Mr R replied to my post -
I havent bothered (as of yet)
to formulate responses, but think
it worth posting his reply for your analysis..
one point - if this guy doesnt know who Dr Stock is (see below)
he is really revealing his lack of knowledge on the Amalgam
issue - anyone (pro OR anti) who doesnt know that simply
hasnt done his homework..
ade
R wrote:
>> pcsol wrote:
>> >
> > This implies that the ADA accept research that you dismiss as
> > faulty..
> >
> > ie:-
> > Svare et al., "The Effect of dental amalgams on Hg levels in expired
> > air", Journal of dental research (1981) - The first paper to establish
> > unequivocally that Hg comes out of amalgams.
>> Yep. This is one of the bogus studies that used an industrial mercury
> vapor measuring device to establish the presence of mercury vapor in
> the oral cavity. Both the manufacturer of the device and critics
> pointed out that the design of the device would yield unreliable
> results (including false positives) when used in extremely small
> areas. If you've bothered to read the literature, you would already
> know this. It's unreasonable to promote a citation of this type
> if/when you already know that the study is faulty.
>> >
> >
> > > them out when I have time and send you my comments. Please note
> > > that I'm asking you for COMPLETE documentation which details
> > > the precise methods and instruments used to develop raw data. And
> > > also a description of the statistical analysis used to arrive at conclusions
> > > like the one below:
> >
> > > > World Health Organization Figures (World Health Organization,
> > > > Environmental Health Criteria 118: Inorganic Mercury, Geneva, 1991.)
> > > > The World Health Organization has calculated the average human
> > > > daily dose of mercury from various sources is:
> > > > Dental amalgam = 3.0-17.0 ug/day (Hg vapor)
> > > > Fish and Seafood = 2.3 ug/day (methylmercury)
> > > > Other food = 0.3 ug/day(inorganic Hg)
> > > > Air & Water = Negligible traces (NOTE ug = Micrograms)
> >
> > Ok, the above was based on an "average" analysis of available
> > peer-reviewed research data.
>> You didn't answer my question.
>> >
> >
> > > > > 2) While decrying amalgam as a restorative substance, you better take a
> > > > > look at the alternatives. Acrylic composites are known
> > > > > pulp-killers and
> > > > > the practice of replacing amalgam with composite usually culminates
> > > > >
> > > > > in a root canal procedure and crownwork if not extraction and
> > > > > dentures.
> >
> > Whenever someone trots out the "composites are bad too" line,
> > I smell a rat. So what? The primary question is whether Amalgam
> > is safe, not whether composites are safe.
>> Nonsense. Almost all drugs, medical devices, and substances used
> in medicine can have adverse effects. The irrational mindset of
> anti-amalgamists is indicated by the amazing way in which they
> decry the use of a substance whose safety is well-established in
> favor of substances that have obvious harmful effects.
>> >
> > Anyway, research data indicates that any volatile hydrocarbon
> > type toxins that Composites might leak are toxic at
> > (broadly) milligram levels, rather than microgram levels
> > that Mercury dangerous at. Furthermore any such compounds
> > that do come out drop rapidly in level one they "set",
> > within a day or so. Conversly Amalgams leak Mercury slowly
> > over a very long time - and Mercury is a cumulative toxin.
> > Remember that Mercury is the most toxic non-radioactive element
> > known to man. Toxicologists have long regarded it as particularly
> > dangerous because its effects at low-levels are so insidious &
> > hard to detect.
>> You're still confusing elemental mercury with amalgam. Mercury
> is toxic. Amalgam is not toxic. And you don't understand the
> problems involved in use of composites. I don't have time to
> discuss all the ramifications. Well, in truth, I do have the time,
> but I don't believe that you care.
>> >
> >
> > > > My own & most of the other people I directly know who have gone down
> > > > this
> > > > path have not had problems, above what you might expect - after all,
> > > > rotten
> > > > teeth are rotten teeth, Amalgam or not..
> > >
> > > No, "rotten" teeth aren't necessarily rotten teeth. Amalgam restorations
> > > often last several decades without complications, and they can be easily
> > > replaced by another amalgam restoration which could easily last another
> > > two decades. By contrast, acrylic composites have an extremely short
> > > life expectancy on occlusal surfaces. Owing to their high coefficient of
> > > expansion, a large composite restoration can create stresses within a
> > > tooth that cause minute (harmful) cracks. And the base resins used
> > > *often* cause pulpal problems leading to endodontics and/or extraction.
> > > This is well documented in the endodontic literature.
> >
> > Amalgam is indeed an "easy" material to work with, demanding
> > low skill levels for tolerable results. By contrast Composites
> > and other materials are "technique sensitive" - more time &
> > skill is required for good placement - *particularly* in
> > a tooth that once contained Amalgam because so much of the
> > tooth needs to be removed to form a plug for the Amalgam.
> > Also the presence of Hg ions has the short term local effect
> > of killing off bacteria - however that poses immediate
> > questions about systemic effects of those same ions..
>> Nonsense. While it's true that both time and skill is required
> to place acrylic composite restorations in suitable areas, ie non-occlusal
> surfaces (on the sides of teeth), no amount of skill on the part of
> the dentist can make acrylic composites acceptable for use on
> chewing surfaces. Why? The potential for pulpal irritation and
> death owing to chemical complications; the stresses that composites
> create on tooth structure -- both during the cure and also during
> temperature fluctuations after cure; and finally owing to the lack
> of abrasive resistance of composites themselves. In short, an acrylic
> composite contact surface will wear away within a few months
> causing all sorts of problems.
>> >
> >
> > > > This is mud that is easy to sling, but proves nothing.
> > > > Some of the "Anti amalgamists" are top notch scientists (WHO
> > > > consultants, etc) with a good solid scientific history before they took
> > > > up sides the Amalgam issue.
> > >
> > > Name a few.
> >
> > There are many research papers that indicate (directly or indirectly)
> > Amalgam could be harmful - often published by scientists who
> > do not regard themselves as be "anti amalgam" at all.
> > But if you want a few names..
> > -------------------------------
> > Vimy and Lorscheider, "Evaluation of the safety issue of Hg release
> > from dental fillings", FASEB Journal (1993)
> >
> > Nylander and Berglund, "Does Hg from amalgam restorations constitute
> > a health hazard?", Science of the Total Environment (1990)
> >
> > Goerging, Galloway, Clarkson, Lorscheider, Berlin and Rowland,
> > "Toxicity Assessment of Hg Vapor from Dental Amalgams", Fundemental
> > and Appled Toxicology (1992)
> >
> > Clarkson and Friberg, Biological monitoring of Toxic Metals (Plenum
> > Press 1988)
> >
> > Svare et al., "The Effect of dental amalgams on Hg levels in expired
> > air", Journal of dental research (1981) - The first paper to establish
> > unequivocally that Hg comes out of amalgams.
> >
> > Vimy and Lorscheider, "Whole-body imaging of the distribution of Hg
> > released from dental fillings into monkey tissues", FASEB Journal
> > (1990)
> >
> > Vasken Aposhian, "Urinary Hg after administration of 2,3-
> > dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonic acid (DMSA): correlation with dental
> > amalgam", FASEB Journal (1992)
> >
> > Friberg and Nylander, "Hg Concentrations in the human brain and
> > kidneys in relation to exposure from dental amalgam fillings",
> > Swedish Dental Journal (1987)
> >
> > Woods and Echeverria, "Urinary porphyrin profiles as a biomarker of Hg
> > exposure: studies on dentists with occupational exposure to Hg",
> > Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health (1993)
> >
> > Vimy and Lorscheider, "Mercury from dental "silver" tooth Eillings
> > impairs sheep kidney Eunction", (1991)
> >
> > Eggleston and Nylander, "Correlation of dental amalgam with Hg in
> > Brain tissue", Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (1987)
> >
> > David Eggleston, "Effect of dental amalgam and nickel alloys on
> > T-lymphocytes: Preliminary report", Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
> > (1987)
> >
> > Summers, Vimy and Lorscheider, "Hg released from dental "silver"
> > fillings provokes an increase in Hg and antibiotic-resistant bacteria
> > in oral and intestinal flora of primates", Antimicrobial Agents and
> > Chemotherapy (1993)
> >
> > Vimy and Lorscheider, "Maternal-fetal distribution of Hg released from
> > dental amalgam fillings", (1990)
> >
> > Gustav Drasch, "Hg burden of human fetal and infant tissues",
> > European Journal of Paediatrics (1994)
> >
> > Fritz Lorscheider, `ADP-ribosylation of brain neuronal proteins is
> > altered by in vitro and in vivo exposure to inorganic Hg",
> > Journal of Neurochemistry (1994)
> >
> > Markesbery and Ehmann, "Trace element imbalances in isolated
> > subcellular fractions of Alzheimer's diseased brains", Brain Research
> > (1990)
> >
> > Markesbery and Ehmann, "Regional brain trace element studies in
> > Alzheimer's disease neurotoxicology", (1988)
> >
> > Boyd Haley, "HgEDTA complex inhibits GTP interactions with the E-site
> > of brain beta-tubulin", Journal of Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology
> > (1993)
>> Good work. You've compiled the who's who of dental quackery here. Now
> take a look at the critical reviews that address the inherent flaws
> in the underlying research. I don't have my bibliography handy, but
> right offhand I would refer you to articles by John Dodes, a practicing
> dentist who's deeply involved in one of the US's most influential
> anti-quackery groups. Also, the ADA journal has published two literature
> reviews which briefly point out the flaws in the work of the "researchers"
> cited above.
>> If you want to look at *both* sides of the issue, let me know and I'll
> go through my archives and send you complete citations.
>> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > The evidence is there - but unfortunately the dental
> > > > industry has learnt lessons from other industrys with similar problems
> > > > (tobacco,asbestos,GM foods, etc) and is rather good at spewing out
> > > > rhetoric similar to that above.
> > >
> > > Exactly the opposite. The anti-amalgam quackery rose to a fevor pitch
> > > in the USA in the 80's before consumer agencies finally took action. The
> > > publishers of "Consumer Reports" in the USA was instrumental in
> >
> > Is this the same consumer reports that told us 10 years ago
> > "passive smoking was harmless", and later reversed that position?
> > They should stick to evaluating fridges..
>> I'm unfamiliar with their position on passive smoking, but I am familiar
> with logic. You're attacking their position on one issue by alluding to
> their alleged faults in addressing an entirely different issue.
>> >
> >
> > > getting officials to examine the scam long before the ADA got involved.
> > > The ADA was reluctant to speak out on the issue because of political
> >
> > This is utter rubbish.
>> You don't know what you're talking about. After my dental health was
> ruined by one of the most notorious anti-amalgam quacks in the USA,
> I spent roughly eight years of my life dealing with dental health fraud.
> Every day. Every single day, mind you, I wrote letters, gave speeches,
> involved myself in political action, filed lawsuits, wrote articles, etc, etc
> etc. And one of the things that kept me busy for nearly a year and
> a half was an effort to get the ADA to speak out on dental quackery...
> specifically the anti-amalgam issue. They didn't do so because of their
> fear of backlash from ADA members who were involved in the scam.
> After they published a landmark article on dental quackery, the backlash
> did, indeed, occur but it wasn't as bad as expected. Nevertheless, one
> of the ADA staff members who was responsible for the article came
> close to losing her job. The Academy of General Dentistry published
> comparable articles and the author of those articles, Zev Remba, *did*
> lose his job after hundreds of quacks threatened to resign from the AGD.
>> > The ADA have been unequivocal in
> > attacking virtually *anyone* (credible scientist or otherwise)
> > who dares to question Amalgam safty - right from in inception
> > in the 19th century, through the debates in the 30's, right up
> > to date.
>> Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you
> read the ADA journals and see where and when these "attacks"
> occurred. Even today, the ADA's language in dealing with
> blatant quackery is far too mild. Instead of branding the proponents
> for what they really are, the ADA prefers to quietly point out
> that the amalgam toxicity theory simply lacks a scientific basis.
>> > By the way, the average daily release figures calculated
> > by Dr Stock (10ug/Hg vapour day for a mouth full of Amalgam)
> > were broadly backed up by later research (see WHO figures above).
> > This is amazing given the primitive nature of the equiptment
> > he used.
>> Again, the research by Svare was totally discredited. I'm unfamiliar
> with Dr. Stock and to the best of my knowledge WHO has never
> published any research to indicate the mercury leakage from amalgam
> occurs to any extent that could be considered dangerous in reasonable
> perspective.
>> >
> > At the time, Stock was vilified by the ADA for daring
> > to suggest *any* mercury at all leaks from Amalgam.
> > They have never apologised to him.
>> Again, I'm unfamiliar with Dr. Stock. And I've never heard
> his name mentioned in any of my discussions with people
> involved on either side of the issue.
>> >
> > > fears. A lawsuit brought by a notorious quack named Hal Huggins
> > > seeking ADA sponsorship for a bogus treatment program was the "last
> > > straw", so to speak, and prompted the ADA to get involved. It's worth
> > > mentioning, however, that most of the effective actions against anti-
> > > amalgam quackery have been waged by attorneys and government
> >
> > In my view Huggins hurt the "anti amalgam" movement by trying
> > to make money out of his "discovery" that Amalgam could
> > be dangerous, and thus gave the dental industry a "get out"
> > - they can now accuse *any* scientist (however credible they
> > previously were) who happens to question amalgam safety of
> > "quackery".
>> I don't want to waste time discussing Huggins. Basically, I consider
> him to be a criminal who's made a fortune over the years going from
> one scam to another. Unfortunately, he's a role model for many of
> the dentists who continue to keep this scam going. Without exception,
> every dentist that I've interviewed in the USA who promotes the
> claim of amalgam toxicity has also been involved in other forms of
> quackery involving treatment programs that either lack a scientific
> foundation -- or alternatively -- have already been disproven.
>> There are some "scientists" who truly believe that amalgam is toxic
> and have been motivated to join the battle for purely humanitarian
> reasons. I don't want to mention names here, but I got to know
> several of these individuals back in the 80's and discovered that
> they simply couldn't think clearly -- to put it mildly. Not simply
> about amalgam toxicity but any subject that you would care to
> name. That's not to say that all anti-amalgamists ought to be
> discredited simply because some anti-amalgamists are charlatans
> or fuzzy headed. What it does mean is that we should take a very
> close look at the research and resist the temptation to believe that
> some proposition is true simply because an alleged "authority"
> tells us so.
>> > ...
> >
> > > regulators without much assistance from the ADA. At one point in
> > > the 80's it was estimated by roughly 30-50% of dentists in the USA
> > > were using the amalgam scam to literally "scare up" business that
> > > was unnecessary or poorly advised from the standpoint of their
> > > patients' health.
> >
> > How much has the ADA and it members made from implanting
> > countless tons of mercury in peoples teeth? How much
> > money does the dental industry stand to loose if it is
> > ever proven that Amalgam is dangerous?
>> Nothing whatsoever. There is *no* evidence whatsoever to indicate
> that amalgams are dangerous. Not so with tobacco smoke, asbestos,
> silicone implants, etc. As such, it's unlikely that a court would find
> dentists liable for using amalgam.
>> It's important to point out that amalgam restorations are
> extremely affordable and not very profitable for dentists. If you
> examine the fee schedules published from time to time in the
> ADA and AGD journals, you'll see that a dentists can make four
> or five times as much money per hour doing acrylic composites
> and/or crowns as he/she would make doing amalgam restorations.
>> >
> > >
> > > I've examined all of Vimy's papers published prior to 1995 or
> > > thereabouts and everyone of them was flawed. If memory serves
> > > you'll find an analysis of these flaws in papers by Dr. John Dodes.
> > > Sorry, I don't have citations handy but they turn up readily in
> > > bibliographic searches.
> >
> > I do remember reading an good analysis of Dodes rather
> > pathetic critique - by Dagfinn maybe - perhaps someone else could drag
> > it
> > out from the AMALGAM archives & post it here?
>> Please mail me a copy of this and I'll pass it along to Dodes
> personally if it has any merit. BTW, would you mind giving
> me your real name and address?
>> >
> > > > "..I think there is no basis for such a statement... [that
> > > > amalgam is safe to use for children].... They are definitely
> > > > particularly vulnerable. We know that if you take a young
> > > > child - it takes a few years after birth until the brain
> > > > is developed. We know that the brain in children is much
> > > > more sensitive than in adults."
> > > > (Dr Lars Friberg, Former Chief Adviser to the World
> > > > Health Organisation on Mercury safety. speaking on BBC Panorama..)
> > >
> > > Great. We can agree that children have sensitive brains.
> >
> > Friberg was for a long time "impartial" on the Amalgam issue,
> > and his textbooks on toxicology of Mercury were/are regarded
> > as "standards" - he was/is a very highly regarded Toxicologist.
> > It is worth noting there is no record of critisism of him
> > by the dental industry prior to his later stance on Amalgam.
> > When someone of his experience sticks his neck out this far,
> > people should take note.
> >
> > > > "..there is no safe level of mercury,
> > > > and no one has
> > > > actually shown that there is a safe level. I would say
> > > > mercury is a very toxic substance... I think they
> > > > [the BDA] are wrong.. [to make such a claim]"
> > > > (Dr Lars Friberg, speaking on BBC Panorama..)
> > >
> > > Wrong. Safe levels can easily be established by looking at the
> > > epidemiological evidence.
> >
> > It is quite clear from the quote that he means
> > that we do not know how low we have do go before
> > we say "this level is safe", and the BDAs claim
> > to the contrary is wrong.
> > Bear in mind too his first language is Swedish..
> >
> > > > "My own conclusion is that already in individuals with bruxism,
> > > > [bruxism is habitual grinding of teeth]
> > > > which is common in the population, exposure may well be compared
> > > > with industrial exposure that has given rise to effects. Furthermore,
> > > > despite negative results in epidemiological studies, the statistical
> > > > power [of these studies] is not high enough to exclude the occurrence
> > > > of effects in a few percent of the population at still lower
> > > > exposure levels.
> > >
> > > In other words, he doesn't have any evidence to support his claim.
> >
> > Of course he has evidence, otherwise he would not be
> > saying it. He is saying *epidemiological* evidence is lacking
> > - but that is true *both* ways..
>> No, it's not lacking *both* ways. There is *no* evidence to show
> that amalgam causes disease. To illustrate the way it works, let's
> assume that amalgam does indeed cause disease in "sensitive"
> individuals. There are roughly 100,000 dentists in the USA
> alone and surely 3,000 of them would be "sensitive" if the quack
> assumptions were correct. This number is far more significantly,
> statistically speaking, than the extremely low number of "subjects"
> used in studies by Vimy et al. If amalgam is toxic, one would
> expect to find a higher incidence of disease in dentists as opposed
> to the population at large. This simply isn't the case.
>> At this point, the anti-amalgamists often say that this doens't
> prove that amalgams are safe. Well, guess what! It's impossible
> to prove a negative. I can't prove that amalgams don't cause
> disease anymore than you can prove that you've never, ever,
> raped young children. Scientists, philosophers, and logicians --
> as opposed to quacks -- understand that science cannot be based
> on non-falsifiable arguments. As such, we base our conclusions
> about the toxicity of a substance on *know* adverse effects.
>> >
> >
> > > Modern science is based on the concept of the null hypothesis. In
> > > essence, we expect to see proof that a given claim is true before we
> > > accept its validity. By contrast, this individual has asserted a claim
> > > without evidence and is faulting science for failing to prove that
> > > his claim is true. We have lots of anecdotal evidence from lots
> > > of authorities "proving" that ghosts exist, but we can't prove the
> > > existence scientifically because the scientific methods at our
> > > disposal aren't sufficiently powerful.
> >
> > Typical rhetoric designed to ridicule, rather
> > than argument based on fact.
> > We have hard research evidence indicating Amalgam could be
> > a problem - I think your metaphor about ghosts holds no water.
>> It's perfectly analogous. You don't have *any* evidence, either
> clinical or epidemiological, to support your claim about amalgam
> toxicity just as I don't have any evidence to support my claim that
> ghosts are the real culprit behind our imaginary disease. As such
> a reasonable person -- as opposed to a quack -- would be disinclined
> to argue that ghosts and amalgams cause disease. It's highly
> revealing, by the way, that you haven't even told me *what* diseases
> (if any) that amalgam may cause.
>> >
> >
> > > > As amalgam is used so widely already, an effect in
> > > > a few percent of the exposed population would mean that very
> > > > large population groups could be affected.
> > >
> > > Yes, perhaps ghosts and gobblins are also affecting a statistically
> > > small segment of the population -- adding up to many millions. However,
> > > there's no evidence to support this notion. The claim about bruxism,
> > > for instance, was originally based on a quack study conducted about
> > > fifteen years ago which used misused a device for monitoring mercury levels
> > > in industrial environments. There have been two or three attempts
> > > to re-establish the claim, but to the best of my knowledge, none of
> > > the anti-amalgamists has been successful in putting together
> > > a reproducible study.
> >
> > Nonsense - the research that indicates bruxism increases Hg leakage
> > from the surface of Amalgam remains unchallenged.
>> Wrong.
>> > The only critism
> > of the device used (gold leaf Jerome meter) fails in this incidence
> > for simple reasons - whatever dispute/errors that may occur when trying
> > to extrapolate the (abviously tiny) amounts of Hg vapour directly
> > measured by the meter to daily exposures, this is less relevant when
> > *comparing* 2 figures measured by the same meters, say before/after
> > abrading Amalgam surfaces. Whatever the absolute figures, we can
> > show an *increase* in release after bruxism.
>> Wrong.
>> >
> >
> > > > The evidence from experimental and human studies at higher exposure
> > > > levels clearly indicates that mercury from the toxicological point
> > > > of view is an unsuitable element to use in dentistry. It is my
> > > > opinion that it is prudent to conclude that mercury from dental
> > > > amalgam is not safe to use for everyone."
> > > > (Dr Lars Friberg, Former Chief Adviser to the World
> > > > Health Organisation on Mercury safety. 1995 Symposium report.)
> > > >
> > > > "If you have something that's been put in your mouth that
> > > > you can't dispose of in a waste basket without breaking
> > > > environmental protection laws,
> > >
> > > He's confusing amalgam with elemental mercury.
> >
> > He knows what he is talking about..
>> Wrong. He's confusing elemental mercury with amalgam.
>> >
> >
> > > > there's no point in
> > > > keeping it around, there's no point in taking that type of
> > > > risk - there's no point in exposing people to any level of
> > > > mercury toxicity if you don't have to......
> > > > .....there is no doubt in my mind that low levels of mercury
> > > > present in the brain could cause normal cell death, and this
> > > > could lead to dementia which would be similar to Alzheimer's
> > > > disease....
> > >
> > > Ghosts and goblins could be responsible for this dementia,
> > > which may or may not exist, but
> > > unfortunately, there isn't any evidence.
> >
> > Again, typical rhetoric designed to ridicule, rather
> > than argument based on fact.
>> It's an argument based on logic. There are *no* facts to support the
> claim that amalgam causes disease. None. Rien. Nada. People
> like you continue to advance the claim because you don't understand
> the role that the null hypothesis *must* play in developing the
> foundations of knowledge.
>> > > ...
> >
> > Have you ever wondered why industrialised countries suffer from
> > certain chronic illnesses (MS,ME,Alzheimers) that are virtually
> > absent in other parts of the world? Industrial pollution
> > (with Amalgam being a part of that) could be an answer.
>> On the other hand, maybe the ghosts of dead factory workers are
> the answer. Prove to me that ghosts aren't truly responsible. Hmm.
> On second thought, perhaps I should prove a demonstrable
> connection between ghosts and MS. And likewise, you should prove
> that a link exists between amalgam and MS. For starters, you
> could do a simple statistical study to see if individuals with amalgam
> fillings suffer a higher incidence of MS. Ditto for dentists. After
> doing so, I suspect that you won't find a correlation.
>> >
> > The evidence could be there - proving it in the current
> > political climate is harder..
>> Thanks for admitting that you don't have any evidence. We're
> making some progress. Perhaps you and some of your anti-amalgam
> pals could donate the money for statistical research attempting to
> link amalgam fillings with MS. When you fail to uncover a positive
> relationship, I hope you'll have the intellectual honesty to reveal
> your negative findings... unlike some of the the "scientists" you've
> cited previously.
>> >
> >
> > > > If it's not bothering
> > > > someone when they're young, especially when they age it can
> > > > turn into something quite disastrous."
> > > > (Dr Boyd Haley, Professor of Medicinal Biochemistry,
> > > > University of Kentucky. speaking on BBC Panorama..)
> > > >
> > > > "The ADA owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from
> > > > allegedly dangerous products used by dentists…..Dissemination
> > > > of information relating to the practice of dentistry does not
> > > > create a duty of care to protect the public from potential
> > > > injury."
> > > > (American Dental Association lawyers.)
> > >
> > > Where did you find this quotation? Please name the attorneys who
> > > made the statement and tell me where it appears in print. The
> > > reason I'm making this demand is that I personally know the
> > > person who was in charge of approving or disapproving the use
> > > of restorative materials during the height ot the amalgam scam
> > > in the USA (Enid Neidle) and Neidle would deny this claim in a
> > > heartbeat.
> >
> > This is an absolute quote from a court case where someone
> > tried to sue them.
>> What court case?
>> > In fact the ADA have gotten so annoyed
> > about usage of this quote that they decided to issue
> > rebuttal on their WWW pages - it might still be there..
>> I looked briefly and couldn't find it. Please tell me where you found
> the quote originally. And if possible, please give me some names.
>
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤øø¤º°`°º¤¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸
To learn more about the Amalgam safety issue (or lack of) visit:-
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pcsol
(Includes FAQ & more links..)
PLEASE NOTE - "REPLY TO" on this message may be incorrect
to discourage junk mail. EMAIL replys to :
pcsol AT tcp DOT co DOT uk
