Re: Clifford vs. Melisa reactivity revisited

[Guest guest]

>

> Hi all,

>

> I am thinking aboute getting my amalgams replaced this summer.

> I'm a little concerned that the replacements will contain something

> to which my body reacts poorly, as seems to be the case with so

> many things.

>

> I don't think that Andy takes a position on this, but I'm wondering

> what your thoughts are on the validity of the Clifford Materials

> Reactivity Test, as opposed to the Melisa.

>

My understanding is that the Cliffords Materials test is used to test

for existing sensitivities to chemicals that are commonly used in

dentistry in order to choose the materials that the person is least

likely to react to.

Melisa is testing for sensitivity to metals.

Both are antigen- antibody tests, so would be using similar

techniques. The difference is the materials tested.

When someone wants to know what material to replace the amalgam with

they would want a Clifford test.

The Melisa test is not too useful, because people can be sensitive to

mercury, but not have enough in their body to make them sick or they

could be not sensitive to mercury, and have enough in their body to

make them sick. It is useful for someone who wants to know what

metals they are sensitive to, for whatever reason that might be.

> Here's what I'm thinking: Clifford tests for many more substances

> than Melisa. However, Melisa an actual immunological assay

They are both immunological assays.

that is

> used by mainstream and research doctors. My problem with the

> Clifford test is that doesn't appear to have any scientific

credibility.

It has just as much credibility as any other immunological assay.

Mainstream medicine and the financial powers that govern research

doctors don't want anyone to know that they poison people.

J

>

>

> Thanks!

>

[Guest guest]

> I'm hoping that I'm missing

> some critical piece of information or documentation about

> the Clifford test. I would love to learn more about it, and would

> accept even a modicum of explicit evidence on its validity.

>

This was interesting for me, because I didn't realize the

biocompatibility testing my dentist uses is any different than the

type of testing '' refers to. My report from Scientific

Health Solutions, located in Colorado Springs, is 50 pages long &

seems to encompass every possible dental material that is or has

been in use, and appears to be the Clifford type. I contacted them

for additional reporting on exact reactivity levels to different

metals & chemicals (thinking it would be helpful to know these & not

just names of dental products) and they were happy to provide it.

That's very important information...I've been hypersensitive to many

chemicals and metals for a long time, including plastics. The whole

point in getting the biocompatibility test, however, was to find

replacement materials that would stir up the least possible amount

of trouble. Without testing we knew that toxic metals have

been a very serious immune problem...a person's gum health over the

years is evidence enough. Finding the most compatible materials is

a big deal given the amount of money & personal anguish we can go

through in the process of replacing amalgams - imagine having to

have it redone.

If you really dig deep, you'll be astonished at the extent to which

chemical companies have avoided testing of chemical safety,

prevented negative results from becoming publicly known, hidden

chemical contents behind patented 'recipes', and influenced

governmental and public agencies & info outlets as to what

information is presented as 'fact' or made available at all. With

this in mind, don't be surprised when tests for reactivity to

chemical materials don't show up in the mainstream literature.

If it weren't for people who understand the validity of things like

accupuncture and muscle testing, I know I wouldn't have come this

far (and we're talking about coming out of some pretty advanced

dementia at a young age). This spared me from further toxic,

invasive testing procedures, harmful medications, and allowed hidden

illnesses & autoimmune disease to come to light. If you haven't

explored some of these alternatives, they're well worth getting

familiar with. Our bodies have amazing abilities to express

themselves when we're willing to 'listen'; it just isn't the in the

mainstream medical model which has historical origins based on

selling untested petroleum & coal-derived products.

Best wishes,

Joanne

[Guest guest]

> I'm hoping that I'm missing

> some critical piece of information or documentation about

> the Clifford test. I would love to learn more about it, and would

> accept even a modicum of explicit evidence on its validity.

>

This was interesting for me, because I didn't realize the

biocompatibility testing my dentist uses is any different than the

type of testing '' refers to. My report from Scientific

Health Solutions, located in Colorado Springs, is 50 pages long &

seems to encompass every possible dental material that is or has

been in use, and appears to be the Clifford type. I contacted them

for additional reporting on exact reactivity levels to different

metals & chemicals (thinking it would be helpful to know these & not

just names of dental products) and they were happy to provide it.

That's very important information...I've been hypersensitive to many

chemicals and metals for a long time, including plastics. The whole

point in getting the biocompatibility test, however, was to find

replacement materials that would stir up the least possible amount

of trouble. Without testing we knew that toxic metals have

been a very serious immune problem...a person's gum health over the

years is evidence enough. Finding the most compatible materials is

a big deal given the amount of money & personal anguish we can go

through in the process of replacing amalgams - imagine having to

have it redone.

If you really dig deep, you'll be astonished at the extent to which

chemical companies have avoided testing of chemical safety,

prevented negative results from becoming publicly known, hidden

chemical contents behind patented 'recipes', and influenced

governmental and public agencies & info outlets as to what

information is presented as 'fact' or made available at all. With

this in mind, don't be surprised when tests for reactivity to

chemical materials don't show up in the mainstream literature.

If it weren't for people who understand the validity of things like

accupuncture and muscle testing, I know I wouldn't have come this

far (and we're talking about coming out of some pretty advanced

dementia at a young age). This spared me from further toxic,

invasive testing procedures, harmful medications, and allowed hidden

illnesses & autoimmune disease to come to light. If you haven't

explored some of these alternatives, they're well worth getting

familiar with. Our bodies have amazing abilities to express

themselves when we're willing to 'listen'; it just isn't the in the

mainstream medical model which has historical origins based on

selling untested petroleum & coal-derived products.

Best wishes,

Joanne

[Guest guest]

> I'm hoping that I'm missing

> some critical piece of information or documentation about

> the Clifford test. I would love to learn more about it, and would

> accept even a modicum of explicit evidence on its validity.

>

This was interesting for me, because I didn't realize the

biocompatibility testing my dentist uses is any different than the

type of testing '' refers to. My report from Scientific

Health Solutions, located in Colorado Springs, is 50 pages long &

seems to encompass every possible dental material that is or has

been in use, and appears to be the Clifford type. I contacted them

for additional reporting on exact reactivity levels to different

metals & chemicals (thinking it would be helpful to know these & not

just names of dental products) and they were happy to provide it.

That's very important information...I've been hypersensitive to many

chemicals and metals for a long time, including plastics. The whole

point in getting the biocompatibility test, however, was to find

replacement materials that would stir up the least possible amount

of trouble. Without testing we knew that toxic metals have

been a very serious immune problem...a person's gum health over the

years is evidence enough. Finding the most compatible materials is

a big deal given the amount of money & personal anguish we can go

through in the process of replacing amalgams - imagine having to

have it redone.

If you really dig deep, you'll be astonished at the extent to which

chemical companies have avoided testing of chemical safety,

prevented negative results from becoming publicly known, hidden

chemical contents behind patented 'recipes', and influenced

governmental and public agencies & info outlets as to what

information is presented as 'fact' or made available at all. With

this in mind, don't be surprised when tests for reactivity to

chemical materials don't show up in the mainstream literature.

If it weren't for people who understand the validity of things like

accupuncture and muscle testing, I know I wouldn't have come this

far (and we're talking about coming out of some pretty advanced

dementia at a young age). This spared me from further toxic,

invasive testing procedures, harmful medications, and allowed hidden

illnesses & autoimmune disease to come to light. If you haven't

explored some of these alternatives, they're well worth getting

familiar with. Our bodies have amazing abilities to express

themselves when we're willing to 'listen'; it just isn't the in the

mainstream medical model which has historical origins based on

selling untested petroleum & coal-derived products.

Best wishes,

Joanne