Khorrami Firm Brings First Lawsuit Alleging Link Between Amalgams and
Childhood Autism

The Khorrami Firm has brought a landmark lawsuit in Los Angeles
Superior Court on behalf of a five year old autistic child against
the American Dental Association, the California Dental Association,
and manufacturers and distributors of mercury amalgam fillings
alleging, among other things, that the companies engaged in fraud,
deceit, unfair, illegal, and deceptive business practices in
connection with amalgam fillings. A jury trial is requested.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind, charges that the mercury fillings
placed in a woman's mouth contributed to the autism of her child.
The defendants are accused of concealing from consumers the fact that
dental amalgam fillings actually contain mercury, a highly toxic
substance, and that when implanted into a woman's mouth they cause
her unborn and nursing child to be exposed to toxic levels of
mercury. The complaint also charges that the defendants have
concealed the fact that mercury toxicity in newborn children can
cause learning disabilities, decreased motor skills, language
difficulties and in some cases, severe autism.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of six-year-old Daniel Galeano, his
mother Kathy Galeano and father, Fernando Galeano, all residents of
Burbank. The dental establishment, including the American Dental
Association, defrauded the Galeanos regarding the toxicity of mercury
amalgams and deceptively called "silver fillings" which lead to the
autism of their child. Daniel, the lead plaintiff, is a six year-old
child with severe symptoms of autism, including self-injurious
behavior, impaired social interactions, impaired verbal and nonverbal
communication, and restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior.
The symptoms may vary from quite mild to quite severe; in Daniel's
case, this disease has produced severe symptoms.

"These companies have been hiding the ball from the American public.
When the science is analyzed, there is no question that amalgam is
unsafe and should not be used. This is the first , but it certainly
will not be the last on the issue," Khorrami said.

There is overwhelming scientific data, ranging from animal to human
studies that conclusively document the horrendous and devastating
effects of mercury toxicity. Kathy Galeano, the mother, is a 37-year-
old woman who had nine mercury amalgams placed in her mouth over 15
years prior to her son's birth.

Mercury has been shown to have toxic effects at very low exposures of
under one microgram per kilogram of body weight. As a point of
reference, a typical mercury amalgam filling contains 750,000
micrograms of mercury. At the time of her pregnancy, Kathy Galleons
nine separate fillings contained over 5,000,000 micrograms of
mercury. This information becomes even more disturbing when
scientific studies have shown that even a very low level of mercury
in a mother can cause severe learning disabilities in her children.

The complaint also charges that the dental corporations knowingly
withheld pertinent facts and provided false information to dental
patients about the dangers of their product. It further charges that
they essentially denied that mercury is even an ingredient by calling
them "silver filling," misleading the public.

Both the American Medical Association and the California Medical
Association recently passed resolutions stating that the use of
mercury in healthcare must be phased out. In fact, both associations
have voiced their desire to work with the federal government and
healthcare groups in order to educate professionals in the use of
alternative materials. The dental industry, including these
Defendants stand alone as the only industry which openly, outwardly,
and falsely claims that mercury is safe and that its use should be
continued.

The statutory basis for this complaint is the California Business &
Professions Code '17200 which provides that unfair competition shall
mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice. An
unfair business practice occurs when that practice offends an
established public policy or when the practice is immoral, unethical,
oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.