immunetroubles wrote: Any info you have on this, pro or con, I would be greatful if you would pass along. I know lots of you have been at this much longer than I have as far as Candida info and the info is very appreciated.
Thank you again, Lynda, for all the information.
I’m afraid the information available at this time is far too varied for me to choose a side. On the one hand, you have the research as you’ve posted, but on the other you have research quotes such as this one:
“Toxicity of the Metals: They are extremely toxic substances. If they were removed too quickly, they could poison or even kill a person. The body seems to know how to remove them at a pace that is safe, providing we keep balancing the body chemistry and supporting a person the entire time.”
And then I can’t ignore the fact that I know from my own experience that curing a bad Candida infestation is possible without ever having the amalgams removed. Jorge would argue that my immune system was not compromised, but I would beg to differ on that point; so what does either opinion prove? I can admit that, although I didn’t began the protocol that I eventually came up with, I did began a treatment of sorts as soon as I felt a problem, but that also proves nothing one way or another.
One problem that I have with removing amalgams is, if mercury is the reason someone cannot cure a Candida infestation, how do we remove the constant environmental sources of mercury in order to cure the Candida? It seems that, with this continuous onslaught of mercury toxins in our environment, none of us could come to a cure, and even if removing amalgams would bring a cure, doesn’t it seem that it would be useless considering these environmental facts? Do you see my dilemma here?
Another reason I can’t be certain that removing the amalgams is necessary is due to research that shows the majority of mercury is leached from a filling within a few years of the amalgams being placed, plus, in cases of a fairly healthy diet, most if not all of the remaining mercury is removed by dietary chelating agents of which there are many. So that leads me to suspect that if one has had the amalgams for more than two years, then removing them would be a complete waste of time.
On the other hand, you have possibly hundreds (if not more) of people who claim that removing their amalgams was the only way they could reach their Candida cure. So if I believe in personal testimonies, which I do, then I should have no problem in believing all the information about amalgams and mercury being the reason that Candida is incurable in some cases. So that should be my final decision, but wait … then I’ll find a research report such as, “Assays of mercury in urine samples and in the ambient air during work routines involving the heaviest exposure indicated that the exposure was far below the levels at which even subclinical symptoms could be indicated by psychometric tests. The psychological investigation indicated that the symptoms of amalgam illness were psychosomatic.” (Source: National Institute for Psychosocial Factors and Health – Vol. 52)
So I wish I could find something, anything that would allow me to make a final decision on this. With all of this information, how does anyone decide for certain which side is correct, perhaps there’s actually a middle-of-the-road answer here?
But no matter what my opinion is or is not, I sincerely hope for the ultimate cure for you.