amalgam mercury leaching via ALA or other chemical - was: Re: Mycotoxins and organ donation

[Guest guest]

---

Mr. : With all do respect, if you wish to comment on my posts you need

to read the entire thread. My comment was on ALA IV, not oral. D

In , <pete-@...> wrote:

>

> At 10:09 AM 6/25/2009, you wrote:

>

>

> >---

> >Sam: I was just given the information about he amalgams. I guess

> >s doctor does not agree. What they told me was that the ALA

> >leaches mercury from the amalgams

>

> Think careful of what the actual mechanism must be for a chemical, any

chemical

> you orally consume, to reach the oral cavity, at what reduced

> concentration, either

> via saliva or to the roots of the tooth, the interior of the tooth,

> where it can not reach

> the amalgam material, which is on the outside of the tooth, not the

> inside. Thus,

> only the ALA and it's by products are in the saliva, likely at

> 1/1000th the blood concentration,

> which is at least 1/1000th the orally consumed amount (much of any

> supplement is

> destroyed by the stomach acid, bile, HCl, hydrochloride acid, very

> strong, at a pH of

> 3 to 2 (2 is stronger). The ALA in the saliva must then pass through

> the fat coating

> of the teeth, that adheres to enamel, oh, the amalgam material likely

> does not get

> a fat coating, so this weak ALA saliva solution must then rest

> against the amalgam

> surface, to act upon it, and likely only 1/1000th of the ALA

> molecules in the saliva

> likely do that. So, the ALA is reduced to 1,000,000,000th the oral

> value, and only

> for a while, for several hours (that is if ALA does enter the saliva

> gland and is released

> by the gland into the mouth)...

>

> Given all this ... I'd evaluate the statement of " ALA leaches amalgam

> mercury " as

> being not just weak, in need of scientific backing, in terms of

> measuring the ALA

> in the saliva, and any increase in mercury in the saliva... that's my

opinion.

>

> Ok, that evaluation done, my opinion stated, you ought to go back to

> these doctors,

> and ask for their source(s) of information, so you may have your

> " scientific consultant " (me)

> confirm the validity of the source(s), so you may act with certitude,

> not what appears to be

> anecdotal.

>

> Shoe on the other foot?

>

> >and if you are not detoxing well the mercury will build up.

>

> What I see here is a statement of " if " , the " What if ... " game.

> Nothing definitive. Nothing scientific. Nothing medically valid... or is it?

>

> It's a clear attempt to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt.

> That for sure is medically an incorrect bedside manner.

> At a minimum. At it's worse, it medical malpractice.

> In either case, or anywhere in between, it's incomplete information.

> Not enough knowledge. Without any proof. Just mere layman opinion,

> from a " doctor " who has no knowledge of oral cavity chemistry... right?

>

> >It makes sense to me.

>

> They made it sound good. Thus, it's dangerous, and imho, the doctor

> is dangerous,

> perhaps just in this one area, where they did not know they were out

> of their depth?

>

> >The hardest thing about this condition is that you will not get two

> >doctors to agree on anything. D

>

> And that is why I posted this info. Print out this email, and have

> the good doctors read it.

> Get back to us with their " reply " , or lack of one, as many doctors

> are 'silent', like most

> people, when their verbal statements are responded to with reasonable

> questions,

> that leave them wondering how they could not have thought of these

> points themselves,

> before they spoke. Hmm, put this paragraph first so the good doctor

> reads it first.

> It should " lighten " the blow to their egos.

>

> Let us know. Also, I'm interested in feedback.

>

> BTW, there are scientific studies on the amount of fluoride present

> in saliva from

> water fluoridation, and how long fluoridated toothpaste is in contact

> with teeth

> enamel, if that time is enough for the toothpaste fluoride to

> crystallize the enamel.

> Both studies indicate that fluoride so applied is ineffective, and

> only in the dentist

> chair, where extremely concentrated fluoride is applied directly to

> the teeth, for tens

> of minutes, can there be any absorption.

>

> That all said, think again about any chemical you orally consume, or

> do not consume

> (distilled water without minerals) doing any " leaching " anywhere in

> the body. It has

> to " reach " the organ, in some minimum concentration, and be in

> contact for some time.

>

[Guest guest]

At 07:39 AM 6/27/2009, you wrote:

>Mr. : With all do respect, if you wish to comment on my

>posts you need to read the entire thread. My comment was on ALA IV, not oral. D

You realize the reduction of ALA concentration from blood to saliva is true.

That information is still needed to properly evaluate the situation.

Due to the tone of your post, I assume you misread my post.

In other words, I agreed with what I thought you were saying.

My post did not pertain to the ALA effectiveness at removing mercury

from the body.

I only addressed that ALA is unlikely to speed up the amalgam releasing

mercury into the body and causing harm. I want to hear of the physical

mechanism that such a speed up would be implemented by, before I could

believe it happens, and thus invalidating the use of ALA for mercury detox.

To clarify I address two additional points.

Most glands will only transport from the blood, through their membranes,

into the gland itself, molecules that are highly specialized and needed by

the gland. To research the " transport " tunnels through the cell membrane

that filters or restricts blood carried molecules from entering any gland.

That said, the factors of 1,000 I wrote were estimates, as stated, and likely

the factor is 1,000,000, or more.

I do object to the medical community using the term 'leaching.'

As far as I can tell the " concept " of " leaching " is used by doctors

as a scare tactic.

I doubt that it is a medical term taught in medical school, but it is

a chemistry term.

That does not mean they can take a chem term and make it a legit medical term.

I've not yet in 8 years of researching found any published

physiological mechanism

for this " leaching " that doctors will verbally mention.

The only time I have read about 'leaching' is scare tactics, and

never in a medical

study or journal, or other expert resource. Leaching appears to be a word that

doctors will verbalize, but never put in writing, as most reports I

have read have been

written by journalists, not the doctor themselves. A reported

interview or such.

When I have found it in writing authored by a doctor, there never is

any references,

never is any mechanism, never is any organ that is explicitly

affected. There is no

way to valid the doctor's published words. I call that scare tactic.