Breaking News
UnInformed Consent - First in a series of investigations

Wednesday April 26, 2006 12:00AM

[b]NIH funded studies say known neurotoxin safe to implant in
children? Experts speak out.[/b]


UNINFORMED CONSENT, SEATTLE, WA – Last week the media blitz of the
century dropped an egg in a skillet of deaf ears that toasted any
waning credibility the National Institutes of Health may have had
lingering in its bag of breakfast pabulum.

The all sizzle – no steak marketing campaign is now suffering the
worse kind of public relations nightmare. The investment of tens of
millions to clear themselves of wrong doing has only drawn front page
attention to their failing ethics, lack of public trust and misuse of
funding dollars.

Now their use of both American and Portuguese children as subjects in
the testing of a well known neurotoxin is coming under an explosion
of fire all over the nation.

The promotion started out last week with front page headlines all
over the world from the Chicago Sun-Times "Mercury dental fillings
safe for kids, two studies say" to the UK - Medical News Today -
"Mercury Fillings Are Completely Safe Say Two New Studies" to The
Seattle Times – " Smile when you say mercury ".

Some articles contain scientifically absurd statements and flat out
fiction that one click of a mouse would demonstrate a succinct lack
of grasp on the topic.

With some exceptions, many of the articles appear to be a verbatim
regurgitation of press releases mass marketed. The sources are from
the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) and the
National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Who is the Journal of the American Dental Association?

They are the trade journal for the largest dental trade association
in the nation, the American Dental Association (ADA).

Who is the National Institutes of Health (NIH)?

They are "the primary Federal agency for conducting and supporting
medical research." This agency includes 27 Institutes and Centers.

The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) is
one of their institutes and is the funding source for these two
studies. The NIH is a component of a web of health agencies under the
US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Who is the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)?

They are "the United States government's principal agency for
protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human
services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves."

Both the JADA and NIH articles tout the results of the two, nearly
identical seven-year NIH funded studies that were done on 508
children in Lisbon, Portugal and 534 children in Framingham, Maine
for 11 millions dollars each by the NIDCR through the NIH under HHS.

The article labels these studies as "independent" suggesting that
they are free from conflicts of interest. However it is no secret
the NIDCR acts as a spokesmen for the ADA. In the outright flow of
money exchanged between all the above agencies "independent" is a
description that just simply is not possible.

The cry of independence is only the beginning of dubious claims that
fly in the face of recent years of US Congressional and Senate
investigations into conflicts of interests within governmental health
agencies such as the ADA, JADA, NIDCR, NIH, CDC (Centers for Disease
Control) the IOM (Institutes of Medicine), HHS and the FDA (Food and
Drug Administration) - claims that US health agencies are dismally
failing to defend. A flow chart on the HHS website shows a large
part of how these agencies are interconnected.

Keeping one's eye on where the incestuous ball of money bounces is
task only for the hardy. One thing is certain. The boundaries
between these agencies, certain universities and their Independent
Review Boards (IRBs endorse medical studies), corporate interests,
and many others have become more and more ambiguous.

Testimonies from two authors of one of these studies, Timothy A.
DeRouen DDS, PhD and Michael D. Martin, DMD, PhD, are featured in the
documentary Mercury, A Slow Death which contains the first video
footage of mercury vaporizing from an 50 year-old amalgam filling.
The film documents history, debate and studies surrounding the safety
of mercury in amalgam fillings.

If one were to entertain any notion that mercury in any form were
safe, that notion would completely vanish in the first 30 seconds of
watching live footage of a 50 year-old mercury filling still off
gassing mercury in the introductory moments of the film.

As far as the studies themselves, the lack of attention to data and
misdirection contained in these studies is spectacularly
nonsensical. There were fantastic leaps from absurd scientific
assumptions to suggestions that it were fact. For example:

[b]A. DeRouen states, "Dental amalgam emits small amounts of
mercury vapor."[/b]

This is not science. This is not fact. This is pure adjective from
perspectives intent of minimizing obvious danger through implication
rather than objective verity.

[b]B. The well known toxic levels of exposure to mercury has been
completely ignored nor has it been compared to established poison
standards.[/b]

Why would this be left out? It would be an important component of
any bonafide study on a neurotoxin such as mercury.

[b]C. The study's primary platform testing for mercury exposure
was through urine testing for mercury in collection done annually.[/b]

How can one quantify how much actual excrement of mercury takes place
with 364 days in-between collections?

[b]D. It is well known; published and verified that over 90% of
the mercury humans are able to eliminate is excreted in feces not
urine.[/b]

Since this is well known why didn't they chose to spend millions of
dollars to collect feces instead of urine?

[b]E. It is equally well-known that mercury levels in urine are
not a reliable reflection of mercury exposure levels but reflect only
what the body is able to excrete in urine at the time of collection.
[/b]

This would beg the question - why did they use urine?

[b]F. After two years the level of mercury excreted in urine
from the amalgamated children gradually decreases to match those of
the children with composite fillings. [/b]

Since it is a scientific fact that mercury fillings do not stop off
gassing mercury vapor in seven years much less 50 years, this would
tend to demonstrate that these exposed children have begun to have
deteriorating kidney function to excrete mercury in urine thus their
systems are becoming less effective and harmed by this exposure. Is
there a no cost lifetime medical follow-up for the future health
problems for these children test subjects?

The scientific smoke and mirrors aside – the fact
these "expert"authors masquerading as medical doctors managed to bilk
$22 million dollars and pull off this heist of taxpayer dollars
instead of doing something useful for mankind pales in comparison to
the most incredible violation of public trust of all – placing a well
known neurotoxin in our babies as human test subjects. This action
literally soars over every boundary of moral integrity known to man.

If this were a terrorist attack, a million dollar embezzlement or
even armed robbery, people would go to jail. Some would hang. What
punishment would fit this crime?

By Christy Diemond, Exec. Producer
UnInformed Consent
Many thanks to Dr. Boyd Haley PhD, Professor of Chemistry and
Biochemistry University of Kentucky - who contributed to this story.

Media and for more in depth information on the continuing story
contact: UnInformed Consent – The Right to Know…
425 487 2358 - [Email]qci@...[/Email] – or
visit:www.uninformedconsent.com