Haven't you heard? It's the "good" mercury. Must come from the same non-toxic mercury stock as vaccines. Heck, you can even inject it right into infants. It's the other mercury that's bad...remember?
Interesting, that dentists refer to it as "silver" fillings. I heard that they weren't allowed to call it mercury fillings. Don't know if it's true, but I sure don't think silver is the main ingredient. They do insist it's such a small amount that it's inert.
Amalgams may very well not be harmful to many people. I think there's a lot of people who may be at risk with kidneys who can't move metals out very well that might be prone to metal accumulation more than others who may not have a genetic "trigger".
I am surprised that they admitted that further studies need to be done. That is a great step. Now they are thinking and behaving like real scientists and not just govt type drones. We aren't as easy to sway as we used to be when there was less information and we had to trust authorities blindly and innocently. I can accept if they discover mercury fillings really aren't an issue, but do they only study healthy people? What about people with kidney issues (a leading disease in the US) who are out there getting amalgams and can't clear homocysteine very well? Or, what do they look at in terms of there being no effects? One or two factors? Did they measure kidney function before or after? Homocysteine levels before and after? What about decades later? Or maybe even on deceased persons? There's so many factors which make me curious if they considered or not. There is hope at least they will continue to look at more avenues instead of just wanting to be right.
Haven't you heard? It's the "good" mercury. Must come from the same non-toxic mercury stock as vaccines. Heck, you can even inject it right into infants. It's the other mercury that's bad...remember?
Interesting, that dentists refer to it as "silver" fillings. I heard that they weren't allowed to call it mercury fillings. Don't know if it's true, but I sure don't think silver is the main ingredient. They do insist it's such a small amount that it's inert.
Amalgams may very well not be harmful to many people. I think there's a lot of people who may be at risk with kidneys who can't move metals out very well that might be prone to metal accumulation more than others who may not have a genetic "trigger".
I am surprised that they admitted that further studies need to be done. That is a great step. Now they are thinking and behaving like real scientists and not just govt type drones. We aren't as easy to sway as we used to be when there was less information and we had to trust authorities blindly and innocently. I can accept if they discover mercury fillings really aren't an issue, but do they only study healthy people? What about people with kidney issues (a leading disease in the US) who are out there getting amalgams and can't clear homocysteine very well? Or, what do they look at in terms of there being no effects? One or two factors? Did they measure kidney function before or after? Homocysteine levels before and after? What about decades later? Or maybe even on deceased persons? There's so many factors which make me curious if they considered or not. There is hope at least they will continue to look at more avenues instead of just wanting to be right.