Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Political commentary

Expand Messages
  • AndyCutler@aol.com
    ... I have to be very careful about what I tell my patients about the risks of amalgam. Dentists that discuss mercury hazards risk peer review hearings and
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 26, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Autism-Mercury@y..., "Joan Hawley" <gramjoan@f...> wrote:
      > Dear Mark,
      > As a practicing dentist in the state of Michigan I can tell you that
      I have to be very careful about what I tell my patients about the
      risks of amalgam. Dentists that discuss mercury hazards risk peer
      review hearings and possible sanctions from state boards.

      This routine suppression of free speech by medical and dental boards
      is the reason you all have impaired children (and that many of you are
      sick). There really isn't any solution that involves a licensure
      system. Under the guise of protecting the public, licensure ensures
      the public will be harmed while protecting the doc's from competition.

      Andy
    • Andrea & Mark
      Moira and all who responded to my intro, Thanks so much for all the information provided. After rereading the FAQ statement your dentist risks losing his
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 26, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Moira and all who responded to my intro,

        Thanks so much for all the information provided. After rereading the FAQ statement "your dentist risks losing his license if he
        tells you that mercury is dangerous", I can see my husband's point. In my husband's mind it should say specify "amalgams" rather than "mercury". I, on the other hand, didn't take it so literally when I first read it. We do, however, both agree that testing needs to be done.

        Andrea

        >>First, it is lovely that you and your (skeptical) husband are
        writing to the list. I think it shows some openness. I guess
        I think skepticism can be very useful when you use it in this way
        (to get more information, and to highlight what the issues are
        that are not causing skepticism).

        Anyway, as for the issue you have brought up about risks to
        dentists: I don't know if it is "literally" or "precisely"
        correct what the FAQ says. It might be, I don't happen to
        know. But I think it is "in the right ballpark" at least.
        As one example that I know of, I'll offer this: last year
        I went to a local dentist who has a website that includes
        info about mercury poisoning. He is also a member of the
        board of a dental organization that is anti-mercury. When
        I went to see him I asked him how he "gets away" with doing
        this so publically. He told me that he is very careful what
        he says-- and will only say things he can clearly back up
        with facts and studies.
        He also said something like that they HAVE tried to hound him
        but are currently leaving him alone. He told me that he has
        testified in some hearings about mercury -- I think meaning
        that he feels he can back up his claims well enough to keep
        the authorities "at bay". Please note that I am not quoting
        him here, and don't remember the actual words used--- but the
        overall concept is correct: he has had to fight about it to
        be able to say these things, although he is currently not being
        challenged, accused or harrassed.

        What the FAQ says is:
        "Because of the ADA's position, your dentist risks losing his license if he
        tells you that mercury is dangerous, no matter what he personally believes."

        I think your husband's point that the ADA doesn't liscense dentists is
        correct, but too narrow. The ADA doesn't liscense dentists, but they
        are a GIANT factor in this mercury fisaco. They have a very clear
        position. I'd like to recommend the book "Mercury Free: the wisdom
        behind the global consumer movement to ban "silver" dental fillings"
        by Dr. James E. Hardy (he is a dentist). This is my "favorite"
        book about mercury poisoning and amalgam. It is very "easy reading"
        (except for being potentially very disturbing information). I am
        recommending it here because it includes a LOT of information about
        the history of amalgam (mercury) in dentistry, including the
        VERY SORDID (in my opinion and the authors) history of the ADA.
        Hardy refers to them as "the Amalgam Dental Association". They
        were literally formed as an alternative to another dental organization
        that had its members pledge never to use mercury fillings!
        So, the ADA was formed for dentists who wanted to use mercury!
        So, my point is that I think the ADA's position is a big factor
        in the (supposed) controversy about mercury fillings. They may
        not be the "only" factor, but I don't think it is unrealistic
        to say that it is "because of the ADA's position" that dentists
        face problems in this area. Another way to say it would be:
        "Because of the (mistaken) belief that amalgam is safe, which
        has been promoted and supported by the ADA, your dentist may
        get into trouble......"

        As an aside, (not directly on the point), my "regular" dentist,
        who uses amalgam occassionally, believes that amalgam is safe,
        and that amalgam replacement is a bad idea. He sees it as
        needless dental work, which always carries some risk. Since
        there is no "benefit", it makes sense to be against doing it.
        (from his point of view)

        I remember reading a bunch of email last year about a dentist
        on the east coast who was basically being harrassed legally
        for doing some unconventional things, including saying mercury
        was dangerous, and doing amalgam replacements.
        The emails were asking for support. I'm sure
        I don't have any of them anymore.

        If you are adequately curious about what really does happen
        to dentists who say amalgam is "bad", you could also try
        contacting dental groups--- I think IAOMT is one--- there
        may be others--- that are against the use of mercury.
        http://www.iaomt.org/ Reading Huggins' books (one of
        which was recommended to you yesterday) will also give
        some prespecitve on the real world for dentists. It is
        not a pretty picture-- there are reasons Huggins has
        moved to Mexico to practice.

        I think that's about all I can add regarding your husband's
        points.

        As for the rest of what you said-- welcome and I think you
        have "come to the right place". For testing, get a hair test
        run through DDI. Your DAN doctor can order it for you.

        Finally, in respect for skepticism, I would like to add that
        it is not necessary to "buy into" any particular belief in
        order to test your son and in order to try chelation (if he
        is toxic). People who did NOT believe their problems
        were due to mercury poisoning have been helped (I've read
        some interesting testimonials about amalgam replacements
        that are along these lines). If your son is poisoned with
        heavy metals, chelation will help him for purely physical
        reasons-- not because of your belief it will help. In other
        words, it is your actions that count.

        best,
        Moria



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Rominick@aol.com
        Just look at the PARADE insert in the Sunday paper about 2 weeks ago. There was an article about the EPA telling everyone to get rid of their mercury
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 26, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Just look at the PARADE insert in the Sunday paper about 2 weeks ago. There
          was an article about the EPA telling everyone to get rid of their mercury
          containing thermometers and how unsafe they were. The info is probably on the
          EPA's website.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Moria Merriweather
          ... statement your dentist risks losing his license if he ... husband s mind it should say specify amalgams rather than mercury . I, on the other hand,
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 27, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            >Moira and all who responded to my intro,
            >
            >Thanks so much for all the information provided. After rereading the FAQ
            statement "your dentist risks losing his license if he
            >tells you that mercury is dangerous", I can see my husband's point. In my
            husband's mind it should say specify "amalgams" rather than "mercury". I,
            on the other hand, didn't take it so literally when I first read it. We
            do, however, both agree that testing needs to be done.
            >
            >Andrea


            Dear Andrea,

            Oh! Oops. I guess I sorta answered the "wrong question" but hope it was
            interesting! I have updated the FAQ to refer to "amalgam fillings"
            rather than "mercury" in this particular sentence! It is a point
            taken: it does INTEND to refer to the mercury in fillings, which
            is what the controvery is about. The ADA does not (to my
            knowledge) have the opinion that MERCURY is not toxic--- they
            just think it is non-toxic when it is in your mouth ;) in amalgam.
            Presumably dentists who believe that mercury is a poison are
            not subject to professional risks, as long as they (like the ADA)
            also have the opinion that it is safe when in amalgam fillings.

            Tell your husband (Mark?) "thank you" for the correction.
            (By the way, I didn't write the FAQ, but have done formatting
            edits to the currently-posted-version, so I have the file
            on my computer -- which is why I could change it easily enough.)

            Moria
          • Andrea & Mark
            Moira, I will tell him! I think that will give him a lot more confidence in the rest of the information presented. By the way, he spent many years as an
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 27, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Moira,

              I will tell him! I think that will give him a lot more confidence in the rest of the information presented. By the way, he spent many years as an auditor, so he naturally tends to scrutinize the details of anything he reads.

              Andrea

              >Tell your husband (Mark?) "thank you" for the correction.
              >(By the way, I didn't write the FAQ, but have done formatting
              >edits to the currently-posted-version, so I have the file
              >on my computer -- which is why I could change it easily >enough.)



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.