Dr. Huggins

In 1995, I attended a conference in Colorado Springs where I heard a
lecture by Dr. Hal Huggins. At the time he was a practicing dentist
who had come to the conclusion that mercury was just as toxic in your
mouth as elsewhere. He had done a pilot study with a few patients
with some bad disease (MS?) where he examined spinal fluid before and
after amalgam removal, and found significant improvement after
removal. I heard him speak again the next year, and as I recall the
story, some representatives from the American Dental Association had
infiltrated the first meeting, discovered that Huggins had deviated
from the party line, and pulled his license for it. So much for the
scientific search for Truth!

My recollection of his suggestions is as follows:

1. Amalgams should be removed by a knowledgeable and sympathetic
dentist.

2. There are several types of replacement materials, none
mechanically as good as the amalgams, and all reacting with certain
sensitive individuals. The dentist needs to check to determine which
type the individual is most tolerant of.

I did not want to drive 480 miles one way to dental appointments for
Dr. Huggins to do the work, and he was unable to recommend any local
dentist. I therefore opted for attrition. When a filling needed to be
repaired, I insisted that it be white. When a tooth with an amalgam
developed a major problem (crack or abcess) I had it pulled, rather
than doing a root canal or other heroic effort. Over half the mercury
load in my mouth is now gone with this process. And I think that my
symptoms that are consistent with heavy metal poisoning are better.

I do not want to compromise my dentist's livelihood, so I do not
engage him in debate on this issue. He says the filling/tooth is bad.
I say make it white or pull it. He says Yes Sir and does it. I do not
explain my position and he does not comment on my wisdom or lack
thereof. No statements are made that would be incriminating before a
ADA review board. Sometimes "Don't ask, don't tell" is good strategy.

A bad tooth can have strange effects on the body. I evidently bit
down too hard on a popcorn kernel and cracked a molar vertically top
to bottom. It took about two years before the discomfort got bad
enough to see the dentist, and before he could find the problem.
(Cracks can be hard to see.) He pulled it and within a couple of days
a problem with my gut had cleared up, that in hindsight had existed
for the entire two years. Pardon the technical medical jargon, but
the problem was sticky poop. Bowel function was distinctly worse for
that two year period than for any other period in my 68 years, and
was not helped by fiber, etc. Who would have thought that a cracked
tooth would have such a strange effect?

We need to have our amalgams removed, but a too-rapid removal can be
a disaster, as a number of reports in the Swedish book Black on White
indicate. If in doubt, go slow.

Gary

I'm curious, my wife is about to get a couple of gold fillings to
replace some failing white composite fillings. There is a lot of
talk here about mercury/silver fillings, but am I correct that gold
doesn't carry the same risks?

if she has amalgams in her mouth as well gold fillings from what i have
read are not a good idea.
pete
On 5 Apr 2007, at 16:04, Garth Hitchens wrote:

> I'm curious, my wife is about to get a couple of gold fillings to
> replace some failing white composite fillings. There is a lot of
> talk here about mercury/silver fillings, but am I correct that gold
> doesn't carry the same risks?
>
>
>  
>  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Are they 100% gold fillings?
Even though gold has very low reactive properties chemically, it is an
especially good conductor of electricity.
Any other metals in the mouth will be released via the electrical
current.
I think that energetic channels in the body that connect to organs,
etc., will be effected by the electrical current.
my non professional 2 cents,
Andrew
On Apr 5, 2007, at 11:04 AM, Garth Hitchens wrote:

> I'm curious, my wife is about to get a couple of gold fillings to
> replace some failing white composite fillings. There is a lot of
> talk here about mercury/silver fillings, but am I correct that gold
> doesn't carry the same risks?

If one is electrically sensitive, then all metal dental materials
are bad, including gold.

If one has mercury amalgam fillings in your mouth, adding gold
is bad because it will greatly accelerate the corrosion rate
of the mercury into the body. This is because the combination
of the gold, mercury, and saliva essentially creates a "battery"
in your mouth, and the mercury is the element which ends up
corroding.

Marc

> I did not want to drive 480 miles one way to dental appointments for
> Dr. Huggins to do the work, and he was unable to recommend any local
> dentist. I therefore opted for attrition.

I think one with ES should probably get their mercury fillings removed
faster than just when they need to be replaced. I had 5 fillings
removed in the course of 2 days, which in hindsight was too fast,
but I'd say one filling per month should be okay.

And you might want to check this directory to find a sympathetic
dentist:

http://mercuryfreedentists.com/

Marc

--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote:
>
> > I did not want to drive 480 miles one way to dental appointments
for
> > Dr. Huggins to do the work, and he was unable to recommend any
local
> > dentist. I therefore opted for attrition.
>
> I think one with ES should probably get their mercury fillings
removed
I think I detect a gentle correction here. Marc feels I should have
been more proactive in getting my amalgams out, or he thinks my
(implied) advice is off the mark. I will use this as an excuse to get
on my soapbox about health dogmas.

The American Dental Association operates on the dogma that mercury is
safe in your mouth. They see no need to do epidemiological studies.
Most of us in this forum have the opposite opinion: mercury is unsafe
everywhere in our environment, including our mouth. The problem comes
when we let this opinion become dogma. This can easily prevent us
from asking the right questions and finding the right strategy for
optimum health.

If mercury is unsafe in our mouth, then logically we should remove it
as soon as possible, with the expectation that our mercury poisoning
symptoms would soon start to improve. The problem is that in far too
many cases, rapid removal results in poorer health, perhaps for
months and years after the removal. We come up with ad hoc
explanations for this. "The dentist was incompetent." "The body was
not in the best condition." But the truth is that these are just
guesses, attempts to explain why our dogma failed.

It seems to me that an important function of this forum is to collect
epidemiological type data. I tried such-and-such and the results were
such-and-such. I opted for a slow removal of amalgams and my mercury
poisoning symptoms slowly got better. That is a valid data point
given our present state of knowledge. Twenty thousand similar reports
from other people getting amalgams removed at various rates, with
various conditions, analyzed by a good statistician with a big
computer, and we could speak with authority about the risk/benefit
ratios of amalgam removal all-at-once, one-per-month, or by
attrition. Until then, a specific removal strategy is dogma, not
science.

By the way, I looked at the web site for mercury free dentists, and
there were two for the state of Kansas, with the closest one being
120 miles away. I suspect that this is a larger number than when I
heard Dr. Huggins 12 years ago.

Gary
>