http://www.toxicteeth.net

The ADA is NOW wetting their diapers!


http://www.melisa.org/articles/index.html

http://www.melisa.org/articles/engel-e.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/neuroen.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/biomark.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/biomark2.pdf

http://www.melisa.org/articles/nialler.pdf

http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/022002a.pdf


The legal position of the American Dental Association (ADA) on the
safety of mercury containing dental amalgam and the use of the
material by dentists in the United States was recently stated as
follows:

"The ADA owes no legal duty of care to protect the public from
allegedly dangerous products used by dentists. The ADA did not
manufacture, design, supply or install the mercury-containing
amalgams. The ADA does not control those who do. The ADA's only
alleged involvement in the product was to provide information
regarding its use. Dissemination of information relating to the
practice of dentistry does not create a duty of care to protect the
public from potential injury".
Source: Legal brief filed in 1995 by attorneys for the ADA in W.H.
Tolhurst vs. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Products, Inc.; Engelhard
Corporation; ABE Dental, Inc.; the American Dental Association, et
al., in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the
County of Santa Clara, CA, Case No. 718228.




The complaint that the ADA negligently misrepresented to member
dentists that dental amalgam is safe for tooth restorations. These
representations were made by means of ADA publications, ADA-
accredited dental schools and other communications to the membership.

Summary Points

The ADA's actions in Tolhurst in no way represent a change in ADA
policy on the safety of dental amalgam. The ADA continues to believe,
as does the U.S. Public Health Service and the National Institute of
Dental Research, that amalgam is safe and is a durable and cost-
effective filling material.

The ADA further believes that specific treatment decisions involving
dental patients are within the professional judgment of the
individual practitioner. The Association does not require dentists to
use dental amalgam, nor does it prohibit dentists from removing
dental amalgam in appropriate cases. The Association does take the
position that it is unethical for a dentist to remove serviceable
dental amalgams from the non-allergic patient for the alleged purpose
of removing toxic substances from the body, when such treatment is
performed solely at the recommendation or suggestion of the dentist.

There exists no credible scientific evidence that dental amalgam,
when used in restorations in the non-allergic patient, constitutes
either a general health hazard or is in any way related to the cause
or cure of any specific disease. Neither the Alzheimer's Association
nor the Multiple Sclerosis Society is aware of any scientific
evidence that has shown a credible link between use of amalgam
fillings and either disease.

In stating that the ADA "owes no legal duty of care to protect the
public from allegedly dangerous products used by dentists," the
Association was only articulating the legal principle that liability
for negligence against a third party in a case like this is limited
to those who guarantee the product at issue or help to market it. The
Association does not fall into this category. Its only alleged
involvement in the plaintiff's injury was providing information about
amalgam to the dental profession.

The plaintiff in Tolhurst was essentially asking the court to create
new law that would have made the ADA potentially liable for every
dental related injury suffered by any person in the United States.
The ADA takes very seriously its responsibility to advance the art
and science of dentistry by disseminating scientific information
about the safety and efficacy of dental products and therapeutic
agents. This does not mean that the Association is willing to allow
itself to be wrongfully sued where no legal liability exists or to
pay needless attorneys' fees and court costs.

The ADA believes that the art and science of dentistry are best
served by the free flow of scientific information and debate. The
court agreed. In granting the ADA's motion, the court stated:
"To subject Defendant Association to liability would be, in this
Court's opinion, contrary to public policy which the Court perceives
to be the promotion rather than suppression of the free flow of
scientific information directed to the practicing membership of the
professional community to which the Defendants' publications are
directed, i.e., professional dentists."

lier lier lier .....


The role of ADA ONLY as DENTIST LABOR UNION is undisputed
and can not be challenged.



"Silver", Mercury Amalgam: This material is mix of base metals such
as silver, tin, copper, or zinc dissolved to a malleable state by
elemental mercury. The durability of these fillings is dependent upon
the electrical currents created by the filling being
immersed in an electrolyte solution, saliva. Even though many people
leave these fillings in place for 10-20 years, the research standard
of durability is 7.6 years.

Mercury amalgam is the least expensive filling material. The dentist
can prepare the tooth cavity, fill it with the malleable amalgam, and
shape the contours in one sitting. The material is technically easy
to manage for the dentist. The combination of low cost materials and
ease of use and reasonable durability has made mercury amalgam the
most widely used dental material.

The drawback to mercury amalgam fillings is that elemental mercury
constitutes 50 % of the amalgam mass. Elemental mercury is a
poisonous heavy metal. Elemental mercury vapors continue to be
released from amalgam fillings for the entire life of the filling.

Mercury is not a biocompatible material. Mercury is the active
ingredient in many herbicides, fungicides and pesticides. As the
environment of modern living becomes increasingly polluted, larger
numbers of people find that their threshold of toleration to
pollutants has been exceeded, resulting in severe physical
debilitation. Mercury accumulates in the body tissue and gravitates
to the central nervous system. Accumulations of mercury stress the
immune system, so even low levels of exposure to mercury is
undesirable.

These are the issues that cause an increasing number of dentists and
consumers to conclude that the convenience, low cost and relative
durability of mercury amalgam fillings is not worth the health risks
of continuous, micro-exposure to mercury in the body.

Composite materials: There are a number of formulations of glass and
resin materials that have received Federal Drug Administration
approval. These materials are tooth colored and can be placed in a
single visit. The durability of these materials is less than mercury
amalgams. The research standard of acceptable durability is 6.5
years. Composites are definitely less durable than gold. Composite
fillings will need to be replaced periodically.

To make an ideal composite filling with good durability, the dentist
must exercise exacting care in placing the materials. Composites are
very technique sensitive, and time consuming. The dentist should
always use a rubber dam to keep the tooth absolutely dry when placing
a composite filling. The technical demands of composite fillings
means that they are usually more expensive than amalgams.

Can filling materials be tested for biocompatibility?

YES. Tests are available to evaluate biocompatibility of dental
materials prior to placement in your teeth. In principal, any foreign
material that is going to be permanently implanted in the body should
be tested for compatibility with that body.

Testing for bio-compatibility does add to the expense of your dental
treatment. If you believe that your system is especially susceptible
to stresses or if you have symptoms of sensitivity or as
mislabeled allergy or immune stress, then testing for bio-
compatibility is highly recommended.