Signs that it’s time to fire your doctor:

> They are verbally abusive. Seniors in particular are more likely to put up with this behavior as they come from a generation in which doctors were regarded as virtual demi-gods. Any patient experiencing verbal abuse should also report the doctor to the College of Physicians & Surgeons.

> They are condescending or belittle your concerns. Getting the verbal equivalent of a pat on the head and/or a condescending attitude when you’re voicing legitimate concerns is unacceptable.

> They threaten to stop seeing you if you don’t comply. If your doctor conducts their practice like a dictatorship and demands all-or-nothing compliance, maybe it’s time to move on to a more democratic situation.

> They refuse to order basic tests that are warranted. Common tests such as food allergy, pregnancy and thyroid function are some of the most frequently ordered and requests for them shouldn’t be met with resistance.  However, some doctors won’t order tests that are requested by the patient because they feel that their authority is being undermined and the patient is encroaching on their role.

> They make inappropriate comments about your physical or mental state that are unrelated to your health issue. This is an obvious indicator that the “professional” in “health professional” is sorely lacking and can be a sign that they’re bringing their personal issues into the exam room.

> They show hostility or a lack of respect for your health choices. You have a right to get a second opinion if you so choose and to use whatever healing approach you feel is right for you without harassment or disrespectful comments.

> They become irritable when you ask questions. If your doctor’s exam room has a sign reading “limit your questions to 2 per visit”, as some now do, this is probably a good indicator that they’re not interested in a lot of dialogue with their patients.

> They’re always cold and don’t make eye contact. No one expects their doctor to act like their best friend, but at the very least they should conduct themselves in a cordial manner. You wouldn’t put up with cold, unfriendly behavior from your friends and family, so why would you tolerate it from your doctor?

> Their knowledge is obviously not up to date. General practitioners aren’t obligated to read the latest medical journals and are required to fulfill only a small number of upgrading hours per year. Some doctors are essentially practicing with 20 year old information.

> ANY behavior which feels wrong or inappropriate on a gut level. Our “gut feeling” is our built-in survival mechanism that protects us from potentially harmful situations – don’t ignore it.

This amazing movie is in theaters now. Let’s all help spread the word & support the filmmakers by going to see it & telling everyone you know about it!

The pH scale ranges from pH 0 (extremely acidic e.g. battery acid) to pH 14 (extremely alkaline e.g. household lye), with the pH of human blood falling just above neutral at 7.4.  To maintain health & function optimally, our blood must stay within the pH 7.0 to 7.4 range; slightly alkaline.  In fact, maintaining proper blood pH is so critical that the body will pull minerals and nutrients from our bones and tissues to buffer acidity and preserve acid-base homeostasis; in other words, to keep our blood in the alkaline zone.  The term ‘acidosis’ is used to describe the condition of having a consistently acidic pH and is more common that most people realize.  Acidosis alters our body terrain and sets us up for numerous health issues including increased susceptibility to viral and bacterial infections, accelerated aging, osteoporosis, obesity and cancer, to name but a few.

Our pH is largely determined by 3 factors: diet, stress and oxygen intake.  We can maintain a healthy pH if we eat an alkalizing diet, do our best to manage stress and incorporate some form of regular physical activity into our life. We can test the pH of our blood, saliva or urine using pH test strips which are sold at most health food and natural medicine stores; they quickly indicate if we’re in the alkaline or acid zone. If our pH consistently registers below 7.0 then we know we need to make diet and lifestyle adjustments to maintain our health.  Adjusting our diet to include more alkalizing foods is by far the quickest and easiest way to change our pH with the recommended ratio being 75% alkalizing foods to 25% acidifying foods.  However, there are common misconceptions about acid & alkaline foods with the most prevalent being that citrus fruit is acidifying to the body whereas it’s actually alkalizing.  A food’s acidity or alkalinity is not determined by its pH when it’s sitting on our plate, but by the pH of the metabolic byproduct or the “ash” that remains after it’s been digested and absorbed by the body.  One of the best acid and alkaline food charts originally appeared in Sam Graci and Harvey Diamond’s book The Power of Superfoods and can also be found by clicking here.  It clearly and accurately indicates which side of the acid-alkaline fence the most common foods, beverages, sweeteners and seasonings fall on.  Have a look, print it and post it in your kitchen for a quick reference guide; you’ll be an acid and alkaline expert in no time.

For more information on the acid – alkaline issue, check out these amazing books:

Acid and Alkaline by Herman Aihara

Alkalize or Die by Theodore A. Baroody

60% of herbicides, 90% of fungicides and 30% of insecticides that are commonly used in non-organic farming are endocrine disruptors, carcinogens and/or xenoestrogens. Non-organic farm workers have unusually high rates of multiple myeloma (a cancer of the immune system), stomach, prostate and testicular cancer. None of these chemicals are used in organic farming.

2 – Organic food contains more nutrients.

A study done by the Journal of American Nutrition revealed that organic food contains from 10-250% more vitamins and minerals than non-organic food. In 2001 the American Chemical Society reported that organic oranges contained up to 30% more vitamin C than non-organic oranges, even though they are half the size.

3 – Organic food is GMO free.

Organic certification standards prohibit the use of genetically modified organisms.

4 – Organic food tastes better.

Healthy soil + Organic seed = Healthy, organic food that naturally contains flavor-enhancing essential vitamins and minerals. Do a taste test and compare non-organic carrots to organic carrots. Organic carrots taste like they were just pulled from the garden and non-organic carrots taste, well…….pretty bland.

5 – Organic farming works in harmony with nature.

Britain’s Soil Association reported that organic farms have five times as many wild plants with 57% more species, 44% more birds and twice as many butterflies as non-organic farms.

6 – Organic farming is better for the soil.

Non-organic farming techniques focus on chemical-intensive, mono-crop methods which have led to ever-increasing topsoil erosion. Organic farming techniques help to build soil on an ongoing basis thereby preventing topsoil erosion and organic soil contains up to twice as many beneficial microbes, earthworms and insects as non-organic soil.

7 – Organic farming can feed more people.

A 2002 Greenpeace report showed that organic farms in Ethiopia produced 3-5 times more food than non-organic farms; corn production increased by 20–250% on Brazilian organic farms and in Peru organic crop yields increased by 150%. The report noted that overall, organic farms in southern hemisphere countries showed marked increases in crop yields when compared to non-organic farms.

8 – Certified organic food carries a guarantee.

Any food product that bears an organic certification label is your guarantee that it has been grown and handled according to strict organic production standards and that absolutely no toxic chemicals have been used.

9 – Organic farming is climate-friendly.

Organic soil contains up to twice as many beneficial microbes, earthworms and insects as non-organic soil; all of which naturally store carbon. Studies have shown that organic soil stores up to 33% more carbon than non-organic soil, which directly helps in the fight against global warming.

10 – Organic food increases fertility rates.

Animal studies have consistently demonstrated that organic diets result in 30–100% increases in ovum (egg) production. On the flip side, animals that eat a non-organic diet show a decline in fertility with each successive generation. The animals in these studies are mammals. Humans are mammals. You do the math.

For more information on the wonderful world of organic food & farming, please visit:

http://www.earthfuture.com/

http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/

Check out this great video on organic food & sperm health:

http://www.5min.com/Video/How-to-Raise-Your-Sperm-Count—Organic-Food-68736809

Many traditional cultures fast for spiritual or health reasons but in our modern culture of instant gratification, the concept of fasting is a strange & unusual one so much so that conventional medicine brands it as unhealthy & even dangerous. I’m living proof that it’s not dangerous and definitely not unhealthy! On the contrary, after the initial first 3 days of mental & physical adjustment on the Master Cleanse, I felt lighter, had clearer, faster thought processes, more energy & was surprised at all the extra time that was freed up with not having to buy, prepare and eat meals & clean up afterwards. The noticeable increase in energy is the most commonly mentioned effect of the cleanse which isn’t surprising when you consider that up to 50% of our body’s energy is used in the digestive process. Many people doing it for the first time also mention their amazement when they continue to have normal-sized bowel movements throughout the cleanse. The implications of this are disturbing & thought-provoking to say the least!

If you’re considering doing the Master Cleanse and are a reasonably healthy adult, then forge ahead – your body will thank you. After completing it you’ll have a newfound respect for your now squeaky clean digestive tract and it will make you acutely aware of what you’re eating. A few caveats however:

1 – I would not recommend this or any fasting cleanse to anyone with diabetes, hypoglycemia or any blood sugar issue because of the blood glucose fluctuations which can occur on the cleanse.

2 – If you are on prescription medication I would strongly recommend getting the green light from a naturopathic doctor before you do the cleanse; better to err on the side of caution.

3 - The only shortcoming of the Master Cleanse recipe is the lack of protein which is essential for the liver to properly bind and eliminate toxins. I recommend adding spirulina, chlorella or a greens product containing one or both, to the recipe to provide an excellent source of complete, vegetarian protein.

An excellent Master Cleanse reference guide for both first timers and veterans is: The Complete Master Cleanse by Tom Woloshyn. Click HERE to check it out.

There seems to be a lot of confusion lately about plastic containers.  Which ones are safe, which ones aren’t and most importantly, which ones contain the dreaded chemical Bisphenol A (BPA)?

Here are the latest facts:

SAFE: #2 HDPE (high density polyethylene)

#4 LDPE (low density polyethylene)

#5 PP (polypropylene)

#7 PLA (polylactic acid)

They don’t contain BPA or other toxic chemicals and are best for repeated use.

SECOND BEST: #1 PET or PETE (polyethylene terephthalate).

It doesn’t contain BPA but it’s more porous and can harbour bacteria, therefore is best for single use.

AVOID: #3 PVC (polyvinyl chloride)

#6 PS (polystyrene)

#7 PC (polycarbonate)

All three contain endocrine disruptors, carcinogens and/or xenoestrogens.  #7 PC contains Bisphenol A.  Avoid using these under any circumstances.

For more information on all things plastic, check out:

http://www.thegreenguide.com/buying-guide/plastic-containers

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in Common Ground Magazine in June of 2005.

Many of us over the age of thirty will remember the Sweet’n’Low craze that seemed to reach its height in the 1970’s.  Messages were all around us about the evils of sugar: it caused cavities, made us gain weight, wreaked havoc on blood glucose levels and was simply unhealthy.  To the innocent, media-bombarded, bystander this seemed a logical enough argument and prompted millions of North Americans to jump on the artificial sweetener bandwagon.  Sweet’n’Low was the sugar substitute of the day and could be seen on restaurant tabletops everywhere; it tasted virtually the same as sugar with no unhealthy downside.  Thanks to modern science we could finally have our cake and eat it too!  Between 1903 and 2002, a handful of artificial sweeteners were introduced to the North American public, each with its own promise of low-calorie, guilt-free goodness.

Saccharin (also known as acid saccharin, sodium saccharin and calcium saccharin) led the way in the brave new world of artificial sweeteners and later become the primary ingredient in Sweet’n’Low.  It was discovered in 1879 by Constantine Fahlberg, a chemistry research assistant at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland and was used in industrial applications until 1903, when entrepreneur John F. Queeny and his newly-formed corporation Monsanto, began selling saccharin to food and beverage companies, including Coca-Cola.  Promoted as a cheap, no-calorie sweetener, saccharin was unique in that it could not be metabolized by the human body and was excreted in the urine.  It was quickly embraced in the World War I and II era by a public faced with sugar-rationing and was vehemently endorsed by US President Theodore Roosevelt who, in 1911, stated “Anybody who says saccharin is injurious to health is an idiot.”  Saccharin’s heyday lasted until 1977 when Canadian research demonstrated that high doses of saccharin caused cancer in rats.  It was immediately banned in Canada, however the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) deemed that more research was necessary and allowed it to stay on the market albeit with the frightening new warning label “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.”  The warning label was removed in 2001 with the passing of new legislation.  In addition to its carcinogenic quality, saccharin belongs to a class of compounds known as sulfonamides which can cause allergic reactions in individuals who cannot tolerate sulfa drugs.  Reactions can include skin eruptions, breathing difficulties, headaches and diarrhea.  Some infant formulas contain saccharin and can cause irritability and muscle dysfunction.  Presently saccharin is sold in the US under the names Sweet’n’Low and Sugar Twin, and in Canada as Sweet’n’Low.

Cyclamate (also known as calcium cyclamate and sodium cyclamate) which made its debut in 1950 was one of the first artificial sweeteners to be introduced to the public and was sold under the name Sucaryl.  It was discovered accidentally in 1937 by Michael Sveda, a graduate student at the University of Illinois while he was working with pharmaceutical compounds.  The patent for cyclamate was purchased by Dupont and later sold to Abbott Laboratories.  It was promoted as a no-calorie, diabetic-friendly sweetener and was combined with saccharin in the original Sweet’n’Low formula.  The late 1960’s brought disturbing evidence of bladder cancer and testicular abnormalities in laboratory rats that were fed cyclamate and shortly thereafter the cyclamate bubble burst when the United States banned it in 1969.  Later research showed that cyclamate also caused DNA damage in the digestive organs of rats and mice.  In 1978 Canada’s Minister of Health and Welfare declared a “general agreement” that cyclamates were not carcinogenic based on more sophisticated laboratory testing than was available in previous years.  At present it is sold in Canada under the name Sugar Twin.

Like an unwelcome house guest aspartame crept into the lives of the North American public in 1981 followed by strong assurances by the FDA that it had undergone detailed testing and close scrutiny.  It is sold under the names Nutrasweet, Equal and Spoonfuls.  Aspartame was created in 1965 by James Schlatter, a scientist and employee of the pharmaceutical company G.D.Searle, while working on new drug formulations.  Despite disastrous safety studies done by G.D.Searle itself and later by the FDA, aspartame was approved in 1981 with the help of G.D.Searle’s then CEO   Donald Rumsfeld who was also the Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration at the time.  In 1985 G.D.Searle sold the rights to aspartame to Monsanto, the company that has also given us Agent Orange, Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone and a wide variety of genetically modified foods.  When it first entered the market aspartame was promoted as a no-calorie sweetener that could help with weight loss, diabetes maintenance, lower the incidence of cavities and reduce the risks associated with obesity.  It was even given an enthusiastic endorsement by the American Dental Association.  Since its introduction to the public and its subsequent marketplace success as an artificial sweetener, independent research has shown that aspartame has neurotoxic and potentially deadly effects on the human body.  The most common health problems linked to aspartame include visual impairment, seizures, headaches, dizziness, high blood pressure, fibromyalgia-like muscle pain, depression, speech impairment, tinnitus and memory loss.  In 2000 European researchers demonstrated that one of the breakdown products of aspartame, formaldehyde, accumulates in the brain and other organs of regular users leading to immune, nervous system and genetic damage which consequently may result in diagnoses of multiple sclerosis, lupus, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, as well as birth defects in children of aspartame users.  In 2002 it was revealed that the original safety studies had demonstrated that another aspartame breakdown product, diketopiperazine (a known carcinogen) produced brain tumours in lab animals and was now showing up in brain tumour tissue removed from humans.  Despite such frightening and damning evidence of aspartame’s toxicity it is still approved for sale in both Canada and the US with Health Canada recently declaring it safe for use by pregnant women.  In Canada and the US it is seen on ingredient lists as aspartame, Nutrasweet and Equal, with the US also marketing it as Spoonfuls.  A combination of aspartame and acesulfame potassium has also been available since 1995 under the name Twinsweet.  And, in 2002 the latest incarnation of aspartame, neotame, was released from the laboratory after full FDA approval.

Acesulfame potassium (also known as acesulfame-K, potassium acesulfame, ace-K and ACK) appeared on the North American scene in 1988 and has been sold under the names Sunett, Sweet One, Swiss Sweet and Sweet & Safe.  It was formulated in 1967 by Karl Clauss a chemist working for the German chemical company the Hoechst Group.  Based on safety studies conducted by the Hoechst Group itself, the FDA approved the limited use of acesulfame potassium in 1988 despite protest by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) that it had not been properly tested for safety. Like its precursors saccharin and cyclamate, it is promoted as a non-nutritive sweetener meaning that it is not metabolized by the body (therefore does not yield any calories) and is excreted in the urine.  Over the following 8 years the CSPI continued to protest the inadequate safety studies originally done by the Hoechst Group revealing that some of their data suggested that the additive might cause cancer in rats.  In addition, other studies demonstrated that one of the breakdown products of acesulfame potassium, acetoacetamide, affected the thyroid gland in rats, rabbits, and dogs; rats in particular developed fast growing benign tumours when fed acetoacetamide daily. Although it is marketed as a sugar alternative, acesulfame potassium may have a similar effect to sugar in that it can stimulate insulin release and could be problematic for those with syndrome x, hypoglycemia or diabetes.  Despite the alarming evidence of questionable safety, the FDA approved acesulfame potassium for general use in 1998.  In Canada it most commonly appears on ingredient lists as acesulfame-K and in the US it is sold under the names Sunett or Sweet One.

With aspartame and acesulfame potassium’s reputations somewhat tarnished, the stage was set for the introduction of sucralose.  Sold under the name Splenda, it was approved by Health Canada in 1991 and by the FDA in 1999.  It was discovered accidentally by graduate student Shashikant Phadnis in 1976 at Queen Elizabeth College, University of London, while researching ways to use sucrose in chemical formulations.  In 1980, the British sugar company Tate & Lyle collaborated with Johnson & Johnson to create an artificial sweetener from chlorinated sucrose through the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary McNeil Specialty Products.  Despite the FDA’s conclusion, based on its own safety studies, that sucralose can cause lymphatic cell mutations in mice; it nevertheless gave full approval to the sweetener in 1999.  It is promoted by Johnson and Johnson as a calorie-free, carbohydrate-free sweetener that is safe for diabetics, children and pregnant women as it does not breakdown in the body and passes through harmlessly.  This claim however has been contradicted by both FDA and Japanese research which has shown that up to 40% of consumed sucralose is absorbed by the body, with an undetermined amount concentrating in the liver, kidneys and/or gastrointestinal tract.  Independent research on rats, mice and rabbits has demonstrated liver and kidney enlargement as well as structural irregularities of the colon.  Other animal research has revealed that sucralose can cause up to 40% shrinkage of the thymus gland, a decreased red blood cell count, reduced fetal weight and growth rate, genetic damage and birth defects.  Aside from any direct toxicity from sucralose itself, the FDA has stated that it may also contain trace amounts of heavy metals, arsenic, methanol and other chlorinated saccharides (sugars) but that these contaminants are considered acceptable within current manufacturing guidelines.  It is available in Canada and the US under the names sucralose and Splenda.

If the idea of playing Russian Roulette with your health each time you consume an artificial sweetener does not appeal to you, then consider your alternatives.  For those individuals needing a low calorie/no calorie sweetener nature provides us with several choices: the amazing no calorie, no carbohydrate stevia from the Paraguayan plant Stevia Rebaudiana which actually helps improve pancreatic function; the low calorie, cavity-fighting xylitol which is found in many foods and produced in the human body; inulin, the root sugar that promotes healthy intestinal bacteria growth and acts as a slow-release energy source; and lohan (Lo Han Kuo) the low calorie, low carbohydrate fruit sugar from southern China that does not cause extreme blood sugar fluctuations.  For those who are simply looking for a wholesome alternative to white sugar, consider using: organic rapadura or sucanat sugar, unrefined sugar cane juices that retain their naturally occurring nutrients and a wonderful, full flavour; mineral-rich organic molasses, which stimulates the release of the brain neurotransmitter serotonin; organic maple syrup (grade C) which contains vitamins and minerals; protein and B complex-rich raw, organic honey (please note that honey should not be given to children under 1 year of age); and organic grain syrups such as barley or rice which retain up to half of the original whole grain nutrients.

Despite the healthful, natural options that are available to us, they can never be patented and thus, the quest to create yet another patentable, artificial sweetener that will profit hugely from the ignorance and fear of a sugar-phobic public, will no doubt continue.  Trying to outwit Mother Nature however can be a dangerous game, and when it comes to artificial sweeteners, as the old saying goes, you pay your money and you take your chances.

Joan Ullyett BA, RHN is a Registered Holistic Nutritionist.  Please visit her website thehealthnerd.com for more information, news and online health consultation.

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in Common Ground Magazine in March of 2005.

At some point in our lives, usually starting in childhood, many of us developed cavities in our teeth that needed to be filled.  As children we naturally trusted that our parents knew best when they sent us to the dentist to have our cavities taken care of, and our parents in turn trusted that the dentist was doing what was right and necessary to maintain our dental health.  The fact that the fillings, known as mercury amalgam, were comprised of 50% mercury, a potent neurotoxin, never seemed to be an issue.  The fillings were safe, inquiring parents were told, in their amalgam state, that is combined with copper, tin and silver.  Curiously, a poison when outside our mouths, so much so that the dentist would not even touch the amalgam with his or her own gloved hands and disposed of it as hazardous waste, yet completely safe and virtually inert when in our mouths.  Or so we were told…

Mercury amalgam was introduced to North America in the early 1800’s from Europe and used for a short period of time, but relatively soon after in the 1840’s North American dentistry turned away from its use largely due to concerns about the toxic nature of mercury.  In fact, as a requirement of membership in the American Society of Dental Surgeons, members had to sign a document that stated they would not use mercury amalgam in their practice.  However, this progressive, health-oriented stance was to be short-lived.  In 1859 the organization we now know as the American Dental Association was formed and chose to endorse the use of mercury amalgam, declaring it safe for use in the human body.  This puzzling about-turn became less so when it was revealed some years later that some members of the ADA held patents on the mercury amalgam ‘recipe’.

Thus, in the last century and a half, due to the widespread acceptance and use of mercury amalgams, a massive experiment of sorts has been underway; that is, how does long term mercury exposure affect the human body?  No one has ever actually agreed to be part of this experiment, but nevertheless it continues.  In the mid 1970’s the US Federal Drug Administration (now the Food and Drug Administration) reaffirmed the safety of amalgam fillings by categorizing them as “generally recognized as safe”, largely because they had been in use for over a century.  However, this confidence in their safety was shaken when research began to surface in the 1980’s showing that mercury vapour is released from amalgam fillings each time an individual chews, drinks hot liquids or brushes amalgam filled teeth.  This disturbing evidence was given more weight when human autopsies revealed that there was a direct relationship between the mercury content in brain and kidney tissue and the mercury content in teeth.  Could our trusted childhood dentist have been wrong all these years?

Mercury poisoning or toxicity is best described as a polysymptomatic health issue; the symptoms are multiple and many can be classified as symptoms of other health problems or diseases.  This coupled with the fact that both the Canadian and American Dental Associations still refuse to state that mercury amalgams are dangerous to human health, is no doubt resulting in the misdiagnosis of many people who are actually suffering from mercury poisoning and who sadly may never actually receive appropriate treatment because of this.  Some of the most common symptoms of mercury poisoning are: fatigue, dizziness, depression, headaches, digestive problems, skin rashes, fine tremors, vision problems, hair loss, chronic yeast infections (i.e. vaginal, athlete’s foot, nail fungus, jock itch), under active thyroid, memory loss, anxiety, angry outbursts, heartbeat irregularities, multiple sclerosis and immune system disorders.  It is still unclear as to why some individuals with mercury amalgams never develop any obvious symptoms of toxicity while others may develop symptoms as early as their teens.  The most likely explanation is that some people’s bodies are simply better at excreting mercury on an ongoing basis, while others seem to reach a saturation point where they begin to exhibit symptoms.

If you are among the thousands of Canadians that have mercury amalgams and you see yourself in the above symptoms, what can you do?  Ideally, your first step is to have a hair or urine analysis done to assess your body burden of mercury; this can be done through a medical doctor however, if you encounter resistance a naturopathic doctor can assist you with this.  If you choose to have your amalgams removed and replaced with safer material (usually composite resin) it is vitally important that you have this done by a biological dentist as they will use the proper protocols to minimize your mercury exposure during the procedure.  Unlike in years past, many extended health insurance plans now cover mercury amalgam replacement making it possible for more people to recover their health.  After amalgam removal it is very important to use some form of oral or intravenous chelation therapy to help remove any mercury that may have been released into your body during the procedure.  Some biological dentists and naturopathic doctors offer intravenous chelation services or you may choose to use oral chelation which involves taking herbal and nutritional supplements that bind to mercury and allow the body to more easily excrete it.  The herb cilantro and the blue-green algae chlorella, when taken together, have shown excellent results in removing mercury from the body and are an affordable, non-invasive method of chelation.  Other helpful supplements are glutathione, the B vitamin complex, vitamin C, zinc, selenium, MSM and n-acetyl-cysteine.  The book Dental Mercury Detox by Ziff, Ziff and Hanson is a very comprehensive resource that guides the individual through all stages of mercury amalgam removal and detoxification.  Once all amalgams have been removed some symptoms of toxicity may begin to clear up in as little as 3 months however, others may take much longer. Be patient, detoxification of mercury is not an overnight process.

As natural medicine regains popularity and people become better informed about their health and how to maintain it, it becomes very obvious that an ounce of prevention is indeed worth a pound of cure.  We can best achieve this by spreading the word; telling our family and friends that mercury is a poison, pure and simple, and should never be put into the human body.  Above all else, we should prevent the poisoning of future generations and never allow it to be put into any child’s mouth to begin with!

Joan Ullyett BA, RHN is a Registered Holistic Nutritionist.  Please visit her website thehealthnerd.com for more information, news and online health consultation.