>>> A young dentist (I was helping with his child so there was no dentist-client relationship and no monetary incentive for him to tell me) shared with me that he thinks the studies on amalgam fillings were flawed. The reason why he felt they were flawed is that they were done using sheep. Sheep use their teeth to grind cud (grass). Their teeth are continuously growing and in 6 months the fillings were completely out of the sheep's teeth because the teeth had grown so much.<<<
I have reduced my Lugol's daily amount until I do some more research because of my fillings since iodine and mercury are both so reactive. Mercury reacts with iodine to form a compound MercuryIodide (sp?). It's good to hear people in this thread are not having any reactions, but I think the dentist who talked to you was deceived. The review below seems more logical to me.
by Russell Blaylock, M.D
...Now let’s look at some of the deceptive tactics these studies use.
Control the Information
As stated, the literature review was limited between January 1, 1996 and December 2003. Immediately, one has to ask the most obvious question: Why were the dates of the literature limited?
In fact, a number of very important studies concerning the immunological, as well as other addressed, effects of mercury appeared just before the beginning date. For example, Queiroz and Perlingeiro published a study in 1994 on the immunologic effects of inorganic mercury (the same kind found in dental amalgam) in workers exposed to mercury. 1 At least a half-dozen similar studies on both animals and humans were eliminated by this date-limitation method.
Similarly, a significant number of studies were excluded that concerned the effects of mercury on the brain. This was not only done by using an exclusionary dating limit, but also by severely restricting the types of studies that would be accepted. Out of some 961 studies found within these dates, more than two-thirds were excluded.
Dr. Boyd Halley’s studies were excluded, even though he has conducted some of the most important research on the biochemical effects of inorganic mercury, specifically from dental amalgams. His results have never been refuted.
In addition, Dr. Halley has proven, beyond any challenge, that mercury vapor is released from dental amalgam fillings in large concentrations, even in fillings more than 20 years old. Also, he has proven that mercury -- even in very low-concentrations -- can produce the very same pathological change seen in Alzheimer’s disease (neurofibrillary tangles). 2
It is interesting the “expert panel” excluded studies on organic mercury, citing the difference in toxicokinetics as the reason. They point out that they failed to find quantifiable amounts of inorganic mercury being converted to methylmercury in the body, which is strange since Charleston and Body reported the conversion of methylmercury to inorganic mercury within the brain’s microglial cells. 3 This study was reported in the 1996 issue of Neurotoxicology, an issue that should have been included in the study’s time frame.
What this means: Inorganic mercury can produce the very same damage in brain cells as methylmercury, which totally refutes their assertion. Likewise, other studies have shown (in 1995) that a portion of the inorganic mercury in dental amalgam is converted into methylmercury in the tissues of the mouth.
Another tactic was to exclude all studies in which mercury body burdens were measured by means other than urine mercury levels, This excluded all studies using saliva, hair and nail clippings, all of which have shown to be reliable. By doing so, they were able to exclude a major smoking gun. That is, research showing a baby’s hair mercury level correlated with the number of dental amalgam fillings in the mother...
-------------end of quote---------------