back to Science (directory)
From the international Amalgam Mailing list : 21 - 04 - '97 We should use the >analogy with allergies and try to find people who are extremely sensitive. >This could of course be done by advertising for volunteers. It should be >possible to test those people objectively and individually, and I think the >very fact that this is done, and the results of such tests, will open the >eyes of many sceptics who have been seduced by those urban legends about >psychosomatic mechanisms. Something like what Per ask for seems to have been done. At the dental office of Rolf Stromberg, with Sven Langworth as scientific advisor, an experiment with inhaling low doses of mercury vapour was carried out some years ago. It is not published anywhere, but it is reported. Very recently I recieved two different reports on this research. One has the title: ACCOUNTING FOR R & D SUPPORTED RESEARCH REGARDING SENSITIVITY FOR MERCURY. [my translation] Accompished by Rolf Stromberg, assistant: Kerstin Eriksson, advisor: Dr. Sven Langworth. This one seems to be what is delivered. The other look more like a draft for an article intended for publication. Authors: Rolf Stromberg, Sven Langworth, Erik Soderman. Title: MERCURY PROVOCATIONS WITH PERSONS SUSPECTED "BEEING ILL FROM AMALGAM". [my translation] The abstracts differ, so I give both. Abstract from ACCOUNTING FOR R & D SUPPORTED RESEARCH REGARDING SENSITIVITY FOR MERCURY. (my translation): The query in this investigation was primarily if there are individuals who are so sensitive for mercury that they could be expected to get ill from the small amounts of exposure from this heavy metal originating from their amalgam fillings. To test this 32 volunteers, all patients suspecting themselves being ill from amalgam, were asked to inhale mercury vapour at at least three occasions. The highest dose was about the same amount which will be inhaled when drilling away a couple of large amalgam fillings with no protective measures. As control the patients inhaled clean air the same number of times and in similar conditions. The order in which the inhalations appeared was random and unknown for experimental leader and patient. The study was "double blind". Of the 32 patients 1 had a reaction all occasions she inhaled mercury vapour, but no reaction when inhaling clean air. Most probably this person is extremely sensitive to mercury. The other patients reacted unspecifically or not at all to the provocations. ---end of abstract Abstract from MERCURY PROVOCATIONS WITH PERSONS SUSPECTED "BEEING ILL FROM AMALGAM". (my translation): To test if "alleged amalgam illness" is caused by increased sensitivity for mercury, 40 volunteers, who themselves suspected they were "ill from amalgam", inhaled small doses of mercury vapour and clean air respectively in random order. The doses were administered double blindly and were calculated on the amounts vaporizing from amalgam fillings under different conditions. After the provocations the volunteers gave their estimations of reaction to what was inhaled. They also estimated their daily intensity variations from their different symptoms. A significant number of reactions after inhaling mercury, as well as significantly increased intensity from symptoms were supposed to demonstrate increased mercury sensitivity. The group as a whole reacted more often after mercury challenge, than after clean air challenge. It can not be ruled out that this is a result at random, (p<0.11). However, two individuals reacted significantly more often for mercury than for clean air, (p<0.05 and p<0.03). ---end of abstract There is a lot to say about this investigation, but I won't say much, other than point to the the one patient reacting 100% correctly, which when put into the model turns to a value of p opening up for thoughts on what 100% is. Would it still be 100% after 100 tests? Also the second abstract states 2/40 reacting significantly more often to mercury. Maybe interesting for thinking about how to raise a population for research likely to include a sufficient number of possible amalgam victims. It should be noted that rather recently Rolf Stromberg and Sven Langworth published a case report of one patient with high U-Hg who regained health after amalgam removal, and the effect persisted, so it was probably not a placebo effect, actually stated in the article, but not in the abstract. Authors: Langworth S, Stromberg R Title: A Case of High Mercury exposure from Dental Amalgam. Source: European Journal of Oral Sciences. Jun 1996; 104 (3) : 320-321. ISSN: 0909-8836 Abstract: This report describes a patient who suffered from several complaints, which by herself were attributed to her amalgam fillings. Analysis of mercury in plasma and urine showed unexpectedly high concentrations, 63 and 223 nmol/l, respectively. Following removal of the amalgam fillings, the urinary excretion of mercury became gradually normalized, and her symptoms declined. ---end of abstract A month ago Rolf Stromberg announced in the local press that 80% of his patients improved in health after amalgam removal. Sven Langworth was head of the special Amalgam clinic at Huddinge hospital reporting on about 200 referred patients suspected of being ill from amalgam in 1995, not finding one that was, referring most to psychotherapy in order to correct their false beliefs. Also Sven Langworth was member of the Expert Committee stating that science don't support that amalgam fillings pose a risk for patients. One conclusion from this committee is really worth consideration: "These accounts makes the opinion even stronger that there is no cause-effect relationship between amalgam fillings and public health." The accounts referred to are represented this way: "In the material assessed by the Expert group are different follow-up studies of large patient groups. >From these it follows that many patients, sometimes the majority, have their symptoms and problems left also after amalgam removal." (my translations from [Do you get ill from amalgam?], SoS-rapport 1994:21, Socialstyrelsen. ISBN 91-38-11407-0). It seems that Langworth has met another reality and have a story to tell that goes beyond a single case, also more compliant with the follow-up studies mostly showing a majority of patients improving after amalgam removal. It would be nice if he told the story in such a way that what is real for patients could form ground for research and expert conclusions and so replace researchers' and experts' preformed prejudice on what could be the case or not. I think that what Per points to opens the door for another kind of communications "across the borders". If this does not happen new victims will be produced, the victims there are will continue to suffer from the same situation as now. My interest is changing this. What Per says does not rule out what Ray says is a cause for things being the way they are. What Ray says excludes words of language with a potential for shaping bridges. Per's notions are not definite, they line out a problem in need of solution. The terms coming out from such a work are not settled. Why abort the tools of description? Note: I don't like the word "sensitivity", and I have given reasons for this early in the discussion, still I don't let my feelings about terms darken the vision. The problem is solved when this list is closed because amalgam is out. This should be the goal. Or? Cheers Bosse e-mail: bosse@vest.gu.se Top |