#1  
Old 04-16-2006, 06:49 AM
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 508
Marcus is on a distinguished road
Default FDA requests testimony on Mercury

New Move by the FDA May Affect Your Health

Sometimes, once in a blue moon, the FDA does a positive thing regarding health. The agency just announced plans to review mercury poisoning from dental amalgam. It is especially interested in the neurotoxic effects of dental fillings.

But even more incredibly, the agency is requesting the attendance of anyone who can comment on their experience with mercury. In fact, the FDA wants you to attend even if you have a disability. And it will make special accommodations if you need them.

This is a rare opportunity for you to make a huge difference with this draconian agency. Your input may do millions of Americans more good than scores of ignorant dentists and “scientists.” If you have a story about mercury to tell, please forward your information to the FDA.

It’s way past time to stop the poisoning of innocent victims with mercury. Additionally, it will have a very positive secondary effect. There will be far less mercury contamination of the environment once dentists stop using it. Please let the FDA know your story.

If you or someone you know had problems with mercury, tell the agency. Tell the agency you want the poison eliminated from people’s mouths. It causes innumerable health problems. And the mercury becomes an environmental hazard when dentists replace it and throw the mercury away – or when the deceased are cremated.

It’s astounding that the FDA will fine a dentist for improperly disposing of waste amalgam, but not for using it in your mouth. Please take advantage of this great opportunity to be heard.

If you want to give your comments to the agency, please send an e-mail to [email protected].

You may also call him at 301-827-5283, or “snail mail” him at Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-480), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850).

You know how I feel about the FDA. I know many of you feel the same. But let's not waste this opportunity by bashing the FDA to this one man. Please only write to him if you have experience with mercury fillings. And please focus on sharing your experience.

If you would like to attend the meetings, they are scheduled for September 6th and 7th at the Holiday Inn in Gaithersburg, MD. Before attending, please call the Information Line for up-to-date information on the meeting: 1-800-741-8138 301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area), code 3014512518.

And if you require special accommodations, please contact Ann Marie Williams, Conference Management Staff, 240-276-0450 ext. 113, at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

Yours for better health and medical freedom,

Robert Jay Rowen, MD
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-17-2006, 09:49 AM
Second Year Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: redondo beach, ca
Posts: 23
barry1817 is on a distinguished road
Default FDA hearing on amalgam

The ADA states that amalgam is safe.

Public groups seem to state that amalgam isn't.

And when you realize the amount of mercury that is released into the air by the burning of fossil fuel, the amount of mercury in a filling may not be the cause of any problems, and anecdotal stories of mercury may or may not be valid, because they lack science to substantiate the claim.

Having said the above I had written to the FDA and mentioned that when a state dental's association settles a lawsuit which states that mercury can pose a health risk, and that signage has to be placed to inform patients of that fact, it is very difficult to claim that mercury is safe.

As to the claim that the costs to treat with the plastic fillings is more expensive, in Ca. AB 999 makes the cost for doing a plastic filling the same fee as the amalgam fee. So this becomes very interesting because if dentists can do the plastic for the same fee as the amalgam, then why are the costs for the plastic so much higher.

And then the problem with this debate about wishing to change to plastic and away from mercury is the problem in the amalgam suit that was settled that states that the plastic restorations contain carcinogens.

So are we better off trading off from mercury in fillings to plastics that contain carcinogens.

But from where I sit the facts of the amalgam lawsuit and the legislation to mandate that plastic fillings cost the same as amalgam places the dental association in a very difficult bind to defend themselves in this hearing.


It is worth noting that changing shouldn't be done based on who has the better lawyer or who wins a PR battle, so I hope the hearings are based on facts, not innuendos.

[email protected]
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-20-2006, 11:06 AM
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 508
Marcus is on a distinguished road
Default

Hi Barry,

A lot of things in our environment are carcinogenic but do not necessarily cause us cancer. It all depends on if it gets into our body, how much of it gets into our body, how our body processes it etc etc.

I guess I would ask if the plastic fillings degrade over time. I know there have been times when I could taste the metal in my mouth so it makes me think that yes, some metal is leaving the filling to some extent. Do plastic fillings get porous after a time? Is there a likely possibility that they could be leaching chemicals out? Might this be individual with variable ph in the mouth? Drinking a lot of acidic drinks?

Thanks
Arrow
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-25-2006, 09:35 AM
Second Year Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: redondo beach, ca
Posts: 23
barry1817 is on a distinguished road
Default amalgam/composites

At current time, the leaching out from the plastics, would be something I tend to think is similar to the leaching out of the amalgam.

But we are again in the situation where if a lawsuit settles stating amalgam is harmful, it poses certain problems, and when that same suit says that composites are and contain carcinogens, we are back to a very simple problem, which poison do you want.

And if you want to believe the recently reported study, there is no difference in patients who had amalgam v. composite restorations, which I think were tracked over a 7 year period of time.

[email protected]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On