Pete, thanks. My earlier post equating merc poisoning with the syphilitic miasm was erroneous. As you write, the antipsorics are used for mercury poisoning, as are non-psoric remedies, but not mercury itself. So raw merc does not create a syphilitic situation.

How one could identify in a clinical audit, or in any individual case, that there is a definite cause and effect between mercury fillings and the presenting symptoms?
Thanks for sharing your experience with treating patients.

There appears to me to be a contradiction between the remedies listed in Boenninghausen's Pocketbook for poisonings of various kinds, compared to The Organon para 74-76.

Para 76 states that all the homoeopath can do to help the patient overcome the drugging is to give "expedient help against any chronic miasm that may still be lying the the background." Whereas:
1.experience shows that non-chronic-misamatic remedies listed by Boennighausen are effective against the symptoms of Mercury poisoning. Perhaps they just afford symptomatic relief, and only the anti-miasmatics are curative?
2.it is not always possible when prescribing to distinguish clearly between chronic miasmatic symptoms and drug-induced(Merc)symptoms.

It throws into question what H meant in para 76, and what homoeopathy can do, and what remedies can be used curatively in iatrogenic diseases.