See great site:


http://www.altcorp.com/amalgam.htm

http://www.altcorp.com/mercurytox.htm




Dr. Murray J. Vimy DMD Responds to QUACK in chargew for ADA
President Robert M. Anderton DDS, President of the American Dental
Association


CALGARY, CANADA, July 4, 2001

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The news release by the American Dental Association (ADA) dated June
13, 2001 contains a very significant error. The ADA President Dr.
Robert M. Anderton is reported as saying, ``There is no sound
scientific evidence supporting a link between amalgam fillings and
systemic diseases or chronic illness''. Yet, it is well known in the
published, peer-reviewed dental journals that mercury leaks directly
from amalgam into adjacent oral tissues causing periodontal disease
(gum disease).

Critical Fact #1:

In 1957, Zander (JADA, 55:11-15) reported "materials used in
restorative dentistry may be a contributing factor in gingival
disease."

Critical Fact #2:

In 1961, App (J Prosth Dent 11:522-532) suggested that there was
greater chronic inflammation around amalgam sites than non-amalgam
areas.

Critical fact #3:

In 1964, Trott and Sherkat (J CDA, 30:766-770) showed that the
presence of amalgam correlates with gingival disease. Such disease
was not present at contralateral amalgam-free sites.

Critical fact #4:

In 1969, Sanches Sotres et al (J. Periodo. l40: 543-546) confirmed
Trott and Sherkat findings.

Critical fact #5:

In 1972, Turgeon et al. (J CDA 37:255-256) reported the presence of
very significant erythema around amalgam restorations that was not
present at control non-amalgam sites.

Critical fact #6:

In 1973, Trivedi and Talim (J. Prosth. Dentistry, 29:73-81)
demonstrated that 62.5% of amalgam sites have inflammatory
periodontal tissue reaction.

Thus, as early as 1973, a case can be made that the presence of
dental mercury-amalgam results in chronic inflammation and bleeding
in the gingival tissue adjacent to it; in other words, in situ
amalgam produced chronic Gingivitis.

Critical fact #7:

In 1974, Freden et al. (Odontol. Revy, 25: 207-210) showed that
gingival biopsy material from sites not adjacent to amalgam had 1-10
µg mercury/gram of tissue (mean=3); whereas, gingival biopsy sites
near amalgams contained 19-380 µg mercury/gram of tissue (mean=147).

Critical fact #8:

In 1976, Goldschmidt et al (J. Perio. Res., 11:108-115) demonstrated
that amalgam corrosion products were cytotoxic to gingival cells at
concentrations of 10-6; that is, micrograms/gram of tissue.

Critical fact #9:

In 1984, the year of the NIDR/ADA Workshop, Fisher et al (J Oral
Rehab, 11:399-405) reported that at amalgam sites alveolar bone loss
was very pronounced and statistically significant as compared to
control non-amalgam sites! In other words, in situ amalgam produces
chronic Periodontitis.

This suggests that placing mercury fillings leads to a dentist-
induced disease, periodontal disease, which the same dentists then
treat. This is iatrogenesis.

Thus, for the ADA to conclude ``There is no sound scientific
evidence supporting a link between amalgam fillings and systemic
diseases or chronic illness'' is incorrect. Periodontal disease is
one of the most prevalent chronic diseases in Man, and mercury
fillings contribute significantly!

Such statements by ADA spokespersons suggest that the ADA and its
advisors may be knowingly disinforming the public through the media
or they lack an understanding of the scientific research about
mercury release from amalgam published in their own journals.

Murray J. Vimy DMD

Clinical Associate Professor

Faculty of Medicine,

University of Calgary.

http://www.altcorp.com/vimyresponds.htm






--- In adentalmercuryamalgam@y..., cambri0leur <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> 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.