Medical Forum / General / Alternative / August 2005
NCAHF Posts Names of 2,500 Physicians on Quack List
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Ilena Rose - 03 Aug 2005 22:49 GMT I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status suspended.
Massachusetts doesn't put these on line ...
If anyone knows the facts on this ... or could contact the Secretary of State of Massachusetts (I believe that is where they were incorporated) ... please let us know.
More and more of us are fed up with the tactics of this Team going after scientists and doctors figuring out complex medical challenges.
Thanks.
Very revealing letter of the quack tactics of Barrett's Guerrillas ...
http://www.internetwks.com/pauling/quack.html
NCAHF Posts Names of 2,500 Physicians on Quack List Originally published July 1997 Lyn Behrens, PhD President, Loma Linda University Loma Linda, California 92350
Dear President Behrens:
This letter responds to yours of April 22 in which you responded to a written complaint I submitted concerning facts and circumstances surrounding acts of suppression of speech at a public forum held at Loma Linda University. As you know, the forum was under the control of Loma Linda University professor William Jarvis, PhD. The lecture entitled 'Cancer Quackery: What You Should Know!' was open to the public and held at the University's Wong Kerlee Conference Center in the Cancer Research Pavilion. Fliers announcing the event invited members of the public to attend without charge. Microphones were available for members of the public who wished to express a view or ask a question.
When I and three others who shared a similar viewpoint rose to correct inaccuracies and defamatory remarks made by Dr. Jarvis against Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, Dr. Jarvis refused to permit us to express these views and ordered University security police to escort three of us from the lecture hall.
Your letter explains that the matter is under investigation. In that regard, I wish to supplement the record with additional information. As I pointed out in my original complaint Dr. William Jarvis is the President of an entity known as the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). The University's address property, and stationery have been by Dr. Jarvis in the performance of hi duties for NCAHF. Records of the NCAHF are housed at his university office. Dr. Jarvis holds NCAHF events at the University. He makes frequent reference to his University affiliation while performing duties for his NCAHF.
Dr. Jarvis' NCAHF is a controversial organization whose members crusade across the nation against specific, named practitioners whom they condemn as 'quacks' or 'frauds' in public forum, in print, on the air, and in judicial and administrative proceedings. Indeed, Dr. Jarvis used the facilities of Loma Linda University and its lecture hall to do precisely that at the recent Loma Linda event. He defamed Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski by implying that he was a quack and a fraud.
Loma Linda should be deeply concerned that one of its professors has elected to use its property, its name, and his University affiliation to propagate rank character assassination and defamation against health care practitioners.
Unfortunately, the NCAHF's anti quackery crusade is subjective and results in defamation only. Dr. Jarvis and other NCAHF members usually attack the character of their opponents, rather than the merits of their views. Characteristically, as was Dr. Jarvis' attack on Dr. Burzynski, NCAHF members harbor ignorance of key facts and frequently lack a professional understanding of the science of the matter.
At the Loma Linda event, Dr. Jarvis identified Dr. Burzynski as a typical example of a medical quack and fraud, but failed to mention that after a two month trial Dr. Burzynski was acquitted of all fraud charges, and not a single witness brought forth by the government to testify against Dr. Burzynski questioned Dr. Burzynski's motives, character or integrity. He also failed to mention that for almost six months Dr. Burzynski's antineoplaston therapy has been undergoing study in several dozen FDA-approved clinical trials, with Dr. Burzynski as the principal investigator.
Dr. Jarvis chose to attack the honesty, character, integrity, and personal characteristics of Dr. Burzynski. Such rank character assassination is not only unbecoming of a professional but also antithetical to educational dialogue at a University. Dr. Jarvis has brought disrepute upon Loma Linda. His crusade seeks not only to stifle opposing views but also to label those who express them as frauds or quacks - the very antithesis of higher education. His efforts convey the impression that Loma Linda University is not a place where academic exchange of ideas and information is encouraged but one where obvious overt bias and intolerance for dissenting views predominate.
Unfortunately, the recent incident involving defamation against Dr. Burzynski is not an isolated event. I offer four items for your investigation that characterize the intent, actions, and consequences of the NCAHF.
Item 1 - Deposition of Stephen Barrett, MD The NCAHF recently attacked Dr. Shari Lieberman, RD, PhD, a nutritionist and exercise physiologist in New York. Two of Dr. Jarvis' fellow NCAHF board members defamed Dr. Lieberman, again without the benefit of sound science or material facts.
Those NCAHF board members, Dr. Stephen Barrett and Ira Milner, RD, testified against Dr. Lieberman at a hearing they themselves instigated before the American Dietetic Association (ADA) which resulted in the ADA publicly stripping Dr. Lieberman of her registered dietitian (RD) credential. As you would imagine, this caused her loss of prestige and credibility, hurt her financially, and caused her public humiliation. In their testimony to the ADA, the two represented themselves to be knowledgeable about several specific aspects of nutrition science, yet neither had academic training nor publication in those specific areas.
In the end, after the falsity of their charges came to light, the ADA reinstated Dr. Leiberman's RD credential and published a statement noting same in the ADA's Journal and Courier.
As the attached transcript from the Barrett deposition indicates, NCAHF is a loose cannon that poses distinct liability risks for the University. Under cross examination, Dr. Barrett admitted that he was not in fact, an expert in nutrition science, describing himself instead as an expert in 'consumer strategy' and a "journalist.' This deposition clearly showed that Dr. Barrett did not have a thorough grounding in the scientific research relevant to the serious charges he made against Dr. Lieberman that caused her substantial harm.
Item 2 - Findings of Fact, and Opinion, and Final Adjudication of the Regents of the University of the State of New York Victor Herbert, MD, a long-time board member of NCAHF, apparently implemented judicial proceedings against Warren Levin, MD, in New York State. The proceedings were initially opened in 1980, apparently due to a complaint by Dr. Herbert against Dr. Levin. The case was finally adjudicated in Dr. Levin's favor, 14 years later in November 1994. Dr. Levin was forced to declare personal and professional bankruptcy as a result of the legal costs, but he remained in medical practice the entire time, and is in full-time medical practice at this time.
Dr. Herbert apparently was the only one who complained about Dr. Levin. There were no patient complaints. As President of Loma Linda University, you should have particular interest in the findings of fact, opinions, and adjudication of the Regents of the University of the State of New York. Their harsh assessment of Dr. Victor Herbert should cause you considerable concern, as it did me.
Dr. Herbert, long-term NCAHF Board member, was virtually uncontrollable in a court of law. The Regents noted that "Dr. V.H. many times in his testimony used inflammatory language, volunteered characterizations and editorials, offered information which was beyond and not responsive to the questions posed, subjected respondent and his attorney to ad hominem attacks, and utilized other tactics to show that respondent was guilty by association with others.' In spite of numerous sustained objections from Dr. Levin's attorney, Victor Herbert repeatedly and inappropriately used slanderous terms such as 'liar," 'quack,' 'obnoxious,' "vicious,' and "scumbag." He frequently used the term "fraud,' according to the Regents, 'regardless of whether he was answering a question posed by the respondent's attorney, petitioner's attorney, or the hearing committee or whether it was responsive to the question posed.' As the Regents pointed out, these "personal attacks on respondent and characterizations [while] testifying to the ultimate issue in dispute were improper.' That these proceedings were allowed to continue in this vein should concern anyone who values the basic tenets of a free society.
I received an amusing letter from Richard Hart, MD, Dean of the School of Public Health that concluded that armed security police were necessary because I was "rather disruptive and forceful in trying to obtain control of the microphone....'
Nothing could be further from the truth. Offering an informed opinion through an open mike is certainly not disruptive. An open lecture that invites public comments cannot lawfully deny contrary views under California's constitution. I suspect that Dr. Hart's finding of fact and opinion would be difficult to sustain under judicial scrutiny. Please inform Dr. Hart that he is to preserve all documents, recordings, and other materials that he used to come to his conclusion, and that their loss would be neither appropriate nor helpful.
You might wish to send Dr. Hart the Regents of the University of the State of New York's assessment of Victor Herbert, Board Member of the NCAHF, to broaden his (Dr. Hart's) under-standing of the word "disruptive.'
Item 3 - Persons on the Quack List Data Base I have also enclosed a list of 2,551 names, with a computer-generated numerical ID, compiled by Dr. John Renner, board member of the NCAHF, and titled "Persons on the Quack List Data Base.' There is evidence that the NCAHF has disseminated this list, or perhaps even sold it to medical insurance companies for the purpose of interfering with the payments for medical services provided by those on the list. There is good evidence that it is sent to state medical boards and other entities in an effort to harm professionally those on the list. Persons so listed are never informed that they are listed, nor informed as to who receives this list or why. Obviously, considering the number of physicians listed, the only criteria for being added to this defamatory list would be the 'opinions' of those within the NCAHF. Please note that the list includes 1,137 MDs, 167 PhDs, 236 DOs, 79 DDSS, 228 DCs, and 441 others (BS, RN, ND, HMD, CSW, MSN). There are 52 double doctorates on the list, with two or more of the following degrees, MD, PhD, DO, DDS, DVM, DMD. Many have university affiliation, have published in the peer-review literature, and are respected authors of books or even textbooks.
Please note that this 'quack' list includes Linus Pauling, PhD.
Linus Pauling is the only individual to have won two unshared Nobel Prizes, and virtually every other award for scientific achievement, both national and international. In the 1970s the editors of the British New Scientist listed Dr. Pauling as one of the top 20 scientists of all time. Albert Einstein was the only other scientist in the 20th century listed along with Aristotle, Gallileo, Isaac Newton, and Michael Faraday.
In the recently published book, Scientific Genius, The 20 Greatest Minds of All Time, by Jim Glenn (Crescent Books, 1996). Linus Pauling is again listed along with Archimedes, Gregor Mendel, William Harvey, Charles Darwin, and Rend Descartes. Linus Pauling's achievements should be lauded, not besmirched with this outrageously inexcusable label of quack. As President of Loma Linda University, does it concern you that Dr. Jarvis' NCAHF, a small group of about four men of no significant distinction in ,the scientific arena, would 'secretly' list Dr. Pauling as a 'quack,' and would actually send or sell this list to others in the scientific or health field? Does it concern you that the NCAHF is housed on the Loma Linda campus and by implication, this clandestine and highly defamatory practice is condoned by the University?
I will be communicating with each individual on this list, informing them that this list or data similar to it is maintained and updated by John Renner, MD, board member of NCAHF, and that the offices of NCAHF are housed-on the campus of Loma Linda University. I will be instructing each person contacted to address any questions or concerns they may have concerning their defamatory labeling to you, the President of Loma Linda University. I have already contacted the Linus Pauling Institute and the Pauling family.
Item 4 - Quacks Condensed List Benjamin R. Wilson, MD, working with John H. Renner, MD, compiled a list of 1,500 which he called the 'Condensed Quack List.' After the practitioner's degree, or degrees, Dr. Wilson lists two indices called the NI and DDL. NI stands for 'Notoriety Index' which is a function of the number of 'quack' organizations or academic groups the individual has joined. Thus "guilt by association' is elevated to new heights in that it is now numerically quantified and recorded. The DDI is the Ding Dong Index' - a score reflecting the most nonsensical or dangerous dubious procedures and/or illnesses they treat.
Please note that one way to get on the quack list is to simply join or donate to any group or organization that the NCAHF deems to be quack. Of course, the legality and charter of the group is irrelevant to the NCAHF. The fact that the group may be for professionals only and puts on regular scientific sessions that are approved for CME educational credit for MDs and DOs is irrelevant to those marching with the NCAHF.
Incredibly, Dr. Wilson will put you on the 'quack list' if you are listed as a donor to the National Health Federation, a chartered and legal organization. This qualifies 'the quack' for the highest Notoriety Index: a 10. Whereas the donor list of the NHF is public, the 'quack list' with its additional indices is clandestine, and is meant to cause harm.
Your letter stated that you were going to investigate this matter. I believe that it is inappropriate to look upon the action of Dr. Jarvis as an isolated incident. I believe that the action of Dr. Jarvis is typical of the NCAHF. I trust that this material will enhance your understanding of the NCAHF and their potential liability for the University.
I am requesting two things from Loma Linda University.
First, an Opportunity for Counterspeech.
Under California constitutional law, a private establishment that opens a forum to the public may not engage in viewpoint discrimination. Loma Linda (through the agency of Dr. Jarvis) violated the rights of those who wished to express a viewpoint contrary to Dr. Jarvis when Dr. Jarvis refused to permit such views during the question-and answer segment of the lecture. I respectfully request that the University correct this injustice by holding another forum to permit each of those ejected from the lecture hall to express their contrary viewpoints.
The forum should be held at the same time, for the same length as the original one, and at the same location (a larger room will likely be necessary). It should again be open to the public, and it should be promoted and advertised in the same manner as the first, inviting members of the public to attend and hear a rebuttal.
Secondly, A letter of clarification. I respectfully request a letter from you, - President of Loma Linda University, clarifying the status of the NCAHF at the University. Please be specific in answering the following questions. Does the University authorize the. use of its property, stationery, name and reputation by the NCAHF and by Dr. Jarvis in connection with and in support of the NCAHF's activities? Does the University condone Dr. Jarvis' use of his University office to house files and property to traffic in lists of "quacks' substantiated by no objective evidence other than the .opinions' of those aligned with NCAHF?
Does the University agree that it was appropriate to give Linus Pauling, PhD, this pejorative label, and that such files defaming Dr. Pauling and others could possibly be kept by Dr. Jarvis at the University, or flow through his hands, in his University office? Does the University condone Dr. Jarvis' reliance on the University reputation to promote the NCAHF, an organization that is essentially run by four irrational zealots whose obvious agenda is to cleanse the medical profession of 'undesirables' and to purge society of all other healing arts?
Please respond to these queries at your earliest convenience. Please be assured that I hold the University responsible for the actions of NCAHF both past and present.
Julian M. Whitaker, MD The Whitaker Wellness Institute 4321 Birch, Suite 100 Newport Beach, California 92660 USA 714-851-1550 Fax 714-955-3005
Mark Probert - 04 Aug 2005 14:32 GMT > I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status > suspended. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of State of Massachusetts (I believe that is where they were > incorporated) ... please let us know. You really are lazy. I found this in less than 60 seconds:
DISCLAIMER: The information displayed here is current as of JUL 29, 2005 and is updated weekly. It is not a complete or certified record of the Corporation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Corporation THE NATIONAL COUNCIL AGAINST HEALTH FRAUD, INC. Number: C0834009 Date Filed: 12/8/1977 Status: suspended Jurisdiction: California Address POST B 1276 LOMA LINDA, CA 92354 Agent for Service of Process ** RESIGNED ON 03/22/2003
However, note that the NCAHF website does not represent that they are a corporation.
Thus, unlike the recent Humantics Affair, their status as a corporation is irrelevant unless you can actually point out why they are suspended. It could be because they have moved to Massachusetts where the esteemed Robert Baratz, M.D. DDS, PhD is located.,
Ilena Rose - 04 Aug 2005 16:14 GMT >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Corporation [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Agent for Service of Process >** RESIGNED ON 03/22/2003 ~~~~~~~~
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
Mark Probert - 04 Aug 2005 22:19 GMT >>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>Corporation [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>Agent for Service of Process >>** RESIGNED ON 03/22/2003 There is absolutely no bar against NCAHF still advertising or doing anything in their own name. PROVE that they cannot still advertise using their name.
Ilena Rose - 04 Aug 2005 16:59 GMT >Thus, unlike the recent Humantics Affair, their status as a corporation >is irrelevant unless you can actually point out why they are suspended. We are not suspended ... and I did not know that defunct NCAHF was registered before it's defunctness in California ...
Thanks for letting us know this in fact is true ...
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
LadyLollipop - 04 Aug 2005 18:34 GMT >> I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status >> suspended. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > could be because they have moved to Massachusetts where the esteemed > Robert Baratz, M.D. DDS, PhD is located., The *esteemed* Robert Baratz
Uh huh
FACT is Baratz is a L I A R.
*I have qualified as an expert witness in chemistry and toxicology in both federal and state courts. I have conducted extensive research in analytical toxicology. I have more than 100 papers published in refereed journals.*
FACT is he has NOT
Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board
By Dr. Ralph Dougherty
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Florida State University
"To allege that there is no mercury in mercury amalgam as Dr. Baratz has done in his sworn testimony before the Florida Dental Board is either a reflection of ignorance, or intent to deceive."
Sincerely,
Ralph Dougherty
Ilena Rose - 04 Aug 2005 18:56 GMT GReat find ... thanks Jan.
>Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Ralph Dougherty Mark Probert - 04 Aug 2005 22:18 GMT >>>I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status >>>suspended. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Uh huh M. D. DDS and PhD. Haley has only a PHD. esteemed he is.
> FACT is Baratz is a L I A R. Nope. Not proven.
> *I have qualified as an expert witness in chemistry and toxicology in both > federal and state courts. I have conducted extensive research in analytical > toxicology. I have more than 100 papers published in refereed journals.* > > FACT is he has NOT Prove it. Prove he has not been qualified as an expert witness in federal and state courts.
> Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board I do not want second hand information. I want to see the exact quotes in Baratz's own words. Do you not think that this is the fair way of doing it?
And, just where did you snip this from without attirbution? (I know, but I want you to be honest).
Interestingly, your hero, Dr. Haley, cites an article by none other than Timmy Bolen. Now, anyone who cites him has got to be a loon.
> By Dr. Ralph Dougherty > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ralph Dougherty LadyLollipop - 05 Aug 2005 01:22 GMT >>>>I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status >>>>suspended. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Nope. Not proven. LOL!
>> *I have qualified as an expert witness in chemistry and toxicology in >> both [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Prove it. Prove he has not been qualified as an expert witness in federal > and state courts. He LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals.
Even Peter Bowditch told us he has written 12.
Niether is he an expert.
He LIED over and over.
>> Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And, just where did you snip this from without attirbution? (I know, but I > want you to be honest). It's been posted numerous times before and YOU very well know it!
<snip diversion>
>> By Dr. Ralph Dougherty >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> Ralph Dougherty Baratz NEVER did back up ANY of his LYING claims!!!!!!! http://www.altcorp.com/baratztestimony.htm
>> Review of Robert Baratz Testimony Before the Florida Dental Board by Two >> Distinguished Chemistry Professors and Researchers
>> Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board
>> By Dr. Ralph Dougherty
>> Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
>> Florida State University
>> Telephone: 850-644-5725
>> "I have qualified as an expert witness in chemistry and toxicology in >both >> federal and state courts. I have conducted extensive research in >analytical >> toxicology. I have more than 100 papers published in refereed journals."
>> "To allege that there is no mercury in mercury amalgam as Dr. Baratz has >done >> in his sworn testimony before the Florida Dental Board is either a >reflection >> of ignorance, or intent to deceive."
>> Sincerely,
>> Ralph Dougherty Finally, statements made by Dr. Baratz concerning amalgams and chemistry in general are so pathetic that they almost defy sensible analysis. I WOULD CHALLENGE THE FDA TO TRY TO GET THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRS OF CHEMISTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY TO AGREE WITH DR. BARATZ'S COMMENTS REGARDING THE CHEMISTRY OF AMALGAMS AND MERCURY. However, knowing this is unlikely I will deal as best I can with Dr. Baratz's statements one at a time in order of presentation.
Page 6, line 27-28. Dr. Baratz has no published basis for making this statement. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. How can Dr. Baratz say that a patient on a kidney dialysis program is not further injured by additional mercury (a potent kidney toxicant) exposure from their amalgams? I don't think such a study has ever been undertaken. When exposing a person to years of a chronic level of toxic mercury it is the responsibility of the pro-amalgam group to prove it does no harm, not vice-versa. Can Dr. Baratz or the FDA confirm that the 22,000-fold increased mercury levels in the hearts of inter-city young men who die of Idiopathic Dialated Cardiomyopthy did not come from dental amalgams? { Frustaci, A., Magnavita, N., Chimenti, C., Caldarulo, M., Sabbioni, E., Pietra, R., Cellini. C., Possati, G. F. and Maseri, A. Marked Elevation of Myocardial Trace Elements in Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy Compared With Secondary Dysfunction. J. of the American College Cardiology v33(6) 1578-1583, 1999,}
Page 6, lines 31-32. One grain of standard sucrose does not weigh near one milligram. Therefore his visual aid is totally misleading and indicates that he has not, or does not, remember experiments where weighing small amounts was involved.
Page 6, lines 37-41. Sodium metal when added to water burns violently, but it does not explode when added to a glass of water. I have done this as a demonstration so I know the results first-hand. No one would be killed or even injured unless they touched the burning metallic sodium. Yes, chlorine gas is toxic and is a man-made material (as is metallic sodium) that does not exist naturally. Dr. Baratz wants to claim that metallic sodium and chlorine gas are toxic but become non-toxic on conversion to a compound, sodium chloride, and therefore, mercury in an amalgam is not toxic because it is surrounded by other (toxic) metals that he feels produces something that is not mercury. This is banal.
Reactivity and biological compatibility is the essence of the amalgam issue. Human blood contains about 140 millimolar chloride anion and 124 millimolar sodium cation. This ions are not toxic because they are not very reactive with biomolecules. These ions are used to perform many biological functions necessary for life, including maintaining the ionic gradient and electrical potential across cell membranes. However, mercury is not found to serve any useful purpose in human tissues and is a well known inhibitor of many enzymes, including the enzyme that transports sodium across cell membranes. In contrast to sodium cation, mercury cation, produced from mercury vapor by a blood enzyme, is very reactive and inhibits almost every biological pathway or enzyme driven function in man. To compare amalgam material to sodium chloride in the manner Dr. Baratz has chosen to reveals a total misunderstanding of chemistry and biochemistry of heavy metal toxicity.
Page 6 line 42 to page 7 line 2. Since all of the metal components of amalgam are basic metallic elements with no charge how can someone make the inept statement that there is no mercury in amalgams. It is an "element" and the fact that elements cannot be broken down or changed is a basic tenant of chemistry. The metals in amalgams have no net charge and therefore form only metallic bonds. Mercury is a liquid at room temperature and quite volatile because it forms weak metallic bonds with itself. This makes mercury unlike all other metals. The metallic bonds formed between mercury and other metals in amalgams are stronger and a solid phase is produced---but the bonds between mercury and, say silver, are weaker than silver-silver metal bonds and therefore break easier releasing elemental mercury vapor at a regular rate. This is why you can heat a gold ring covered with mercury and rapidly make it gold again and why dimes made silvery with mercury soon resort to their old form. The bottom line is that inclusion of mercury into an amalgam reduces its vapor pressure but it does not reduce it to the point that mercury cannot be significantly emitted.
Dr. Baratz states that if you detect traces of mercury from amalgams it is because that material has been decomposed by heat and friction. How does he explain the observations of the release of 43.5 micrograms mercury per cm2 surface area per day for two years straight in a test tube without additional heat and no friction? {Chew, C. L., Soh, G., Lee, A. S. and Yeoh, T. S. Long-term Dissolution of Mercury from a Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam. Clinical Preventive Dentistry 13(3): 5-7, May-June (1991).} Bottom line is that it is quite easy to demonstrate mercury release from a dental amalgam. I suggest the FDA not believe either Dr. Baratz or myself but instead make 20-30 amalgams and send them to the state universities in Florida and have them determine how long a single amalgam must be in a gallon of water before the water is considered unsafe to drink by OSHA or EPA standards. Then the FDA can then make a decent decision on the mercury release and toxicity of amalgams using data from an unbiased source.
Page 7, lines 10-13. Sodium chloride intake is necessary for life. Mercury is toxic to every type of cell. Dr. Baratz's comparison amalgams to sodium chloride is ridiculous. Amino acids contain carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen and so does cyanide but the difference is how these molecules react in the body---one is a food and the other a lethal toxin. Amalgams release mercury and other metal ions and solutions in which amalgams are soaked are cytotoxic! { Wataha, J. C., Nakajima, H., Hanks, C. T., and Okabe, T. Correlation of Cytotoxicity with Element Release from Mercury and Gallium-based Dental Alloys in vitro. Dental Materials 10(5) 298-303, Sept. (1994)}
Page 7, lines 15-18. Yes, everything is toxic if an overdose is obtained---that is common sense. However, mercury has no food or biological function and is toxic at concentrations much lower than even most other toxicants. Low levels of mercury have been shown to inhibit the same enzymes/proteins that are found inhibited in Alzheimer's diseased brain. { Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E. Mercury-EDTA Complex Specifically Blocks Brain -Tubulin-GTP Interactions: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer"s Disease. pp98-105 in Status Quo and Perspective of Amalgam and Other Dental Materials (International Symposium Proceedings ed. by L. T. Friberg and G. N. Schrauzer) Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart-New York (1995). Pendergrass, J. C., Haley, B.E., Vimy, M. J., Winfield, S.A. and Lorscheider, F.L. Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits Binding of GTP to Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarity to a Molecular Lesion in Alzheimer's Disease Brain. Neurotoxicology 18(2), 315-324 (1997). Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E. Inhibition of Brain Tubulin-Guanosine 5'-Triphosphate Interactions by Mercury: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer's Diseased Brain. In Metal Ions in Biological Systems V34, pp 461-478. Mercury and Its Effects on Environment and Biology, Chapter 16. Edited by H. Sigel and A. Sigel. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 270 Madison Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10016 (1996)}
Later research with neurons in culture nanomolar (10-9M) levels of mercury caused cell destruction and formation of three of the widely accepted diagnostic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. { Olivieri, G., Brack, Ch., Muller-Spahn, F., Stahelin, H.B., Herrmann, M., Renard, P; Brockhaus, M. and Hock, C. Mercury Induces Cell Cytotoxicity and Oxidative Stress and Increases -amyloid Secretion and Tau Phosphorylation in SHSY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells. J. Neurochemistry 74, 231-231, 2000. Leong, CCW, Syed, N.I., and Lorscheider, F.L. Retrograde Degeneration of Neurite Membrane Structural Integrity and Formation of Neruofibillary Tangles at Nerve Growth Cones Following In Vitro Exposure to Mercury. NeuroReports 12 (4):733-737, 2001.} Therefore, being unnecessarily exposed to continuous low doses of mercury for scores of years is an unhealthy situation. Does the FDA operate with the mantra of allowing itself to do this and eliminate any disagreement by posturing that no one has proven mercury toxic when indeed this has been done over and over. Due to the overall difficulty and complexity there is not one epidemiological study showing any major negative effects of mercury from amalgams, but there are none showing it to be safe either. With all of the data on animal cell culture studies showing mercury toxicity showing concern and eliminating all long-term exposures to mercury is justified.
Page 7 lines 15-34. This paragraph should convince everyone that Dr. Baratz is way off base. I had to replace all of the mercury thermometers in the teaching labs in our department of chemistry because of the OSHA/EPA restrictions where the spill of one thermometer could create a toxic in-building situation and the possible wash-out into the sewage stream caused an unacceptable environmental hazard. Dr. Baratz seems unaware of the long-term affects of mercury accumulation. Sure, he could ingest liquid mercury a single time and walk away but how many industrial workers have been seriously injured by less severe but continuous mercury exposures? Also, if he did ingest liquid mercury then he could pay a severe price later on in his life but he doesn't seem to know this. Why does he think the government has outlawed the sale of mercury thermometers to the general public?
In this paragraph Dr. Baratz states that mercury is not absorbed from the gut. This is totally incorrect. Mercury vapor is rapidly absorbed into all hydrophobic areas of the body. Where is the publication to support his absurd contention? He is further incorrect in his statement that the amount that comes off of an amalgam is equivalent to the amount you get every day by breathing air, drinking water and eating food. In a 1998 NIH study on 1,127 US military personnel it was shown that the blood/urine mercury levels were much higher in individuals with dental amalgams and the amount of mercury was correlated with the number of amalgams surfaces. The average amalgam bearer had 4.5 times the urine mercury level of individuals who were amalgam free. { Kingman, A., Albertini, T. and Brown, L.J. Mercury Concentrations in Urine and Whole Blood Associated with Amalgam Exposure in a US Military Population. J. of Dental Research v77(3): 461-471, 1998.}
Dr. Baratz states that even the most ardent anti-amalgamist have virtually the same amount of mercury in their bodies as does the members of the Florida Board of Dentistry. That would be true only if all of them are free of amalgams. In a published report removing amalgam fillings dropped the level of mercury in the urine in the patients by about 5-fold at a subsequent date. { Begerow, J., Zander, D., Freier, I. And Dunemann, L. Long-term Mercury Excretion in Urine after Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health v66 (3), 209-212, 1994.}
Neither Dr. Baratz nor I have the right to make sweeping statements without providing the scientific literature on the subject that backs up our statements. Under adjudication many of his statements, now on record, such as given on page 7 line 19, "So to say that dental amalgam has mercury in it is false. It has what used to be mercury." will provide a feast for the opposing lawyers. I am very surprised that Dr. Baratz has chosen to pass himself off as an amalgam expert with no publications in the area and this is compounded by what appears to be total ignorance of the relevant literature.
Page 8 lines 1 to 10. My comment is that the EPA and OSHA government units don't think the amount of mercury released from amalgams is safe. If indeed the groups listed by Dr. Baratz say amalgams are safe (are amalgams listed on the Food and Drug Administration list of safe dental materials?) where are the scientific studies that back their claims. Who represents the NIH and says amalgams are safe? I challenge Dr. Baratz to find a single research article where experimental protocols are used that provide proof of safety of dental amalgams. It is easy to compose a "committee mainly pro-amalgam dentists" and have them proclaim amalgams safe, but have them show the relevant basic research that proves this is another thing. Does he really have publications from the Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer's Associations that claim amalgams are safe? I would really like to see him produce these documents.
Page 8, line 30. Keeping or bringing science into the dental profession is my goal also. This means both Dr. Baratz and I have to back our statements with refereed scientific publications, not wild, unjustified claims or opinions. I would like to challenge Dr. Baratz to produce the research papers that back his many claims.
Mark Probert - 05 Aug 2005 15:22 GMT >>>>>I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status >>>>>suspended. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Even Peter Bowditch told us he has written 12. I will accept the esteemed Mr. Bowditch as a credibile source.
> Niether is he an expert. Wrong. I did a cursory search and found that he has qualified as an expert in several court proceedings. That is just from Google.
I do have access to a special database, which is VERY expensive, that can provide profiles on anyone who has qualified as an expert on any court proceeding within the United States. If they ever have a freebie, I will look him up.
> He LIED over and over. Once, as the esteemed Mr. Bowditch has shown.
>>>Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It's been posted numerous times before and YOU very well know it!
> <snip diversion> Diversion? You lying snake. Selling apples these days?
I stated this:
I do not want second hand information. I want to see the exact quotes in Baratz's own words. Do you not think that this is the fair way of doing it?
And, like I said, it is a site from your hero, the abusive and unrepentent Boyd Haley, who is also a liar, as proven by the esteemed Mr. Peter Bowditch. (Now, do not be selective in believing what you choose to believe since it is coming from Peter.)
Thus, I want to see his comments in context. I could not locate the entire transcript. Perhaps you know where it is available.
LadyLollipop - 05 Aug 2005 18:21 GMT >>>>>>I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status >>>>>>suspended. [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > I will accept the esteemed Mr. Bowditch as a credibile source. Peter Bowditch is not esteemed.
Baratz LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals
>> Niether is he an expert. > > Wrong. I did a cursory search and found that he has qualified as an expert > in several court proceedings. That is just from Google. Wrong, I just proved, he is a liar, using his own words.
> I do have access to a special database, which is VERY expensive, that can > provide profiles on anyone who has qualified as an expert on any court > proceeding within the United States. If they ever have a freebie, I will > look him up. I could care less what you have. His OWN WORDS are on record.
He LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals.
>> He LIED over and over. > > Once, as the esteemed Mr. Bowditch has shown. NOT once, neither is Peter Bowditch esteemed.
>>>>Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >> <snip diversion>
>> By Dr. Ralph Dougherty
>> Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
>> Florida State University
>> "To allege that there is no mercury in mercury amalgam as Dr. Baratz has >> done in his sworn testimony before the Florida Dental Board is either a >> reflection of ignorance, or intent to deceive."
>> Sincerely,
>> Ralph Dougherty Baratz NEVER did back up ANY of his LYING claims!!!!!!! http://www.altcorp.com/baratztestimony.htm
>> Review of Robert Baratz Testimony Before the Florida Dental Board by Two >> Distinguished Chemistry Professors and Researchers Review of Dr. Baratz [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >reflection >> of ignorance, or intent to deceive." Sincerely, Ralph Dougherty Finally, statements made by Dr. Baratz concerning amalgams and chemistry in general are so pathetic that they almost defy sensible analysis. I WOULD CHALLENGE THE FDA TO TRY TO GET THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRS OF CHEMISTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY TO AGREE WITH DR. BARATZ'S COMMENTS REGARDING THE CHEMISTRY OF AMALGAMS AND MERCURY. However, knowing this is unlikely I will deal as best I can with Dr. Baratz's statements one at a time in order of presentation.
Page 6, line 27-28. Dr. Baratz has no published basis for making this statement. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. How can Dr. Baratz say that a patient on a kidney dialysis program is not further injured by additional mercury (a potent kidney toxicant) exposure from their amalgams? I don't think such a study has ever been undertaken. When exposing a person to years of a chronic level of toxic mercury it is the responsibility of the pro-amalgam group to prove it does no harm, not vice-versa. Can Dr. Baratz or the FDA confirm that the 22,000-fold increased mercury levels in the hearts of inter-city young men who die of Idiopathic Dialated Cardiomyopthy did not come from dental amalgams? { Frustaci, A., Magnavita, N., Chimenti, C., Caldarulo, M., Sabbioni, E., Pietra, R., Cellini. C., Possati, G. F. and Maseri, A. Marked Elevation of Myocardial Trace Elements in Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy Compared With Secondary Dysfunction. J. of the American College Cardiology v33(6) 1578-1583, 1999,}
Page 6, lines 31-32. One grain of standard sucrose does not weigh near one milligram. Therefore his visual aid is totally misleading and indicates that he has not, or does not, remember experiments where weighing small amounts was involved.
Page 6, lines 37-41. Sodium metal when added to water burns violently, but it does not explode when added to a glass of water. I have done this as a demonstration so I know the results first-hand. No one would be killed or even injured unless they touched the burning metallic sodium. Yes, chlorine gas is toxic and is a man-made material (as is metallic sodium) that does not exist naturally. Dr. Baratz wants to claim that metallic sodium and chlorine gas are toxic but become non-toxic on conversion to a compound, sodium chloride, and therefore, mercury in an amalgam is not toxic because it is surrounded by other (toxic) metals that he feels produces something that is not mercury. This is banal.
Reactivity and biological compatibility is the essence of the amalgam issue. Human blood contains about 140 millimolar chloride anion and 124 millimolar sodium cation. This ions are not toxic because they are not very reactive with biomolecules. These ions are used to perform many biological functions necessary for life, including maintaining the ionic gradient and electrical potential across cell membranes. However, mercury is not found to serve any useful purpose in human tissues and is a well known inhibitor of many enzymes, including the enzyme that transports sodium across cell membranes. In contrast to sodium cation, mercury cation, produced from mercury vapor by a blood enzyme, is very reactive and inhibits almost every biological pathway or enzyme driven function in man. To compare amalgam material to sodium chloride in the manner Dr. Baratz has chosen to reveals a total misunderstanding of chemistry and biochemistry of heavy metal toxicity.
Page 6 line 42 to page 7 line 2. Since all of the metal components of amalgam are basic metallic elements with no charge how can someone make the inept statement that there is no mercury in amalgams. It is an "element" and the fact that elements cannot be broken down or changed is a basic tenant of chemistry. The metals in amalgams have no net charge and therefore form only metallic bonds. Mercury is a liquid at room temperature and quite volatile because it forms weak metallic bonds with itself. This makes mercury unlike all other metals. The metallic bonds formed between mercury and other metals in amalgams are stronger and a solid phase is produced---but the bonds between mercury and, say silver, are weaker than silver-silver metal bonds and therefore break easier releasing elemental mercury vapor at a regular rate. This is why you can heat a gold ring covered with mercury and rapidly make it gold again and why dimes made silvery with mercury soon resort to their old form. The bottom line is that inclusion of mercury into an amalgam reduces its vapor pressure but it does not reduce it to the point that mercury cannot be significantly emitted.
Dr. Baratz states that if you detect traces of mercury from amalgams it is because that material has been decomposed by heat and friction. How does he explain the observations of the release of 43.5 micrograms mercury per cm2 surface area per day for two years straight in a test tube without additional heat and no friction? {Chew, C. L., Soh, G., Lee, A. S. and Yeoh, T. S. Long-term Dissolution of Mercury from a Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam. Clinical Preventive Dentistry 13(3): 5-7, May-June (1991).} Bottom line is that it is quite easy to demonstrate mercury release from a dental amalgam. I suggest the FDA not believe either Dr. Baratz or myself but instead make 20-30 amalgams and send them to the state universities in Florida and have them determine how long a single amalgam must be in a gallon of water before the water is considered unsafe to drink by OSHA or EPA standards. Then the FDA can then make a decent decision on the mercury release and toxicity of amalgams using data from an unbiased source.
Page 7, lines 10-13. Sodium chloride intake is necessary for life. Mercury is toxic to every type of cell. Dr. Baratz's comparison amalgams to sodium chloride is ridiculous. Amino acids contain carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen and so does cyanide but the difference is how these molecules react in the body---one is a food and the other a lethal toxin. Amalgams release mercury and other metal ions and solutions in which amalgams are soaked are cytotoxic! { Wataha, J. C., Nakajima, H., Hanks, C. T., and Okabe, T. Correlation of Cytotoxicity with Element Release from Mercury and Gallium-based Dental Alloys in vitro. Dental Materials 10(5) 298-303, Sept. (1994)}
Page 7, lines 15-18. Yes, everything is toxic if an overdose is obtained---that is common sense. However, mercury has no food or biological function and is toxic at concentrations much lower than even most other toxicants. Low levels of mercury have been shown to inhibit the same enzymes/proteins that are found inhibited in Alzheimer's diseased brain. { Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E. Mercury-EDTA Complex Specifically Blocks Brain -Tubulin-GTP Interactions: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer"s Disease. pp98-105 in Status Quo and Perspective of Amalgam and Other Dental Materials (International Symposium Proceedings ed. by L. T. Friberg and G. N. Schrauzer) Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart-New York (1995). Pendergrass, J. C., Haley, B.E., Vimy, M. J., Winfield, S.A. and Lorscheider, F.L. Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits Binding of GTP to Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarity to a Molecular Lesion in Alzheimer's Disease Brain. Neurotoxicology 18(2), 315-324 (1997). Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E. Inhibition of Brain Tubulin-Guanosine 5'-Triphosphate Interactions by Mercury: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer's Diseased Brain. In Metal Ions in Biological Systems V34, pp 461-478. Mercury and Its Effects on Environment and Biology, Chapter 16. Edited by H. Sigel and A. Sigel. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 270 Madison Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10016 (1996)}
Later research with neurons in culture nanomolar (10-9M) levels of mercury caused cell destruction and formation of three of the widely accepted diagnostic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. { Olivieri, G., Brack, Ch., Muller-Spahn, F., Stahelin, H.B., Herrmann, M., Renard, P; Brockhaus, M. and Hock, C. Mercury Induces Cell Cytotoxicity and Oxidative Stress and Increases -amyloid Secretion and Tau Phosphorylation in SHSY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells. J. Neurochemistry 74, 231-231, 2000. Leong, CCW, Syed, N.I., and Lorscheider, F.L. Retrograde Degeneration of Neurite Membrane Structural Integrity and Formation of Neruofibillary Tangles at Nerve Growth Cones Following In Vitro Exposure to Mercury. NeuroReports 12 (4):733-737, 2001.} Therefore, being unnecessarily exposed to continuous low doses of mercury for scores of years is an unhealthy situation. Does the FDA operate with the mantra of allowing itself to do this and eliminate any disagreement by posturing that no one has proven mercury toxic when indeed this has been done over and over. Due to the overall difficulty and complexity there is not one epidemiological study showing any major negative effects of mercury from amalgams, but there are none showing it to be safe either. With all of the data on animal cell culture studies showing mercury toxicity showing concern and eliminating all long-term exposures to mercury is justified.
Page 7 lines 15-34. This paragraph should convince everyone that Dr. Baratz is way off base. I had to replace all of the mercury thermometers in the teaching labs in our department of chemistry because of the OSHA/EPA restrictions where the spill of one thermometer could create a toxic in-building situation and the possible wash-out into the sewage stream caused an unacceptable environmental hazard. Dr. Baratz seems unaware of the long-term affects of mercury accumulation. Sure, he could ingest liquid mercury a single time and walk away but how many industrial workers have been seriously injured by less severe but continuous mercury exposures? Also, if he did ingest liquid mercury then he could pay a severe price later on in his life but he doesn't seem to know this. Why does he think the government has outlawed the sale of mercury thermometers to the general public?
In this paragraph Dr. Baratz states that mercury is not absorbed from the gut. This is totally incorrect. Mercury vapor is rapidly absorbed into all hydrophobic areas of the body. Where is the publication to support his absurd contention? He is further incorrect in his statement that the amount that comes off of an amalgam is equivalent to the amount you get every day by breathing air, drinking water and eating food. In a 1998 NIH study on 1,127 US military personnel it was shown that the blood/urine mercury levels were much higher in individuals with dental amalgams and the amount of mercury was correlated with the number of amalgams surfaces. The average amalgam bearer had 4.5 times the urine mercury level of individuals who were amalgam free. { Kingman, A., Albertini, T. and Brown, L.J. Mercury Concentrations in Urine and Whole Blood Associated with Amalgam Exposure in a US Military Population. J. of Dental Research v77(3): 461-471, 1998.}
Dr. Baratz states that even the most ardent anti-amalgamist have virtually the same amount of mercury in their bodies as does the members of the Florida Board of Dentistry. That would be true only if all of them are free of amalgams. In a published report removing amalgam fillings dropped the level of mercury in the urine in the patients by about 5-fold at a subsequent date. { Begerow, J., Zander, D., Freier, I. And Dunemann, L. Long-term Mercury Excretion in Urine after Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health v66 (3), 209-212, 1994.}
Neither Dr. Baratz nor I have the right to make sweeping statements without providing the scientific literature on the subject that backs up our statements. Under adjudication many of his statements, now on record, such as given on page 7 line 19, "So to say that dental amalgam has mercury in it is false. It has what used to be mercury." will provide a feast for the opposing lawyers. I am very surprised that Dr. Baratz has chosen to pass himself off as an amalgam expert with no publications in the area and this is compounded by what appears to be total ignorance of the relevant literature.
Page 8 lines 1 to 10. My comment is that the EPA and OSHA government units don't think the amount of mercury released from amalgams is safe. If indeed the groups listed by Dr. Baratz say amalgams are safe (are amalgams listed on the Food and Drug Administration list of safe dental materials?) where are the scientific studies that back their claims. Who represents the NIH and says amalgams are safe? I challenge Dr. Baratz to find a single research article where experimental protocols are used that provide proof of safety of dental amalgams. It is easy to compose a "committee mainly pro-amalgam dentists" and have them proclaim amalgams safe, but have them show the relevant basic research that proves this is another thing. Does he really have publications from the Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer's Associations that claim amalgams are safe? I would really like to see him produce these documents.
Page 8, line 30. Keeping or bringing science into the dental profession is my goal also. This means both Dr. Baratz and I have to back our statements with refereed scientific publications, not wild, unjustified claims or opinions. I would like to challenge Dr. Baratz to produce the research papers that back his many claims.
Nana Weedkiller - 05 Aug 2005 19:22 GMT > >> LOL! > >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > He LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals. Once again, Jan brings out this rubbish that the esteemed Dr Baratz has claimed to have written more than 100 papers published in refereed journals. Dr Baratz never claimed that he had over 100 papers published in refereed journals. Jan Drew continues to lie about this. The fact is that the quote is attributed to Ralph Dougherty at the top of this page. http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/baratztestimony.htm Ralph Dougherty is the one claiming to have written more than 100 papers published in referred journals. Jan Drew owes the esteemed Dr Baratz an apology.
Mark Probert - 05 Aug 2005 21:57 GMT >>>>LOL! >>>> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > never > claimed that he had over 100 papers published in refereed journals. Re-reading the website you referenced, it does appear that Prof. Dougherty did make that claim. He does appear to be well regarded amongst his peers, but I was unable to locate his CV on the schools website.
I did a GoogleScholar search and found four references to him.
A PubMed search yielded over 200 references to a Dougherty R, but could not isolate anything he has written. No, I did not read every hit.
> Jan Drew continues to lie about this. > The fact is that the quote is attributed to Ralph Dougherty at the top of > this page. > http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/baratztestimony.htm > Ralph Dougherty is the one claiming to have written more than 100 papers > published in referred journals. That sounds like an equally reasonable interpretation of that website.
> Jan Drew owes the esteemed Dr Baratz an apology. An ever growing list.
LadyLollipop - 05 Aug 2005 23:35 GMT A LIE!
Baratz is not esteemed, nor is an expert.
In FACT Baratz ia a PROVEN LIAR.
>>>>>LOL! >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > Re-reading the website you referenced, it does appear that Prof. Dougherty > did make that claim. Yes, I see that now, and I do apologize for that mistake.
<snip>
>> Jan Drew continues to lie about this. >> The fact is that the quote is attributed to Ralph Dougherty at the top of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > An ever growing list. I owe NO apology to Liar Baratz, who is not esteemed, nor an expert
Two liars here ae both Probert and Nidiffer..
Nana Weedkiller - 06 Aug 2005 02:10 GMT > A LIE! > > Baratz is not esteemed, nor is an expert. > > In FACT Baratz ia a PROVEN LIAR. You stated that Dr Baratz claimed to have over 100 papers published in refereed journals. You have called Dr Baratz a liar for over 2 years because you misread/lied about a quote by someone other than Dr Baratz.
You do in fact owe an apology for calling Dr Baratz a liar.
Remember that God is watching.
> >>>>>LOL! > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >>>>> > >>>>>Even Peter Bowditch told us he has written 12. mlowry3@bellsouth.net - 06 Aug 2005 02:22 GMT ...smoe nonsense...
Pound sand, Lollypoop. You're an ignorant bigot.
Mark
mlowry3@bellsouth.net - 06 Aug 2005 02:22 GMT ...some nonsense...
Pound sand, Lollypoop. You're an ignorant bigot.
Mark
LadyLollipop - 06 Aug 2005 03:10 GMT Mark MD is a proven liar.
Asked and answered was a lie.
Rich.@. - 06 Aug 2005 03:40 GMT >Mark MD is a proven liar. > >Asked and answered was a lie. Is Mark MD the subject?
Aloha,
Rich
------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Best defense to logic is ignorance
LadyLollipop - 06 Aug 2005 03:57 GMT >><mlowry3@bellsouth.net> wrote in message LadyLollipop wrote:
...some nonsense...
Pound sand, Lollypoop.
Mark
Is LadyLollipop the subject?
Mark Probert - 06 Aug 2005 13:52 GMT > A LIE! > > Baratz is not esteemed, nor is an expert. I have posted proof of both claims. If you can, refute them. If you cannot, then suffer with the facts.
> In FACT Baratz ia a PROVEN LIAR. nope. No proof at all. Dougherty was making that claim.
>>>>>>LOL! >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > Two liars here ae both Probert and Nidiffer.. Peter Bowditch - 06 Aug 2005 00:43 GMT >> >> LOL! >> >> [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >published in referred journals. >Jan Drew owes the esteemed Dr Baratz an apology. Beautiful!!
PubMed has 244 papers with an author "R Dougherty"
RH - 14 RF - 14 RC - 18 RW - 62 RJ - 12 RM - 80 RB - 2 RL - 4 RD - 2 RE - 3 No middle initial - 33
Who is the person who signs himself "Ralph Dougherty" with no middle initial?
Is 33 > 100?
And, yes, there are 12 papers listed with the author "RS Baratz". I apologise to (triple) Doctor Baratz for not picking up sooner on the fact that people supposedly quoting him were actually quoting someone else. My mistake, however, has allowed me the pleasure of being cited by Jan Drew as an authority on something.
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Nana Weedkiller - 06 Aug 2005 02:18 GMT > >> >> LOL! > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > Is 33 > 100? Our esteemed Ralph Dougherty has the middle initial "C". http://144.92.39.64/journal/issues/1997/Jun/abs722.html
Adding the RC initial =18 plus the no middle initial=33 we have 51. Is 51> 100?
How confident are we to be in a professor who calls dental amalgams "mercury amalgams".
Is it possible he's hanging around with the anti-amalgamists?
> And, yes, there are 12 papers listed with the author "RS Baratz". I > apologise to (triple) Doctor Baratz for not picking up sooner on the > fact that people supposedly quoting him were actually quoting someone > else. My mistake, however, has allowed me the pleasure of being cited > by Jan Drew as an authority on something. LadyLollipop - 06 Aug 2005 03:00 GMT >>> >> LOL! >>> >> [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Beautiful!! LOL!
Baratz is NOT esteemed, I owe him no apology, and he is indeeed a liar.
> PubMed has 244 papers with an author "R Dougherty" > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > else. My mistake, however, has allowed me the pleasure of being cited > by Jan Drew as an authority on something. You are a liar also.
I did not cite you an an authority.
I said Even Peter Bowditch told us he has written 12.
Thanks for showing us how you lie.
Give them enough rope,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Mark Probert - 06 Aug 2005 13:51 GMT >>>>>>LOL! >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > I said Even Peter Bowditch told us he has written 12. That sounds like you are citing him as an authority.
> Thanks for showing us how you lie. > > Give them enough rope,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, And Jan will abuse you.
Mark Probert - 05 Aug 2005 21:38 GMT >>>>>>>I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate status >>>>>>>suspended. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Peter Bowditch is not esteemed. Sure he is. You cited him as an expert. Of course, if you want to impeach your expert, go right ahead.
> Baratz LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals Like I acknowledged.
>>>Niether is he an expert. >> >>Wrong. I did a cursory search and found that he has qualified as an expert >>in several court proceedings. That is just from Google. > > Wrong, I just proved, he is a liar, using his own words. No, right. I checked him and found that he has been admitted as an expert in several court proceedings. If you disagree, prove that he has not.
>>I do have access to a special database, which is VERY expensive, that can >>provide profiles on anyone who has qualified as an expert on any court >>proceeding within the United States. If they ever have a freebie, I will >>look him up. > > I could care less what you have. His OWN WORDS are on record. I know that you do not care about truth that refutes you lies.
If those are truly his own words, and they are truly part of a public record, then they can be used to impeach his credibility if he is going to be testifying as an expert.
> He LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals. Like I said, I want to see the original, not just some report of what was said. All too often during a trial prep I find that what was alleged to have been said is not what the actual transcript shows.
>>>He LIED over and over. >> >>Once, as the esteemed Mr. Bowditch has shown. > > NOT once, neither is Peter Bowditch esteemed. So, far, once, assuming that the hearsay report is accurate. Remember, hearsay evidence is considered less reliable than direct evidence.
As for "over and over" what is #2?
>>>>>Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board >>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Baratz NEVER did back up ANY of his LYING claims!!!!!!! > http://www.altcorp.com/baratztestimony.htm First, I want to see what Baratz actually said and in the context he said it. Second, I would like to see what Doughery reviewed when he claimed that.
Original source material is always more accurate than a persons characterization of it.
LadyLollipop - 06 Aug 2005 00:12 GMT >>>>>>>>I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate >>>>>>>>status [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Sure he is. You cited him as an expert. Wow!
What a total liar you are.
<snip>
>> Baratz LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed >> journals [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No, right. I checked him and found that he has been admitted as an expert > in several court proceedings. If you disagree, prove that he has not. I did.
I proved the lies he told.
>>>I do have access to a special database, which is VERY expensive, that can >>>provide profiles on anyone who has qualified as an expert on any court [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > record, then they can be used to impeach his credibility if he is going to > be testifying as an expert. B I N G O!!!!!
>> He LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals. > > Like I said, I want to see the original, not just some report of what was > said. All too often during a trial prep I find that what was alleged to > have been said is not what the actual transcript shows. There is a number provided for you to call. The page numbers are there, help thyself.
>>>>He LIED over and over. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So, far, once, assuming that the hearsay report is accurate. Remember, > hearsay evidence is considered less reliable than direct evidence. See above.
> As for "over and over" what is #2? Posted.
>>>>>>Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Original source material is always more accurate than a persons > characterization of it. Original source is quoted.
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/baratztestimony.htm
With regards to statements made by Dr. Baratz. First, to be an esteemed academic as claimed one should hold an academic position and publish articles in refereed journals on his subject of expertise. I have been unable to find a single research article on mercury or amalgams or about anything authored by Dr. Baratz. I further could not find any source of academic appointments in tenure leading positions. With my personal knowledge of numerous outstanding and productive academic research scientists available to the FDA for consultation I am somewhat perplexed that they would select someone with such weak credentials---unless they were searching for someone who would adamantly support their preconceived position of amalgams being totally safe. Dr. Baratz is evidently well known for taking that position. Finally, statements made by Dr. Baratz concerning amalgams and chemistry in general are so pathetic that they almost defy sensible analysis. I WOULD CHALLENGE THE FDA TO TRY TO GET THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRS OF CHEMISTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY TO AGREE WITH DR. BARATZ'S COMMENTS REGARDING THE CHEMISTRY OF AMALGAMS AND MERCURY. However, knowing this is unlikely I will deal as best I can with Dr. Baratz's statements one at a time in order of presentation. Page 6, line 27-28. Dr. Baratz has no published basis for making this statement. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. How can Dr. Baratz say that a patient on a kidney dialysis program is not further injured by additional mercury (a potent kidney toxicant) exposure from their amalgams? I don't think such a study has ever been undertaken. When exposing a person to years of a chronic level of toxic mercury it is the responsibility of the pro-amalgam group to prove it does no harm, not vice-versa. Can Dr. Baratz or the FDA confirm that the 22,000-fold increased mercury levels in the hearts of inter-city young men who die of Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopthy did not come from dental amalgams? { Frustaci, A., Magnavita, N., Chimenti, C., Caldarulo, M., Sabbioni, E., Pietra, R., Cellini. C., Possati, G. F. and Maseri, A. Marked Elevation of Myocardial Trace Elements in Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy Compared With Secondary Dysfunction. J. of the American College Cardiology v33(6) 1578-1583, 1999,}
Page 6, lines 31-32. One grain of standard sucrose does not weigh near one milligram. Therefore his visual aid is totally misleading and indicates that he has not, or does not, remember experiments where weighing small amounts was involved.
Page 6, lines 37-41. Sodium metal when added to water burns violently, but it does not explode when added to a glass of water. I have done this as a demonstration so I know the results first-hand. No one would be killed or even injured unless they touched the burning metallic sodium. Yes, chlorine gas is toxic and is a man-made material (as is metallic sodium) that does not exist naturally. Dr. Baratz wants to claim that metallic sodium and chlorine gas are toxic but become non-toxic on conversion to a compound, sodium chloride, and therefore, mercury in an amalgam is not toxic because it is surrounded by other (toxic) metals that he feels produces something that is not mercury. This is banal.
Reactivity and biological compatibility is the essence of the amalgam issue. Human blood contains about 140 millimolar chloride anion and 124 millimolar sodium cation. This ions are not toxic because they are not very reactive with biomolecules. These ions are used to perform many biological functions necessary for life, including maintaining the ionic gradient and electrical potential across cell membranes. However, mercury is not found to serve any useful purpose in human tissues and is a well known inhibitor of many enzymes, including the enzyme that transports sodium across cell membranes. In contrast to sodium cation, mercury cation, produced from mercury vapor by a blood enzyme, is very reactive and inhibits almost every biological pathway or enzyme driven function in man. To compare amalgam material to sodium chloride in the manner Dr. Baratz has chosen to reveals a total misunderstanding of chemistry and biochemistry of heavy metal toxicity.
Page 6 line 42 to page 7 line 2. Since all of the metal components of amalgam are basic metallic elements with no charge how can someone make the inept statement that there is no mercury in amalgams. It is an "element" and the fact that elements cannot be broken down or changed is a basic tenant of chemistry. The metals in amalgams have no net charge and therefore form only metallic bonds. Mercury is a liquid at room temperature and quite volatile because it forms weak metallic bonds with itself. This makes mercury unlike all other metals. The metallic bonds formed between mercury and other metals in amalgams are stronger and a solid phase is produced---but the bonds between mercury and, say silver, are weaker than silver-silver metal bonds and therefore break easier releasing elemental mercury vapor at a regular rate. This is why you can heat a gold ring covered with mercury and rapidly make it gold again and why dimes made silvery with mercury soon resort to their old form. The bottom line is that inclusion of mercury into an amalgam reduces its vapor pressure but it does not reduce it to the point that mercury cannot be significantly emitted.
Dr. Baratz states that if you detect traces of mercury from amalgams it is because that material has been decomposed by heat and friction. How does he explain the observations of the release of 43.5 micrograms mercury per cm2 surface area per day for two years straight in a test tube without additional heat and no friction? {Chew, C. L., Soh, G., Lee, A. S. and Yeoh, T. S. Long-term Dissolution of Mercury from a Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam. Clinical Preventive Dentistry 13(3): 5-7, May-June (1991).} Bottom line is that it is quite easy to demonstrate mercury release from a dental amalgam. I suggest the FDA not believe either Dr. Baratz or myself but instead make 20-30 amalgams and send them to the state universities in Florida and have them determine how long a single amalgam must be in a gallon of water before the water is considered unsafe to drink by OSHA or EPA standards. Then the FDA can then make a decent decision on the mercury release and toxicity of amalgams using data from an unbiased source.
Page 7, lines 10-13. Sodium chloride intake is necessary for life. Mercury is toxic to every type of cell. Dr. Baratz's comparison amalgams to sodium chloride is ridiculous. Amino acids contain carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen and so does cyanide but the difference is how these molecules react in the body---one is a food and the other a lethal toxin. Amalgams release mercury and other metal ions and solutions in which amalgams are soaked are cytotoxic! { Wataha, J. C., Nakajima, H., Hanks, C. T., and Okabe, T. Correlation of Cytotoxicity with Element Release from Mercury and Gallium-based Dental Alloys in vitro. Dental Materials 10(5) 298-303, Sept. (1994)}
Page 7, lines 15-18. Yes, everything is toxic if an overdose is obtained---that is common sense. However, mercury has no food or biological function and is toxic at concentrations much lower than even most other toxicants. Low levels of mercury have been shown to inhibit the same enzymes/proteins that are found inhibited in Alzheimer's diseased brain. { Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E. Mercury-EDTA Complex Specifically Blocks Brain -Tubulin-GTP Interactions: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer"s Disease. pp98-105 in Status Quo and Perspective of Amalgam and Other Dental Materials (International Symposium Proceedings ed. by L. T. Friberg and G. N. Schrauzer) Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart-New York (1995). Pendergrass, J. C., Haley, B.E., Vimy, M. J., Winfield, S.A. and Lorscheider, F.L. Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits Binding of GTP to Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarity to a Molecular Lesion in Alzheimer's Disease Brain. Neurotoxicology 18(2), 315-324 (1997). Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E. Inhibition of Brain Tubulin-Guanosine 5'-Triphosphate Interactions by Mercury: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer's Diseased Brain. In Metal Ions in Biological Systems V34, pp 461-478. Mercury and Its Effects on Environment and Biology, Chapter 16. Edited by H. Sigel and A. Sigel. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 270 Madison Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10016 (1996)}
Later research with neurons in culture nanomolar (10-9M) levels of mercury caused cell destruction and formation of three of the widely accepted diagnostic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. { Olivieri, G., Brack, Ch., Muller-Spahn, F., Stahelin, H.B., Herrmann, M., Renard, P; Brockhaus, M. and Hock, C. Mercury Induces Cell Cytotoxicity and Oxidative Stress and Increases -amyloid Secretion and Tau Phosphorylation in SHSY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells. J. Neurochemistry 74, 231-231, 2000. Leong, CCW, Syed, N.I., and Lorscheider, F.L. Retrograde Degeneration of Neurite Membrane Structural Integrity and Formation of Neruofibillary Tangles at Nerve Growth Cones Following In Vitro Exposure to Mercury. NeuroReports 12 (4):733-737, 2001.} Therefore, being unnecessarily exposed to continuous low doses of mercury for scores of years is an unhealthy situation. Does the FDA operate with the mantra of allowing itself to do this and eliminate any disagreement by posturing that no one has proven mercury toxic when indeed this has been done over and over. Due to the overall difficulty and complexity there is not one epidemiological study showing any major negative effects of mercury from amalgams, but there are none showing it to be safe either. With all of the data on animal cell culture studies showing mercury toxicity showing concern and eliminating all long-term exposures to mercury is justified.
Page 7 lines 15-34. This paragraph should convince everyone that Dr. Baratz is way off base. I had to replace all of the mercury thermometers in the teaching labs in our department of chemistry because of the OSHA/EPA restrictions where the spill of one thermometer could create a toxic in-building situation and the possible wash-out into the sewage stream caused an unacceptable environmental hazard. Dr. Baratz seems unaware of the long-term affects of mercury accumulation. Sure, he could ingest liquid mercury a single time and walk away but how many industrial workers have been seriously injured by less severe but continuous mercury exposures? Also, if he did ingest liquid mercury then he could pay a severe price later on in his life but he doesn't seem to know this. Why does he think the government has outlawed the sale of mercury thermometers to the general public?
In this paragraph Dr. Baratz states that mercury is not absorbed from the gut. This is totally incorrect. Mercury vapor is rapidly absorbed into all hydrophobic areas of the body. Where is the publication to support his absurd contention? He is further incorrect in his statement that the amount that comes off of an amalgam is equivalent to the amount you get every day by breathing air, drinking water and eating food. In a 1998 NIH study on 1,127 US military personnel it was shown that the blood/urine mercury levels were much higher in individuals with dental amalgams and the amount of mercury was correlated with the number of amalgams surfaces. The average amalgam bearer had 4.5 times the urine mercury level of individuals who were amalgam free. { Kingman, A., Albertini, T. and Brown, L.J. Mercury Concentrations in Urine and Whole Blood Associated with Amalgam Exposure in a US Military Population. J. of Dental Research v77(3): 461-471, 1998.}
Dr. Baratz states that even the most ardent anti-amalgamist have virtually the same amount of mercury in their bodies as does the members of the Florida Board of Dentistry. That would be true only if all of them are free of amalgams. In a published report removing amalgam fillings dropped the level of mercury in the urine in the patients by about 5-fold at a subsequent date. { Begerow, J., Zander, D., Freier, I. And Dunemann, L. Long-term Mercury Excretion in Urine after Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health v66 (3), 209-212, 1994.}
Neither Dr. Baratz nor I have the right to make sweeping statements without providing the scientific literature on the subject that backs up our statements. Under adjudication many of his statements, now on record, such as given on page 7 line 19, "So to say that dental amalgam has mercury in it is false. It has what used to be mercury." will provide a feast for the opposing lawyers. I am very surprised that Dr. Baratz has chosen to pass himself off as an amalgam expert with no publications in the area and this is compounded by what appears to be total ignorance of the relevant literature.
Page 8 lines 1 to 10. My comment is that the EPA and OSHA government units don't think the amount of mercury released from amalgams is safe. If indeed the groups listed by Dr. Baratz say amalgams are safe (are amalgams listed on the Food and Drug Administration list of safe dental materials?) where are the scientific studies that back their claims. Who represents the NIH and says amalgams are safe? I challenge Dr. Baratz to find a single research article where experimental protocols are used that provide proof of safety of dental amalgams. It is easy to compose a "committee mainly pro-amalgam dentists" and have them proclaim amalgams safe, but have them show the relevant basic research that proves this is another thing. Does he really have publications from the Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer's Associations that claim amalgams are safe? I would really like to see him produce these documents.
Page 8, line 30. Keeping or bringing science into the dental profession is my goal also. This means both Dr. Baratz and I have to back our statements with refereed scientific publications, not wild, unjustified claims or opinions. I would like to challenge Dr. Baratz to produce the research papers that back his many claims.
Peter Bowditch - 06 Aug 2005 00:53 GMT >>>>>Even Peter Bowditch told us he has written 12. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >What a total liar you are. She cites me as an authority, and then she denies me. Sad. Still, anyone with my first name should be aware of the possibility of denying something three times before the cock crows.
Cite me, do I not bleed?
(Apology to Jan - the line above is a reference to something said by one of the types of people who always lie in newsgroups so you will probably label it a lie. If you like you could even go one better, because the person who was supposed to have said it was fictional so the entire character of this person is a lie. Also, as a fictional Jew, he could not possibly know anything about the 10 Commandments. on the other hand, as he was a fictional adult he had never been a boy. Another lie.)
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
LadyLollipop - 06 Aug 2005 02:52 GMT >>>>>>Even Peter Bowditch told us he has written 12. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > She cites me as an authority, No, I did not site you as an authority.
I did not site you as an expert.
<snip>
Mark Probert - 06 Aug 2005 13:57 GMT >>>>>>>>>I have read that the NCAHF is 'defunct' and had it's corporate >>>>>>>>>status [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > What a total liar you are. Nope. It is the truth. You seem to be having trouble recalling what you wrote.
> <snip> Chicken.
>>>Baratz LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed >>>journals [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I proved the lies he told. No, you cited something where Dougherty claims to have written over 100 papers. I could not find any evidence of that.
>>>>I do have access to a special database, which is VERY expensive, that can >>>>provide profiles on anyone who has qualified as an expert on any court [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >><snip> Another chicken.
>>If those are truly his own words, and they are truly part of a public >>record, then they can be used to impeach his credibility if he is going to >>be testifying as an expert. > > B I N G O!!!!! However, I find no evidence that it has been done since then. Thus, there is a major question as to the representation on Haley's site.
>>>He LIED, he has NOT more than 100 paper published in refereed journals. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There is a number provided for you to call. The page numbers are there, help > thyself. You cited it, you provide it.
>>>>>He LIED over and over. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > See above. Your drivel dripped down....
>>As for "over and over" what is #2? > > Posted. Not found.
>>>>>>>Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Original source is quoted. Who is to say what the context is and whether the quote is accurate. Original source is not a quote of original source.
mlowry3@bellsouth.net - 06 Aug 2005 02:20 GMT ...the usual drivel...
Pound sand, Lollypoop. You're an ignorant bigot.
Mark
|
|
|