- --- In Autism-Mercury@y..., "Joan Hawley" <gramjoan@f...> wrote:
> Dear Mark,I have to be very careful about what I tell my patients about the
> As a practicing dentist in the state of Michigan I can tell you that
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.
- 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.
>>First, it is lovely that you and your (skeptical) husband arewriting 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
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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>Moira and all who responded to my intro,statement "your dentist risks losing his license if he
>Thanks so much for all the information provided. After rereading the FAQ
>tells you that mercury is dangerous", I can see my husband's point. In myhusband'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.
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.)
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.
>Tell your husband (Mark?) "thank you" for the correction.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>(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.)