Extraordinary article about mercury, amalgams, and microbial resistance

Home The Candida Forum Candida Questions Extraordinary article about mercury, amalgams, and microbial resistance

This topic contains 8 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Rabelais 4 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #120283

    dvjorge
    Participant
    Topics: 283
    Replies: 1369

    This is an awesome article and another reason to say NOT to mercury fillings.

    http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/06n0352/06N-0352-EC24-Attach-1.pdf

    Jorge

    #120296

    Rabelais
    Blocked
    Topics: 3
    Replies: 268


    Your summary of the article is incorrect.

    • The article says that mercury may help bacteria to increase their already existing resistance to antibiotics. The problem is not the help these bacteria get from mercury, but the fact that some of them are already resistant to antibiotics. That’s the real source of the problem: resistance against antibiotics. That’s what should be prevented. Mercury plays only a minor role, it only enhances the resistance after it has already developed.
    • The article is eight years old. If there were a problem, one would expect the FDA to have adapted their guidelines. To my knowledge, the FDA has not done so. It looks like they had good reasons not to panic.
    • The article is only one of the many submissions to an FDA meeting. In such a meeting, many submissions from many different fields are considered. Think of it like a trial in court: if an innocent person is accused of burglary, he will defend himself and submit evidence that he could never have been the burglar. Those who accuse him, though, will try to submit proof that the accused was the burglar. It is the task of the jury and the judge to weigh all submissions before reaching a conclusion. If there is overwhelming evidence that our innocent person could never have been the burglar, then he will not be punished, despite the (obviously meager) proof that the accusors submitted. Even if some website waits eight years and then refers only to the submissions of the accusors, the whole of all submitted evidence was still good reason to acquit the innocent person.

    I’d like to see a reference to the site where all submissions to this “FDA trial” can be found. Please provide the whole picture, not a carefully selected subset. It would be nice if you could also provide a reference to the report that the FDA made after considering all submissions, because that report contains their reasoning and their conclusions.

    Rabelais

    #120318

    dvjorge
    Participant
    Topics: 283
    Replies: 1369

    Rabelais;58817 wrote:
    Your summary of the article is incorrect.

    • The article says that mercury may help bacteria to increase their already existing resistance to antibiotics. The problem is not the help these bacteria get from mercury, but the fact that some of them are already resistant to antibiotics. That’s the real source of the problem: resistance against antibiotics. That’s what should be prevented. Mercury plays only a minor role, it only enhances the resistance after it has already developed.
    • The article is eight years old. If there were a problem, one would expect the FDA to have adapted their guidelines. To my knowledge, the FDA has not done so. It looks like they had good reasons not to panic.
    • The article is only one of the many submissions to an FDA meeting. In such a meeting, many submissions from many different fields are considered. Think of it like a trial in court: if an innocent person is accused of burglary, he will defend himself and submit evidence that he could never have been the burglar. Those who accuse him, though, will try to submit proof that the accused was the burglar. It is the task of the jury and the judge to weigh all submissions before reaching a conclusion. If there is overwhelming evidence that our innocent person could never have been the burglar, then he will not be punished, despite the (obviously meager) proof that the accusors submitted. Even if some website waits eight years and then refers only to the submissions of the accusors, the whole of all submitted evidence was still good reason to acquit the innocent person.

    I’d like to see a reference to the site where all submissions to this “FDA trial” can be found. Please provide the whole picture, not a carefully selected subset. It would be nice if you could also provide a reference to the report that the FDA made after considering all submissions, because that report contains their reasoning and their conclusions.

    Rabelais

    You need to understand that the ONLY safe side isn’t to have amalgams in your mouth. Understand it. It is logic and easy to understand. Let the FDA and the controversy to continue. Until they agree, don’t have amalgams. If you have, I urge you to pull them all out. What if the FDA is wrong ?? It has been many times. So, you gonna play with something terrible such as mercury because you need to agree with one side of the arguments?? Not, don’t do it. You have had enough time reading here to smell the danger. Do something good.

    Jorge.

    #120319

    TheChosenOne
    Participant
    Topics: 34
    Replies: 410

    dvjorge;58839 wrote: You need to understand that the ONLY safe side isn’t to have amalgams in your mouth. Understand it. It is logic and easy to understand. Let the FDA and the controversy to continue. Until they agree, don’t have amalgams. If you have, I urge you to pull them all out. What if the FDA is wrong ?? It has been many times. So, you gonna play with something terrible such as mercury because you need to agree with one side of the arguments?? Not, don’t do it. You have had enough time reading here to smell the danger. Do something good.

    Jorge.

    Correct. The FDA has been obstructing a lot of good treatments, like cancer treatments that have been proven to work very well for many years. Don’t let me start about the power of psychedelics, which a lot of them are considered ‘schedule 1’ drugs. The FDA is more like an extension of the pharmaceutical industry.
    If someone want to live under the tyranny of the FDA, go ahead. If you want to wait until a cure has been approved by the FDA, a life of misery and pain is ahead of you. Luckily the government is losing the war on sick people and the war on drugs.

    #120332

    Rabelais
    Blocked
    Topics: 3
    Replies: 268

    dvjorge;58839 wrote: What if the FDA is wrong ?? It has been many times.

    That’s true. It must be. And it’s a good thing.

    You see, nothing is certain. Nothing. So the best we can do, is always be willing to adjust our behaviour when new knowledge becomes available.

    The only alternative would be to base your behaviour on knowledge that we do not have. Which is, of course, impossible.

    The fact that the FDA changed opinion a few times just means that the FDA adjusts itself to the best of our current knowledge. It has no dogmas, no fixed set of rules. Instead, it is flexible, and it has the greatness to admit that it has been wrong – but, logically, only if new knowledges becomes available.

    The only alternative would be not ever to trust any knowledge. But then you couldn’t use your computer for the same reasons: “They say that the computer’s EM fields are harmless, but what if they are wrong? They have been many times”.

    Or: “They say that LED lights are safe, but those lights do emit a very unnatural spectrum. They say that’s no problem, but what if they are wrong? They have been many times.”

    I could go on and on.

    So, I hope you see that “they might be wrong” is a wrong reasoning which would only result in nothing being trustworthy anymore. That doesn’t bring us anywhere.

    The better alternative is to be guided by the best of our current knowledge. It’s the best we have. Nothing better exists at the moment.

    TheChosenOne;58840 wrote: Correct. The FDA has been obstructing a lot of good treatments, like cancer treatments that have been proven to work very well for many years.

    No. If a cancer treatment has been proven to work, it will be allowed. It has been like this, and it remains like this.

    TheChosenOne;58840 wrote: The FDA is more like an extension of the pharmaceutical industry.

    No. I have two friends who work in the pharmaceutical industry, and they really fear the FDA.

    Rabelais

    #120337

    TheChosenOne
    Participant
    Topics: 34
    Replies: 410

    Rabelais;58853 wrote: No. If a cancer treatment has been proven to work, it will be allowed. It has been like this, and it remains like this.

    You might want to do some research.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwuWQi-5RJs
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/health/21marijuana.html

    #120339

    Rabelais
    Blocked
    Topics: 3
    Replies: 268


    A youtube movie as “proof” of anything? Surely you must be kidding.

    The second item is a good example of adjusting one’s view to new insights. You are referencing an article that is eight years old. Lots of insights have changed since then. In my country, medical marijuana is already available for many years. In the USA, things are changing too.

    Rabelais

    #120340

    TheChosenOne
    Participant
    Topics: 34
    Replies: 410

    I never talked about any kind of proof. I’m talking about obstructing research.
    I don’t know, but if you obstruct research on a type of cancer that has almost 0% survival rate, you are doing something seriously wrong, even if it might be a scam.
    More than 40 years of cancer research, billions of investement and all they do is reinvent the medication that already exists with close to 0 improvement.

    #120341

    Rabelais
    Blocked
    Topics: 3
    Replies: 268


    You are right, of course. Obstructing research would be seriously wrong. Luckily, I haven’t seen any case of obstructing such cancer research.

    Some cancer research has resulted in LOTS of improvement during the last 40 years. Other cancer research has shown very little improvement indeed.

    It all depends on the type of cancer. Saying “cancer” and making people believe that it is just a single disease is a characteristic of scams. Don’t fall for them.

    Rabelais

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

The topic ‘Extraordinary article about mercury, amalgams, and microbial resistance’ is closed to new replies.