acepgmr <acepgmr at best.com> wrote:
>I wrote this some time ago and I'm going to write it again. There are a
>number of studies in Medline which show mercury amalgam as a major cause of
>oral lichenoid lesions. Such lesions are often pre-cancerous. These
>studies have mostly been done in the last few years so perhaps dentistry
>schools aren't teaching it yet.
>The conclusion is inescapable. Mercury amalgam in a significant cause of
>such lesions and may well be a significant cause of oral cancer.
Studies need to be confirmed, repeated and verified. That's why the
wheels of science turn slowly. The above statement may be true . . .
or may not be!
>Furthermore, the repeated statements of the American Dental Association that
>there have been fewer than 100 cases of mercury hypersensitivity in the
>medical literature are false and the fact that they continue such statements
>are irresponsible and dangerous.
Proof?
Cheers,
Joel
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
>Here are some of the studies:
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=9145263&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=8705594&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=8731663&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b
>Hans Lennros wrote:
>> Hi Zugumba,
>>>> Been gone a while. Here's my reply:
>>>> You wrote:
>> >Ha, dead wrong. "Taught in dental schools" is not the issue (dental
>> >schools are inherently conservative and should be; their most important
>> >role is not only teaching clinical and technical understanding and
>> >skills, but also to teach students to critically evaluate research and
>> >see through marketing hype).
>>>> Sounds nice (almost like an dental school ad) - but do they?
>> My point was also that they are conservative and never will take a lead
>> position in many fields of dentistry.
>>>> >What is "cutting edge" should not mean (because it is unethical,
>> >potentially harmful, and fraudulent) is that you are rendering
>> >treatment based on anecdotal evidence or what you *feel* is right.
>> >Judgement in treatment decisions should have at its basis sound,
>> >research using the scientific method. That's the best protection for
>> >our patients and for us.
>>>> What is research? In many areas research is ordered. The results
>> are predicted and paid for even before the scientists have gotten
>> their test tubes labeled. Especially within dentistry.
>>>> The thing here is that Joel said: "Sorry Hans. No profession works
>> that way. Medical doctors do not "make up their own minds"
>> irrespective of research!"
>>>> and now you say something similar: "what you *feel* is right"
>>>> My gosh. I stopped being a robot ten years ago. Every day I do
>> something dentalwise on a gut feeling. Wouldn't stand practicing
>> if I had to go by the book all the time. And it for sure wouldn't
>> benefit the patients one bit. Everyday I do at least some
>> experiments hitherto unheard of . All to the benefit of teeth.
>> My last idéa is to try to find out a way to bond ProTec CEM.
>> Heck, I think I am on to something. Tomorrow I will contact their
>> research team to exchange thoughts. I will send you and Joel
>> a kind thought even if you are sitting there rammin' in amalgam.
>>>> Hi for now,
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Smart Alec El Hanso wroto:
>>>> Hi Joel,
>>>> You said:
>> >we are to believe the Centers for Disease Control, the
>> >U.S. Public Health Service and 53 U.S. dental schools.
>> >So far, no diseases are caused by "mercury fillings."
>>>> Why not make up your own mind instead of listening to
>> what you have heard others say. Isn't that hearsay?
>> As for your information the Centers for Disease Control, the
>> U.S. Public Health Service and 53 U.S. dental schools
>> are probably the last bodies to change.
>> BTW; have you ever wondered why the Centers for Disease Control, the
>>>> >U.S. Public Health Service have some sort of disclaimers when
>> >they talk about the safety of dental amalgam?
>>>> Hans
