I'm much better now, but after I I lost the fillings I certainly did not get better and went down hill dramatically. It also makes sense that I still had mercury in my mouth after I lost the fillings because I only had 2 fillings and you would have thought after about 10 years my body would have got rid of most of the mercury naturally.. not so, as I have found out from detoxing for the past year..

I think you're on to something.

I've attained one of the last remaining books entitled "The Abstracts of Steinman" that talks about fluid-flow in teeth and I believe you're right and you're making a really good point that many overlook.

Keep up the good work.

Hi Russ,

Thanks for the pointer to Steinman. After a bit of searching I came across a paper of his:

Relationship of Fluid Transport Through the Dentin to the Incidence of Dental Caries

Something interesting mentioned in the paper was that injecting the rats with urea prevented tooth decay by increasing fluid flow. Fascinating. Unfortunately the urea places a load on the kidneys which wouldn't be too good for those with amalgam poisoning.

Ray Ghosh emailed me privately about the Tooth Pulp Theory and mentioned a dentist in London who specialises in removing mercury vapour from patients' mouths. He gave me permission to publish the info on the forum.

The dentist's name is Dr. El-Essawy and this is his web page. From what I can tell, he removes the amalgam fillings and then uses a mercury vapour meter to see if he can still detect any mercury vapour, if he can then he continues to clean out the tooth. After that, if there is still mercury vapour then he applies a herbal detox formula to the tooth until the mercury vapour meter reads zero. It is only then that the new filling is placed.

The process is described in a PowerPoint presentation called "The Story of Amalgam" linked from the main web page.

The web page also has some video testimonials. I found the "Hattersley" one particularly interesting because the patient had had his amalgams removed by a non-biological dentist but still had health problems. When he went to El-Essawy the mercury vapour meter was giving readings on the fillings that had been replaced!

I don't think El-Essawy's approach will remove much of the mercury from the pulp, but his technique sounds like the best I have heard of in terms of cleaning up the surface mercury.

Hey Jolon,

I suppose the question is how much mercury remains in the pulp and for how long. I would presume that this would exit the body fairly rapidly through the blood stream and that any mercury hiding in dentinal tubules would be much more of a problem (as it could get stuck in the tubules which I beleive can be 3 miles long they are so microscopic).

Also does that mean that if you can a tooth extracted or a root canal undertaken that the pulp would be removed and with it the mercury?

Dr El-Essawy's information is extremely helpful. From what I can gather, if mercury does still reside in the pulp then this can be easily chelated once all mercury is removed from the teeth.

Ray

Hi Ray,



That's a good point. It would be interesting to see how much mercury remains in various parts of the tooth months after the filling has been removed. Anyone want to volunteer a tooth? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

But seriously, this is where some really useful research could be conducted.



I think if the entire tooth was removed you would get rid of most of the mercury, although I've read that there can also be significant concentrations in the jaw bone. It would be interesting to hear from people who have had their teeth pulled instead of having their fillings replaced.



I guess "easily chelated" is the real issue. The problem seems to be handling any form of chelation and from my calculations even when I chelated at the highest level using NDF it could still take many years.

Something worth noting about Dr. El-Essawy's chelation protocol is that it includes colonics and daily saunas which may allow the patient to handle the chelation process.

How does any one know if there is mercury left under the new filling, i asked to see mine when they drilled all the mercury out just to make sure. 2 of my teeth were quite bad under the amalgam so they had to drill quite alot into the tooth, im quite pleased about that. If there was small amounts of mercury in ones teeth when it has been replaced would we ever be rid of symptoms, i wonder! Dawn.