I have indicated in my bio/"CV" how the words of Tuthill 1899, "Makes a mental wreck of its victim" applied very much to myself. You will of course wonder in that case why there are not millions of people who have been made mental wrecks by dental treatment. Well, for starters, huge numbers have indeed been thus wrecked, but the system covers them up and shoos them away till they go mad and or actually die and the involvement of dentistry in their deaths never gets a word in. You can see some victims' videos on youtube. I myself have only survived so long because I learnt about measures that incidentally counteracted the toxin.
But it is still clear that many people have several amalgams and do not become a mental wreck as a result. Part of this may be down to the behaviour of the dentist. If a dentist drills or polishes your amalgam without enough suction and you then breathe in amalgam dust, that amalgam dust remains in your lungs for many months/years causing a very high intake of mercury vapor straight into the bloodstream. I suspect that that is what caused my own stark decline into disability.
Then there is a second consideration, namely individual differences. Given that antiinnatia is generally good for health, producing high IQ among other things, and given that mercury vapour is now a proven antiinnatia factor (see my coming update), then it will be generally advantageous to have only limited outputting of the mercury. One of the things that would enable ultra-high IQ (such as I myself had) would be genes reducing the removal of mercury. Such a person would then be more vulnerable to dental mercury toxicity.
A third consideration is that initially an individual has some inborn detox capacity, in terms of reduced glutathione for instance; and this enables resistance to mercury toxicity. But after a certain excess of exposure this inborn detox becomes broken down and non-functional. There's some reason to believe this happens in many autistic cases.
Professor David Nutt and the corporate corruption agenda
I'm not usually very enthusiastic about professors, given that so often the word seems to be a synonym for liar.
However, in the case of the drugs advisor Professor David Nutt, his offence is the standard one of telling the truth, the one offence no decent member of the establishment is allowed to commit.
Why can't the government be honest about cannabis? That's because they always go along with the corrupt big money. For thousands of years, hemp was a most important locally-grown crop used for many purposes. But then the globalised big business of the cotton trade and tobacco trade developed. You can't grow cotton in the UK, just as you can't grow tobacco here either.
So it was the cotton trade and tobacco trade that decided to tell lies about cannabis in order to close down the localised hemp production and give themselves a monopoly.
Gordon Brown has lost confidence in Prof Nutt? I for one long ago lost confidence in the Downing Street crooks.
However, in the case of the drugs advisor Professor David Nutt, his offence is the standard one of telling the truth, the one offence no decent member of the establishment is allowed to commit.
Why can't the government be honest about cannabis? That's because they always go along with the corrupt big money. For thousands of years, hemp was a most important locally-grown crop used for many purposes. But then the globalised big business of the cotton trade and tobacco trade developed. You can't grow cotton in the UK, just as you can't grow tobacco here either.
So it was the cotton trade and tobacco trade that decided to tell lies about cannabis in order to close down the localised hemp production and give themselves a monopoly.
Gordon Brown has lost confidence in Prof Nutt? I for one long ago lost confidence in the Downing Street crooks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)