Talk:Dental amalgam controversy/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. 
==No Dental Amalgam Controversy==

After discussions with the editors of this Wikipedia article entitled "Dental Amalgam Controversy", and repeated requests to list what are generally recognized to be the Major Controversies surrounding dental amalgam:

1. Amalgam has never been safety tested by the FDA.

2. The EPA sued dentists who discarded amalgam in wastewater.

3. Scrap amalgam must be stored in a covered jar in a dental office.

4. Dentists are exempt in all jurisdictions from laws governing mercury vapor exposure.

5. There are claims of recovery from ill health by removing dental amalgam fillings.

6. Dental amalgam has never been approved for sale by the FDA.

7. There is a US Patent entitled "prevention of mercury poisoning from dental amalgam".

8. Dental amalgams emit mercury vapor, which the ADA recently acknowledged after denying for over 100 years.

we have instead as contributors been warned that we are not allowed to change this article any further to list these controversies, and are not allowed to invite editors from all points of view to explain each controversy and why it is or is not a concern. These and dozens more controversies currently exist about dental amalgam, and have been ongoing for 150 years.

As a result, we can conclude that according to the editors of this Wikipedia article, there is no "controversy" around dental amalgam, instead just a bunch of people with vivid imaginations. The controversies listed above, and dozens more, just don't exist according to the "editors", and are certainly not worthy of further examination and documentation on Wikipedia, in the article entitled "Dental Amalgam Controversy".

Just to explain how controversial these facts are, consider:

1. Amalgam has never been safety tested by the FDA. (Then how can they sell it. Did they get special permission?)

2. The EPA sued dentists who discarded amalgam in wastewater. (But I brush my fillings with water, how can the EPA sue dentists?).

3. Scrap amalgam must be stored in a covered jar in a dental office. (But I sleep with fillings in my teeth, should I cover them?)

4. Dentists are exempt in all jurisdictions from laws governing mercury vapor exposure. (How come, why do they need special status?).

5. There are claims of recovery from ill health by removing dental amalgam fillings. (Are there doctors who have witnessed this?).

6. Dental amalgam has never been approved for sale by the FDA. (Come on, this can't be true. If it is, then how can they sell it?).

7. There is a US Patent entitled "prevention of mercury poisoning from dental amalgam". (This sounds impossible. How can something like this happen?).

8. Dental amalgams emit mercury vapor, which the ADA recently acknowledged after denying for over 100 years. (This can't be true. If it is really so, can it be measured?)

People have been led to believe there are no controversies around dental amalgam. In fact, there are hundreds. The list above is just a small list of the real controveries surrounding the use of this material in human beings. This article is extremely important to people all over the world, who can be allowed to read about the controversies in a fair, balanced way. Something is controversial if it has 2 sides, for example if you have to cover dental amalgam by law when it is scrap but don't cover it in your mouth. This is CONTROVERSIAL.

Contents

Device Controversy

As a "small" example of controvery, this is what is currently written in the article:

Regulation This change in the amalgam formula was introduced without having to undergo FDA approval because amalgams are classified as a device, not a substance. Device modification does not need FDA approval. As far as the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations is concerned amalgams are a prosthetic device.

Amalgam Alloy, (a) Identification. An amalgam alloy is a device that consists of a metallic substance intended to be mixed with mercury to form filling material for treatment of dental caries. (b) Classification. Class II (21 CFR 872.3050 (2001)).

This prevented amalgams from undergoing the testing which had been used for all other dental materials invented since.

Controversy: The article section above describes "amalgam alloy". It does not say dental amalgam. Amalgam alloy is only 50% of dental amalgam, the other half is dental mercury. To call amalgam alloy a Class 2 device is a controversy, it is just a bunch of powdered metal. The section above, which says "amalgams are classified as a device", is WRONG. "Amalgam alloy" is classified as a device, and believe it or not Dental Mercury also is classified as a device (but conveniently NOT shown in the article). Therefore DENTAL AMALGAM IS NOT CLASSIFIED AS A DEVICE, since dental amalgam IS the "alloy metals" mixed with "dental mercury" (see the controversy here?) and is NOT covered in the U.S. Code. This is controversial, very controversial. HOW can this be is the question. Do people know about this controversy, they won't unless it is clearly written in this article. The rest of the article, which says that amalgam has never been safety tested is again WRONG, dental amalgam has never been approved by the ADA so that is why it has not been tested. Amalgam Alloy HAS been safety tested, since it is just a bunch of powdered metal, it passed. Dental Mercury, on the other hand, did NOT have to undergo safety testing as it is a Class 1 Medical Device. Class 1 refers to the fact that it is pure and easy to control, not whether it is more dangerous than Class 2 or Class 3. Only Class 2 or 3 medical devices need to undergo safety testing. Can future editors READ what is being written, and will this controversial area EVER get properly covered in the article entitled "dental amalgam controversy?". HOW was this loophole created, for that we also know the answer: the head of the FDA Dental Division that allowed this regulation was also the former President of the ADA. That is CONTROVERSIAL as well. Look, I am not saying that the rest of the world is perfect and that only amalgam is the issue, but it is so full of controversy and this article is not close to being properly written yet.

To help future editors understand WHY this is a controversy, in the real world (as opposed to ADA Land) you don't get components of something approved as Class 1 or Class 2 Devices, and then use them to create a reaction product and say "it is OK". If that was the case, then for example Viagra would not have had to undergo safety testing, just the individual chemicals that were MIXED to create Viagra. Then companies would be free to mix any chemicals approved this way into any new drug, and say "the component chemicals are approved medical devices". I hope the future editors of this page have the patience to read about the mercury dental amalgam controversy, and to not hit the DELETE KEY every time a controversy is raised, and to properly cover the CONTROVERSIES in the article entitled Dental Amalgam Controversy. The controversies are all there for everyone to see. It is VERY CONTROVERSIAL that dental amalgam has not been approved by the FDA, and safety tested as part of the approval. It is CONTROVERSIAL that only "dental mercury" and "amalgam alloy" have been approved, but not the thing that they make when they are MIXED TOGETHER = Dental Amalgam. Carefully READ everything to see this.

Vandalism Warning

It appears that ADA people are trying to remove the list of controversies from this article, and replacing with with "ADA Science", which as we all know is just pure garbage. I say to the ADA deletion experts, go start your own ------- page called "ADA Science", otherwise keep your fingers off the delete key, and leave the controversies as they are. The title of this article, after all, is DENTAL AMALGAM CONTROVERSY, or can't you read (like when the EPA sent you warnings to stop flushing mercry down the drain, and you couldn't read that either?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.59.238 (talk • contribs) .

  • In case you missed it below, here's the message i've posted: I'm sorry you feel that way about me. Perhaps you should start a blog or a webpage about the ADA if you truly feel that strongly about it? Wikipedia is absolutely not the correct forum for viewpoint advocacy, however. The page will be protected from editing soon, which will prevent you from making further edits. - Jersyko·talk 15:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Jersyko, will you allow the controversies listed below to actually be placed on the page, the tile of this page being "dental amalgam controversy"? Or do you deny there is a controversy at all? Example of a controversy: Did the US Senate actually say that they cannot decide whether dental amalgam is safe, and said "there is not enough evidence either way"? Then each side can put their 2 cents in to prove/dispel any controversy in this statement. Otherwise, we will be forced to begin another page called "dental amalgam contoversies", with the purpose to list any controversial regulations, statements of fact, decisions, lawsuits, etc... My belief is that the ADA's goal is to suppress all controversy around dental amalgam, for example the FACT that dental amalgam has never been tested for safety is HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL, and yet this is not shown clearly in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.59.238 (talk • contribs) .
I'm pleased that your tone is now more conciliatory in that you no loger appear to be accusing me or others of being ADA secret agents or other such garbage. Actually, now that I've reread your comment, I see that you're actually making a threat, not being conciliatory. Note that such an attempt (to create a new article to advocate your viewpoint) will result in (1) immediate deletion of the article and (2) your eventual banning from editing from Wikipedia. I am absolutely willing to have a civilized discussion about this article, but devolution into personal attacks and inappropriate rhetoric will result in an immediate end to discussion from my vantage point. Based on my limited knowledge of this subject, I agree with you that there is controversy here, and that not enough evidence exists for either side to make a conclusive case for or against amalgams. However, any additions to the article must be verifiable and neutral point of view; i.e., we cannot simply throw out an argument and have the two sides duke it out over the text of the article as the article must conform to these two Wikipedia policies. I agree that the article is far from perfect in its present form, and it definitely needs rewriting and expansion. It certainly does not, however, deny the existence of controversy, just read the history of controversy section and the controversy becomes obvious (among other sections of the article). As I have suggested before, if viewpoint advocation is your goal, please find another website or medium through which to express your view as such is inappropriate here. Otherwise, I plan to post an invitation for any editors to help clean up this article soon, so hopefully it will change for the better in the near future. - Jersyko·talk 17:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article is Dental Amalgam Controversy. This means that the article is meant to review the controversies surrounding dental amalgam. I rewrote the article to list the current controversies, and re-organized the information in the article around the controversies. It was deleted, again. I too want this article about the controversies to be done properly, they have been suppressed for over 150 years which is far too long. For review, the controversies are:

1. Dental Amalgam has never been safety tested by the FDA. Never. This is highly controversial. It is not enough for the FDA to claim on a separate web site that "we support dental amalgam", they have never tested it for safety and that fact is very controversial. Experts can explain why this is the case, in a balanced way in this article. That is a start to creating a fair, balanced article.

2. The EPA sued ADA members for disposing of amalgam in wastewater. This is highly controversial. Experts are invited to explain why this is the case. This will help readers understand more.

3. Scrap dental amalgam must be stored in an airtight container in a dental office. This is very controversial. The ADA's position on this is welcome, as are all experts. Readers will surely be somewhat confused by this point, as it is controversial. That, after all, is the title of the article, Dental Amalgam Controversy.

4. Dental amalgam emits mercury vapor. The ADA denied this for over 100 years. This is HIGHLY controversial. Experts can tell explain why this was the case, and the impacts of low-level emissions of mercury vapor. Readers will learn more about the controversy.

5. Dental amalgam has never been approved for sale by the FDA. This is highly controversial. Experts can explain for both sides. Readers will be understandably confused, that the individual components of amalgam (mercury and the alloy metals) have been SEPARATELY approved, but the reaction product, dental amalgam, never has. Again, controversial, but that is the title of the article, Dental Amalgam Controversy.

6. People who remove amalgams claim they get better from health problems, and have medical doctors as witnesses who have filed these recoveries with the FDA. This is very controversial. Experts can explain for both sides. Readers will be confused, but will understand there is a question here.

7. Dentists in many jurisdictions are legally exempt from the laws governing mercury vapor regulations. This is very controversial. Experts can explain for both sides. Readers will understand it this sort of legal exemption is controversial.

8. The ADA itself was formed by members who left the ASDS over 100 years ago, in order to sell dental amalgam. This is highly controversial. Experts can explain for both sides. Readers will be aware that the controversy itself is long-standing.

There is 150 years of controversy here, one of the oldest in science. Who is someone called Jersyko to control the list of controversies, and control what future editors will input that gives the readers the full background of each controversy. In order for this article to be done properly, each controversy must be listed, and then experts from both sides can edit the article in this format.

It is not enough to say "There is NO controversy", that is what the ADA has been saying for 150 years, and anyone who says that is immediately identified by us as an ADA member or supporter. IF, Jersyko, you allow this article entitled Dental Amalgam Controvery to LIST THE CONTROVERSIES, and then editors can work to explain the ORIGIN of each controversy, the POSITIONS on each side of the controversies, and the EMERGING RESEARCH and INFORMATION in each controversial area, then I will retract my statements that you are an ADA supporter. I am willing to listen to your offers in this area, of how the article can be structured to list the controversies, and deal with the resulting flood of editors. But to not list the controversies at all is to deny they exist, and they do exist. Big time. Enough that 60 Minutes did a show about the controversy entitled "Is there poison in your mouth?". That is controversial enough for me. This article currently has nothing in it besides a bunch of statements from either side. The title is Dental Amalgam Controversy, the article must deal with the CONTROVERSIES, not the science that each side "claims" is correct. The fact that each side claims different "science" IS what the article must cover. The fact, for instance, that dental amalgam itself has never been safety tested IS a controversy, THAT is what the article must cover. To say, for example, that it is NOT controversial that dental amalgam has never been safety tested by the FDA is an example of SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH. It IS controversial, but the ADA doesn't want it talked about like that. The last thing the American Dental Association wants in this world is an encyclopedic article on Wikipedia listing all the controversies surrounding the ADA's continued use and sale of mercury dental amalgam. They are on record as denying there are any controversies at all, and yet on Wikipedia there is an article entitled Dental Amalgam Controversy. They are not happy about that, I can assure you, and therefore I am highly suspicious of any "editors" who are removing the controversies from this article while claiming to "protect" the integrity of this article. Who wouldn't be suspicious given what we know about the ADA's desire to ensure there is no controversy about this. On 60 Minutes, they told Morley Safer "we are happy to talk about dental amalgam" but when pressed they said "dental amalgam is not controversial". This when a TV CAMERA is IN THEIR FACE, asking about mercury vapor coming off dental fillings when their organization has said for over 100 years no mercury comes off fillings? They then said right to the camera "Ya but it's not enough to cause a problem" and "We now have experts and research that say that it's only an itsy bitsy little bit of mercury (not like before when we told you it was zero emissions) so it's not harmful". Listen, the ADA's position is that there is NO CONTROVERSY. This article is not about science, it's ABOUT THE CONTROVERSY. If I read the article the way it's written, it's a bunch of junk science, with claims and counter-claims. That's NOT the title of this article.

We have waited 150 years to list the controversies and have them described in an open, neutral way with input from experts around the world, I suppose I can wait a few more days from someone called Jersyko to decide if the world is allowed to do this.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.59.238 (talk • contribs) .
  • I regret you've chose to take this approach. I will not be discussing this with you any further, and will begin to remove any personal attacks you post on this talk page or any other. - Jersyko·talk 21:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Any decision to not list the current controversies around dental amalgam is a major mis-use of so-called editorial power on Wikipedia. I do not agree with this decision, and ask how it can be appealed to Wikipedia so that the controversies surrounding dental amalgam can be shown in the article entitled "dental amalgam controversy". Your unilateral decision to censor any listing of controversies means that millions of people will continue to think there is no controversy, which is exactly the goal of the ADA. As your goal appears to be aligned with theirs, an appeal is necessary.

No Editors

The "editors" are simply removing everything that is being added to the article, instead of discussing each line that was added, and verifying the authenticity. This is because the "editors" don't want these lines in the article. The amalgam money trail is obscene, it is disgusting, and the damages to health now directly impact the US Economy, not to mention every little boy and girl in this country. There are no editors on this article, only removers.

As a result, the following format will be used to handle all the pro-ADA removers, who will be asked to contain their skill with the "delete" buttons and provide a respectful, valid input to the pressing controversies around dental amalgam:

  • is there a safe level of dental amalgam, and is it less than 4 fillings?
  • does mercury vapor leach out of dental fillings?
  • do people get better from illnesses when they remove their dental amalgams?
  • is there any research that shows that 4 or more dental amalgams are hazardous?
  • is there a US Patent to prevent mercury poisoning from dental amalgam, and is it valid?
  • are there really 100,000 websites that say dental amalgams can have dangerous side-effects?
  • was their a bill in California that tried to have amalgam labelled as containing 50% mercury?
  • did the US Senate actually say about amalgam "there is not enough information either way, unsafe or safe"?
  • did 60 Minutes do a show about amalgam, and did the American Dental Assocation participate?
  • did LD Caulk, who makes dental amalgam, actually put out a WHMIS (Hazardous Materials) sheet?
  • do dentists really dispose of dental amalgam waste in a covered jar?
  • were dentists really sued by the EPA for disposing of amalgam in ordinary wastewater?
  • has this controversy really lasted for over 150 years?
  • is dental amalgam not actually approved by the Food and Drug Administration?
  • has dental amalgam really never been tested for safety?
  • are there really scientific studies claiming dental amalgam is unsafe, and which journals are they published in?
  • are there studies which claim dental amalgam is safe, and which journals are they published in?
  • did someone actually remove dental amalgams and get out of a wheelchair, and did doctors see this happen?
  • did another person remove dental amalgam and watch their allergies subside, and did a doctor verify this?

As a new question is raised, there is now a format to add it, and to cover it in the article. Good luck to the ADA in answering these questions, and as you know it's just the beginning. Get your scientists ready, set, go!

Vandalized Again

By the time you read this, Jersyko will again have removed the below section from the main article:

When dental amalgams are installed in the mouths of patients, mercury vapor leaches out of the fillings every time you chew or swallow hot liquids. The amount of this leaching is dependant on these physical factors, dental fillings that are not compressed or heated do not leach mercury vapor nearly as much as those that are physically stimulated in some way. A simple test of the amount of leaching is a measure of the mercury vapor in the mouth of a person with amalgam, after chewing gum for several minutes a person with 6 or more amalgams will have a level of mercury vapor in their mouths in excess of 50,000 parts per million. This figure of 50,000 ppm is the occupational safety limit for mercury vapor exposure. Since this level is exceeded spontaneously in the mouths of dental amalgam wearers frequently (6-7 times/day), the higher the number of amgalgams the greater the exposure. This mercury vapor is then breathed in and out, the breathing out was detected by Tekran Corp in Canada in the late 1990's, at a tradeshow where Tekran noticed the room air mercury vapor concentrations doubled from 6 ppm to 12 ppm during coffee breaks. Inside people's bodies, this mercury vapor is breathed in the lungs, goes into the bloodstream, and travels to the brain. The levels in the blood never reach critical poisoning levels, however it is the Continuous Transfer of mercury ions into the brain and other body organs that is the issue. Fish accumulate mercury in the same manner, so that even though the mercury in the oceans and lakes is in small concentrations, it reaches high concentrations in fish as they "breathe" in mercury-polluted water. People accumulate mercury in the same way from dental fillings, blood tests don't show much but people become sick and when they remove their dental amalgams they get better, which is a kind of "anecdotal" proof. If the science is so simple, then why is there a controversy and why do we still put amalgam in people? Because not everyone gets sick, it depends on how many amalgams a person has and how much they chew or drink hot liquids. Also, diet can affect poisoning as high selenium levels act to protect people from mercury poisoning. Profit is another big issue, amalgam is the most profitable business, the material costs $1 and sells for $150 installed. Initial screenings of the National Health and Nutritional Survey III from the Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta show that persons with 4 or more dental fillings have worse health outcomes, which confirms the exposure using the US Government's own health statistics. The US Patent Office has also granted a patent for prevening mercury poisoning from dental amalgam using selenium toothpaste. Opponents of amalgam poisoning claim that people who remove amalgams and get better only have "anecdotal" stories, which means observed but with no cause. Observe how quickly this paragraph will be deleted from Wikipedia and end up in "discussion", and you can observe why people with dental amalgam who remove them and get better continue to be treated as hostile witnesses by the American Dental Assocation.

  • Wasn't Jersyko. I thought it was quite POV in what is already a controversial article. I also felt it wasn't in the spirit of WP:NOR. Nothing personal. -- Samir ∙ TC 12:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Look, Samir. I don't know where in the American Dental Association you fit in, whether you are a dentist, want to be one, or have a distant relative in the business, or work for a law firm that represents them, or are a lobbyist, but the information above is not a "point of view", it is the "truth". Every word of it is true, and that is the problem with the henchman from the ADA, they will do everything to stop the truth from getting out. When people remove dental amalgam and get better, it's not a Point of View. It's the TRUTH. The ADA says when people get better that "that's their point of view, it's anecdotal". So listen up, buddy, your continued attempts just like your co-workers and co-conspirators in the ADA, to label people who tell the truth about dental amalgam as "their point of view", is the same garbage we have had to listen to for 150 years. We have asked the ADA numerous times to 1) stop covering dental amalgam scrap in jars, if the material is safe you should be able to dispose of it in the garbage, 2) stop telling people who remove amalgam that they are "anecdotals" or in English "story tellers", 3) acknowledge that the US Senate Subcommittee report on Dental Amalgam said "there is not enough evidence either way". This is because the Senate didn't have the NHANES III research, and the report from Dr. Richardson about 4 amalgam fillings being the safe limit was the main reason why the US Senate said "not enough research" get more answers, so we got them. I really don't give a ---- what the ADA says in discussion, our goal is to stop their ability to earn a living selling mercury products into humans, and their goal is to continue. If our side has evidence that people get better by removing dental amalgam, their side has evidence that people with amalgam are still well. If our side shows people with 6 dental amalgams who are sick, remove them and get better, they trot out people with 6 dental amalgams who are not sick. The reason for the differences are well understood, not everyone reacts the same to mercury vapor, and their are many differences such as selenium levels, physical response, etc... This is why it is a controversy, my friend, and this POV garbage is the same garbage we've had to listen to for 150 years. You are suppressing the truth and free speech, I hope the ADA is paying you well.
    • Please reference your contributions on controversial matters, otherwise they are considered original research. And see the flag. Not American. -- Samir (the scope) 09:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism. United States Patent To Prevent Poisoning From Dental Amalgam

By the time you read this, the section below will have been removed by the ADA from the main page of this article. It has also been placed in discussion so that it will not be completely destroyed by ADA vandals:

U.S. Patent Number 4859453 granted in 1989. For “A Method of Preventing Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam using a Selenium Toothpaste.” Search at http://www.uspto.gov/, type in "4859453" as the search term. Warning: The American Dental Assocation (ADA) will remove this patent reference from this page to prevent you from learning about it, but it will continue to be put back by the Anti-ADA group who found the patent over 4 years ago and is updating this encyclopedia on your behalf. The US Government agrees that dental amalgam causes mercury poisoning, and has granted a patent for a treatment to prevent this poisoning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.31.59 (talk • contribs) .

I am in no way affiliated with the ADA. I am interested, however, in having an encyclopedia that is free of advocacy and point of view. Please see Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and read about what Wikipedia is not, particularly, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you feel that the article is biased in favor of amalgams, the solution is NOT to add what you perceive to be counter-balancing information that advocates the opposition position (and even acknowledge that this is exactly what you're doing), but rather to make sure that the article adheres to the NPOV policy. Continued attempts to advocate in the article, label others as vandals, or generally disrupt Wikipedia will result in blocks or bans from editing. Please edit with care, and try to adhere to Wikipedia policy. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 03:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Jersyko, you have vandalized this article, by removing the United States Patent for a treatment for Dental Amalgam Poisoning. This is a willful act of suppression of free speech. The United States Government recognizes that dental amalgam is a poison, and has authorized a patent for a treatment against this poisoning. This information belongs in this article, and your further attempts to remove it are logged in this discussion as what it is, a suppression of free speech. This information will not be removed from this article under any circumstances, the patent stands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.31.59 (talk • contribs) .
I suppose I have to address the substance of your claim. Fine. First, an explanation of what a patent is. Patent is merely a form of intellectual property that allows the owner, after meeting the government's registration requirements, to have extensive protection from other persons or entities who might attempt to copy or steal an idea/invention. It does not imply government endorsement of the product in question. Here's an example, there are multiple patents for both chastity belts and sex toys, and if the government was really somehow endorsing inventions through the patent process, why would it issue patents for mutually exclusive inventions? Is everything protected by copyright law in the United States somehow also endorsed by the government? Strangely enough, both works by Ann Coulter and Al Franken are protected under copyright law, so the government is either (1) extremly dissonant or (2) not endorsing anything through providing intellectual property protection for works, inventions, and ideas. Second, as to free speech - Wikipedia is not and never will the the United States government, thus the First Amendment does not prevent Wikipedia, or its editors like myself, from removing content that does not further its goal of creating an encyclopedia and adhere to its written policies. The First Amendment is utterly fantastic, but it restricts the government, not me. Also, nothing is keeping you from publishing this idea in a different forum, but just not here. I suppose that I'll just have to ask you to trust me on these finer points of law (though I suppose you could do some research yourself), mainly because I will have a license to practice law in, oh, say five, six months. As I said before, continued violation of Wikipedia policy, especially Wikipedia is not a soapbox, can result in banning or blocking your ability to edit. Please attempt to adhere to Wikipedia policy. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 05:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
So Jersyko, you are not affiliated with the ADA, and yet have time to compare the patent to prevent poisoning from amalgams to the patents for sex toys. To all Americans who have had dental amalgams removed, and gotten better, do you see what the ADA thinks of this? The ADA says to you, go ---- yourself. Jersyko, you know what you are, and now everyone else does. You are a mouthpiece for the American Dental Association, that is all. Now you are bringing all kinds of crap into this discussion beyond dental amalgam. Not one of us in the anti-ADA believe anything you say for a minute, that you are "pre-law", that you understand "copyrights", etc... You are just an ADA lobbyist who is paid to keep up this line of garbage attack on the anti-ADA. Go ahead, keep vandalizing our work. The ADA is facing a $5 Trillion liability, they can afford to keep paying you instead of settling with us, it's just about the money, it always comes down to that in the USA, money vs. the truth. Truth always wins eventually, no matter how much the ADA is paying you to fight us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.58.204 (talk • contribs) .
Jesus, dude, I think you might be right, amalgams may cause problems for people. I refuse to accept your continued POV additions to this article not because I am advocating for amalgams but becuase I want to have a verifiable, advocacy-free encyclopedia!!!!! Calm down on the conspiracy talk and attacks on the nature and character of other editors--attack ideas, not people. If it happens again, I will report it. - Jersyko·talk 13:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The "editors" are simply removing everything that is being added to the article, instead of discussing each line that was added, and verifying the authenticity. This is because the "editors" don't want these lines in the article. This is called "suppression of free speech". What, my friend, report that you have been removing everything someone else has written? You are the problem buddy, and I am not reporting you. I don't give a ---- what you say, never have and never will. My concern is for the innocent children who are having mercury placed in them every day, Jersyko I could so care less about you, you have no idea. You are just another mouthpiece for the ADA, and if you are not getting paid then I pity you because so many people are it's not funny. The FDA DENTAL DIVISION IS THE ADA, that's just for starters. The money trail is obscene, it is disgusting, and the damages to health now directly impact the US Economy, not to mention every little boy and girl in this country. There are no editors on this article, only removers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.59.238 (talk • contribs) .

  • I'm sorry you feel that way about me. Perhaps you should start a blog or a webpage about the ADA if you truly feel that strongly about it? Wikipedia is absolutely not the correct forum for viewpoint advocacy, however. The page will be protected from editing soon, which will prevent you from making further edits. - Jersyko·talk 14:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Mess!

This article is a complete mess, and has in no way NPOV. It really needs some careful attention. The current first paragraph is more akin to a tabloid newspaper, rather than a learned encyclopaedia which is what Wikipedia aspires to. I will try an provide a rewrite at some point. I am a dentist, but I am also a patient of another dentist. I have used dental amalgam from several manufacturers, and also the alternatives, such as dental composites. Bracing myself for flaming! I am sure that both sides in the argument would like to see a good, balanced and evidence-based wikipedia article rather than the current pile of crap that is there at the moment. Ashley Payne 09:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ashley, thanks for the cleanup. This restored the page to a workable state, similar to what the page looked like in September 2005. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

misc

 It's good to see the American Dental Association has joined this discussion.  Yes, you can    
 easily say that people with 4 cavities or more eat more sugar than those with less than 4 
 cavities.  However, that is another section of Wikipedia that is concerned about sugar and   
 diet.  This article is concerned about the risks of using dental amalgam, and the fact that 
 NHANES III clearly shows a link between higher levels of amalgam and poor health.  I welcome
 the scientists in the ADA to prove that this link is then really caused by high sugar intake,
 which appears as more than 4 dental amalgams!  I think the idea that "sugar causes poor health"
 is not scientific, again another ADA trait. Anyone in the American Sugar Assocation
 will defend that sugar, while a source of calories but zero nutrients, is not "poison" like
 the commentator below is making sugar out to be.  On this page, we are evaluating the risks 
 of mercury, not sugar, more specifically dental amalgam made out of 50% mercury by volume, 
 used inside people's mouths.  If this turns into a discussion about sugar, then the ADA wins 
 again!  But then again, the ADA has had over 150 years, and billions of dollars, to promote 
 its position.  Readers of this article, who think that sugar is a risk for ill health and 
 not amalgam, don't have to get their amalgams removed.  But they are informed thanks to   
 the ADA, it is now either sugar or amalgams, and of course we were provided plenty of   
 scientific evidence in the statement below that it is sugar that is the cause of poor diet.
 So a dentist can say to you, as you will read just below this, that the sugar you ate 
 yesterday is why your health is poor, amalgam has no risk at all for you, even though
 amalgam is made out of 50% mercury and sugar is made out of 0% mercury.  ADA logic wins again!
 As far as emotion goes, the day that the ADA starts to lose lawsuits and dentists start to
 feel like they are selling asbestos and not "safe" amalgam, because the lawyers will take 
 everything they have, then the dentists will feel the same "emotion" that many people who
 have removed amalgam "anecdotally" and gotten better feel.  The emotions felt cannot be
 printed on this page, which is why this article focuses solely on the scientific elements.
 By the way, a university in Rochester NY just completed a study using NHANES III linking
 second hand smoke levels to cavities in children's primary teeth.  It was reported worldwide.
 We could say that people that smoke don't eat well either, and so give their children more  
 sugar, in ADA logic that is why the children's cavities went up!  When real scientists want
 to take a real look at the risks of amalgam, using real tools such as NHANES III, and not
 personal opinions such as "sugar causes ill health" then we will make progress.  It is not an
 "opinion" that higher than 4 dental amalgams appears to be a huge risk for people, it is a 
 fact.  That sugar may be the reason for the ill health is a possibility, but get serious is
 that really what to believe when amalgam is 50% mercury!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The article claims that 4 dental amalgams are the safe limit ,before you are at risk of certain diseases,stating heart disease recovery as a factor affected by this limit. Did it occur to the writer of this, that patients with greater than 4 amalgams obviously have a higher rate of tooth decay,which is caused by greater sugar intake and is seen predominantly in patients with a poor diet. Hence you would expect these patients to be linked with other illness and ,in the case of heart disease ,Poor diet is a major factor! You cannot claim a direct link with flawed coincidental evidence. It is misleading to call this a "smoking gun" ,the writer obviously has a biased opinion,and as with many people discussing this topic it is an emotional discussion and not a truly independent scientific one.

November 15, 2005 - The neutrality and factual matters warnings are still on this article,    
 despite the inclusion of the MSDS from the manufacturer of amalgam clearly warning of side    
 effects.  Is there a moderator who can judge this?

How can the "neutrality" of an article entitled Dental Amalgam Controversy be disputed on Wikopedia? This is like saying "military intelligence". What an oxymoron! This is an article about the risk and associated controversy of using dental amalgam, which contains 50% mercury by weight and mercury is the most toxic non-radioactive substance known to mankind.

Also what "factual matters" are disputed? The MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) from LD Caulk, the manufacturers of Dispersalloy dental amalgam, is included in the article. It clearly states that inhalalation of mercury vapor causes erethism, which is also known as "poisoning". Can you people read???????????

Based on this, I absolutely demand the removal of the dispute and fact warnings. This is a freedom of speech issue, this article is about a controversy and the manufacturer of the product clearly has labeled the product as having dangerous side effects.

  The word "science" itself is simply the Latin word for knowledge: scientia. Until the   
  1840's what we now call science was "natural philosophy," so that even Isaac Newton's    
  great book on motion and gravity, published in 1687, was The Mathematical Principles of 
  Natural Philosophy (Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis). Newton was, to himself 
  and his contemporaries, a "philosopher." Source:  Copyright (c) 1996, 1998 Kelley L. Ross, 
  Ph.D. All Rights Reserved.
  - Therefore, the comment stands and was accurate.  Dental amalgam predates what we call    
  science, which instead was called natural philosophy up until the 1840's.  Amalgam was    
  introduced just prior to this period.  This is an important distinction, as the use of
  amalgam cannot be considered "scientific" and so its use is grandfathered under the FDA code
  under "pre-existing devices", and it has never been tested for safety TO THIS DAY.


"The power of the dental lobby to exempt dental workers from mercury 'safety' guidelines is based on their long history of mercury amalgam use, which pre-dates the Civil War and science itself"

Wow, I didn't realize that science is so young!

   This section has been changed to a more factual statement, that in the 1860's Louis Pasteur 
   created the modern germ theory of disease, fully 40 years after the introduction of amalgam.

There also seems to be other things that rises my skeptic flag. For example, it suggests that four fillings is a "safe" amount. I was not aware that all fillings contain roughly the same amount of amalgam.

   All fillings contain the same amount of mercury, 50% by weight.  Any search of the Internet 
   for Dr. Mark Richardson's work or a download site for the NHANES III database is easily done
   with Google.  Dr. Richardson's paper proving 4 dental amalgams as a "safe level" is also
   available on the Internet.  Dr. Richardson did the paper while he was an employee of
   Health Canada, so in actual fact a government agency paid for this research.  The only
   people who will do NHANES III epidemiology studies are those who don't want the American
   Dental Association to come after them.  The big report a few years ago that second
   hand smoke caused more cavities in children's primary teeth was done at a university near
   Rochester, NY and reported worldwide.  The tool used for this analysis was NHANES III.  No
   one, and this is a fact, will stake their scientific job on doing a full NHANES III analysis
   of amalgam, so the one that was done was by a non-profit group.  This is the real problem.

This article seems to have a definite bias against amalgam. I suspect that a lot of this article was inspired by an anti-amalgam site. Perhaps its time for a NPOV header?

   None of the scientific information presented in this article is biased against amalgam.
   The information is all factual, otherwise it would be removed by the thousands of people
   who read this page.  The information shows a picture of "risk" in using amalgam, and how
   in some individuals there is a potential "recovery".  As an interesting note, most medical
   treatments are not recommended for pregnant women or children under 6.  Amalgam is considered
   a medical treatment, and the same applies.  Since it is a medical treatment, the "risk"
   controversy is what this article is discussing.

The title of this article should be renamed to "Dental Amalgam Risk Controversy". I think everyone would be in agreement with this change. Any comments?


--- 209.173.47.1 20:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I added headings and text, but left the majority of it as is. I moved the following over here temporarily because the external link is broken and I didn't find an obvious place for the rest.

  • The TEST Foundation An extensive collation of thousands of studies on amalgam, arranged by category, at the website of Dr Boyd Haley’s scientific research organisation, University of Kentucky.

Mercury amalgams are made by mixing approximately equal measures of mercury and an alloy of silver, copper, tin and other metals. Dental amalgams are sold in self contained capsules so that the dentist, dental technician, and patient are not exposed to mercury vapour during the mixing.

--- LeaMaimone 10:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

California ban??

I cannot find any sources to back up a California ban on dental amalgam effective 2006. The Mercury in Dental Filling Disclosure and Prohibition Act is a federal act, that AFAIK was not passed into law. If anyone can provide any references supporting these statements, please state so. Otherwise, I will be removing/modifying those references. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I modified/removed the references. Thanks for pointing them out. From what I can tell here, the bill that was mentioned was referred to a subcommittee, and it didn't make it out. Yes, that was a federal law, not a California law. California does now require dentists to give patients a fact sheet that discusses all the types of fillings, and it mentions mercury being toxic, but the brochure also goes out of its way to say that the FDA, WHO, and CDC all say amalgam fillings are safe. I would not call it an alarmist brochure. I don't know of any California ban. Tempshill 00:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I've expanded this a bit (actually was working at the same time and had an edit conflict), including the text of the warnings. I've added the ((cleanup)) tag since there are sections towards the bottom that need integration with the rest of the article. It also needs to be checked for NPOV. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 01:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you both for investigating the issue of the 'disclosure' act and making these references more accurate and detailed. This is an excellent improvement in the piece now. I don't know how this act got misinterpreted in the first place in the sources. For my part, I have also returned to the article re:NPOV, having just re-read the section on NPOV to refresh my mind, as you brought it up. It's a good point. Part of the problem in this article was that different parts were contributed by different people, so I guess comments from both sides of the controversy still at times retain a colour of opinion, even if only subtly implied. A few parts may just need rewording, where appropriate, in the guise of "some feel. . . whereas others. . . " I have at any rate tried to start this process (I haven't by any means completed it!), and I began by seeking out phrases which seemed particularly loaded with opinion or unnecessary emphasis one way or the other, such as "the vast majority", "valid studies", "this argument however ignores", "too miniscule to matter", "by far the best", etc. (All of these, at any rate, have now been changed, but there are probably others still in there). By the way, the edit by "194.165.183.123" was me, it just looks like I unintentionally wasn't logged in when I submitted it. Simon K 02:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Minors can't get mercury fillings in Maine. Adults can still get them. 65.34.186.143 17:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

broken link

The above-mentioned "TEST Foundation" link has now also been restored with the new correct website, since the web address had moved. Simon K 03:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Antibacterial Mercury?

Another advantage of amalgam fillings is the antiseptic properties inherent in mercury due to its mild toxicity.

According to my dentist it's the silver chloride formed on the surface which provides this effect. 16:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Silver and mercury both have germicidal properties. It's probably a combination of both.
Darrien 21:14, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

NPOV

There remains an issue with NPOV in this article.

One statement near the beginning caught my attention specifically with regard to NPOV. It read: "Mercury vapors do leach from fillings into the body, although their levels are not high enough to cause mercury poisoning."

I attempted to change it in the following way by adding only one word (acute): "Mercury vapors do leach from fillings into the body, although their levels are not high enough to cause acute mercury poisoning."

This change was reverted with the comment, "The levels released are not high enough to cause any kind of poisoning."

Since NPOV is the topic which interests me here, I won't even give my view on this statement, since my view is irrelevant, as should by the views of all other contributors. The whole point of a "Neutral Point of View" is that where a controversy exists, the different sides need to be noted in a neutral fashion.

Here are some direct Wiki quotes on what NPOV is supposed to be all about:

"Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. . . Encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance other than the stance of the neutral point of view. . . The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. . . Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so."

Now let's try to apply these Wiki principles to this article. The latter was created in the first place, and given the name "Dental Amalgam Controversy", precisely because there is a heated debate on this issue. The Wiki quote above specifically recommends writing about "what people believe" (i.e. some believe that amalgam leakage does not cause any kind of poisoning, others believe that amalgam leakage can cause chronic lowgrade poisoning), not about "what is so" (e.g. even if you feel that amalgam leakage does not cause any kind of poisoning, this is "what is so", whereas what we need to write in this article is about "what people believe", i.e. that there is more than one viewpoint, and a significant number of passionate voices on both sides of the controversy).

In other words, it seems to me that it is not inaccurate to say that the "levels are not high enough to cause acute mercury poisoning", but NOT because I believe or don't believe this (which is irrelevant) - but because this is a statement which, as far as I am aware, everyone would agree with, whichever side of the controversy they are on. In other words, this statement is not one of the opinion of one or other side, but is something everyone agrees on (at any rate, to my knowledge), and therefore it conforms to NPOV standards.

However, without the word "acute", this statement is effectively negating the views of all of the individuals on one whole side of the controversy. In effect, therefore, this statement is taking sides - it is saying that the view of one side of the controversy (that amalgam leakage never causes any kind of poisoning) is correct, even though it is precisely this sentiment with which many people on the other side disagree. For this reason, this statement does NOT conform to NPOV standards.

Of course, one view (the first) is currently held to be true by the mainstream authorities of many countries, hence it certainly needs to be mentioned. Likewise, however, the alternative view (which is the source of the controversy, which this article is allegedly about) is held by a "significant minority" (a phrase quoted from the Wiki article on NPOV), including the mainstream authorities of several countries in Europe and Asia, and thousands of scientists, dentists and researchers who happen to disagree with the current mainstream doctrines. Once again, I venture no comment on who is "correct", since my view is irrelevant, as should be the view of every other contributor to the article: the goal of this article, as a Wikipedia article, should be to describe accurately the existence of more than one view on the subject without outright negating the views of either side, since to do so would not conform to the NPOV principle.

The word 'poison', according to Webster's dictionary, is "Any substance that causes injury or illness or death of a living organism". Since the "significant minority" mentioned above, those involved in the "mercury scare", are of the opinion (right or wrong) that mercury leaking from amalgam fillings 'injures' human tissue, and that it 'causes illness', then by definition this means that they believe that 'poisoning' does occur in some form (chronic, they will say, not acute) from amalgam fillings. For this reason, the statement I picked out - and tried to change - should not have been reverted, and the act of reverting it back to how it was before is against the NPOV principle of Wikipedia.

I will end with one more Wiki quote (where it states "that corporations are criminals", replace this with "that mercury from amalgam fillings causes or does not cause poisoning"):

"An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says."

Any responses please? Thanks, Simon K 23:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

All of the examples you provied have some degree of subjectiveness to them. In this case, amalgam fillings either can, or cannot cause mercury poisoning, be it acute or chronic. All reputable sources (as well as common sense) say that amalgam fillings do not cause mercury poisoning. Can you provide *any* reputable evidence that amalgam fillings cause any kind of mercury poisoning at all? If not, then the following passages from the NPOV policy apply, and the sentence remains as it is.
  • "Pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article"
  • "The Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views".
Darrien 10:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
You seem to think that NPOV assumes that all opinions are equally valid with no regard to established facts. If this were the case there could truly be no facts in wikipedia at all. The Wikipedia entry on the Holocaust for instance couldn't state that the holocaust occured because it would be (in your words) "negating the views of all of the individuals on one whole side of the controversy." Do you really want a Wikipedia where every article is "some people believe blah, other people believe not-blah? Furthermore, this is not a matter of belief or difference in value systems. There is an actual truth and falsehood in this question. Currently the best evidence indicates that mercury fillings don't cause mercury poisoning. Until you or someone else points to evidence from qualified sources that say otherwise the text should remain as it is.

60 Minutes Transcript

This material is copyrighted and not licensed under the GFDL nor any similar license as far as I am aware, so I am removing it.


Good source for this information

I am writing a nutrition book that deals with heavy metal and chemical exposure. One of the best explanations I have run into concerning this issue was written by Dr. Russell L. Blaylock in his book Health and Nutrition Secrets that can save your life, ISBN:0-929173-42-2. As for NPOV, Dr. Blaylock is lacking in this department but his research is done impecably well. He talks about both sides of the issue although he clearly is no fan of the ADA. He does indepth research on the subject and some of his research could go a long way to the NPOV we are looking for. I would be happy to contribute to this article if you all need help - let me know [bigbadserrao@hotmail.com].

Staypuftman 00:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Appropriateness of first paragraph?

I have to wonder about the appropriateness of the tone of the first paragraph for an encyclopedic article (as opposed to a journalistic work, or an opinion piece):

This article is about the risks associated with putting dental amalgam in your teeth,
and the controversy this has generated, hence the title Dental Amalgam Controversy.
All medical treatments have an element of risk involved. The American Dental Assocation,
which is the assocation of dentists who sell dental amalgam to patients, say there is no
risk while at the same time insisting members store any scrap amalgam left over in an
airtight covered jar with glycerine on top. If there is no risk to using dental amalgam,
why does it have to be stored in a covered jar in a dental office? Most dentists have a
huge jar covered jar of scrap amalgam in their office. Why is it covered? More importantly,
as a patient did you know it was covered? Knowing something like this is called "informed
consent". In dentistry, this is not provided to patients. This is the nature of the
controversy, which has been ongoing for over 150 years.

This was part of a series of edits by 70.49.210.50 on November 13, 2005. Hopefully another user with more knowledge on the subject than me will have a look at this. MCBastos 12:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


Let's organize ourselves and fix this thing

I don't get the feeling anyone is really in charge of this article - so I'm willing to take charge and start redoing it. I have a substantial amount of research in regards to the health implications of dental amalgams - but I do not have much information about the history of the controversy. Anybody want to help me? Shoot me an email - [1]

Staypuftman 03:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixing this article

Although it is a good idea to fix this article, since it has so many warnings on it....unlike dental amalgam, which has none, by the way...unfortunately it is not possible, as there is really no peer-reviewed research into the health implications of dental amalgam beyond what is referenced here in all the sections of the article.

The Vimy studies were animal studies, so do not provide any definitive human proof, for example. The NHANES III studies show a human/amalgam link, but not a causal connection, and no scientist wants to risk their career on proving the connection further. The medical advisories are about mercury vapor, generated at much higher levels than amalgam can produce. The result is that the only scientific step is to remove amalgam if a patient is ill, and track the results. If the patient improves, it is called "anecdotal", which is a word that means "a medical observation" with no clear scientific cause.

It is OK. In the period of 1000 AD to 1800 AD, people believed that witches and spirits caused illness, and only with the proof of bacteria could we say that it was something else. We are just at the beginning of the scientific investigation into amalgam, and NHANES III, which cost $120 MILLION to collect, shows some promise.

Anybody worried about the chemical compostion of white fillings?

As a dentist I place amalgam and composite restorations every day. I understand peoples concerns about mercury and would encourage them to consider gold or porcelain onlays or veneers instead if they have doubts about safety. But many people cannot afford these options or will not pay for them. They often ask for cheaper 'white' fillings.

however virtually all tooth coloured direct filling materials contain Bis GMA, a substance classified as an endocrine disruptor chemical or EDC. There is a growing body of evidence from studies as far back as the 30s to show how this chemical adversely affects human biology, contributing to changes in brain biochemistry and 'feminising'of males.

I am happy to place either material as there is no DEFINITIVE evidance either way.Amalgam has not been linked to any problems in any peer reviewed articles. I'd prefer not to use amalgam, but the composites available contain Bis GMA which may well be MORE damaging than amalgam, if they expose patients to Bis GMA.

My advice for what its worth is not to worry unduly. However if you wish not to be exposed to any potentially damaging chemicals avoid ANY cosmetic dentistry (Including dentures as they generally use acrylic, and this contains common allergens!). Instead stick to old fashioned cast gold , porcelain (not bonded with resin though as this has Bis GMA) or porcelain bonded to gold restorations. If you do not wish to have any of these options then extract the tooth. ANY other restoration will either be amalgam or contain and EDC.

Relevant Articles in wikipedia will give fascinating links regarding Bis GMA.

Good luck Marc

Vandalism

The American Dental Association, as can be seen in the first section above, has again vandalized this article. This is what the ADA is like, when the Environmental Protection Agency began to sue dentists because of mercury in their office wastewater, they said "our professors told us mercury is OK". They are the biggest bunch of mercury sellers in existence. If you go to an ADA member, and have mercury put in your teeth, and then get sick, you have been warned about the controversy. For most people, a trip to an ADA member is akin to a trip to getting a mercury lozenge. Reader's Digest did an article about the total lack of ethics of ADA members, and anyone can go look it up. Dentists are intestered only in getting rich, building the "million dollar practice", and anything that interrupts their greed, love of money, and desire for riches while screwing your health, must be targetted. ADA stands for American Denial Association, and your health is their target. Anyone who removes mercury from a product or process is a hero, and gets medals from the Environmental Protection Association. What kind of person would put mercury into a human being, when all the scientists in the world are trying to take mercury out of everything (so it can't get into humans). A total non-scientist, non-ethical profiteer who is a greedy, non-thinking human being who cares nothing for his fellow man, his or her brothers and sisters. Your local in-denial ADA member, who has no laws restricting his/her behavior, no approval of the amalgam product he/she uses, and is free to make you as sick as he/she wants selling a product that costs them $1 and they install for $150. The person who "edited" the article above is trying to protect his $149 PROFIT. The word Profit comes from Proffer, to give. What he gives you for $149 profit is a mercury implant. At least with cigarettes you were told it was bad for you. He/she is totally free to run rampant over the truth and your health. I mean, WTF is the ADA anyway? Is it a government agency? It is an association, nothing more. An association that sells MERCURY. No one sells mercury, check the facts for yourself, production and sale of mercury has been severely declining for more than 50 years. And they call themselves professionals? Professional liars. Do we have to say more????? -(unsigned comments by: user:65.92.43.70)

(1) Proper disposal of amalgam is the prudent thing to do since it does have mercury. (2) Mercury in the amalgams are in a different state and in such low levels that it is considered to have no negative health effect, except in cases of allergies. (3) Amalgams are cheaper than tooth-colored filling (frequently composites). Thus, the suggesion to remove all amalgam fillings with composites actually makes more money for the dentist than placing and leaving amalgams. (4) Name-calling and labelling is neither very productive nor helpful in identifying what has been found in research. -Dozenist talk 14:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (2) Proper disposal of amalgam is a joke, the EPA sued the pants off dentists until they had to install hugely expensive filtration systems. As the ultimate small-business people, their practices are funded bill-to-bill, so items like expensive mercury filtration only go in after lawyers threaten huge lawsuits. (2) Mercury in amalgams is released from the fillings, after 20 years there is hardly any mercury in the amalgams, that is why they often crack and fall out as they age. This mercury goes into the patient's system as vapor. Testing of old amalgam fillings has confimed this time and time again. (3) Amalgams are lost-cost but high-price as it takes a dentist half the time to install compared to composites, so it's all about profit. (4) The reputation of the ADA, according to Reader's Digest, is "some good ones, but a lot of liars". This is consistent with their professional reputation, which is a joke as they sell a product not even approved by the FDA, namely amalgam. What should we call them, honest? I mean, even a hot-dog vendor needs a license, and the hot dog maker has to be approved by the FDA. Keep posting IP addresses, we already know the ADA's tactics. Stop selling mercury to kids. It's illegal to put mercury into jewelry, but not into amalgam. A kid can't wear mercury amalgam jewelry legally, but a dentist can put it in a kid's mouth. Go figure. The ADA just doesn't want people to know mercury is in fillings, because it will hurt profits. Tell your lawyers that it is OK to tell the truth. LET'S MAKE A DEAL. YOU ALLOW US TO PUT SIGNS IN DENTAL OFFICES SAYING AMALGAMS CONTAIN 50% MERCURY, AND WE WILL AGREE TO STOP CALLING IT A CONTROVERSY. DEAL????????? -(unsigned comments by: user:65.92.43.70)
  • In response to the latest objections by user:65.92.43.70, let's see. (1) Disposal of amaglams is better. (2) Testing has shown no negative side-effects to amalgam time and time again, and the most common reason why amalgam fillings must be replaced is because of recurrent decay around the edges of the restoration or because the tooth eventually cracks since the material does not bond to the tooth. Neither of which has anything to do with the composition of amalgam. (3) Composites do cost patients more since more fees are added to it to off-set the more expensive material and the greater amount of time dentists need to work with it. (4) Again, I will point out that name-calling is not helpful and unacceptable in intelligent dialogue. (5) As found here, the FDA continues to research to find any negative effects of using amalgam, which to this date none has been found. - Dozenist talk 03:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Progress

I've done some research and seen very little credible evidence from the pro-amalgam side. If anyone has found any published medical studies not directly or indirectly funded by the ADA that show amalgams to be safe...please send it to me!

Additionally, due to the extreme controversy involved here - why dont we get 3 pro-amalgam, 3 anti-amalgam and maybe even 3 fence sitters to each write a little piece on why or why not they endorse this practice and publish them here? Each person would have to be a dentist which could be verified independently or by wikipedia in some fashion.

I am also going to try and move a lot of the information on this page which relates directly to the composition of amalgam over to the page which talks about different dental fillings. I think it is the first step to fixing this article.

Thanks Staypuftman 04:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC) [bigbadserrao@hotmail.com]

Coincidentally, I've done some research since dentistry is the field I am in, and I have found very little credible evidence from the "anti-amalgam" side. The basics is that research in peer-reviewed journals, whether funded by the ADA or not, has found no ill-effects in amalgam as used in dental fillings. Nonetheless, despite that wealth of scientific research, controversy exists and will continue to exist. Therefore, I see the need to have and continue to support this article, which is in dire need of clean up, coherence, and an NPOV approach to this topic. - Dozenist talk 05:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Please post citations from non-ADA related that show no ill-effects from dental amalgam. Im going to post what I have found in doing some research here.

Thanks Staypuftman 16:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My research so far

AGAINST Aposhian, H.V., Bruce, D.C., Alter, W., Dart, R.C., Hurlbut, K.M. Aposhian, M.M. "Urinary Mercury after Administration of 2, 3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonic acid: Correlation with Dental Amalgam Score." Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB). Volume 6: 2472-2476. (1992).

2/3 of mercury in peoples bodies comes from dental amalgams

AGAINST Lorscheider, F.L., Vimy, M.J., and Summers, A.O. "Mercury Exposure from Silver Tooth Fillings: Emerging Evidence Questions a Traditional Dental Paradigm." FASEB Journal (April 1995).

Scientifically shows amalgam mercury linked to mercury in the placenta of pregnant women, disrupts kidney function, and lowers fertility

FOR Mackert, Dr. J.R. Jr. “Dental amalgam and mercury.” The Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA). Volume 122: Number 8: 54-61. (August 1991).

Shows that this is no relationship between amalgams and mercury poisoning in people

FOR Saxe, S.R. Wekstein, M.W. Kryscio, R.J. Henry, R.G. Cornett, C.R. Snowdon, D.A. Grant, F.T. Schmitt, F.A. Donegan, S.J. Wekstein, D.R. Ehmann, W.D. Markesbery, W.R. “Alzheimer's Disease, Dental Amalgam and Mercury” The Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA). Volume 130: Number 2: 191-199. (February 1999).

Shows scientifically that there is no link between Alzheimer’s and Amalgams

Opinions on this research? Please everyone add more! Also, is it a conflict of interest to include professional peer reviewed articles from the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) considering they are in the middle of this discussion?

Staypuftman 21:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Staypuftman, you are on the right track. The reason you have found equal numbers of studies for and against is because 4 amalgam fillings is the safe level, and a mouth can hold twice as much or more. Since exactly half of Americans have less than 4 fillings, and half have 4 or more fillings, this spells c.o.n.t.r.o.v.e.r.s.y. The question is "why is 4 fillings the safe level of dental amalgam"? For the answer to that, you have to look up Dr. Mark Richardson's work (which was vandalized from this site by the ADA, what else is new?). The reason is what Richardson called the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI). For further proof of Dr. Richardson's work, which he did on official Health Canada business since he was employed as a scientist there while doing the work, go to the NHANES III (National Health and Nutritional Exam Survey III) from the National Institutes of Health. Screening of NHANES III for dental fillings (yes, dental is available in NHANES III no matter what ADA liars tell people) absolutely confirms Richardson's work. NHANES III cost $120,000,000 (120 Million, yes that is correct too) to collect. There is a dramatic difference in NHANES III health stats between those who have more than 4 dental fillings (amalgam at the time the survey was done over a six year period in the late 1980's) and those with less than 4 fillings. Those with 4 or more fillings are, well, sicker, and those with less than 4 are healthier. We had an ADA member on this site a while ago say that sugar was the reason, as if. So a dentist can say sugar makes you sick, without any scientific proof? And yet say mercury amalgam is safe, again with no proof? Also, the survey produced the result that 50% of the population has 4 or more fillings, and the other 50% have less than 4 fillings. The ADA doesn't want NHANES III data, and no one will do NHANES III and dental, because of lawsuits. So it is up to the people who are scientists but not depending on science for their paycheck, who are the only ones actually doing the science (not "studies", NHANES III screenings are science). Unlike the ADA who are just drilling, filling, and billing, and paying lawyers by the ton to keep the science out. Staypuftman, you asked the right question, and this is the best answer available right now. -(unsigned comments by: user:64.228.216.172)

It is a good thing that the NHANES III was brought up. The NHANES III was not an experiment, but a survey, which is one of the lowest designs for a research method. Why would that be? Because a survey shows a correlation. As stated previously by the anon user, those with more than 4 dental fillings are in overall bad health. If you attribute the cause of the overall bad health to be from the amalgam fillings, then you have violated the great principle of scientific research: "Correlation does not imply causation". So there is no way to correctly attribute the cause of the overall bad health. Interestingly enough, the idea that people with poorer oral health have poor overall health has been touted for years by dental groups, such as the ADA, in order to motivate people to take greater care of their oral health. Therefore, of all the results I have read, the NHANES III report actually does not report anything disputed by dental groups. - Dozenist talk 03:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dozenist, you are correct as well, but in kind of a Charles Dicken's "if they want to reduce the surplus population" sort of way. As for your conclusions, screenings are the highest form of science, not the lowest, because they show correlation. It is then up to real scientists to figure out why something is happening. An ADA member will look the dental filling NHANES III screenings (as you rightly said, it is not a study when you screen NHANES III for dental and overall health, it is therefore science), and say in their infinite arrogance that "obviously" it is sugar. However, there is now an agreement on Wikipedia for all to see, that can't be vandalized as it's in discussion, between ADA liars and Anti-ADA liars (we are both lying, each group says of the other). Both groups of liars agree that people who have 4 or more amalgams are sicker than the average population, and now it's time the world asks why? Dozenist, Sugar is not the answer, as sugar does not contain mercury, for example. The recent screenings of NHANES III for dental and second smoke from the University of Rochester,was reported worldwide on CNN, and in the New York Times, as "proof" that second hand smoke causes cavities in children's primary teeth. Dozenist, you and I both know that this was not the case, there was no "proof", only correlation, and yet is was reported worldwide. The same screening of NHANES III, but for dental and overall health, gets no reports, no funding, nothing but dead air right now. Dozenist, go ahead and tell the world why CNN would report on kids cavities and second hand smoke, which was dental/smoke screenings of NHANES III, but not on dental/health screenings. You know the answer......panic and lawsuits. Who at CNN in their right mind would do this report. Who at the NIH in their right mind would do these screenings. There is no one alive, in any position of authority or power, who will allow this information to reach the american people to even prompt the question "why". Dozenist, you know what is happening, don't you feel anything for humanity out there, your brothers and sisters, who are suffering? -(unsigned comments by: 70.48.10.214)

If someone responsds to the NHANES III by saying "it is obviously sugar", then they would have commited the logical fallacy of correlation implying causation as well. Since correlations are the only thing we are dealing with in this study, we can point out what the health research and dental commmunities say (none of which are pointing out that the main factor in all this is sugar). Instead, here is a list:
(1) people who care little about their overall health are more likely to care little about their dental health, so these people are less likely to brush their teeth and exercise or eat well. Therefore, they will have more fillings and poorer overall health.
(2) people who DO eat in excess, including sugar, are more likely to develop systemic diseases such as diabetes. Therefore, they will be more likely to need treatment for the systemic disease and need fillings because of the greater sugar exposure.
(3) people with systemic diseases are more likely to have mechanical problems hindering their ability to effectively control their oral hygiene (as in rheumatoid arthritis and intellectual disabilities), or they are more likely to have oral problems from the disease (such as dry mouth as found in Sjögren syndrome, and remember dry mouth causes increased likelihood of tooth decay). Therefore, their own diseases are causing the oral health problems.
(4) people with systemic diseases are more likely to take medicines which interefere with oral health (such as radiation treatment for head and neck cancers which can wipe out the quickly developing cells of salivary glands and produce dry mouth, or such as calcium-channel blockers which can cause a swelling of the gingiva, called gingival hyperplasia). Therefore, the side-effects of such medications make oral hygiene much more difficult, leading to more decay and the need for fillings.
That is just a quick list of things which come to mind. Concerning your comments about my personal character, I am a pretty empathetic person, which is why I am not going to defy all current medical research and remove an option which has no ill side effects except in the rare cases of allergies, which is one of the longest lasting of all filling materials, and is one of the most cost-effective for people. Though for some people removing amalgam as an option will interfere little with them, removing that option will hurt the people in society with the greatest needs--- those who are economically disadvantage, who are suffering systemic disease, who are intellecutally disabled. And these people would undergo greater unnecessary strain for no good medical reason. - Dozenist talk 14:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Heated thrashing...

Ladies and gentlement - I see tensions could not be any higher on this issue. Everyone comes into a discussion with biases, myself included, but as researchers for this very important topic we need to be able to put them aside. Let me say this yet again, I think we should let the science do the talking.

Sounds like NHANES III would be a good source for us to use - I have run into this publication in other reserach that I am doing indepedent of this. Can we come to an agreement on what this source is actually saying? I dont think sugar and overall health problems should be brought into the specific equation here - we can reference them but lets stick to the studies that show the effects of mercury vapor.

Additionally, we need more sources! Anybody working on that - post them here - especially any non ADA pro-amalgam sources, which to my knowledge still do not exist.

Thanks Staypuftman 00:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

NHANES III would for the reasons explained above be a problem in using as a reference. What the "source is actually saying" needs interpretation, something we cannot do in the encyclopedia, because it is a survey. There is no experimental design in the study to determine what is causing anything. Additionally, overall health problems and sugar are intricately tied into NHANES III because those two things are seen as the primary influencing factors, rather than any mercury vapor--- at least, again, that is the interpretation by nearly the entire dental community and biochemical researchers. Thankfully, letting the science do the talking is something we can both agree on. There are plenty of more focused, better designed experiments, and even surveys, that can be used. - Dozenist talk 01:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dozenist, I think your above statement is just about the most hilarious ADA statement in the entire history of the organization. The budget for NHANES III was $120,000,000 dollars. That's 120 MILLION dollars. You say that "NHANES III has no experimental design". Why don't you get out of your dental office, go down to the NIH reading room, and read what the study is about. It says that it is the most carefully designed study in the history of the United States of the health of the American People, and covers 33,000 adults in all cross-segments and geographies of the United States, covering all races, genders, ages, and incomes, a "snapshot" in time of the health of the American People. Your statement is one of total ignorance, and like I said both of us liars (ADA and non-ADA) will say anything to cover our asses. The "dental community" doesn't want the American People to know that NHANES III cost $120,000,000, covers the entire population of the United States as the most accurate statistical representation of American Health, and certainly doesn't want them to know that the study demonstrates clearly that if you have 4 or more fillings, you are much sicker than the average person, regardless of cause. Think of NHANES III like the biggest, most scientific "poll" that has ever been done, 33,000 people were EXAMINED in detail representing 280,000,000 Americans, and were examined in rolling dental labs, in rolling doctors offices, that fanned out across the USA by a government organization with $120,000,000 to find out what is the TRUTH about their health (their dental status, their blood pressure, the meds they take, everything under the sun, they were asked thousands of questions and examined closely by doctors and dentists). You and your ADA colleagues are so.......unscientific........in your response to the truth. Who told us, the anti-ADA group, about NHANES III? I mean, if we are a bunch of non-scientists who are not in the "community", how did we find it. I'll tell you how, you mouthpiece for the ADA. We called the Framingham Heart Study and asked them "did you dental?". They said "no, call the NIH (National Institutes of Health) they run the study". We called the NIH, and asked "did you do dental at Framingham or anywhere else?". They said NO. Dozenist, they said NO. The most powerful group of health researchers in the world said NO, no dental studies on amalgam and health. Framingham was a 50 YEAR study (1948-1998) of a town near Boston, which found cholesterol was linked to heart disease, and is the MOST FAMOUS study of health in US history. But even in THAT STUDY, they didn't do DENTAL. So the NIH said to us, DO NHANES III, you can DO IT YOURSELF, just download it off the Internet, it has dental!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dozenist, I don't want to sound like I'm mad at the ADA, but I think you can understand that anyone who defends them, speaks for them, or tries to convince innocent children and their parents that amalgam is OK is a non-scientific, greedy, self-employed, member of an association who is only concerned with profits, and that the first screenings of NHANES III, which cost $120,000,000 to collect, show a clear link between 4 or more dental fillings and ill health. That association, and its members, do not want children and their parents to know the survey cost $120,000,000, that is was done by the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, and that it is the MOST IMPORTANT SURVEY IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN HEALTH, and was done by an agency whose mission it is TO PROVIDE DATA THAT WILL GUIDE RESEARCHERS TO PROTECT OUR MOST IMPORTANT ASSET, THE HEALTH OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Dozenist, I welcome your lawyer-reviewed ADA reply, but the ADA can't hide any longer, and at this point in our discussion I would ask that all ADA members surrender their licenses, turn in their practices, and pay back all the money they have taken from people for the last 50 years for installing mercury in them. If you don't, we will continue to sue the ADA until SOME researcher finally does NHANES III and dental and the ADA finally collapses under its own weight of lies. I have finally found someone who can lie as good as I can, and it's you Dozenist, because as we all know there are only 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. But NHANES III is the GOLD STANDARD, it is the BIBLE of health data, and was built at the cost of $120,000,000, so is not some localized study in some small corner of the USA. It is the BIG ONE. And it says the ADA is LYING. So go ahead, shoot NHANES III down. But if you do, remember this: NHANES III is a an important life-saving tool, used by researchers around the world to try and help people by finding causes and cures for life-threatening illnesses. Even the LINK to NHANES III on this site was VANDALIZED by the fargin bastages at the ADA, who want to keep everyone in the dark. I mean, every little bit of truth has been VANDALIZED off of this site by the ADA, who won't even put a sign in their offices saying that AMALGAM FILLINGS CONTAIN 50% MERCURY, who won't even tell patients AMALGAM IS NOT APPROVED FOR SALE BY THE FDA, AND HAS NEVEN BEEN SAFETY TESTED. Who will say NHANES III COST $120,000,000 TO COLLECT, BUT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR USE IN DENTAL STUDIES. Who are UNTOUCHABLE, THE ADA IS ABOVE ALL LAWS. Well, there are a lot of individuals in the USA over the years who thought they were above the law, my friend, and found out otherwise, remember cigarettes? The ADA makes me...................SICK. That is the truth, literally, if I let them put amalgam in. If the ADA has done something wrong, and the evidence is clear that they have, then the law will make things right. Recent estimates of ADA liability from dental amalgam show a $5 TRILLION damage estimate, for pain and suffering caused by amalgam use. That's why Dozenist, with all of the resources of the ADA, will do anything to get rid of evidence. Sound familiar, are there any other groups in the USA in the past decade (or longer) who have been busy shredding evidence...........................

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.97.138 (talk • contribs) .
I don't want to stick my nose into a place where it doesn't belong, but I did want to point out that rambling, conspirational posts like the one above lead me to believe, as someone who knows nothing about the controversy, that opponents have little credibility. That's all. - Jersyko talk 16:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I have already previously stated the possible and most likely interpretations of the results of the NHANES III, which do not point to amalgam causing health problems. Although the information may be useful to collect a wide-range of data, the NHANES III has no control groups and there are no independent variables being tested. Since correlation cannot be used to prove causation, no one can use the NHANES III to say definitively that amalgams caused health problems, and in the mean while I do not have the time to teach fundamentals of research design and to explain any further why surveys (either in a cross-section of the population or over time) is scientifically weaker than a classic experiment with independent/dependent variables, control groups, etc. - Dozenist talk 17:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dozenist, "The most likely interpretations" of NHANES III dental-filling/health data is "Houston, we have a problem". The more dental fillings that a person has, the sicker they are, according to NHANES III, which is the official US Government independent health study and is used every day for health research, and cost more than any ADA member will ever make in his/her lifetime. Now this result is not a "Houston, I dropped my toothpaste and need to get out of my chair to pick it up" kind of problem, it is a "Houston, I lost my re-entry thrusters and will have to circle until you guys down there figure out how to get me home" type of problem. And so we go round and round, the ADA and the anti-ADA. The fundamentals of science are as follows: If the earth goes around the sun, then we try and figure out why. We don't say "the earth goes around the sun, but I don't have any evidence that they are related so I will continue to study the earth and the sun separately". Jersyko is right, opponents have no credibility at all, very similar to people like Galileo and Copernicus who were pretty darn sure it must be because the sun is at the centre of the solar system, not the earth. Even when Galileo was thrown in jail his opponents were going down, because they fought the truth. The ADA has credibility, I will give you that. After nearly 200 years, they are still in business selling mercury, which means they are the only ones left. Every other mercury seller is gone. There are all kinds of rogue groups and regimes still operating on this earth, doing things they shouldn't do, and the American People are powerless to stop them. The American People are powerless to stop the ADA, that we know. In spite of the most powerful health study data in the world, showing a clear connection between higher dental filling rates and ill health, the USA is powerless to stop the ADA. This is because the USA IS THE ADA, the Food and Drug Administration Dental Division are the exact same people who are the American Dental Association. Now, the anti-ADA group has had to endure every kind of name-calling, insult, put-down, and inane comment by modern ADA people (whose forerunners were all kicked out of the first dental group, the ASDS, in the 1850's as they were a bunch of buffoons who had no scientific training) who insist they are "scientists" (they are not), "truthful" (they are not), "caring" (they are not), "balanced" (they are not), and "honest" (they are not). They are a bunch of people who sell MERCURY for a living by mixing it with silver/tin/zinc and call it "safe". That makes them both the best LIARS in the world, and the best STRATEGISTS in the world, because they even took out the government organization responsible for regulating them. It has come to this, over 150 years after the controversy first began, played out on Wikipedia for the world to see. The UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT'S MOST POWERFUL STUDY, VANDALIZED BY THE ADA WHO SAY IT DOES NOT MATTER. The ADA stands for the AMERICAN DENIAL ASSOCATION. We in the Anti-ADA group stand by our results, we have thousands of people who have recovered from having fillings removed, we have the NHANES III data proving we did not imagine the whole thing, we have the National Institutes of Health telling us the they never did "Dental" and told us to do NHANES III ourselves. The ADA is what it is, we can't change that, but we can ask everyone to stop allowing them to put mercury in you. The ADA are NOT doctors, they sell a product that has NOT been tested, they are NOT regulated as they control the agency that monitors them, and they DON'T CARE if you get sick from fillings, and remove them, and get better. They call that "ANECDOTAL". Well, here's an "anecdote" for you. One of these days, the people you have hurt will take your houses and cars, that you got from illegal profits putting mercury in them, through the courts. It may not come this decade, or even next, but some brave scientist somewhere is going to read this, go into his/her computer, run NHANES III again, and blow you guys out of the water with your lies. Just think how much humble pie $5 Trillion in damages will buy.......

I feel like Im in 5th grade

Clearly random guy hates the ADA (why dont you sign your name??) and Dozenist is pro-ADA. Why dont both of help me do something constructive? ADAHATE - maybe you could post and help explain the findings in the NHANES III here. Dozenist - would you like to supply me with pro-amalgam studies focused on mercury vapor release that show fillings do not release mercury vapor into the body?

I feel that a lot of people who might help us fix this article are reading all this garbage going back and forth and are being scared away (which may be both of your end goals, I dont know at this point). My first instinct was to separate the knowledge of amalgams from the controversy, move it over to the dental fillings page and edit that information back out of the controversy page. I redid a large part of both articles in the process, posted them and they were immediately removed by Dozenist. I have about reached my wits end with this process - Wikipedia appears to be much more about individual egos than professional research. Both of you are doing this noble cause a great disservice and should be ashamed of yourselves. I have done a substantial amount of valid research on the subject and would be willing to contribute to anyone else who dares to enter this hellhole. Im done with this ridiculousness - someone else is welcome to carry this torch. Good luck to whomever may come after me.

Staypuftman 23:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Staypuftman, no one can sign their name when the ADA is involved, otherwise you get followed around all the time and get crank phone calls in the middle of the night. Also, you end up in funny "accidents". Dozenist is a vandal, a lobbyist assigned by the ADA to watch this article all day and all night, and remove any science that in any way implicates amalgam. If we were to search Dozenist's bank accounts, we would find payments from the ADA somehow to him, it could be through intermediaries. In the end, he is exactly what we know he is, and the ADA is exactly what we know they are. Do you think, after seeing the activity on this "article", that this is not exactly the same harrassment and coercion that scientists get every DAY from the ADA if they are working on anti-ADA research? I mean, WTF is the ADA? From our attempts to provide the truth in this Wikopedia article, about NHANES III and the Patents for Amalgam Poisoning, we have had Dozenist (who is a henchman for the ADA) remove every reference. The ADA has been in business since 1859, don't you think they are pretty good at suppressing dissent if they have been at it for 150 years???? I mean, these ADA guys are the richest SOB's in America, they have been selling a product with a 15,000% markup for 150 years. They have NO REGULATION, we have shown that as well. Like I said, we are going to take their houses and cars, it is only a matter of time, and they know it. They will fight us, tooth and nail, but we will win. The ADA is a rogue nation-state, who is in a perpetual state of war with its opponents, on hundreds of fronts. This war is fought in the Congress, in the Senate, in the States, in the Universities, in the halls of the National Institutes of Health, in the Research Journals, in the Dental Offices, and now on Wikipedia. This War has now lasted over 150 years, and continues. The official start of the Amalgam War was in 1833 in New York City (Crawcour Brothers from France), so technically this is Year 173 of the War Against Amalgam. The ADA joined the War in 1859, so it is Year 147 of the War Against the ADA. They will lose this war, as they are wrong and corrupt. But they are also rich and powerful, so the war continues for a few more years until they fall completely. 60 Minutes went to War with the ADA in December 1990, and they found out who the ADA was, I can assure you. They discovered they were the meanest, rottenest, most corrupt group of anti-scientsts on the planet, who were putting mercury in children, in the elderly, in the poor, and claiming it was their God-Given Right to poison us and we couldn't prove a thing. They had all the Dozenists fighting on their behalf, and they scared the living s--- out of CBS Television, who had to withdraw. But Staypuftman, we've got them through our NHANES III research, and they know it. So they will continue to supress, and we will continue to fight, because in the end the Anti-ADA loves America, and the ADA leaches off America, and the American People are starting to understand the difference. The test is simple: If you love your fellow man, will you put mercury in him? The ADA fails this simple test.

Your attitude is astounding. Be courteous to one another. Stop being hostile. There is no huge conspiracy going on here. Also, the idea that I receive money in any way from the ADA is humorous and untrue. Further, since it is you who is speaking against the current position of the scientific community, I really think it is inappropriate to call the vast majority of dentists, biochemists, physicians, and health researchers "anti-scientists" for acknowledging the safety of amalgams. - Dozenist talk 14:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What a laugh. "The current position of the scientific community". The United States Senate Subcommittee on Dental Amalgam said "there is not enough evidence either way", and the US Senate outranks the ADA, buddy. So stop with the "I speak for the scientific community" garbage, it's the oldest line the 150 yr old ADA has used, just about as old as "my place or yours". The US Senate says "we don't know", and the reasons are clearly outlined now, which the Senate did not have a few years back and so threw it back to us: 4 FILLINGS. 4 or more amalgams is the safe level. In spite of that, sure there are people with more than 4 fillings who are still considered "healthy". There are people that smoke that live to be 90 years old, too. So what? Smoking has A LABEL SAYING ITS A POISON. Amalgam doesn't. Like I said, put a sign in your dental offices that AMALGAM CONTAINS MERCURY and we will stop this too, because then citizens can make up their own mind. There are so many victims, and so many Dozenists who are mouthpieces for the ADA. IT STINKS.

Proposal for Regulation Section

"Controversial Dental Amalgam Capsule, Amalgam Alloy, and Dental Mercury Regulations", a proposal for updating this section.

Summary: Without grandfathering the Dental Amalgam Capsule in 1976, Dental amalgam (the actual stuff that goes in teeth) would have been classified as a Class III device, and would have required 2000 hours of safety testing.

This section is one of the most complex, and controversial, in the long history of dental amalgam. Dental amalgam did not undergo safety testing even when the Medical Device Amendments Act of 1976, which introduced the classification systems for Class I, Class II, and Class III Medical Devices, was passed into law. The Dental Amalgam Capsule which is where amalgam is mixed when the seal breaks, was "grandfathered" in 1976, and retains this status today as the only legal place in a dental office where mercury and the alloy metals can be mixed. "Dental Amalgam" as two words by themselves appears nowhere in the US Code titles, only the words Dental Mercury, Amalgam Alloy, and Dental Amalgam Capsule are in the US Code titles (and are shown below). As a result, "Dental Amalgam" has never been tested for safety by the US Government, and never had to gain certification as a Class III Medical Device, which would have taken 2000 hours of safety testing.

First Source: http://www.health.gov/environment/amalgam1/regulation.htm

Federal regulation of dental amalgam and elemental mercury as an amalgam component resides with the Food and Drug Administration. Both products are regulated under the mandate of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 and the Safe Medical Devices Amendments of 1990. The basic framework of these device laws is a three-tiered regulatory scheme, which classifies devices on the basis of health risk and sets corresponding levels of regulatory controls.

Historically, FDA has regulated dental mercury and amalgam alloys separately (very controversial), with mercury treated as a class I device and the alloy as a class II device. (Medical devices are assigned to class I, II, or III, depending on the degree of regulatory control needed to assure the safety and effectiveness of the device, with class I requiring the least degree of regulatory control and class III the greatest. Mercury was placed in class I because, as an element, it could be regulated by establishing a standard of purity. The alloy was assigned to class II because of the potential safety and effectiveness risk that could result from variations in chemical formulation in terms of percent composition and types of materials.)

Second Source: United States Code: TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS, CHAPTER I--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SUBCHAPTER H--MEDICAL DEVICES, PART 872 -- DENTAL DEVICES

Subpart D--Prosthetic Devices Sec. 872.3700 Dental mercury. (a) Identification. Dental mercury is a device composed of mercury intended for use as a component of amalgam alloy in the restoration of a dental cavity or a broken tooth. (b) Classification. Class I.

Subpart D--Prosthetic Devices Sec. 872.3050 Amalgam alloy. (a) Identification. An amalgam alloy is a device that consists of a metallic substance intended to be mixed with mercury to form filling material for treatment of dental caries. (b) Classification. Class II.

Subpart D--Prosthetic Devices Sec. 872.3110 Dental amalgam capsule. (a) Identification. A dental amalgam capsule is a container device in which silver alloy is intended to be mixed with mercury to form dental amalgam. (b) Classification. Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in 872.9.

Note that device exemption is based on a clause in the Medical Devices Act of 1976, which allowed certain devices to be "grandfathered". Without grandfathering the Dental Amalgam Capsule as a Class I Medical Device, Dental Amalgam (the stuff that goes in teeth) would have to have been classified as a Class III device because of its complex and controversial structure/materials, and would have required 2000 hours of safety testing.

Third Source: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/devadvice/3133.html

Class I/II Devices Exempt from 510(k) and class I Devices Exempt from GMPs

Devices exempt from 510(k) are:

- preamendment devices not significantly changed or modified; or - Class I/II devices specifically exempted by regulation.

For purposes of 510(k) decision-making, the term "preamendment device" refers to devices legally marketed in the U.S. by a firm before May 28, 1976 and which have not been: - significantly changed or modified since then; and - for which a regulation requiring a PMA application has not been published by FDA.

Devices meeting this description are referred to as "grandfathered" and do not require a 510(k).

Next Reference: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpcd/315.cfm

Class I and Class II Exempt Devices

PART 862 Clinical chemistry and clinical toxicology devices

PART 864 Hematology and pathology devices

PART 866 Immunology and microbiology devices

PART 868 Anesthesiology devices

PART 870 Cardiovascular devices

PART 872 Dental devices

PART 874 Ear, nose, and throat devices

PART 876 Gastroenterology-urology devices

PART 878 General and plastic surgery devices

PART 880 General hospital and personal use devices

PART 882 Neurological devices

PART 884 Obstetrical and gynecological devices

PART 886 Ophthalmic devices

PART 888 Orthopedic devices

PART 890 Physical medicine devices

PART 892 Radiology devices

As a result, Dental Mercury, Amalgam Alloy, and the Amalgam Alloy Capsule are all separately classified as "prosthetic devices", and the Amalgam Alloy Capsule prosthetic device (which holds mercury and the alloys separately until mixed) has been "grandfathered". The CAPSULE , which was grandfathered as a device which is allowed to hold the mercury and alloy metals in separate compartments until mixed in an "amalgamator" machine (which just shakes the capsule until the internal seal breaks and the mercury mixes with the metals) is how Dental Amalgam avoided being a Class III Medical Device which would need safety testing.

Because of these regulations, Dental Amalgam itself is not actually classified, and as a result has never had to undergo safety testing in the United States as a Class III Medical Device.

[citation needed] - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.59.238 (talk • contribs) .

  • I have rewritten this section, as per above (with all citable sources), as briefly as possible. If you can use this information to rewrite the Regulations section, please do so. Essentially the facts demonstrate that through the CAPSULE which was grandfathered as the mixing method for amalgam, dental amalgam never got regulated. The FDA grandfathered the "capsule where amalgam is to be mixed" as Class I, regulated the alloy metals as Class II and dental mercury as Class I, and avoided Class III regulation of dental amalgam itself. My POV is that it was by design, the head of the FDA Dental Division in 1976 was the former President of the ADA. But I've learned my lesson, I only want the NPOV taken and the controversial facts where they exist shown in this article. The controversial part is "how can a device (dental amalgam) not be regulated in the US Code when it's components (alloy, mercury, capsule) are?". More specifically "amalgam as a mixed product would be a Class III medical device, and would undergo testing, but has not because of the way the US Code treats its components." It is SO controversial how dental amalgam itself is not regulated, only its components, that it is frightening. And 70,000,000 amalgams are estimated to be placed each year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.59.238 (talk • contribs) .
    • Thank you for this information; you're quite right that the "regulation" section of the article is probably not thorough enough as it is right now. I will try to make my way through this information, as well as doing a little research on the regulations on Westlaw, in the next several days, and hopefully update the "regulation" section thereafter. Again, this might take a few days. Additionally, while I'm certain that information on governmental regualation in the U.S. belongs in the article, the sections seems somewhat out of place right now . . . I'll think about that over the next few days too. If anyone has a suggestion on where, exactly, this section should fit into the article (or on a better name for the section), please let me know. - Jersyko·talk 15:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Corrections / Suggestions

1. Intro as currently written:

The dental amalgam controversy is a controversy surrounding the use of dental amalgams in modern dentistry.

The controversy centers around the propriety of the use of dental fillings containing mercury. Most dental amalgams contain some mercury, along with various other metals like silver, tin, copper, and zinc. Amalgams have been used in dentistry for over 150 years because they are malleable, durable, and more affordable than gold or composites. While the American Dental Association (ADA) has supported the use of amalgam since its inception in 1859, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never officially approved amalgam for use in dental fillings. The FDA maintains a web page on the use of amalgam, however, on which it states, "no valid scientific evidence has shown that amalgams cause harm to patients with dental restorations, except in the rare case of allergy."[1]

Proponents state that the amount of mercury released by amalgam fillings is negligible, thus there is no danger that mercury will leak from fillings into the body.ADA. Critics argue that mercury can and does leak into the body via amalgams, and that long-term exposure to the low levels of mercury vapor causes neurodegenerative diseases, birth defects, and mental disorders. There is no debate on the danger of high concentrations of mercury in any form, and both sides agree that amalgam may cause an allergic reaction in mercury-sensitive individuals.

  • The part "most dental amalgams contain some mercury" has to be changed to something like "dental amalgams are 50% mercury, and 50% alloy metals". Any other interpretation is scientifically incorrect, the modern formula since 1895 is 50% mercury, 50% alloy metals, contained in a dental amalgam capsule, and mixed in an amalgamator.
  • The part "the FDA has never officially approved amalgam for use in dental fillings" has to be changed to something like "the FDA has never officially approved dental amalgam, but has approved dental mercury, amalgam alloy, and grandfathered the dental amalgam capsule. As a result, dental amalgam has never been tested for safety".

2. Next Section, Regulation, as currently written:

In the United States, amalgams are classified as a "device," not a "substance," by the FDA. "Device" modification does not need FDA approval. Under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, amalgams are a prosthetic device:

"Amalgam Alloy, (a) Identification. An amalgam alloy is a device that consists of a metallic substance intended to be mixed with mercury to form filling material for treatment of dental caries. (b) Classification. Class II." (21 CFR 872.3050 (2001))

As a result of this classification, amalgams have not been subject to official government testing in the United States.

  • To try and simplify this section, it can be done something like: The Food and Drug Adminstration has regulated dental amalgam since 1976 as follows: The alloy metals are a Class II medical device, for enhanced control of composition. Dental mercury is a Class I medical device, as purity can be easily controlled. The dental amalgam capsule itself was grandfathered under the 1976 Medical Devices Act as a Class I medical device, as it can be easily manufactured and distributed. Dental amalgam itself was not classified in the Medical Devices Act of 1976, so has not been safety tested. It is recognized that dental amalgam, as a reaction product, would be a Class III medical device due to the chemical changes it undergoes during mixing and would require 2000 hours of safety testing.
  • To add all the complex legal descriptions is OK, but not really necessary. The paragraph above is fairly straightforward, and is an example of the controversy without taking sides.

The Mercury Contamination Process

I would ask the editorial staff to consider that in one simple example, fish accumulate dangerous levels of mercury even though the mercury levels in lakes and oceans are not at "poisonous" levels. However, we generally do not say fish are "poisoned", we say contaminated. There is methylation occuring, etc.... I would ask the editors to consider that this contamination of fish is the same process that occurs when humans are exposed to mercury vapor from dental amalgam. I am well aware that there is no detectable poisoning occuring, however I also know that fish accumulate mercury and can make the simple connection that people do as well. The Total Mercury Load is the issue, and my good friend Dr. Mark Richardson did his number crunching while at Health Canada and came up with 4 dental fillings as the max safe level. Since about half of Americans have 4 or more dental amalgams, this is the problem, and it gets worse as the number of fillings rise. We simply asked the NIH for statistical confirmation of this exceedingly simple idea, and were directed to NHANES III. We had the numbers crunched, this time on a computer by a statistical Ph.D., and it came back exactly as Mark had predicted. 4 or more dental fillings (which were amalgams at the time the survey was done in the 1980's, composites had not yet been used widely) was linked to poor health outcomes. It is too simple, really. It is not traditional poisoning, it is mercury exposure, chronic and low-dose, a heavy metal exposure. People are being exposed to mercury vapor just like fish are being exposed to mercury in lakes and oceans. This is not a POV, it is an NPOV. It is not "poisoning", it is "exposure", and it is just plain wrong. You don't expose people to mercury, at any level, without telling them. What kind of POV is it, for the ADA to say for 100 years that mercury doesn't leak out of fillings, and then have to change their tune and say "not enough leaks out to cause a problem". Look, any rational POV of the "health and mental state of the American People" today would not be rosy, there are a lot of problems in the USA and we are simply discussing the chronic, low-dose exposure of nearly a majority of Americans to mercury vapor on a continuous basis. If fish can't take it, how can humans?


ADA's Position

For the ADA to say about dental amalgam, through their mouthpiece on 60 Minutes in December 1990, that "it's not gonna cause a problem", was and is still the biggest dodge in medical history. They are dentists, not doctors, they don't know anything about human health, just healthy teeth. The reason they got away with not losing the farm, unlike the A is for Alar/Apples 60 Minutes episode where all the apple growers in Washington state lost their farms, is power. The ADA controlled the FDA dental division, and so called in their markers. At the time, no one understood that "the dental amalgam capsule" was how the ADA avoided Class III medical device testing for amalgam (which it could not pass, as it emits mercury vapor), or that NHANES III had the numbers connecting dental amalgam and ill-health (since access to NHANES III was tightly controlled, only after 2000 did access become available to general inquiries, with affordable computer power to crunch this enormous database. I wish people could understand just how big this study data is, it is so huge that the company that makes the software to crunch it told us they couldn't do it for free, it was just too big, so we had to pay someone). So the US Senate, which still outranks everybody, said in the mid-1990's "we just don't know". Well, what else could they say? If they said amalgam was OK, and it's turns out to be not, the entire US Government is liable. If they say "it's a problem", then the ADA goes under with $5 Trillion in damage claims. Well, I hate to break it to everyone, but we do know now, today. We know fish accumulate mercury, and we know NHANES III shows the real numbers in humans. And every day we have people taking out their fillings, and getting better. So why the controversy, why does the ADA still do it? Why do they continue to use mercury, and keep saying "there is no controversy". To understand this, you have to understand that it is the reason the ADA got formed in the first place. When everyone in the world in 1859 said "mercury amalgam is bad", the ADA said "it is safe". Is it a mystery that they keep saying this in 2006? Give your heads a shake. This article, dental amalgam controversy, is one of the most important articles ever written period, and we thank Wikipedia for its NPOV policy. We already know we are going to get the ADA for liability soon, but all we really care about is stopping the placement of mercury in kids, and then adults. It might be that we will have to reproduce the 1882 cockroach experiments, published in the Ohio State Journal of Dental Science, showing these hardy bugs dying in direct proportion to the amount of amalgam they are exposed to, and put that on TV. If this is what it takes, we'll do it. I've had enough of the ADA's lies, and we had NHANES III done as a "shot across their bow". We've been waiting for a few years, working our way through Congress and the courts. But if it takes TV to get them, then maybe now that this NPOV article is moving along and telling the story without taking sides, it's time for the next step. Shall we reproduce what are known as the Talbot experiments from 1882? Could the ADA actually survive a TV spot showing the results? That is why they have been asked to close down voluntarily over the last 5 or so years, and we are just getting a bit impatient. The Talbot experiments are available at Ohio State, there are several copies of the 1882 journal mentioned above. Dr. Talbot did the work in Chicago, was trying to prove amalgam leaked mercury, and used photographic film to prove it using the same process that photographers used to create "Daguerreotype" photos.

  • 1837: Louis Daguerre creates images on silver-plated copper, coated with silver iodide and "developed" with warmed mercury; Daguerre is awarded a state pension by the French government in exchange for publication of methods and the rights by other French citizens to use the Daguerreotype process. http://www.photo.net/history/timeline

Next Dr. Talbot next noticed the cockroaches all departed his lab, he thought "they don't like mercury". So he tested their ability to survive amalgam exposure, and sure enough these bugs, which are really hard to get rid of as anyone can attest, died in direct relation to the number of amalgams placed in their test-tubes. He was shocked, published the results, and Ransom and Randolph the largest amalgam manufacturer in the world in 1882 (now Denstply Int'l, another controversy), bought the journal and changed the name to the Ohio Journal of Dental Science (from the Ohio State Journal of Dental Science) and stopped future controversial publications like Talbot's. Do you see the kind of crap we have to put up with in this field of controversy? And the ADA won't go away, won't stop using mercury, and so we have to stop them externally. Even 60 Minutes couldn't stop them, so the bar will be raised some more.

Bottom line: When you see fish swimming in the ocean, there does not appear to be "poisoning" going on. And yet we are told continuously, Don't Eat The Fish. People are the largest mercury polluters in an enclosed room (see www.tekran.com corp for more details, read, read, read) and so those with 4 or more amalgams are like Fish in a Mercury Ocean, continually exposed and building up mercury ions in their central nervous system, brain, and critical organs. Not enough to cause a problem? Tell it to the fish.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do Lead with NHANES III, but not Dental Fillings

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/history/90-94hst.htm

With HUD, supports the Neighborhood-Based Childhood Lead Primary Prevention Program. This program is the first to fund neighborhood attempts to find and demonstrate ways that government, community organizations, and others can work together to keep children from becoming poisoned by lead. Uses NHANES III data to produce the only nationally representative estimate of blood lead levels in the United States' population in more than 10 years.

Blood lead levels measured in NHANES show major success of public health efforts to reduce lead in gasoline and lead in soldered food cans, resulting in a dramatic 78% decrease in blood lead levels for the U.S. population. The percentage of children with blood lead levels at or above 10 ug/dL also fell sharply, from 88% in NHANES II (1976-1980) to 8.9% in NHANES III, Phase 1 (1988-1991).

  • And I have had to listen to people, on this page, tell me that NHANES III is the "lowest design for a research method". Give me a break. The CDC is just scared like hell of the ADA, so they do everything with NHANES II, III, and IV except amalgam. So we had to do it ourselves.


Centres for Disease Control (CDC) do Obesity Risk Assessment with NHANES III, but not Dental Fillings

http://pubs.ama-assn.org/media/2005j/0419.dtl

BEING OBESE, UNDERWEIGHT, ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED RISK OF DEATH

CHICAGO—Compared with normal weight, a person who is overweight or underweight has an increased risk of death, although that risk appears to have decreased in recent years for obesity, according to a study in the April 20 issue of JAMA.

As the prevalence of obesity increases in the United States, concern about the association of body weight and a higher risk of death has also increased, according to background information in the article.

Katherine M. Flegal, Ph.D., of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, Md., and colleagues conducted a study to estimate deaths associated with underweight, overweight, and obesity in the United States in 2000 by using all available mortality data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). The researchers estimated relative risks of mortality associated with different levels of BMI (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) from the nationally representative (NHANES) I (1971-1975) and NHANES II (1976-1980), with follow-up through 1992, and from NHANES III (1988-1994), with follow-up through 2000. The authors then applied those relative risks to the NHANES 1999-2002 data to estimate excess mortality in 2000.

The researchers found that relative to the normal weight category (BMI 18.5 to less than 25), obesity (BMI 30 or greater) was associated with 111,909 excess deaths and underweight (BMI less than 18.5) with 33,746 excess deaths. Overweight was not associated with excess mortality. The relative risks associated with obesity were lower in NHANES II and NHANES III than in NHANES I.

"The differences between NHANES I and the later surveys suggest that the association of obesity with total mortality may have decreased over time, perhaps because of improvements in public health or medical care for obesity-related conditions. However, such speculation should be tempered by the awareness that these differences between surveys may simply represent chance variation and that small differences in relative risk translate into large differences in the numbers of deaths," the authors conclude. (JAMA. 2005;293:1861-1867. Available post-embargo at jama.com)

Editor's Note: Partial salary support for Dr. Flegal was provided by the U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine.

  • Can we begin to understand now why there is no science behind the use of dental amalgam, only controversy? There is no research into dental amalgam fillings and health, period.


New York University uses NHANES III to prove "for every child a mother loses a tooth", did not do Dental Fillings

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325151737.htm

NYU Dental Researcher Finds Link Between Pregnancy And Tooth Loss The old wives tale, "for every child the mother loses a tooth," has some validity, according to New York University College of Dentistry's Dr. Stefanie Russell.

Russell's paper, entitled "Exploring Pathways between Parity and Dental Health in U.S. Women," is being presented at the 83rd General Session of the International Association for Dental Research (IDAR) in Baltimore, MD, March 8th and 10th. This is the first U.S. study conducted that shows a link between number of pregnancies and oral health problems.


Dr. Russell's study looked at 2,635 white and black non-Hispanic women aged 18-64 who reported at least one pregnancy. The data were selected from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III), a nationally representative study of the U.S. population.

Dr. Russell found that childbirth is related to dental disease in American women. Although further study is needed to determine the specific reasons for the link, Dr. Russell offers these hypotheses:

  • While it has been shown that pregnancy raises the risk of gingivitis (gum disease), the gingivitis usually goes away after the birth of the child. But if a woman has repeated pregnancies and more frequent outbreaks of gingivitis, she may develop periodontal disease, which if left untreated can eventually cause tooth loss. * Many dentists are reluctant to treat pregnant women, and women who have to care for more children may have less time to visit the dentist. * Mothers with several children may be more likely to eat the "junk food" that their kids are eating.

Dr. Russell's findings suggest that women with several children need to be especially vigilant about their oral health. "We, as a society, need to be more aware of the challenges that women with several children may face in getting access to dental care," Dr. Russell says. "That means offering these women the resources and support they need, which can be as simple as making sure a working mother gets time off from work to see the dentist."

  • Now we are using NHANES III for "old wives tales". Can people understand why we are a little upset that it is not being used for dental fillings?

The Ultimate Controversy: NHANES III and Dental Fillings

The $120,000,000 NHANES III study needs to be researched by dozens of scientists, and publications submitted, for dental fillings vs. disease. Only a preliminary study was done, and the results published on the Internet.

The controversy is how NHANES II, III, and IV have been used for every type of study (see above 3 examples, there are thousands more) except for dental fillings vs. health. We are studying lead, obesity, old wive's tails, second hand smoke, etc, etc, etc... But for dental fillings vs. disease, no NHANES III. Does this look like a controversy? How about the fact that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) owns NHANES II, III, and IV, does tons of research (like the studies above) with NHANES, and yet won't look at "dental". The reason simple simple: Everyone expects the American Dental Association to "do dental", and they won't do it, because they already know they will prove themselves in the wrong. Can we really expect people to incrminate themselves? The reason for the total silence of scientists in this area is an estimated $5 Trillion ($5,000,000,000) liability. Every official that can be found on a payroll anywere won't do NHANES III and Dental.

Or look at it this way. Who does the United States Government look to for dental research? The answer is simple. The ADA and the FDA Dental Division. If an NHANES III study is supposed to be done for dental vs. health, the ADA and the FDA are expected to lead it. If this study incriminates the ADA or FDA Dental Division, do you think they will do it? How long, exactly, has the United States Government looked to the ADA for leadership on dental amalgam and health. Since 1859. That is now officially 147 years. This is a very long partnership, and has given the United States some of the best oral health in the world, and controversially some of the worst possible overall health outcomes in the world. The question is, is it better to have good looking teeth or be healthy overall? NHANES III and IV hold the answer, but the people responsible for doing the work will be implicated by the findings, which we already have in preliminary form.

So the controversy continues. Dental amalgam has never been approved by the FDA, only the capsule, the alloy metals, and dental mercury. Dental amalgam has never been tested for safety by the FDA. Dental fillings have never been peer-reviewed using NHANES III. Reports of recoveries from removing fillings are called anecdotal. The ADA was formed as an organization in 1859 simply to promote the safety of amalgam fillings, no other reason. The FDA Dental Division are the same people as the American Dental Association (ADA). Scrap dental amalgam is a toxic waste, according to the EPA, and cannot be flushed down the drain. Scrap dental amalgam must be stored in a covered jar in a dental office. At the same time people brush their amalgam-filled teeth with water, and don't cover their amalgams. The US Patent office approved a patent for a method of prevening dental amalgam poisoning using a selenium toothpaste. Fish accumulate mercury in "unpoisoned" waters, people are exposed to mercury vapor from amalgam and are considered "unpoisoned" as well. Yet we say "don't eat the fish", why? Persons with 4 or more dental amalgams are at risk, according to an official Health Canada scientist who published a report showing the tolerable daily intake (TDI) was too high if you have 4 or more amalgams. 60 Minutes did an entire episode about dental amalgam, and was told the ADA's position has always been, since 1859, that there is no controversy, even when confronted with the fact that amalgams release mercury vapor.

Let's add up the ADA's "allies" in the United States Federal Government, and their positions re: the ADA:

1. United States Senate: officially stated that they don't know enough to say amalgam is good or bad, after 147 years of partnering with the ADA.

2. Environmental Protection Agency: actually sued the ADA for disposing of amalgam in ordinary wastewater.

3. United States Patent Office: granted a patent for a method to prevent mercury poisoning from dental amalgam fillings.

4. Food and Drug Adminstration Dental Division: never tested amalgam for safety, instead approved the components of dental amalgam but not the product itself; put up a website saying dental amalgam does not cause mercury poisoning, assured us it is just as safe as anything else in the environment: the lakes, oceans, the air when it comes to mercury exposure..... What about 4 or more amalgams? Silence from the FDA, it is all about Tolerable Daily Load, don't you know...there are people with 4 or more amalgams who live in low-mercury areas, and people with 4 or more amalgams in high mercury areas, how as the FDA Dental Division can we control what people do? It's not our job, it's the ADA's to fix this.

5. Centers for Disease Control: running NHANES III studies constantly on everything but dental.

Can we see what is happening here? No one wants to support the ADA, everyone is backing off. The ADA have been hung out to dry. The ADA is expected to run NHANES III, it is THEIR JOB, not other departments of the United States Government.

The fear is $5,000,000,000 in liability, which makes this Wikipedia article the most important NPOV article in the encyclopedia. The true controversy is that the people charged by the United States Government with protecting our health with dental fillings, the ADA and the FDA Dental Division, are the ones who will be ruined by the results of NHANES III and IV. The 147-year old gentleman's contract between the USA and the ADA has become a legal noose around the ADA's neck, due to the new scientific tools available. Mercury leak out of fillings? Why, never, said the ADA for over 100 years, until someone invented a machine that could measure the leakage. It's just a small amount of leakage, the ADA now says, not enough to cause a problem, we've been protecting America's health for 147 years and we are sure about this. Has the mercury load in the environment increased since 1859, when the ADA was formed? Are you kidding? Should people be worried about mercury in the air, water, and now in their dental fillings? NHANES III so easily showed the answer, they should be plenty worried. Not gonna cause a problem, nothing has changed about health in the last 147 years in America. There are not any new widespread mysterious illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome, cancer, road rage, multiple sclerosis, depression, etc, etc, etc. that can be linked to mercury from dental fillings, our product is safe. People's immune systems are just fine, their brains and nervous systems are just fine, it's just stress, it's all in their heads...Yeah, right.

Thank You

Because of the NPOV restrictions on Wikipedia, I was able to complete linking all the research threads left dangling about amalgam for over 150 years. Thanks to the editors for your fair, balanced approach. The issue centered around Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI), the mercury load in our environment (air, water, soil) has been rising for decades, and is considerably higher since 1859 when the ADA was first formed to promote safe amalgam use. Combined with the increased installations of dental amalgam from widely available insurance coverage (composites are not covered in the USA as easily as amalgam) and overall better incomes, people simply have more amalgam in their teeth and it adds considerably to the TDI that also is higher because of the environment. Once a person has 4 or more dental amalgams they are at greatly increased risk for poor health outcomes. This is why many people's immune systems are not working properly, neither are their nervous systems, and the mechanism for contamination is just like in the case of fish where it is a chronic, low-dose exposure. While there has been an increased effort to ban mercury from the environment, we still see people getting poisoned from eating fish. Mercury in free form in the environment is still a major concern, and without banning dental amalgam the TDI will continue to be, well, intolerable and major illnesses of the immune and nervous systems (as confirmed by NHANES III) will continue to be linked to higher levels of dental amalgam (4 or greater in an individual). Thank you once again for insisting on NPOV, it has made the difference in understanding all sides of this issue.


==Thank You 65.92.59.238 ==

I just wanted to say Thank You also to the person listed above for all of his/her hard work and dedication to promoting the truth on this very controversial and difficult subject.

Many thanks to the wiki editors for recognizing and helping to stop the vandalism, and most of all to user #65.92.59.238, for your tireless efforts in standing up for the truth on these issues as well exposing the many frustrating tactics of the amalgam supporters and their industry to keep the truth hidden.

I am unfortunate enough to have 20 amalgam fillings and have been suffering from multiple unexplained health problems for many years, including Asperger's syndrome (a form of high functioning autism), severe migraines, hypothyroidism, frequent bouts of "brain fog" and loss of mental functioning, abdominal pain, extreme fatigue, depression and severe allergic symptoms. No matter what I do or the lifetime of drugs and various medical treatments I have been through, the problems have only gotten gradually worse, ultimately leading to permant disability.

I only recently learned about the mercury connection from the Internet and the more I read on the subject (from many multiple sources), the more I was amazed at how all of these seemingly unrelated symptoms are all tied together as the classic symptoms of mercury toxicity. I am a natural skeptic, but the volume of information proves to me the connection is undeniable.

Yet the conventional medical profession refuses to listen or acknowledge people like me. Why? We need help. Why is it that whenever we do try to document our problems, we are brushed off and our stories are considered only "anecdotal"?

Thank you to those who took time to read about my experience. I actually came here today to submit the following info in response to the requests to cite sources.

I didn't see the link below listed (maybe I missed it... or perhaps it was there but deleted?) http://www.vimy-dentistry.com/tttoc.htm But Dr Vimy has one of the most informative and well researched articles and his article at this link provides a number of excellent sources and resources, both historical and contemporary.

Dr. Murray J. Vimy DMD Clinical Associate Professor Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary. Calgary, Canada is a leading expert on the subject of mercury toxicity, as well as Dr. Boyd Haley Ph.D., who is affiliated with the University of Kentucky and has also done extensive research on mercury and other metal toxicity, dental amalgams, Thimerosal in vaccines, autism, Alzheimer's disease, neurology in general and political issues relating to all of these subjects. I do not have any direct contact information for either of these gentlemen, but I am sure they could somehow be reached through IAOMT or similar organizations if one is resourceful. Hgcasualty 02:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The US Government Report that started it all

It has been such a long time since I first read this report from the US Public Health Service (USPHS) on Dental Amalgam. Having finally figured out in 2006 that it was the Tolerable Daily Intake all along, and NHANES III has confirmed this, it is now frightening to read this report. They knew all along, and no one in the ADA's "research division" ever did anything to follow the USPHS's recommendations. Of course not, it would be putting themselves out of business:

http://web.health.gov/environment/amalgam1/ct.htm

The margin of safety may, however, be lower because of sensitivity to mercury or because body burdens of mercury are already high as a result of exposure to other sources; some persons may perhaps respond adversely to the incremental exposure to mercury derived from dental amalgams.

At the mercury doses produced by amalgam fillings, the evidence is not persuasive that the wide variety of non-specific symptoms attributed to fillings and "improvement" after their removal are attributable to mercury derived from the fillings. Conversely, the threshold levels may be lower because of sensitivity to mercury or because body burdens of mercury are already high as a result of exposure to other sources; some persons may perhaps respond adversely to the incremental exposure to mercury derived from dental amalgams.

The evidence is not persuasive that the potential for toxicity at the levels attributable to dental amalgams should be totally disregarded. The potential for effects at levels of exposure produced by dental amalgam restorations has not been adequately studied.

Research Recommendations

After review of the literature, the committee recommends that the following research be undertaken to clarify the effects of long-term, low-level mercury exposed from amalgam dental restorations.

•In all studies investigators should analyze and report the species of mercury (i.e., organic, inorganic). This is especially important for measurements in blood. In some cases analyzing the erythrocytes and serum separately will yield very useful information for interpreting the data when total blood mercury results yield no intelligible relationship.

•Research should be conducted to more precisely define the potential effects from the low levels of mercury exposure due to amalgam dental restoration. Alternative materials should be tested for safety and effectiveness in animals and humans.

•Studies should be conducted to obtain prospective data on blood and urine mercury after amalgam restorations are placed.

•Studies should be conducted to evaluate neurological and behavioral changes associated with the placement and removal of amalgam restorations.

•Verification cohort studies should be conducted to evaluate nerve and brain exposure to mercury; nerve conduction studies should be included.

•The potential for children to have increased sensitivity to the adverse effects of mercury should be characterized and evaluated.

•With sensitive tests the effects on renal and testicular function should be evaluated among occupationally exposed persons and in relation to the number of amalgams.

•Animal studies should be conducted to relate clinical signs to elemental mercury exposure and tissue levels.

•Studies should be conducted to identify sensitive and specific biomarkers of mercury exposure and effects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.210.222 (talk • contribs) .


  • This is exactly the mechanism for dental amalgam "contamination" that we have so clearly outlined in the article. The USPHS, and therefore the ADA, FDA, AMA, and every three-letter agency you can think of has known about this all along. Can you spell CONTROVERSY? -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.210.222 (talk • contribs) .