Page 1 of 3
Purging the body of excess mercury is a complex process that should be overseen by a physician with specialized expertise in mercury detoxification. In this issue, we provide a list of dietary supplements, drugs and blood-urine tests that doctors use to facilitate mercury detoxification. What follows are additional steps that should be followed (under a physician's supervision) for complete mercury detoxification.
Avoid all sugar and milk, limit all processed foods and most grains, especially wheat.
Take four capsules a day of a high potency/ high quality strain of beneficial bacteria such as that found in the Life Flora product made by Source Naturals. It is vital to have an optimized bowel flora for detoxification.
Because mercury is also eliminated via the fecal route it is important that you have two to three bowel movements per day. Freshly ground flax seed several teaspoons per day will facilitate intestinal movement and also contribute some healthy essential fatty acids. High dose vitamin C and mineral salts (magnesium and potassium) on an empty stomach will also stimulate peristalsis to induce multiple bowel movements throughout the day.
Check the endocrine system
Mercury is toxic to the endocrine system with high affinity for pituitary and thyroid glands. Make certain that your thyroid status has been checked using Free T3, Free T4, TSH blood tests as well as axillary basal metabolic morning temperatures before commencing detoxification. Conservative estimates are that more than 60 million Americans have a thyroid hormone deficiency. Many of these hypothyroid patients have been told by traditional testing methods and traditional physicians that their thyroid function is normal. Mercury almost always affects the thyroid!
Unload the connective tissue with chlorella or chitosan
Chlorella and chitosan are an important part of the detoxification program, as approximately 90% of the mercury in our bodies is eliminated through the stool. Chlorella is an algae and, unlike chitosan, has high protein levels of chlorophyll and other nutrients that can be used for nourishment.
It would be wise to start on garlic regularly to enhance sulfur stores. You can either use a high-allicin garlic supplement or get it in three cloves per day. Decrease the dose if your odor becomes socially offensive.
Cilantro will help mobilize mercury out of the tissue so the DMPS can attach to it and allow it to be excreted from the body. The best form of cilantro is a tincture.
It is important to have a generally healthy mineral base. When you are deficient in magnesium, sodium, zinc and other minerals, the body does not let go of toxic metals like mercury very easily.
Monitor your mineral dosing
It will be very important for your physician to monitor your mineral levels during the detoxification program. This should be done initially and at least every 6 to 12 weeks. High dose vitamins and minerals should be administered Intravenously (IV) after each DMPS treatment and as needed. It is difficult if not impossible to provide adequate mineral replacements solely from oral supplementation after receiving DMPS or DMSA.
Digestion and gall bladder support
Liver and gallbladder congestion are major issues in states of toxicity. To insure that your gallbladder bile flow is functional, take four tablets of Digest RC right before any fatty meal. This supplement provides a proprietary artichoke and black radish extract that stimulates bile acid flow from the gall bladder. Digestive enzymes should also be used before or right after each meal.
Vitamin C and E. Take 5,000 to 10,000 total milligrams of vitamin C per day along with 400 to 800 IU of vitamin E.
For pediatric patients
DMSA mercury detoxification is not recommended for pediatric patients. Since an IV is such a traumatic event for most children it is probably wise to use a rectal suppository version of DMPS.
Some people do not tolerate DMPS well. This is especially true for those who have damage in the central nervous system, such as those with MS or ALS or children with fragile brain architecture. If this is the case there are several options. PCA (peptid clathrating agent) spray can be used. The dose is four sprays under the tongue every day or every other day. One may use a dipeptide amino acid or mixed mineral succinates such as Champion Nutrition Muscle Nitro.
A note of caution:
The doctors who provided this information on mercury detoxification (Charles Williamson, M.D. and Jordan Davis, M.D.) do not recommend any mercury detoxification procedures or mercury amalgam removal by any dentist, biologic, mercury free or otherwise or any other health care practitioner without first and foremost being under the direct care of a medical doctor who has been properly trained and has sufficient experience in the evaluation, diagnosis and treatment of mercury toxic patients. To do otherwise can often lead to serious metabolic and organ system dysfunction and failure.
The environmental effects of dental amalgam.
Dental amalgam is one of the most commonly used materials in restorative dentistry. However, one of its major components, mercury, is of particular concern due to its potential adverse effects on humans and the environment. In this review, the environmental impact of dental amalgam will be discussed, with particular reference to the effects attributed to its mercury component. Mercury commonly occurs in nature as sulfides and in a number of minerals. Globally, between 20,000 to 30,000 tons of mercury are discharged into the environment each year as a result of human activities. According to a recent German report, approximately 46% of the freshly triturated amalgam is inserted as new amalgam restorations and the rest is waste. Depending on the presence of an amalgam separating unit, some of the generated amalgam-contaminated sludge is discharged into the sewage system. Lost or extracted teeth with amalgam fillings and amalgam-contaminated waste, such as trituration capsules and cotton rolls are discharged with the solid waste and, in most instances, are incinerated. Use of disinfectants containing oxidizing substances in dental aspirator kits may contribute to remobilization of mercury and its subsequent release into the environment. Nevertheless, dental mercury contamination is only a small proportion of terrestrial mercury (3% to 4%), which is quite insignificant compared with industrial pollution and combustion of fossil fuels by vehicles. The environmental impact of dental mercury is mainly due to the poor management of dental amalgam waste. Proper collection of mercury-contaminated solid waste prevents the release of mercury vapour during combustion. In addition, the use of amalgam separating devices reduces the amount of amalgam-contaminated water released from dental clinics.
Aust Dent J 2000 Dec;45(4):246-9
Dental amalgam and mercury in dentistry.
Mercury in dentistry has re-emerged as a contentious issue in public health, predominantly because so many people are inadvertently exposed to mercury in order to obtain the benefits of dental amalgam fillings, and the risks remain difficult to interpret. This commentary aims to examine the issues involved in public policy assessment of the continued use of dental amalgam in dentistry. More than 30% of Australian adults are concerned about mercury from dental amalgam fillings but only a small percentage report having their amalgam fillings removed. The placement of dental fillings nearly halved between 1983 and 1997, but many millions of dental amalgam fillings exist in the Australian community. These fillings release mercury (mercury vapour or inorganic ions) at a low level (about 2-5 micrograms/day in an adult). Evidence on the health effect of dental amalgams comes from studies of the association between their presence and signs or symptoms of adverse effects or health changes after removal of dental amalgam fillings. More formal risk assessment studies focus on occupational exposure to mercury and health effects. Numerous methodological issues make their interpretation difficult but new research will continue to challenge policymakers. Policy will also reflect prudent and cautious approaches, encouraging minimization of exposure to mercury in potentially more sensitive population groups. Wider environmental concerns and decreasing tolerance of exposure to other mercury compounds (for example, methylmercury in seafoods) will ensure the use of mercury in dentistry remains an issue, necessitating dentists keep their patients informed of health risks and respect their choices.
Aust Dent J 2000 Dec;45(4):224-34
Relation between mercury concentrations in saliva, blood and urine in subjects with amalgam restorations.
The aim was to determine the relationship between mercury content of resting and stimulated saliva, and blood and urine. Eighty subjects participated; 40 of them attributed their self-reported complaints to dental amalgam (patients), the others were matched with respect to age, sex and amalgam restorations (controls). Serum, 24 hour urine, resting and chewing stimulated saliva were analyzed for mercury using the ASS-technique. Quality, number, surfaces and total area of amalgam fillings were recorded clinically and using study models. Median (range) mercury levels in serum were 0.67 (0.1-1.52) microgram/l for patients and 0.60 (0.1-1.3) for controls. In urine levels were found to be 0.77 (0.11-5.16) and 0.94 (0.17-3.01) microgram/g creatinine respectively. No significant differences were found between the groups. Resting saliva contained 2.97 (0.10-45.46) micrograms/l in patients and 3.69 (0.34-55.41) in controls (not significant). Chewing mobilized an additional amount of 16.78 (-6.97 to 149.78) micrograms/l in patients and 49.49 (-1.36 to 504.63) in controls (P < or = 0.01). Only a weak correlation was found between mobilized mercury in saliva and serum (r = 0.27; P < or = 0.05) or urine (r = 0.47; P < or = 0.001). For resting saliva the respective values were r = 0.45 (P < or = 0.001) and r = 0.60 (P < or = 0.001). Saliva testing is not an appropriate measure for estimating the mercury burden derived from dental amalgam.
Clin Oral Investig 2000 Dec;4(4):206-11