Long Awaited PROOF of the effects of MERCURY!!

Rich wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote in message
...
http://www.tv2world.com/programmes/show/109

Mercury Girls

They mixed mercury with their bare hands. They spilled it on the floor.
They heated it over open fire. This was the daily routine for 10.000
Norwegian dental-assistants until the mid -80`s.
Nobody told them it was dangerous. The authorities assumed the mercury
levels were low. Today many of the women are ill, and unable to work. They
have classical symptoms of neurological damage caused by mercury but never
the less the health care system treats them as mentally ill.
This is the unknown story of the dental-assistants, and the children they
gave birth to after handling mercury every day.
The Norwegian government has initiated a research-project based on these
documentaries
Release year: 2006
http://www.tv2world.com/programmes/show/110

Mercury Children

They are born with birth defects. Some get depressions and unexplainable
pain in their bodies
Others tell a story of severe learning-difficulties. The doctors have not
been able to tell them why they are ill.
But they have one thing in common. Their mothers worked as dental nurses
during their pregnancies. They were daily exposed to extremely high levels
of mercury.
It is a scientific fact that mercury is transported from mother to foetus.
This documentary is based on the story of 400 dental nurses. These women
phoned the journalists after the documentary "The mercury girls" was sent
in Norway. The women talked about their children, and the journalists
discovered a pattern. The data was discussed with scientists at the
University of Bergen, which confirmed that this was concerning and new
information.
A fresh study of dental nurses in New Zealand shows the same tendency. The
children are ill, and in addition, 25 % of the dental-assistants have had
a hysterectomy, caused by severe bleedings.

See Michael Bender's slides on the Mercury Girls and Mercury Children on
the FDA website. This was part of the presentation on mercury at the FDA
hearings on dental amalgam on Sept 6th and 7th.
Release year: 2006

Director: Kjersti Knudssøn

Running length: 29

Production company: NRK

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/...-4218s2-04.pdf

Neurotoxic Effects of Mercury in Dental Nurses in Norway

I have just posted an incomplete version of what happened at the FDA
meetings in September.
http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/FDA%2...am_safety.html

Marie Flowers
www.MercuryPoisoned.com

God Bless this dear lady.


So what? Nobody has ever denied here that mercury is toxic. But these
examples involve thaousands of times the doses one could get from amalgams
in their teeth, and hundreds of thousands of times the doses one could get
from a lifetime of vaccinations. You've been told before, and I know you
prefer to ignore or deny it, that THE DOSE IS THE POISON!

This is a gross oversimplification based on an antiquated postulate put
forth by Paracelsus nearly 500 hundred years ago. He said every
substance is a poison and that the right dose differentiates a chemical
into either a poison or a remedy. Please do tell us when mercury,
lead, nicotine, dioxin, or benzene, or other chemicals like them
constitute a remedy? There are thousands of substances that Paracelsus
never knew existed (or could exist) that are not remedial in human
health, regardless of the "dose." The good doctor was not exactly
ahead of his time (or if he was, we can't seriously use his limited
scope of knowledge in 1567 to discuss public health today.) Your
position is counter to the latest biochemical forensics showing
degradation in normal metabolic function even in the presence of the
most minute quantities of chemicals not also identified as a nutrient
(whether required or not.) You also don't address the issue of the
accumulation and storage of mercury in tissue over time, sensitivity of
the species based on stage of develoment, the differences between
inorganic and organic forms, or cumulative risk from multiple source
exposure.

PeterB

PeterB wrote:

Rich wrote:

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
om...

http://www.tv2world.com/programmes/show/109

Mercury Girls

They mixed mercury with their bare hands. They spilled it on the floor.
They heated it over open fire. This was the daily routine for 10.000
Norwegian dental-assistants until the mid -80`s.
Nobody told them it was dangerous. The authorities assumed the mercury
levels were low. Today many of the women are ill, and unable to work. They
have classical symptoms of neurological damage caused by mercury but never
the less the health care system treats them as mentally ill.
This is the unknown story of the dental-assistants, and the children they
gave birth to after handling mercury every day.
The Norwegian government has initiated a research-project based on these
documentaries
Release year: 2006
http://www.tv2world.com/programmes/show/110

Mercury Children

They are born with birth defects. Some get depressions and unexplainable
pain in their bodies
Others tell a story of severe learning-difficulties. The doctors have not
been able to tell them why they are ill.
But they have one thing in common. Their mothers worked as dental nurses
during their pregnancies. They were daily exposed to extremely high levels
of mercury.
It is a scientific fact that mercury is transported from mother to foetus.
This documentary is based on the story of 400 dental nurses. These women
phoned the journalists after the documentary "The mercury girls" was sent
in Norway. The women talked about their children, and the journalists
discovered a pattern. The data was discussed with scientists at the
University of Bergen, which confirmed that this was concerning and new
information.
A fresh study of dental nurses in New Zealand shows the same tendency. The
children are ill, and in addition, 25 % of the dental-assistants have had
a hysterectomy, caused by severe bleedings.

See Michael Bender's slides on the Mercury Girls and Mercury Children on
the FDA website. This was part of the presentation on mercury at the FDA
hearings on dental amalgam on Sept 6th and 7th.
Release year: 2006

Director: Kjersti Knudssøn

Running length: 29

Production company: NRK

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/...-4218s2-04.pdf

Neurotoxic Effects of Mercury in Dental Nurses in Norway

I have just posted an incomplete version of what happened at the FDA
meetings in September.
http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/FDA%2...am_safety.html

Marie Flowers
www.MercuryPoisoned.com

God Bless this dear lady.


So what? Nobody has ever denied here that mercury is toxic. But these
examples involve thaousands of times the doses one could get from amalgams
in their teeth, and hundreds of thousands of times the doses one could get
from a lifetime of vaccinations. You've been told before, and I know you
prefer to ignore or deny it, that THE DOSE IS THE POISON!


This is a gross oversimplification based on an antiquated postulate put
forth by Paracelsus nearly 500 hundred years ago. He said every
substance is a poison and that the right dose differentiates a chemical
into either a poison or a remedy. Please do tell us when mercury,
lead, nicotine, dioxin, or benzene, or other chemicals like them
constitute a remedy?

You clearly missed Peter Bowditch's post in which he copied a part from
the Homeopathic Pharmacopia he has which quite clearly says that mercury
is a remedy for everything except hangnail. Oh, and nicotine comes from
a plant which makes it all natural. According to many alternuts, this
means it's good for you by definition.

There are thousands of substances that Paracelsus
never knew existed (or could exist) that are not remedial in human
health, regardless of the "dose."

Are you claiming that there are substances that are safe in any dose? Or
are you just defending that postulate...

The good doctor was not exactly
ahead of his time (or if he was, we can't seriously use his limited
scope of knowledge in 1567 to discuss public health today.) Your
position is counter to the latest biochemical forensics showing
degradation in normal metabolic function even in the presence of the
most minute quantities of chemicals not also identified as a nutrient
(whether required or not.) You also don't address the issue of the
accumulation and storage of mercury in tissue over time, sensitivity of
the species based on stage of develoment, the differences between
inorganic and organic forms, or cumulative risk from multiple source
exposure.

PeterB

"JohnDoe" wrote

"alternuts"

this signifies 100% pharma brainwashed

JOHN wrote:
"JohnDoe" wrote

"alternuts"

this signifies 100% pharma brainwashed

And I thought pharma wasn't good for anything. Apparently I was wrong,
you can brainwash with pharmaceuticals, even for 100%. How's that for
efficacy!

JohnDoe wrote:
PeterB wrote:

Rich wrote:

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
om...

http://www.tv2world.com/programmes/show/109

Mercury Girls

They mixed mercury with their bare hands. They spilled it on the floor.
They heated it over open fire. This was the daily routine for 10.000
Norwegian dental-assistants until the mid -80`s.
Nobody told them it was dangerous. The authorities assumed the mercury
levels were low. Today many of the women are ill, and unable to work. They
have classical symptoms of neurological damage caused by mercury but never
the less the health care system treats them as mentally ill.
This is the unknown story of the dental-assistants, and the children they
gave birth to after handling mercury every day.
The Norwegian government has initiated a research-project based on these
documentaries
Release year: 2006
http://www.tv2world.com/programmes/show/110

Mercury Children

They are born with birth defects. Some get depressions and unexplainable
pain in their bodies
Others tell a story of severe learning-difficulties. The doctors have not
been able to tell them why they are ill.
But they have one thing in common. Their mothers worked as dental nurses
during their pregnancies. They were daily exposed to extremely high levels
of mercury.
It is a scientific fact that mercury is transported from mother to foetus.
This documentary is based on the story of 400 dental nurses. These women
phoned the journalists after the documentary "The mercury girls" was sent
in Norway. The women talked about their children, and the journalists
discovered a pattern. The data was discussed with scientists at the
University of Bergen, which confirmed that this was concerning and new
information.
A fresh study of dental nurses in New Zealand shows the same tendency. The
children are ill, and in addition, 25 % of the dental-assistants have had
a hysterectomy, caused by severe bleedings.

See Michael Bender's slides on the Mercury Girls and Mercury Children on
the FDA website. This was part of the presentation on mercury at the FDA
hearings on dental amalgam on Sept 6th and 7th.
Release year: 2006

Director: Kjersti Knudssøn

Running length: 29

Production company: NRK

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/...-4218s2-04.pdf

Neurotoxic Effects of Mercury in Dental Nurses in Norway

I have just posted an incomplete version of what happened at the FDA
meetings in September.
http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/FDA%2...am_safety.html

Marie Flowers
www.MercuryPoisoned.com

God Bless this dear lady.


So what? Nobody has ever denied here that mercury is toxic. But these
examples involve thaousands of times the doses one could get from amalgams
in their teeth, and hundreds of thousands of times the doses one could get
from a lifetime of vaccinations. You've been told before, and I know you
prefer to ignore or deny it, that THE DOSE IS THE POISON!


This is a gross oversimplification based on an antiquated postulate put
forth by Paracelsus nearly 500 hundred years ago. He said every
substance is a poison and that the right dose differentiates a chemical
into either a poison or a remedy. Please do tell us when mercury,
lead, nicotine, dioxin, or benzene, or other chemicals like them
constitute a remedy?

You clearly missed Peter Bowditch's post in which he copied a part from
the Homeopathic Pharmacopia he has which quite clearly says that mercury
is a remedy for everything except hangnail.

Thanks for the claptrap from Bowditch, but I'll pass.

Oh, and nicotine comes from
a plant which makes it all natural. According to many alternuts, this
means it's good for you by definition.

If that's what you are hearing, explain to them that only nutrients are
good for you (by definition.) Can you do that without injuring
yourself?

There are thousands of substances that Paracelsus
never knew existed (or could exist) that are not remedial in human
health, regardless of the "dose."

Are you claiming that there are substances that are safe in any dose? Or
are you just defending that postulate...

Any chemical not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous at any dose.
The degree of harm does not tell us that something is poisonous, it
tells us how poisonous it is. Similarly, your ignorance is not proven
by the degree of stupidity you display in any given post, but by your
motive in remaining stupid.

The good doctor was not exactly
ahead of his time (or if he was, we can't seriously use his limited
scope of knowledge in 1567 to discuss public health today.) Your
position is counter to the latest biochemical forensics showing
degradation in normal metabolic function even in the presence of the
most minute quantities of chemicals not also identified as a nutrient
(whether required or not.) You also don't address the issue of the
accumulation and storage of mercury in tissue over time, sensitivity of
the species based on stage of develoment, the differences between
inorganic and organic forms, or cumulative risk from multiple source
exposure.

PeterB

PeterB wrote:

Any chemical not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous at any dose.

I am a bit confused. Is insoluble dietary fiber, which is not
absorbed, poisonous at any dose? I thought eating fiber is good for
us. Surely, fiber is made of chemicals.

BobB

wrote:
PeterB wrote:

Any chemical not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous at any dose.

I am a bit confused. Is insoluble dietary fiber, which is not
absorbed, poisonous at any dose? I thought eating fiber is good for
us. Surely, fiber is made of chemicals.

BobB

Since fiber cannot be digested (or metabolized) it isn't functionally a
nutrient. All nutrients support homeostasis directly. The statement
that "any chemical not metabolized as a NUTRIENT..." is conditional on
both. Any substance that cannot enter the bloodstream is inert.

PeterB

PeterB wrote:
wrote:
PeterB wrote:

Any chemical not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous at any dose.

I am a bit confused. Is insoluble dietary fiber, which is not
absorbed, poisonous at any dose? I thought eating fiber is good for
us. Surely, fiber is made of chemicals.

BobB

Since fiber cannot be digested (or metabolized) it isn't functionally a
nutrient. All nutrients support homeostasis directly. The statement
that "any chemical not metabolized as a NUTRIENT..." is conditional on
both. Any substance that cannot enter the bloodstream is inert.

PeterB

Now I am even more confused. Since you were only talking about
nutrients not chemicals, the sentence comes down to:
"Any nutrient (was chemical) not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous
at any dose."
The second "nutrient" refers to the classic definition of nutrient
(something of benefit to the body). However, the first "nutrient"
applies to any chemical that can be absorbed into the bloodstream.

There are also nutrients that in too high a dose are bad for you: some
of the vitamins, iron, chromium, etc.

Also, there are a number of substances that are not absorbed by the gut
into the blood stream that are not inert. Fiber is far from inert and
is quite beneficial. Some fibers (fermentable fiber) actually do get
metabolized by gut bacteria. You are defining words in a very
different way than I have seen them used before.

BobB

JOHN wrote:
"JohnDoe" wrote

"alternuts"

this signifies 100% pharma brainwashed

Don't worry, John, you cannot be brainwashed if you have nothing to wash.

wrote:
PeterB wrote:
wrote:
PeterB wrote:

Any chemical not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous at any dose.

I am a bit confused. Is insoluble dietary fiber, which is not
absorbed, poisonous at any dose? I thought eating fiber is good for
us. Surely, fiber is made of chemicals.

BobB

Since fiber cannot be digested (or metabolized) it isn't functionally a
nutrient. All nutrients support homeostasis directly. The statement
that "any chemical not metabolized as a NUTRIENT..." is conditional on
both. Any substance that cannot enter the bloodstream is inert.

PeterB

Now I am even more confused. Since you were only talking about
nutrients not chemicals, the sentence comes down to:
"Any nutrient (was chemical) not metabolized as a nutrient is poisonous
at any dose."

Yes, you are confused. Nutrients are chemicals. The sentence should
remain as I wrote it: "Any chemical not metabolized as a NUTRIENT is
poisonous at any dose." You are making this more difficult than it
needs to be.

The second "nutrient" refers to the classic definition of nutrient
(something of benefit to the body). However, the first "nutrient"
applies to any chemical that can be absorbed into the bloodstream.

Very wrong, even worse than before. Try this:

1. Any substance that cannot enter the bloodstream is neither a poison
or a nutrient.
2. Nutrients are chemicals that enter the bloodstream and support
homeostasis.
3. Poisons are chemicals that enter the bloodstream and disrupt
homeostasis.
4. Fiber (generally) is metabolically inert, as it does not digest.

There are also nutrients that in too high a dose are bad for you: some
of the vitamins, iron, chromium, etc.

Chemicals that are not nutrients and enter the bloodstream are
disruptive to metabolic function in even minute amounts, however.
Nutrients, by contrast, are metabolized beneficially in a wide
variation of intake every day of your life.

Also, there are a number of substances that are not absorbed by the gut
into the blood stream that are not inert. Fiber is far from inert and
is quite beneficial.

It is chemically, not mechanically, inert.

Some fibers (fermentable fiber) actually do get
metabolized by gut bacteria. You are defining words in a very
different way than I have seen them used before.

Feel free to list your definitions and reference them. I am here to
learn if you can teach.

PeterB