DrCSK,
You said...
---
Russ I have put the time in by looking over your own website. And what I have found is that your website provides absolutely no valuable, credible information.
---
Is your concept of putting in time consisting of simply perusing my website?
Have you read research papers before?
Have you read my previous posts completely?
If you are an intelligent person, you know very well that "putting in time" in the context that I used it means researching, not perusing a wesbite and drawing conclusions 24 hours later.
I have no doubt that at least some of the people who read this thread over time will truly understand what is meant by "putting in time". Assuming you're an intelligent person, it's a simple matter to read between the lines of your posts and see that you engaging in the oldest of debate tactics. It's called, "killing the messenger".
Following is how you do it...
You said...
---
When you can provide a reputable study I will feel free to peruse it. But pretty much all the sites you mention in your posts are from people who have no credible background.
---
You discount the values of the studies because you believe that the people I mention in my posts have no reputable background.
Those intelligent people who see your responses to my posts here on this forum will clearly see that your statement saying that these people have "no reputable background" is the tactic of killing the messenger.
Because this tactic is nothing more shirking responsibility, there is nothing I can do for you.
Learning about the science behind mercury-induced illnesses from amalgam fillings and vaccines is not complicated, but it does require that one be willing to do some work. Those who shirk their responsibilty, particularly those attempting to maintain a facade of integrity will not learn these things, and if they (or you) are in fact a doctor, the ignorance caused by this lack of responsibility could be harmful and negligent.
Secondly, you assume that people with "no reputable background" are people who disperse bad information. Of course, we can only speculate on what your idea of a person with "no reputable background" really is because you don't say.
If I were to assume that your idea of someone with "no reputable background" is someone who lacks medical training or doctorates or chemical or biological degrees, then would you please make a list and tell the readers of this thread which of those in this small sampling of medical professionals (each of which is scientifically convinced of the harm mercury from amalgams or vaccines cause) are missing in terms of credentials:
(1) Boyd Haley, Ph.D,
Professor and Chair of the Department of Chemistry,
University of Kentucky
CURRICULUM VITAE
http://www.toxicteeth.org/old_web_site/haley-CV.html(2) Dr. Andrew Cutler PhD, PE,
Princeton Chemistry Student,
BS in physics, University of California
Registered Professional Chemical Engineer
(3) Mark Geier, M.D., Ph.D.
David Geier, B.A.,
President, The Genetic Centers of America
(4) Dr. Bernard Rimland, Ph.D
(5) David Baskin, M.D.
(6) Mady Hornig, M.D
(7) Richard C. Deth, Ph.D.
(8) Jeff Bradstreet, M.D.
Furthermore, would you like to list your credentials and demonstrate to the readers of this thread why your judgement on this topic is superior to those listed above, and; Why, after having "put in your time" (i.e. about 24 elapsed hours, only little of which—we must speculate—involved reading actual research) you have properly discredited the in-depth scientific papers and studies written by those above.
We'll be waiting.
Thirdly, you make yet another incorrect assumption.
Assuming that your statement about "no reputable background" refers to someone who—in your view—lacks medical training or doctorates or chemical or biological degrees, you assume that only people with this type of training can carry, transmit or communicate valid information of this type.
You fail to understand that I, in making statements about illnesses caused by mercury from amalgams and vaccines, am simply repeating what I have read in studies conducted by people with credentials.
I—as a reasonably intelligent person, with a degree in electronics (although I was allowed to "clep" part of my schooling because of my own self-training), architect of commercial computer software used in 6 countries, designer of small computer systems (called "embedded systems"), having built a publishing company based on collecting and collating scientific research related to health for 9 years and distributing it in 14 countries—am perfectly capable of reading, understanding and communicating information from medical studies.
Not only that, but while reading opposing research, I am able to intelligently locate flaws in studies as indicated by opposing studies and determine where there are conflicts of interest in the funding and/or purposes of studies as well. There are countless others without medical degrees who are equally or more capable of reading, understanding and communicating information in these studies.
My primary issue I have with your objections to my conclusions is this; My conclusions are based on years of reading research from highly-qualified professionals. Your conclusions are based on—from all that I've gathered in your posts—brief encounters with related information from a single side of this issue.
I will leave it to the readers of this discussion to determine who they believe has "put their time in".
It bears pointing out what is so amazing about this statement...
You said...
---
Russ I have put the time in by looking over your own website. And what I have found is that your website provides absolutely no valuable, credible information.
---
In saying this, it seems that you consider "putting your time in" as perusing my website. At the very least, this statement is strong evidence that you have not put your time in on this subject. Considering this, I have to ask why you have such strong opinions about this subject. Why don't you simply say the three most honorable words a doctor can say, which are: "I don't know"?
Is it pride? Is it a strong desire not to see the already foundering reputation of western medicine fall further?
Whatever the reason is, it appears that you simply don't know much about this subject and therefore are doing what most elementary school children will do when their teacher has taught them an emotionally-appealing idea which is challenged: They stick up for their teacher. Were you taught that amalgams were safe in school?
I don't mean this to be sarcastic or derogatory in any way. I'm only asking that you get to know * yourself *, for only from this foundational understanding can you truly know other people, and then you can learn to separate logic from emotion.
You said...
---
When you can provide a reputable study I will feel free to peruse it.
---
You have left yourself a convenient way out.
If you've read my previous posts, you know that I will not conduct your research for you. That is your responsibility. By committing yourself to this "when you do this than I will do this" condition, you have provided yourself with the room you need to do nothing.
Nevertheless, as I said in my previous posts: Even if I did provide you with excellent information, you would quickly discredit it without really putting your time in. This is evidenced by the fact that just a click or two from my links, there is solid, scientific research backing up my position. Furthermore, just a few words and a click from a Google search will reveal mountains of valuable information in this regard, and although some is opposing, you, if you put in your time, will soon see where the preponderance of evidence lies.
Finally, why is it that so many people have been able to find this research, but you have not? It's reasonable at this point to ask yourself a challenging question: Do you really want to?
You said...
---
Huggins shouldnt even post that he is a dentist since he got his license revoked in 1996.
---
As would any dentist who simply repeats what the preponderance of evidence says about dental amalgam.
This is because the current ADA ethics guidelines for dentists prohibit dentists from suggesting that illnesses could be caused by dental amalgam, despite massive evidence to the contrary.
I was saved from my horrible medical conditions by the brave work of this man who has been willing to stand up in the face of special interests. I read his book entitled, "It's All In Your Head" in two days and was finally able to draw the connection, based on his in-depth and insightful information, between my amalgams and my numerous illnesses.
The day after reading his book, I began planning my amalgam removal as did my business partner and soon thereafter we both experienced physical recoveries that were dramatic, to say the least.
My thanks goes out to great men like Hal Huggins who you discredit, yet, has the preponderance of evidence to back him up. I emailed him a thank-you letter soon after my recovery.
If you study history, you will realize that some of the greatest men and woman are those who bravely stood up to corruption in an established field or in government. This concept is unveiled in one of my favorite sayings:
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, 19th century philosopher
You said...
---
Everytime someone complains about some type of illness its amazing that somehow mercury is involved.
---
It's also amazing how often people are now having their amalgam fillings removed and recovering from illness that mainstream medicine calls incurable.
Are you aware of this?
If not, why not?
If so, why are you taking the position you are in refusing to research this very important subject?
You said...
---
Its amazing that all these people you worship all require you to buy their books in order to find out mercury is bad at a cost of about $25+ a piece and you claim our govt and its healthcare system is out to screw the common man.
---
I don't worship these people. I respect them.
Secondly, the reason you have to order a book or DVD is for the same reason you, if you are a doctor, charge for medical services.
Authors have to be paid for their time in authoring and compiling this information. As an author and publisher, I can appreciate the amount of time it takes and the logistics involved. If you were an author, it's likely you would as well.
Unfortunately, this is simply another debate tactic used to discredit authors and scientists when they hold an opinion someone else does not like; Namely, to say they are doing it for profit.
Why won't you just explore the information rather than slinging accusations?
Furthermore, the information in these materials has been life-changing for many of those who have purchased them. It certainly was for me. Not only that, but I spend a considerable amount of time parsing the information and giving requested parts of it away on my forums and in the articles I write.
As for me: As I stated in a previous post, I could be making literally 3 to 4 times more money working in my original fields (which I love), but I have chosen to help people instead.
Will you put in the time to properly study this issue for the sake of your patients?
You said...
---
I see Scarlet, BEX, and others mention get all root canaled teeth removed, cavitations are bad all at a cost of $7500 +,
---
It's not the root canals themselves, it's the sulphur-producing bacteria that accumulate at the site of the remaining peridontal nerve that causes additional issues. This is especially true if amalgam fillings remain in the mouth because sulphur binds aggressively with mercury which in turn can cause serious complications.
Have you read the research about this?
It's very important not to generalize scientific information, but to carefully read it and then understand it's implications.
You may be interested to know that any non-biological dentist will happily remove your dental amalgam for you but in all the estimates I've gathered, they, on average, charge significantly more than natural/biological dentists. In a couple cases, it was over three-times as much.
I had my 9 amalgams removed for about $2700 and I would have gladly given everything I own if I had to do it over again. I'm not exaggerating. It was the most significant health event in my life, by far, saving my company and very likely, my life (judging by the speed of my decline).
You said...
---
...if you got composite restorations , which Scarlet believes to be just as toxic...
---
If you put your time in, you would realize that many restorations contain estrogenic compounds. You should understand the serious health implications of this.
Some other materials contain aluminum, which has been banned from public places (I'm simplifying a little for brevity) by the European Union because of the known health concerns.
Yet other materials contain BIS-Phenols or BIS-GMAs that are known to be harmful to the liver and kidneys when chronically exposed such as in dental restorations.
Scarlet has obviously put her time in.
You said...
---
...you claim our govt and its healthcare system is out to screw the common man.
---
You have drastically over simplified this concept.
There are special interests that strongly influence powerful people within the United States government who are profiting from amalgam fillings in both direct and indirect ways. These special interests have been able to coerce (via political contributions and other means) these people to continue to promote it's use because of the profits they make.
This game is as old as governments are. A study of history—which I thoroughly enjoy because of the lessons it brings—would surely enable you to accept this.
You said...
---
On average a dentist charges $200 for a resin filling, say 10 teeth filled I would say $2000 at most so you're so called biologic dentists are even riping you off.
---
You forgot about the removal of the existing fillings. You also omitted x-rays and an initial consultation that helps the patient make preparations to protect themselves from the massive amount of mercury that is mobilized during the removal.
You also are missing the extra equipment involved with mercury filtration equipment, plus several other issues that are addressed to provide safe mercury removal.
My friend, a brilliant computer programmer with high security clearance working for the military, hastily had her amalgams removed earlier a few months ago by a non-biological dentist. She spent the next 3 days seriously ill in a hospital while doctors tried to figure out what was wrong with her. Perhaps in her case, the cost of the hospital visit should be included in your calculation of the total cost of work involving amalgam removal by non-biological a dentist.
You said...
---
Hey if you are looking for someone to blame with your life perhaps you need to look within and take some responsibilty for your own life and not take the easy way out.
---
Actually, I did some research, found the cause of my numerous illnesses, and cured them all, paying for the entire ordeal myself.
The cost I incurred does not include the thousands of dollars that I spent on natural supplements that helped considerably for quite a while and actually enabled me to continue working.
The cost also does not include the lost time, lost relationships, and numerous other hardships I've endured that have since vanished, most immediately after the amalgams were removed.
I *have* taken responsibility for my life, and unfortunately, I have also had to bear the enormous responsibility of the dentist who placed a known neurotoxin in my mouth.
So, in reality, I have taken *more* responsibility for my life than I should have had to bear, and all because of a dentist who believed that his favorite organization was being honest.
In terms of blame, let me quote the American Dental Association's position concerning blame in this issue:
---
"The American Dental Association (ADA) owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from allegedly dangerous products used by dentists. The ADA did not manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing amalgams. The ADA does not control those who do. The ADA's only alleged involvement in the product was to provide information regarding its use. Dissemination of information relating to the practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the public from potential injury."
The Superior Court of the State of California
Case No. 718228, Demurrer (October 22, 1992)
---
Now, an astute dentist may want to carefully consider who * does * owe legal duty of care in the installation of "allegedly dangerous" dental materials, particularly considering this phrase:
---
"The ADA did not manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing amalgams."
---
I would pay particular attention to the word, "install".
Again, a word to the wise...
You said...
---
Anyway last time I checked this website deals with oral nerve injury usually caused by a surgical procedure and not mercury toxicity, so I say lets close this topic.
---
My goal is to help people.
If there are people on this forum who can benefit from the information and links I provide, why don't we let them benefit. Better yet, why don't we let them make up their own minds and encourage informed consent, personal research and personal responsibility and not censor any scientific information, whether or not you or I like it or dislike it. Let's provide all the information and let people make up their own minds.
Nevertheless, I respect the moderator's wishes and the owner's wishes, so they are free to close this thread and prohibit this topic if they wish.
As for me, I will never employ policies on my forums or websites that censor science.
