New Patient Forms ( Pdf ) - Center For Environmental Medicine: Fill & Download for Free

The Banana came first, thus, it is dirty socks that smell like the lovely Banana!From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSmelly socks waiting to be washedSmelly socks are socks that have acquired an unpleasant odour due to prolonged use. Their odour, which is complex and remains the object of study, is a mixture of ammonia, fatty acids (in particular, isovaleric acid),[1]and lactic acid.[2]While odorous socks are repellent to most humans, they are a strong attractant for some animals, including dogs and mosquitos. They have proven useful in controlling the behavior of these animals.Although the odour of smelly socks is often associated with feet, it arises independently of contact with human feet in various foodstuffs such as dairy products, cheeses, sausages and fish sauce, and is naturally present in several plants.[3][4][5][6]The smell has also been noted in building and automotive air treatment systems, where it is described as "jock socks odor" or "dirty socks syndrome".Several technologies have been developed to incorporate materials into sock textiles which reduce or eliminate the bad smell.Contents1 Analysis2 Air contamination3 Medical aspects4 Solutions5 Animal attraction6 Animal repelling7 Artistic use8 Botany9 Fetish10 Folk medicine11 Marketing12 Popular culture13 ReferencesAnalysisCompounds which cause socks to smell bad include:butyric acid, which smells like rancid butter[7]dimethyl disulphide, which smells like onions[7]dimethyl trisulphide[7]2-heptanone, which smells like bananas[7]2-nonanone, which smells like fat, fruit or flowers[7]2-octanone, which smells like apples[7]Air contaminationSmelly socks have an unpleasant odour. This commonly results from bacterial action upon sweat which accumulates due to confining footwear.[8]The odor has also presented itself as a problem among users of prosthetics.[9]Smelly socks may be a source of air contamination in aircraft and dwellings.[10][11]Their distinctive unpleasant odour is commonly used as a reference.A 1996 Popular Mechanics article describes "jock socks odor" complaints as one of the magazine's most frequent queries with regard to automotive air conditioning systems, attributing the odor to fungal growth within the auto.[12]The term "Dirty Sock Syndrome" is used to describe unpleasant odors that arise in building heating and cooling systems.[13][14]High-efficiency heat pumps in the southeastern US have been noted as frequent offenders.[15]Medical aspectsThe odor is a diagnostic feature of a serious medical condition, Isovaleric acidemia.A widespread consumer perception of the odor in the medication metformin, frequently used to treat Type 2 diabetes, may have contributed to patient refusals of the treatment.[16]A test of olfactory abilities deemed useful in Japan employs detection of "sweaty socks" odor, along with two other odors, as a useful metric of these abilities.[17]When fresh, alkyl nitrites or "poppers", smell fruity, but when stale their aroma seems like smelly socks.[18]SolutionsThere are various products designed to handle the problem of smelly socks, by containing the smell or eliminating it.In a police station in Brighton England, the police installed a stinkproof locker specifically to keep prisoners smelly socks in while they are in custody.[19]Several technologies have been developed to address the problem by modifying the composition of sock materials. In February 1997, The Daily Mirror reported that a new fabric had been invented by British scientists to eliminate smelly socks.[20]Disinfectant treatments such as silver nanoparticles may be applied to socks to prevent them from smelling.[21]The United States Air Force Academy issued a 2009 request to vendors that included socks incorporating antimicrobial silver yarn technology.[22]This technology has encountered some opposition; a study conducted by researchers at Arizona State University examined the possibility that the silver particles could be released when the socks were washed, posing environmental concerns.[23]In 2000, the University of California announced a joint venture with private companies to develop socks that would reduce the problem by incorporating halamine compounds, a relatively stable form of chlorine.[24]In 2005 Dow Corning proposed the incorporation of alkoxysilanes as a preventive measure.[25]Researchers reported, in 2011, on a technique to permanently block the development of pathogenic germs, which can cause odor in socks and other clothing.[26]A team led by Jason Lockli of the University of Georgia reported in the American Chemical Society's Applied Materials and Interfaces that the anti-microbial treament of "smelly socks" could "offer low cost protection for healthcare facilities, such as hospitals."[26]Animal attractionIn a study of the odours most likely to attract mosquitos, smelly socks were found to be the most effective, topping the list along with Limburger cheese.[27]Their strong odour will also attract other dangerous wild animals such as bear.[28]Because this smell is so effective at attracting mosquitos, its use has been explored for mosquito control in places where malaria is prevalent.[29]An imitation foot odour has been synthesised at the University of Wageningen. The synthetic odour is then used to bait traps which attract the mosquitos and so divert them from biting people. The synthetic mixture of ammonia, fatty acids, and lactic acid is effective but not as good as real sweaty socks. The composition of the authentic smell is still being analysed to determine the remaining active ingredients.[2]A project in Kenya funded by Grand Challenges Canada and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation involves harvesting smelly sock odour with cotton pads that are then used to bait traps.[29]The East African jumping spider or vampire spider preys upon mosquitos which have fed upon blood. It is attracted to the same smell for this reason and this has been demonstrated using an olfactometer which was loaded alternately with clean and smelly socks.[30]Dogs are strongly attracted to the scent of socks that have been worn by humans. They may self-medicate themselves during attacks of separation anxiety by focusing on these items.[31]The attraction is used in dog training, where the odorous socks may serve as a distractant or as a lure during crate training.[32][33]Animal repellingSmelly socks have been used to repel deer. Benefits include they are cheap and accessible, require little effort to put out each morning, and are quite effective at keeping deer out of your flower garden.[34]Artistic useThe smell of dirty socks was the most unpleasant of the smells provided in the movie Polyester which featured Odorama in the form of scratch and sniff cards.[35]At Fort Siloso in Singapore, the liquid scent of smelly socks is part of the exhibition which provides tourists with a sensory impression of its historical use during WW2.[36]BotanySmelly Socks GrevilleaThe plant White Plume Grevillea has long white flowers whose stink resembles that of smelly socks, causing the plant to be known as "Smelly Socks Grevillea" or "Old Socks".[37]Another plant with a similar smell and name is Clary Sage.[38]The herb valerian has a musty smell of this sort too.[39]Mushrooms of the genus Amanita often have a strong odour which may also seem like that of smelly socks.[40]FetishSome people experience erotic arousal from smelly socks and so others may sell their used socks to those with this fetish.[41][42]In a 1994 study, 45% of those with a foot fetish were found to be aroused by smelly socks.[43]Those aroused by smelly socks often are aroused only by a certain type of sock, or those worn by a particular person, or type of person, e.g. athletes.Folk medicineSmelly socks are favoured for use as a component in the making of powerful charms or spells, especially in voodoo or magic of African origin.[44][45]They may be worn around the neck as a cure for a cold.[46]In addition, used socks may be used in spells cast on particular people, namely love spells, (the socks of the two parties may be bound together during the spell) binding spells, (the socks of the offender are knotted to inflict a binding on that person) or curses (the socks are burned or otherwise destroyed to inflict harm on their wearer).MarketingSmelly socks were used as the basis for a marketing campaign for British Knights sneakers. Viewers were invited to send in their socks which would then be assessed for smell by a panel of judges which included a dog.[47]Popular cultureA recurring theme in the television series Married... with Children revolved around the stinky socks of the character Al Bundy.[48]References"In Short: Taste & Smell". Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved 2010-07-08.Kent Mensah (21 June 2010), "Smelly socks to fight malaria", Africa NewsStephanie Clark; Michael Costello; Floyd Bodyfelt; MaryAnne Drake (2008), The sensory evaluation of dairy products, シュプリンガー・ジャパン株式会社, p. 114, ISBN 978-0-387-77406-0Patrick F. Fox; P. F. Fox; Timothy M. Cogan; Timothy P. Guinee (2000), Fundamentals of cheese science, Springer, p. 220, ISBN 978-0-8342-1260-2Yiu H. Hui; Y. H. Hui (2004), Handbook of food and beverage fermentation technology, CRC Press, p. 408, ISBN 978-0-8247-4780-0Pham, A.J.; Schilling, M.W.; Yoon, Y.; Kamadia, V.V.; Marshall, D.L. (2008), "Characterization of Fish Sauce Aroma-Impact Compounds Using GC-MS, SPME-Osme-GCO, and Stevens' Power Law Exponents", Journal of Food Science, 73 (4): C268–74, PMID 18460121, doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2008.00709.xChamila J. Denawaka, Ian A. Fowlis, John R. Dean (18 March 2016), "Source, impact and removal of malodour from soiled clothing", Journal of Chromatography A, 1438: 216–225, doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2016.02.037Active Interest Media, Inc (Sep 1998), "Toxic Sock Syndrome", Backpacker, 26 (171): 24"A Study of the Development and the Deordorizing Capability of Metal Phthatalocyanine Processed Stump Socks for Amputees" (PDF). Kobe University School of Medicine. Retrieved 2010-07-08.Susan Michaelis (2007), Aviation Contaminated Air Reference Manual, ISBN 978-0-9555672-0-9Randy Blume (1999), Crazy in the cockpit, p. 19, ISBN 0-7894-2572-6Popular Mechanics Nov 1996, Popular Mechanics, 1996, p. 115"A New Solution Found for Dirty Sock Syndrome". The Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration NEWS. Retrieved 2010-07-09."HETA 98-0300-2723 Dollar General Store Prestonsburg, Kentucky" (PDF). Centers for Disease Control. Retrieved 2010-07-14.Popular Science Mar 1991, Popular Science, 1991, p. 44, ISSN 0161-7370"Regimens: Pungent Pills". New York Times. 2010-02-15. Retrieved 2010-07-07.Shiga, Hideaki; Miwa, Takaki; Tsukatani, Toshiaki; Kinoshita, Yayoi; Saito, Sachiko; Kobayakawa, Tatsu; Deguchi, Yuichi; Furukawa, Mitsuru (2007), "Olfactory Disturbance Screening with the Odor Stick Identification Test (OSIT-J) in Executive Checkups", Nippon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho, 110 (8): 586–91, PMID 17874540, doi:10.3950/jibiinkoka.110.586Substance Use and Misuse: Nature, Context, and Clinical Interventions. G. Hussein Rassool. Wiley-Blackwell, 1998. ISBN 0-632-04884-0. p.48"Scent to jail", Sunday Mirror, Jun 5, 2005The Mirror, February 1997, Smelly socks get the boot.Roger Highfield (25 Jun 2003), Slivers of silver solve the problem of smelly socks, The Daily Telegraph"USAF Academy Cadet Socks". Federal Business Opportunities. Retrieved 2010-07-14."Nanotechnology Law Report" (PDF). Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP. p. 5. Retrieved 2010-07-08."New Invention Creates Odor-Free Socks, Infection-Fighting Scrubs". University of California. Retrieved 2010-07-14."A New, Durable Antimicrobial Finish for Textiles" (PDF). die Informationsplattform zu Funktionstextilien. Retrieved 2010-07-14."New solution can help 'permanently get rid of germs': A new anti-microbial treatment that can make clothing - including smelly socks - permanently germ-free has been developed by US scientists". BBC. July 7, 2011. Retrieved July 7, 2011.L. Patricia Kite (2001-01-01), Insect Facts and Folklore, ISBN 978-0-7613-1822-4Dave Smith (2006), Backcountry Bear Basics: The Definitive Guide to Avoiding Unpleasant Encounters, p. 119, ISBN 978-1-59485-028-8Dixon, Robyn (August 14, 2011). "Smelly socks could help curb malaria". Los Angeles Times.Victoria Gill (16 February 2011), Mosquito-eating spider likes smelly socks, BBCSteven R. Lindsay (2001), Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training: Etiology and assessment of behavior problems. Volume 2 of Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training, John Wiley & Sons, p. 108, ISBN 978-0-8138-2868-8Victoria Schade (2009), Bonding with Your Dog: A Trainer's Secrets for Building a Better Relationship, John Wiley and Sons, p. 99, ISBN 978-0-470-40915-2Dan Rice (2001), Big dog breeds, Barron's Educational Series, p. 28, ISBN 978-0-7641-1649-0Conners, Maureen (August 5, 2001). "Not even the deer like old, smelly socks". The Sun. Retrieved 2010-07-07.Jim Drobnick (2006), The smell culture reader, p. 360, ISBN 978-1-84520-213-2Muzainia, Hamzah; Teob, Peggy; Yeoh, Brenda S. A. (2007), "Intimations of postmodernity in dark tourism", Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 5 (1): 28–45, doi:10.2167/jtcc082.0Don Burke (2005-11-01), The complete Burke's backyard, ISBN 978-1-74045-739-2Rosemary Alexander (2009-05-27), The Essential Garden Design Workbook, p. 210, ISBN 978-0-88192-975-1Pamela Hirsch (2001-05-01), The traveler's natural medicine kit, pp. 116–7, ISBN 978-0-89281-947-8William C. Roody (2003-04), Mushrooms of West Virginia and the Central Appalachians, p. 50, ISBN 978-0-8131-9039-6 Check date values in: |date= (help)Bartele Santema (2005), "Smelly socks", Bule gila, p. 142, ISBN 978-979-3780-04-7Stefan Bechtel; Larry Stains; Laurence Roy Stains (1996), Sex, p. 12, ISBN 978-0-87596-299-3Patricia B. Sutker; Henry E. Adams (2001), Comprehensive handbook of psychopathology, p. 762, ISBN 978-0-306-46490-4Lynn Maria Hudson (2002), The making of "Mammy Pleasant": a Black entrepreneur in nineteenth-century, pp. 68–69, ISBN 978-0-252-02771-0Timothy Michael Olney (2003), Life Positive, p. 92, ISBN 978-0-9719079-0-4T. K. Pratt (1996-11-19), Dictionary of Prince Edward Island English, p. 77, ISBN 978-0-8020-7904-6Eric Yaverbaum; Robert W. Bly; Richard Kirshenbaum; Ilise Benun (2006-05-12), Public Relations for Dummies, p. 184, ISBN 978-0-471-77272-9https://news.google.com/archivesearch?scoring=a&q=%22Smelly+socks%22+%22Al+Bundy%22+source:%22-newswire%22+source:%22-wire%22+source:%22-presswire%22+source:%22-PR%22+source:%22-press%22+source:%22-release%22+source:%22-wikipedia%22&spell=1

The controversy centres on the fact that amalgams contain mercury. In high enough concentrations, mercury is toxic.Some make the point that amalgams make people sick from allergies to neurotoxicity to a whole host of other systemic alimentsThere has been a great deal of bunk science done on amalgam.I will simply post some key concensus documents which also reference reputable science with respect to the use of dental amalgam.the overall consensus is that amalgam has been used for more than 200 years and except for a small number of patients who might have sensitivities to it, it is safe.Another key point made across the documents is that wholsesale removal of amalgam filling from patient is not indicated.Statement on Dental AmalgamStatement on Dental AmalgamFor dental patients: Please visit the ADA’s MouthHealthy website for information about amalgam and silver-colored fillings.Dental amalgam is considered a safe, affordable and durable material that has been used to restore the teeth of more than 100 million Americans. It contains a mixture of metals such as silver, copper and tin, in addition to mercury, which binds these components into a hard, stable and safe substance. Dental amalgam has been studied and reviewed extensively, and has established a record of safety and effectiveness.The FDI World Dental Federation and the World Health Organization concluded in a 1997 consensus statementi: “No controlled studies have been published demonstrating systemic adverse effects from amalgam restorations.” Another conclusion of the report stated that, aside from rare instances of local side effects of allergic reactions, “the small amount of mercury released from amalgam restorations, especially during placement and removal, has not been shown to cause any … adverse health effects.”In 1998, the ADA’s Council on Scientific Affairsii published its first major review of the scientific literature on dental amalgam which concluded that “based on available scientific information, amalgam continues to be a safe and effective restorative material.” The Council’s report also stated, “There currently appears to be no justification for discontinuing the use of dental amalgam.”In an articleiii published in the February 1999 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association, researchers report finding “no significant association of Alzheimer’s Disease with the number, surface area or history of having dental amalgam restorations” and “no statistically significant differences in brain mercury levels between subjects with Alzheimer’s Disease and control subjects.”A 2003 paper published in the New England Journal of Medicineiv states, “Patients who have questions about the potential relation between mercury and degenerative diseases can be assured that the available evidence shows no connection.”In 2004, an expert panel reviewed the peer-reviewed, scientific literature published from 1996 to December 2003 on potential adverse human health effects caused by dental amalgam and published a report. The review was conducted by the Life Sciences Research Office (LSRO) and funded by the National Institutes of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The resulting report states that, “The current data are insufficient to support an association between mercury release from dental amalgam and the various complaints that have been attributed to this restoration material. These complaints are broad and nonspecific compared to the well-defined set of effects that have been documented for occupational and accidental elemental mercury exposures. Individuals with dental amalgam-attributed complaints had neither elevated urinary mercury nor increased prevalence of hypersensitivity to dental amalgam or mercury when compared with controls.” The full report is available from LSRO (The Life Sciences Research Office (LSRO)). A summary of the review is published in Toxicological Reviews.vIn 2006, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and Environmental Health Perspectives published the results of two independent clinical trials designed to examine the effects of mercury release from amalgam on the central and peripheral nervous systems and kidney function. The authors concluded that “there were no statistically significant differences in adverse neuropsychological or renal effects observed over the 5-year period in children whose caries are restored using dental amalgam or composite materials”;vi,vii and “children who received dental restorative treatment with amalgam did not, on average, have statistically significant differences in neurobehavioral assessments or in nerve conduction velocity when compared with children who received resin composite materials without amalgam. These findings, combined with the trend of higher treatment need later among those receiving composite, suggest that amalgam should remain a viable dental restorative option for children.”viiiIn May 2008, a Scientific Committee of the European Commission addressed safety concerns for patients, professionals and the use of alternative restorative materials.ix The committee concluded that dental amalgams are effective and safe, both for patients and dental personnel and also noted that alternative materials are not without clinical limitations and toxicological hazards.The ADA Council on Scientific Affairs prepared a comprehensive literature review (PDF) on amalgam safety that summarized the state of the evidence for amalgam safety (from January 2004 to June 2010). Based on the results of this review, the Council reaffirmed at its July 2009 meeting that the scientific evidence supports the position that amalgam is a valuable, viable and safe choice for dental patients.On July 28, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its final rule on encapsulated dental amalgam classifying amalgam and its component parts, elemental mercury and powder alloy, as a class II medical device. Previously there was no classification for encapsulated amalgam, and dental mercury (class I) and alloy (class II) were classified separately. This new regulation places encapsulated amalgam in the same class of devices as most other restorative materials, including composite and gold fillings. At the same time, the FDA also reaffirmed the agency’s position that the material is a safe and effective restorative option for patients.The CSA supports ongoing research on the safety of existing dental materials and in the development of new materials, and continues to believe that amalgam is a valuable, viable and safe choice for dental patients.Referencesi. FDI Policy Statement/WHO Consensus Statement on Dental Amalgam. September 1997. Accessed October 9, 2013.ii. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs. Dental Amalgam: Update on Safety Concerns. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998;129:494-503. Accessed October 9, 2013.iii. Saxe SR, Wekstein MW, Kryscio RJ, et al. Alzheimer’s disease, dental amalgam and mercury. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999;130(2):191-9. Accessed October 9, 2013. (Abstract)iv. Clarkson TW, Magos L, Myers GJ. The toxicology of mercury – Current exposures and clinical manifestations. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1731-7.v. Brownawell AM, Berent S, Brent RL, et al. The potential adverse health effects of dental amalgam. Toxicol Rev 2005;24(1):1-10. Accessed October 9, 2013. (Abstract)vi. Bellinger DC, Trachtenberg F, Barregard L, et al. Neuropsychological and renal effects of dental amalgam in children: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006;295(15):1775-83. Accessed October 9, 2013. (Abstract)vii. Bellinger DC, Daniel D, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, McKinlay S. Dental amalgam restorations and children’s neuropsychological function: the New England Children’s Amalgam Trial. Environ Health Perspect 2007;115(3):443-6. Accessed October 9, 2013.viii. DeRouen TA, Martin MD, Leroux BG, et al. Neurobehavioral effects of dental amalgam in children: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2006;295(15):1784-92. Accessed October 9, 2013.ix. European Commission: Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks. The Safety of Dental Amalgam and Alternative Dental Restoration Materials for Patients and Users May 6, 2008. Accessed October 9, 2013.Another link from the Government of Canada which looks at amalgam safety and delves into amalgam policies from other countries:The Safety of Dental AmalgamStatement from the Canadian Dental Association on amalgam:https://www.cda-adc.ca/_files/position_statements/amalgam.pdfA paper on this controversy:The Dental Amalgam Toxicity Fear: A Myth or ActualityToxicology InternationalMedknow PublicationsThe Dental Amalgam Toxicity Fear: A Myth or ActualityMonika Rathore, Archana Singh, and Vandana A. PantAdditional article informationAbstractAmalgam has been used in dentistry since about 150 years and is still being used due to its low cost, ease of application, strength, durability, and bacteriostatic effect. When aesthetics is not a concern it can be used in individuals of all ages, in stress bearing areas, foundation for cast-metal and ceramic restorations and poor oral hygiene conditions. Besides all, it has other advantages like if placed under ideal conditions, it is more durable and long lasting and least technique sensitive of all restorative materials, but, concern has been raised that amalgam causes mercury toxicity. Mercury is found in the earth's crust and is ubiquitous in the environment, so even without amalgam restorations everyone is exposed to small but measurable amount of mercury in blood and urine. Dental amalgam restorations may raise these levels slightly, but this has no practical or clinical significance. The main exposure to mercury from dental amalgam occurs during placement or removal of restoration in the tooth. Once the reaction is complete less amount of mercury is released, and that is far below the current health standard. Though amalgam is capable of producing delayed hypersensitivity reactions in some individuals, if the recommended mercury hygiene procedures are followed the risks of adverse health effects could be minimized. For this review the electronic databases and PubMed were used as data sources and have been evaluated to produce the facts regarding amalgam's safety and toxicity.Keywords: Amalgam, mercury, myth, restoration, safety, tooth, toxicityINTRODUCTIONAmalgam, an alloy of mercury (Hg), is an excellent and versatile dental restorative material. It has been used in dentistry since 150 years due to its low cost, ease of application, strength, durability, and bacteriostatic effects.[1] Popularity of amalgam as restorative material is decreasing these days due to concerns about detrimental health effects, environmental pollution, and aesthetics.[2] The metallic colour of amalgam does not blend with the natural tooth colour so patients and professionals preferred tooth-coloured restorative material for cavity filling in carious teeth for better aesthetics. Researchers agree that amalgam restorations leach mercury into the mouth, but consistent findings are not available to report whether it has any significant health risk.[3] In this review, an attempt has been made to summarize that there is no convincing evidences pointed out to adverse health effects due to dental amalgam restorations and can be used as a preferred restorative material where aesthetics is not a concern.Amalgam composition and historical backgroundAmalgam consists of an alloy of silver, copper, tin, and zinc combined with mercury. Unreacted alloy particles of silver-tin are considered as gamma phase. These particles combine with mercury and form a matrix consisting of gamma-1(Ag2Hg3) and gamma-2 phases. (Sn7-8Hg). The gamma-2 phase is responsible for early fracture and failure of amalgam restorations. Hence, copper was introduced to avoid gamma-2 phase, replacing the tin-mercury phase with a copper-tin phase (Cu5Sn5).[4] Louis Regnart, known as the ‘Father of Amalgam’, improved on boiled mineral cement by adding mercury, which greatly reduced the high temperature originally needed to pour the cement on to a tooth. In 1890s GV Black gave a formula for dental amalgam that provided clinically acceptable performance and remained unchanged virtually for 70 years. In 1959, Dr Wilmer Eames[5] promoted low mercury-to-alloy mixing ratio. The mercury-to-amalgam ratio, dropped from 8:5 to 1:1. The formula was again changed in 1963, when amalgam consisting of a high-copper dispersion alloy was introduced.[6] It was later discovered that the improved strength of the amalgam was a result of the additional copper forming a copper–tin phase that was less susceptible to corrosion than the tin–mercury phase in the earlier amalgam.[7]Modern amalgams are produced from precapsulated (preproportioned) alloy consisting of 42% to 45% mercury by weight. These are convenient to use and provide some degree of assurance that the material has not been not contaminated before use or spilled before mixing.[8]Amalgam controversy and amalgam warIn the year 1843, the American Society of Dental Surgeons (ASDS), founded in New York City, declared use of amalgam to be malpractice because of the fear of mercury poisoning in patients and dentists and forced all its members to sign a pledge to abstain from using it.[9] It was the beginning of the amalgam war.[10] Because of its stance against amalgam, membership in the American Society of Dental Surgeons declined, and due to the loss of members, the organization was disbanded in 1856 thus resulting in the end of the amalgam war. In 1859, the American Dental Association (ADA) was founded and it did not forbid use of amalgam.[11] The ADA position on the safety of amalgam has remained consistent since its foundation. In 1920s inferences were made that mercury was not tightly bound in amalgam so its use was discouraged. In 1991, National Institute of Health-National Institute for Dental Research (NIH-NIDR) and FDA concluded that there was no basis for claims that amalgam was a significant health hazard,[12] but claims of amalgam hazards continued to be published in non-scientific journals, and occasionally in scientific journals.Mercury exposure from amalgam restorationsMercury is ubiquitous in environment and humans are routinely exposed via air, water, and food.[8] Exposure to mercury in human individuals with amalgam restoration occurs during the placement or removal of dental restorations. Once the reaction is complete, less amount of mercury is released, that is far below the current health standard.[8] The exposure to mercury from restoration depends on the number and size of restoration, composition, chewing habits, food texture, grinding, brushing of teeth, and many other physiological factors. As a vapour, metallic mercury could be inhaled and absorbed through the alveoli in the lungs at 80% efficiency. It is the main route of entry of mercury into the human body, whereas the absorption of metallic mercury through skin or via the gastrointestinal tract is very poor.[8] The organic compounds of mercury such as methyl mercury are readily absorbed by many organisms and accumulate as it passes into food chain. Research on monkeys had shown that mercury released from amalgam restorations is absorbed and accumulated in various organs such as kidney, brain, lung, liver, gastro-intestinal tract, and the exocrine glands.[13] The organic form of mercury was also found to have crossed the placental barrier in pregnant rats[14] and proven to cross the gastrointestinal mucosa when amalgam particles are swallowed at the time of amalgam insertion or during removal of old amalgam fillings,[15] whereas the inorganic form of Mercury ions (Hg+2) circulate into the blood stream but hardly cross the blood–brain barrier and placental barrier.Mercury does not collect irreversibly in human tissues. The average half life of mercury is 55 days for transport through the body to the point of excretion. Thus mercury that came into the body years ago may no longer be present in the body.[8]Diagnostic methods to detect levels of mercury in bodyToxicity from mercury could occur through exposure to organic, inorganic, and elemental forms of mercury. According to decreasing toxicity of mercury it is classified as organomercury (methyl and ethyl mercury), mercury vapour, and inorganic mercury. Various diagnostic methods exist to detect the level of mercury in body, including tests for blood, urine, stool, saliva, hair analysis, and others. These tests may determine if mercury is in the body and/or if it is being excreted. A study[16] conducted by measuring the intraoral vapour levels over a 24-h period in patients with at least nine amalgam restorations showed that the average daily dose of inhaled mercury vapour was 1.7 μg (range from 0.4 to 4.4 μg), which is approximately 1% of the threshold limit value of 300 to 500 μg/day established by WHO, based on a maximum allowable environmental level of 50 μg/day in the workplace. According to Berdouses et al.[17] mercury exposure from amalgam can be greatly increased by personal habits such as, chewing and brushing.Berglund,[18] in 1993, determined the daily release of mercury vapour from amalgam restorations made of alloys of the same types and batches as those used in the in vitro part of the study. He carried out a series of measurements on each of eight subjects before and after amalgam therapy and found that none of the subjects were occupationally exposed to mercury. The amalgam therapy, that is, from 3 to 6 occlusal amalgam surfaces and from 3 to 10 surfaces in total-had very little influence on the intraoral release of mercury vapour, regardless of amalgam type used, effects was not found on mercury levels in urine and saliva. Rapid and reliable detection of mercury in blood and urine resulting from environmental and occupational exposure may be carried out by using atomic fluorescence spectrophotometry.[19] Measurements of total mercury in the urine tend to reflect inorganic mercury exposure and total mercury levels in whole blood are more indicative of methyl mercury exposure. Commonly two types of urine tests have been used in which one is the unprovoked mercury test that does not use a pharmaceutical mercury chelator and only reflects the amount of mercury the body naturally removes via the urine. The other is the urine mercury challenge (provoked) test, which uses a pharmaceutical chelator to remove the mercury captured via the kidneys/urine pathway. Both methylmercury and inorganic mercury can also be measured in breast milk. The relative proportions of these species depend on the frequency of fish consumption, dental amalgam status, and occupational exposures. In a study for comparison of hair, nails, and urine for biological monitoring of low level inorganic mercury exposure in dental workers, the data suggested that urine mercury remains the most practical and sensitive means of monitoring low level occupational exposure to inorganic mercury.[20]Various related studiesIn this review electronic databases and PubMed have been used for data sources and articles from peer reviewed journals and various organizations including WHO (1991), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1999), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA,1997), the National Research Council (NRC) (2000), the Institute of Medicine (2001; 2004) and Life Science Research Office (LSRO) (2004) have been evaluated to investigate the biochemical, behavioural, and/or toxicological effects resulting from exposure to amalgam, mercury vapour (HgO), inorganic mercury (Hg2+), or organic mercury (methyl and ethyl mercury). The LSRO search was limited to in vivo studies on humans relevant to amalgam and biochemical, behavioural and/or toxicological effects as health effects in laboratory animals do not reliably predict health effects in humans.Effects of prenatal mercury exposureNonionized mercury is capable of crossing through lipid layers at membrane barriers of the brain and placenta, is oxidised within these tissues and is slowly removed. This fact has become the basis for claims of neuromuscular problems in patients with amalgam restorations.[8] Removing these restorations do not eliminate exposure to mercury. Maternal amalgam restoration results in in utero exposure to low levels of elemental mercury. There is no evidence that exposure to mercury has been associated with any adverse pregnancy outcomes or health effects in the newborn and infants. In a prospective study consisting of 72 pregnant women, it was found that the number and surface areas of amalgam restorations positively influenced the concentration of mercury in amniotic fluid. The levels of mercury detected in amniotic fluid were low and no adverse outcomes were observed during the pregnancy or in the newborns.[21] Blood samples obtained from umbilical cord had no significant mercury levels considered to be hazardous for neurodevelopmental effects in children using the EPA reference dose (5.8 μg/L in cord blood).[22] To find co-relation between mercury exposure from amalgam restorations placed during pregnancy and low-birth weight 1,117 women with low birth weight infants were compared with random sample of 4,468 women who gave birth to infants with normal birth weight. Women (4.9%) had at least one amalgam restoration placed during pregnancy. These women were not at greater risk for a low birth weight infant and neither were women who had 4 to 11 amalgam restorations placed.[23] In a study conducted by Daniels[24] 90% of the women received dental care during pregnancy. Having more restorations placed at time of conception did not negatively affect pregnancy or birth outcome. Mean umbilical cord mercury concentration was slightly higher in women who had dental care. However, cord mercury concentrations did not differ significantly among mothers in relation to amalgam restoration during pregnancy or by the number of amalgams in place prior to pregnancy. Overall, amalgam restorations were not associated with negative birth outcomes or delayed language development. They stated that amalgam restorations in girls and women of reproductive age should be used with caution to avoid prenatal mercury exposure, although there were no adverse effects seen.Health effects of amalgam in childrenThe Children's Amalgam Trial is a randomized trial, to address potential impact of mercury from amalgam restorations on neuropsychological and renal function in children. Bellinger et al.[25] conducted a study on 534 New England children, aged 6–10 years for 5 years. All subjects were in need of at least two posterior occlusal restorations. Participants were randomized to receive either amalgam or composite restoration at baseline and at subsequent visits. The primary endpoint was to assess the 5-year change in IQ scores. Secondary endpoints included measures of other neuropsychological assessments and renal functioning. In the 5-year follow-up period the investigators conducted multiple assessments of IQ score, memory index, and urinary albumin. No statistically significant differences were reported in neuropsychological or renal effects observed in the children who had amalgam restorations compared to those with composite restorations.In another study, authors have concluded that there was no difference in the neuropsychological function of the children who received amalgam restorations compared to the children with composite restorations.[26] A dose-effect analysis of children's exposure to amalgam and neuropsychological function was also evaluated in the children's amalgam trial. The authors examined a sample of children with substantial unmet dental needs using a dose–effect analysis. There was no significant association between neuropsychological outcomes and mercury exposure. The authors concluded that there appeared to be no detectable adverse neuropsychological outcomes in children attributable to the use of amalgam restorations.[27] The relation between amalgam and the psychosocial status of children was also assessed as a part of the New England Children's Amalgam Trial (NECAT). The two groups of children were examined for psychosocial outcomes. It was carried out using both a parent-completed “Child Behaviour Checklist” and children's self-reports and concluded that there was no evidence associated with adverse psychosocial outcomes in the 5-year period following amalgam placement.[28]Kingman et al.[29] studied correlation between exposure to amalgam and neurological functions. No significant associations between amalgam exposure and clinical neurological signs of abnormal tremor, coordination, gait, strength, sensation or muscle stretch reflexes or for any level of peripheral neuropathy in the subjects have been observed. A significant association was detected between amalgam exposure and the continuous vibro-tactile sensation response. The study reported that this association was a subclinical finding that was not associated with symptoms, clinically evident signs of neuropathy or any functional impairment.In the Children's Amalgam Trial, one of the secondary endpoints included renal functioning. The investigators assessed changes on markers of glomerular and tubular kidney function and urinary mercury levels. They found no significant differences between the treatment groups and no significant effects related to the number of dental amalgam restorations on the markers. Children in both treatment groups experienced micro albuminuria, but the prevalence was higher in amalgam group. The authors concluded that the increase in micro albuminuria may be random, but should be further evaluated.[30] The other safety trial was conducted in Lisbon, Portugal[27] in which a randomized controlled clinical trial carried out in 507 children 8- to 10-years old at baseline. They were evaluated for several years thereafter to determine if any health changes occurred following restorations with amalgam or composites. On carrying out annual standardized tests of memory, attention, physical coordination, and velocity of nerve conduction, the scientists did not detect a pattern of decline in the test scores of individual children who received amalgam restorations. They found a trend of higher treatment need in children receiving composite, thus suggesting that amalgam should remain a viable dental restorative option for children. The investigators performed annual clinical neurological examinations to assess neurobehavioral and neurological effects. The authors concluded that amalgam exposure had no adverse neurological outcomes.[31]The 7 years of longitudinal data provide extensive evidence about relative safety of amalgam in dental treatment. Substantial amalgam exposure did lead to creatinine adjusted urinary mercury levels that were higher in the amalgam group. Children with amalgam restorations had slightly elevated levels of mercury in their urine, measuring on average 1.5 μg/L of urine for the first two years and levelling off to 1.0 μg/L or less thereafter. However, these values fall within the background level of 0–4 μg/L, which is usual for an average person not exposed to industrial or other known sources of mercury.[32] Thus, the longitudinal studies on the use of amalgam in children did not suggest any negative effects on neuropsychological function or renal function within the 5-year follow-up period. It was reported that urinary mercury concentrations were highly correlated with both the number of amalgam restorations and the time since placement in children. The finding suggested that there may be sex-related differences in mercury excretion. They found that females have significant increase in the rate of mercury excreted in urine than males. Thus, this association might confer a lower mercury toxicity risks in females.[33] Dunn et al.[34] evaluated scalp, hair, and urine mercury content of children collected over the 5-year period, mean hair mercury level was 0.3–0.4 μg/g and mean urinary mercury level was 0.7–0.9 μg/g creatinine. The authors reported that use of chewing gum in the presence of amalgam restoration was a predictor of higher urinary mercury levels. Data suggested that amalgam-associated mercury exposure might be reduced by avoidance of gum-chewing in the presence of amalgam restorations.Sixty children were studied to assess urinary mercury excretion and its relation to amalgam restoration and fish consumption. Children with amalgam restorations had significantly higher urinary mercury levels compared to children with non-amalgam restorations. The urinary mercury levels in the amalgam group were well below levels that are known to cause adverse health effects.[35]Health effects related to mercury exposure in adultsAn investigation on 20,000 people in the New Zealand Defence Force between years 1977–1997 was done to find out association between amalgam restorations and disorders related with nervous system and kidney. No significant correlation between amalgam restorations and chronic fatigue syndrome or kidney disease was observed. A slightly elevated risk for multiple sclerosis was reported, but may have been due to confounding variables.[36] In another study, where few patients believed that their amalgam restoration made them ill, medical examination including physical examination, electrocardiogram, abdominal sonography, and blood chemistry was done. The study concluded that symptoms of the patients were due to psychological factors. There was no connection between the mercury levels in the patient's blood, urine, and saliva and their symptoms.[37] The association between amalgam and multiple sclerosis was assessed via a systematic review and meta-analysis. Three case control studies and one cohort study met their inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed a slight nonstatistically significant increase between the presence of amalgam restorations and multiple sclerosis. The study does not provide evidence for or against an association.[38]Halbach et al.[39] evaluated the internal exposure to amalgam-related mercury and estimated the amalgam-related absorbed dose of mercury. The integrated mercury absorbed from amalgam restorations was estimated at up to 3 μg per day for an average number of restorations and 7.4 μg per day for a high amalgam load. The authors concluded that these estimates are below the tolerable dose of 30 μg per day established by WHO.Hypersensitivity reactions by amalgam restorationsAmalgam is capable of producing delayed hypersensitivity reactions in some individuals. These reactions usually present with dermatological or oral symptoms. The constant exposure to mercury in amalgam restorations may sensitize some individuals, making them more susceptible to oral lichenoid lesions. These oral lesions are rarely noticed by the affected individuals and cause no discomfort. There is evidence that a certain percentage of lichenoid lesions are caused by amalgam restorations,[40] but other restorative materials can also cause lichenoid lesions. It was also noted that the restorations associated with lichenoid lesions are poorly contoured, corroded and old. Hence corrosion of amalgam restoration or perhaps the biofilm present on such restorations may contribute to the development of hypersensitive reaction rather than material itself.[41] Symptoms of an amalgam allergy include skin rashes in the oral, head and neck area, itching, swollen lips, localized eczema-like lesions in the oral cavity. These clinical signs usually require no treatment and will disappear on their own within a few days of exposure. However, in some instances, an amalgam restoration will have to be removed and replaced with alternate restorative material. The replacements have led to significant improvements.[42] Although mercury allergy is rare but sometimes hypersensitivity to it may lead to dermatitis or type IV delayed hypersensitivity reactions most often affecting the skin as a rash.[43]Mercury exposure in dental professionalsDentists and dental nurses are at risk of potential exposure to inorganic mercury through their handling of amalgam, although now days their exposure has reduced due to low mercury to alloy ratio and through mercury management. One hundred and eighty dentists were evaluated in West Scotland for mercury exposure and its effects on their health and cognitive function. Dentists were found to have, on an average, over four times the level of urinary mercury compared to age and education-matched control subjects. The authors reported that based on their questionnaire, dentists were more likely to report having a disorder of the kidney, although the effect was not significantly associated with their urinary mercury level. An age effect was found for memory disturbances in dentists but not in the control subjects. There was no significant association between urinary mercury concentrations and self-reported memory disturbance.[44] A study on 43 dental nurses, with an average age of 52, were exposed to copper amalgam with a 30-year follow-up; were compared with 32 matched controls. It was concluded that the dental nurses did not appear to be neurobehavioraly compromised. Seven symptoms of mercury poisoning that were reported at a higher rate by exposed group than by the control group (arthritis, bloating, dry skin, headache, metallic taste, sleep disturbances, and unsteadiness). It did not appear that the investigators performed post-hoc testing to compensate for multiple comparisons.[45] The possible health risk of occupational exposure to mercury vapour in the dental office was assessed by evaluating the cytogenetic examination of leukocytes and blood mercury levels of dentists.[46] Genotoxicity of occupational exposure to mercury vapour in ten dentists was evaluated. The authors concluded that mercury vapour concentration in blood was below 0.1 mg/m3 and did not exhibit cytogenetic damage to leukocytes.Mercury management in dental operatoryIn 1999, the ADA Council on Scientific Affairs adopted mercury hygiene recommendations to provide guidance to dentists and their staff members for safe handling of mercury and minimizing the release of mercury into the dental office environment. These were updated in 2003 and are as follows: work in well-ventilated areas, remove professional clothing before leaving the workplace, periodically check the dental operatory atmosphere for mercury vapour, (use dosimeter badges or use of mercury vapour analysers for rapid assessment after any mercury spill or clean-up procedure). The current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), standard for mercury is 0.1 mg per cubic meter of air averaged over 8-h work shift. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has recommended the permissible exposure limit to be changed to 0.05 mg/m3 averaged over 8-h work shift over a 40-h workweek.[47] During preparation and placement of amalgam only precapsulated amalgam alloys should be used. If possible, recap single-use capsules after use, store them in a closed container and recycle them. Avoid skin contact with mercury or freshly mixed amalgam. Use high-volume evacuation systems when finishing or removing amalgam. Floor coverings should be non absorbent, seamless and easy to clean. Use of carpet in operatory is not recommended where an accidental mercury spill might occur. Chemical decontamination of carpeting may not be effective, as mercury droplets can seep through the carpet and remain inaccessible to the decontaminant. In case of accidental mercury spill a vacuum cleaner should never be used to clean up the mercury. Small spills (less than 10 g of mercury present) can be cleaned safely using commercially available mercury cleanup kits.Amalgam substitutesIn the recent year's composites, glass ionomer cements and a variety of hybrid structures have been used due to increased demand for aesthetic restorations. Composite serves better than amalgam when conservative preparation is recommended like small occlusal restorations, in which amalgam require removal of more sound tooth structure.[48] Composites have different setting reaction mechanisms and it interacts with the patient's tissues in different ways . The small organic molecules (monomers) react to form polymers. Some of the monomers may not have reacted during placement and therefore low levels remain in the set restoration, which are known to be toxic to cells and others may cause allergic reactions. The effects they cause vary depending on the substance and on the type of body tissue with which they come into contact. Concerns have been raised about the endocrine disrupting (in particular, oestrogen-mimicking) effects of plastic chemicals such as “Bisphenol A” used in composite resins.[49]Amalgam possesses greater longevity than composite.[50] However, this difference has decreased with continued development of composite resins.[51] Amalgam is moderately tolerant to the presence of moisture during placement. In contrast, technique for composite resin placement is more sensitive and require “extreme care” and “considerably greater number of steps”.[51] Mercury acts as bacteriostatic agent whereas TEGMA (constituting some older resin-based composites) “encourages the growth of microorganisms”.[51] The New England Children's Amalgam Trial suggested that the longevity of amalgam is higher than that of resin-based compomer placed in primary teeth and composites in permanent teeth.[50,52] Compomers and composites were seven times likely to require replacement than amalgam.[52] “Recurrent marginal decay” is the main reason for failure in both, amalgam and composite restorations, accounting for 66% (32/48) and 88% (113/129), respectively.[53] “Christensen[50] quoted Amalgam restorations are and will continue to be the mainstay of posterior tooth restorations for many years to come.” Though use of amalgam has decreased during the past few years, more studies on safety of composites or other aesthetic materials with long-term follow-up of are necessary before they can be considered a definitive alternative for amalgam.CONCLUSIONThe current use of amalgam has not posed a health risk apart from allergic reactions in few patients. Clinical justifications have not been available for removing clinically satisfactory amalgam restorations, except in patients allergic to amalgam constituents. Mercury hypersensitivity is an immune response to very low levels of mercury. There is no evidence that mercury released from amalgams results in adverse health effects in the general population. If the recommended mercury hygiene procedures are followed, the risks of adverse health effects in the dental office could be minimized. Amalgam is safe and effective restorative material and its replacement by nonamalgam restorations is not indicated. Also a recent review by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs states that: “Studies continue to support the position that dental amalgam is a safe restorative option for both children and adults. When responding to safety concerns it is important to make the distinction between known and hypothetical risks.”

Is camel urine a cure for cancer?Camel urine components display anti-cancer properties in Vitro*King Faysal UniversityThe study confirms camel urine prevents the growth of camel cancerClick to download pdf file research on camel urine cures cancer by the Journal of natural researches sciences●Reference, :https://www.academia.edu/.../Scientific_Studies_On_Camel...▪︎▪︎▪︎Dr. Faten Abdel-Rahman Khorshid is responsible for one of the Kingdom’s greatest national achievements in the field of science for her work which began with the urine of camels and concluded in a potential cure for cancer.After spending more than five years in lab research, this Saudi scientist and faculty member from King Abdul Aziz University (KAAU) and President of the Tissues Culture Unit at King Fahd Center for Medical Research, has discovered that nano-particles in the urine of camels can attack cancer cells with success.Her work began with experiments involving camel urine, cancer cells found in patients’ lungs and culminated in injecting mice with leukemic cancel cells and camel urine to test the results.Speaking to the Saudi Gazette, Dr. Khorshid claimed that she was inspired by Prophet Muhammad’s (oeace be upon him) medical advice and that camel urine consists of natural substances that work to eradicate malignant cells and maintain the number of healthy cells in a cancer patient.“This treatment is not an invention, but rather, taken from our Prophet’s legacy,” she remarked. A Hadith narrated by Al-Bukhari (2855) and Muslim (1671) says that some people came to Madina and fell ill with bloated abdomens. The Prophet (peace be upon him) told them to combine the milk and urine of a camel and drink that, after which they recovered. A swollen abdomen may indicate edema, liver disease or cancer. Dr. Khorshid added that she is not a medical doctor but a scientist and her job involves the preparation and testing of a drug in the lab and supervising the manufacture, testing and application of the drug.“We have researched and studied (camel urine) for seven years, during which we have tested the effectiveness of camel urine in fighting cancer to prerequisites set by the International Cancer Institute,” she explained. According to her published study on the subject, the clinical trial her team conducted on patients indicated that the medicine (capsules and syrup) did not entail any harmful side effects.In the case of a volunteer patient with lung cancer, the medicine helped in halving the size of the tumor after only one month. The patient, and others like him, are still undergoing treatment. Heeding the advice found in the Hadith, Dr. Khorshid is combining specific amounts of camel milk and urine to develop her medicine and focuses on particular types of cancer, including :lung cancer, blood cancer, stomach cancer, colon cancer, brain tumors and breast cancer.She added that she advises all of her volunteer patients to use fresh camel milk and urine with the two components given individually for a period of time and then combined together later. Other illnesses, including vitiligo (depigmentation in certain areas of the skin), eczema and psoriasis (an autoimmune disease which affects the skin and joints).However, Dr. Khorshid adds that she will only dispense this medicine to patients on a non-voluntary basis when pharmaceutical companies obtain a license to do so. Currently, the medication is still undergoing tests.“We will provide ointments, capsules, syrup, shampoo, soap and gels to combat a number of the illnesses mentioned, but only after they have been licensed by the Ministry of Health and mass-manufactured by the pharmaceutical company,” she explained.Her study has obtained the formal approval of the Ethics Committee of Scientific Research at KAAU. Meanwhile, her research has earned her team the gold medal for innovation in the Kingdom in 2008, and the medicine was also chosen as one of the six best innovations out of 600 entrants at the International Innovation and Technology Exhibition (ITEX) 2009, held in Malaysia●Reference :https://www.eturbonews.com/72396/camel-urine-cure-cancer▪︎▪︎▪︎In the early 1980s, more orthodox publications began identifying specific diseases and medical conditions that have been treated by camel milk or urine, including cancer,3chronic hepatitis,4 hepatitis C infection5, 6 and peptic ulcers.7 Even more recently, it has been reported that camel milk has cured severe food allergies in children who were unresponsive to conventional treatments8 and diabetes mellitus.9Furthermore, camel milk is endowed with antimalignant,10 antiplatelet11 and anti-thromboticproperties12 in addition to a host of anti-bacterial and viral properties,13, 14 suggesting, among other things, the existence of a very strong immune system, which was recently shown to be equipped with unique light-chain-only antibodies.15These claimed therapeutic actions have recently been the subject of numerous studies, and there is now mounting scientific information detailing the constituents of camel milk and urine as well as their therapeutic components. These revelations lend scientific evidence to support the current practice of using these camel products for their therapeutic benefits.The following review summarizes the current knowledge in these areaAnti-cancer action of camel milk and urine:The claimed anti-cancer action of camel products is widely accepted by local healers who use of a mixture of camel milk and urine in the treatment of patients suffering from a variety of cancers, including breast, nasopharyngeal, lung and others. This, in addition to the difficulties faced by modern medicine in finding a lasting cure for cancer, prompted the current flurry of studies attempting to find evidence to support these claimed anti-cancer actions of camel milk and urine and eventually succeed in identifying the anti-malignant component in camel milk or urine that could ultimately lead to the discovery of an effective anti-cancer drug.In a series of in vitro experiments, a research group led by Dr Fatin Khorshid succeeded in demonstrating that lyophilized camel urine stopped the growth of tumour cells implanted into experimental animals and the growth of malignant cell lines including hepatocellular carcinoma (HEPG2), colon carcinoma (HCT 116), human glioma (U251) cells, lung cancer cells and leukaemic cells. She suggested that this anti-cancer action could be both a direct cell cytotoxicity and cutting blood supply to tumour cells, i.e., anti-angiogenic action.29, 30, 31, 32 The latter action of camel urine was recently confirmed by our group. In a series of recent experiments we have demonstrated that both camel urine33 and milk,34 each on its own, inhibited inflammatory angiogenesis in the murine sponge implant angiogenesis model. Further support for the anti-cancer action of camel urine comes from the observations of Alhaider et al.35 that camel urine causes significant inhibition of the expression of the gene encoding carcinogen-activating enzyme Cyp1a1 at the mRNA level in cancerous liver cells. Similar, apoptotic anti-cancer action has also been demonstrated in camel milk.36 To date, the exact nature of the anti-malignant constituents in camel milk or urine have not been identified, although the iron binding, multi-tasking and multi-functional protein lactoferrin (LF) is believed to be a possible candidate.37Interestingly, studies in patients with colorectal cancer found that the administration of LF along with chemotherapy resulted in better prognosis than chemotherapy alone38 and that LF inhibited the growth of adenomatous colorectal polyps in human patients.39 In line with these revelations, LF has also been shown to be directly cytotoxic against cancer cells by inducing the inhibition of the proliferation of cancer cells and their subsequent programmed cells death (apoptosis).40Detailed evidence drawn from laboratory and clinical studies on the actions of LF, which were reviewed recently,41 have confirmed that the ingestion of LF resulted in the inhibition of tumour growth and induced apoptosis and the metastasis of tumour cells by both anti-angiogenic and cytotoxic actions. However, almost all of these studies were performed using the commercially available bovine LF, with the exception of a few in which camel LF was used.27Therefore, further research is needed to confirm these findings using camel LF, which is reported to be more potent than bovine LF.27Finally, it is becoming clear that the local healers' practice of prescribing milk along with urine has a double advantage as both products are endowed with anti-cancer actions; additionally, the milk disguises the identity and taste of the urine and makes its consumption palatable to the patientrecent studies from our laboratory have shown that camel milk and urine possess potent cardiovascular actions.In separate in vitroexperiments, it was shown that camel urine has potent platelet blocking properties similar to the actions of the widely used anti-platelet drugs, aspirin and clopidogrel.11 An earlier study50 has shown that lactoferrin isolated from sheep and human lactoferrin inhibit thrombin-induced aggregation; however, we could not confirm this observation using human lactoferrin. Our ongoing efforts are approaching the identification of the probable dual-platelet inhibitor in camel urine.Conversely, camel milk was also shown to have potential thrombolytic action, as it causes marked reduction in plasma fibrinogen in diabetic rats.12The significance of this observation, added to the observed antiplatelet action mentioned above, provides strong support for the claimed anti-cancer properties of camel milk and urine, as the inhibition of coagulation and fibrin formationwould hinder the spread and growth of metastatic tumour cells. These and other reported benefits of camel milk and urine were drawn from small laboratory studies and should trigger engagement in larger controlled trails in patients.Conversely, camel milk was also shown to have potential thrombolytic action, as it causes marked reduction in plasma fibrinogen in diabetic rats.12The significance of this observation, added to the observed antiplatelet action mentioned above, provides strong support for the claimed anti-cancer properties of camel milk and urine, as the inhibition of coagulation and fibrin formationwould hinder the spread and growth of metastatic tumour cells. These and other reported benefits of camel milk and urine were drawn from small laboratory studies and should trigger engagement in larger controlled trails in patients.Camel immunoglobulinsThe medicinal properties of both camel milk and urine could also be related to the gamma globulins and other immune components, including immunoglobulins, present in both products.25,51For example, half of the circulating antibodies in camel blood consist of only two heavy chains and no light chains.15Because of their reduced size, one-tenth the size of human antibodies, these antibodies can readily pass to the milk of the lactating camel, can pass the blood brain barrier, can be filtered in urine, and are readily absorbed from the gut into the general circulation of consumers of camel milk and/or urine.As to the cardiovascular action of camel urine11, 56 mentioned above, the identity of the dual human platelet inhibitor with actions similar to both aspirin and clopidogrel is being studied, and these efforts are approaching their conclusion in our centre. Although this platelet inhibitory activity was observed in camel urine, earlier studies identified this activity in camel plasma,57, 58 where it was thought to be a natural defence mechanism against thrombotic disease, which camels are at risk to develop due to excessive exposure to environmental heat and drought.59-------●Find all the references on:*Journal of Taiba University Medical Sciences 11.2 2016. --- 98--103Direct link●https://www.sciencedirect.com/.../pii/S1658361216000238...▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎▪︎In a Master’s thesis by an engineer in applied chemistry, Muhammad Awhaaj Muhammad, that was submitted to the faculty of applied chemistry in the al-Jazeerah university in Sudan, and approved by the Dean of science and postgraduate studies in the university in November 1998 CE, entitled A Study of the Chemical Composition and Some Medical Uses of the Urine of Arabian Camels, Muhammad Awhaaj says:Laboratory tests indicate that camel’s urine contains high levels of potassium, albuminous proteins, and small amounts of uric acid, sodium and creatine.In this study, he explained that what prompted him to study the medicinal properties of camel’s urine was what he had seen of some tribesmen drinking this urine whenever they suffered digestion problems. He sought the help of some doctors in studying camel’s urine. They brought a number of patients and prescribed this urine for them, for a period of two months. Their bodies recovered from what they had been suffering from, which proves the efficacy of camel’s urine in treating some diseases of the digestive system.It also proves that this urine is useful in preventing hair loss. He says:Camel’s urine acts as a slow-acting diuretic, but it does not deplete potassium and other salts as other diuretics do, because camel’s urine contains a high level of potassium and proteins. It has also been proven to be effective against some types of bacteria and viruses. It brought about an improvement in the condition of twenty-five patients who used camel’s urine for dropsy, without disrupting their potassium levels. Two of them were cured of liver pain, and their liver function was restored to normal levels, as well as the tissue of the liver being improved. One of the medicines used to treat blood clots is a compound called Fibrinoltics which works by changing a substance in the body from its inactive form, Plasminogen, to its active form, Plasmin, in order to dissolve the substance that causes clotting, Fibrin. One of the components of this compound is called Urokinase, which is produced by the kidneys or from the urine, as indicated by the name “uro”.The dean of the Faculty of Medical Science in the Sudanese al-Jazeerah university, Professor Ahmad ‘Abd-Allaah Ahmadaani, has discovered a practical way of using camel’s urine to treat dropsy and swelling in the liver. Its success has been proven in treating those who are affected by these diseases. He said in a seminar organized by the al-Jazeerah University:The experiment began by giving each patient a daily dose of camel’s urine mixed with camel’s milk to make it palatable. Fifteen days after the beginning of the experiment, the patients’ stomachs grew smaller and went back to their normal size.He said that he examined the patients’ livers with ultrasound before the study began, and he found out that the livers of fifteen out of the twenty-five were in a cirrhotic state, and some of them had developed cirrhosis of the liver as the result of bilharzia. All of the patients responded to treatment with camel’s urine, and some of them continued, by their own choice, to drink a dose of camel’s urine every day for a further two months. At the end of that time, they were all found to have been cured of cirrhosis of the liver. He said: Camel’s urine contains a large amount of potassium, as well as albumen and magnesium, because the camel only drinks four times during the summer and once during the winter, which makes it retain water in its body so as to preserve the sodium, and the sodium causes it not to urinate a great deal, because it keeps the water in its body.He explained that dropsy results from a deficiency of albumen or potassium, and the urine of camels in rich in both of these.He suggested that the best type of camels for using the urine as a remedy are young camels.Dr. Ahlaam al-‘Awadi, a specialist in microbiology in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, supervised some scientific papers that dealt with her discoveries in the usage of camel’s urine for medical treatment, such as the papers by ‘Awaatif al-Jadeedi and Manaal al-Qattaan. During her supervision of the paper by Manaal al-Qattaan, she succeeded in confirming the effectiveness of using a preparation made from camel’s urine which was the first antibiotic produced in this manner anywhere in the world. Concerning the features of this new product, Dr. Ahlaam said:It is not costly, and it is easy to manufacture. It can be used to treat skin diseases such as eczema, allergies, sores, burns, acne, nail infections, cancer, hepatitis and dropsy with no harmful side effects.And she said:Camel’s urine contains a number of healing factors such as antibiotics (bacteria that are present in it, salts and urea). The camel possesses an immune system that is highly equipped to combat funguses, bacteria and viruses, because it contains antibodies. It may also be used to treat blood clots and fibrinolytics may be derived from it, and it may be used to treat dropsy (which is caused by a deficiency in albumen and potassium, as camel’s urine is rich in both). Camel’s urine may also provide a remedy for abdominal complaints, especially those of the stomach and intestines, as well as asthma and shortness of breath. It caused a noticeable reduction in patients’ sugar levels. It is a remedy for low libido, and it aids in bone growth in children and in strengthening the heart muscles. It may be used as a cleansing agent for cleaning wounds and sores, especially the urine of young she-camels. It also helps the hair to grow and become strong and thick, and it helps to prevent hair loss and baldness, and can be used to treat dandruff. Camel’s urine may also be used to combat disease by using bacteria extracted from it. It was used to treat a girl who was suffering from an infection behind the ear, that was accompanied by pus weeping from it and painful cracks and sores. It was also used to treat a girl who was unable to extend the fingers of her hands because of the presence of so many cracks and sores, and whose face was almost black with pimples.Dr. Ahlaam said:Camel’s urine may also be used to treat the digestive system and to treat some cases of cancer. She stated that the research that she had undertaken on camel’s urine proved that it was effective in destroying micro-organisms such as fungus, yeast and bacteria.Dr. Rahmah al-‘Ulyaani, who is also from Saudi Arabia, carried out tests on rabbits infected with bacteria in the colon. She treated each group of rabbits with a different kind of medicine, including camel’s urine. There was a noticeable regression in the rabbits that were treated with other medicines, except for camel’s urine, which brought about a clear improvement.Majallat al-Jundi al-Muslim, issue no. 118, 20 Dhu’l-Qa’dah 1425 AH; 1 January 2005 CE.Allaah calls upon us to ponder the creation of the camel, as He said“Do they not look at the camels, how they are created?”[al-Ghaashiyah 88:17]This pondering is not limited to the outward form of the camel, or even to the inner workings of its body, rather it also includes that which we have discussed here, which is the benefits of the urine and milk of the camel. Modern scientific research is still discovering for us many of the wonders of this creatureReference :Islamqahttps://www.google.com/.../islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/83423Conclusion: Scientific research reveals Camel milk and urine cure cancer and many other diseasesORIGINALLY COMPILED BY ASK A MUSLIM FB PAGE