I have no doubt that the Snake-oil Team will show up here to insult
these fine researchers  and do their usual Snake-oil Dance.

Some will  probably in disguise for those like the fake "skeptic" [
who I fully believe and have evidence for is Robert S Baratz ... left
shoe for Stephen Barrett with the NCAHF and other Health Fraud
operations].

The cowardly "skeptic" continues to deny that he is Baratz ... all
evidence to the contrary.

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Snake-oil.htm#Baratz

Here is an excellent review of Baratz ... a mouth for hire by the
dental industy in my ever humble opinion.

Thank you very much to anti-amalgam activist, Ms Jan Drew for finding
this information before it was expunged from the internet.

I'd love to see the answers of Baratz to these compelling questions
...

http://web.archive.org/web/20040804023014/http://www.testfoundation.org/baratzte
stimony.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

Dr. Boyd E. Haley

Chair, Department of Chemistry

University of Kentucky

3 January 2002

The following is my comments on the content and specific statements
made in the Sept. 29th Florida Dental Board where the FDA presented
"Amalgam Related Material" to support their proposed rule. Please feel
free to share it with whomever you wish and especially the Florida
Dental Board (FDA).

Sincerely,

Boyd Haley

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.

Top "Quackbuster" Bobbie Baratz Under Scrutiny in Wisconsin...

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/baratzwiscons1.htm

The sleeping giant of Health Freedom is awakening in Wisconsin. Here's
why...

Last year apparently, the State of Wisconsin Department of Regulation
and Licensing (DORL), hired Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD, the current
President of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) (
http://www.ncahf.org/) to be the "Do All, Be All, Health Expert" for
the State.  Bobbie is evaluating cases for Wisconsin - and is
apparently recommending who to prosecute, and what for.

It is not known how much money Baratz has been paid, so far, by
Wisconsin, but Baratz recently was able, he claims (by his own
testimony in deposition), to have purchased an entire health center in
Braintree, Massachusetts in which he only has to work four hours a
week.

All that, is unacceptable to Wisconsinites...  The first of several
questions that arises, of course, "Is Baratz qualified to determine
the health fate of millions of Wisconsinites?"  Well, let's examine
that question.

According to the record, since his termination of employment with
Harbor Health Services in 1999 after a physical altercation with a 72
year-old woman, Baratz has been making his living REMOVING HAIR in a
hair removal salon, and performing NIGHT AND WEEKEND DENTISTRY, OUT OF
HIS HOME,"  where, he admits, he has neither a dental chair, nor any
dental assistants.

And, of course, the occasional "expert witness" testifying job - like
in Wisconsin.

Indeed, the self-vaunted NCAHF, of which Baratz claims to be the
current President, is operating out of the back room of his hair
removal salon.

WISCONSIN'S REACTION?

In response to Baratz's efforts, the flyer distributed around
Wisconsin by the NEWLY FORMING Wisconsin Association for Health
Freedom (WAHF), says "Right now...there is an ongoing attempt on the
part of the Department of Regulation and Licensing in Wisconsin to
suppress our choices of healthcare by persecuting practitioners of
various healing techniques."

In North America, Health Freedom Fighters outnumber quackbusters
100,000 to 1.  Now, Wisconsin is increasing that ratio.  The Wisconsin
team is outraged, and they have a plan,,,

BOBBIE BARATZ IS IN BIG TROUBLE...

An Attorney working on a case in Wisconsin, where Baratz was the case
advisor and expert witness, took my advice and CAREFULLY looked at the
resume qualifications, and credentials, of one Robert S. Baratz MD,
DDS, PhD.  A Private Investigator from the State capitol in Madison
was brought in.  Then Baratz was deposed TWICE - primarily about his
resume claims.

Baratz's Resume, submitted to the State of Wisconsin for hiring
purposes, is a FANTASTIC not-funny joke.  Baratz has, literally, "made
up a life" on his resume.  He's made himself out to be a Professor of
Medicine at a Medical School - he's not.  He claims he's on the staff
at three major hospitals - he's not.  He claims to be a Consultant to
NBC, CBS, and ABC - he's not.  He claims to be a Consultant to the FDA
office of Criminal Investigation - he's not.  And on, and on, and on.
Each line a little more fantastic then the next.

Then too, a legitimate MD, with a real resume, reading one of Baratz's
so-called "case analyses," found eleven incidents in Baratz's
statements that were directly, and easily, controvertible in BASIC
Medical School textbooks.  This gives rise to the question; "Is Baratz
really this unknowledgeable, or is he making this stuff up?"

Recently, legal papers (public documents) were filed in the State of
Wisconsin dealing with the results of the investigation.  Strong
language was used.  I suspect that Baratz's problems have taken a new
turn.

All of the statements in "quotes," in the remainder of the article
below, are from those legal documents...

Early in the documents, it boldly states - "Baratz lacks the requisite
qualifications to testify as an expert witness."  Then, "Baratz is not
the expert the State purports him to be."  "A witness must be
qualified to answer the question put to him...No expert has Carte
Blanche."  "Baratz is not a qualified expert under Wisconsin law."

MORE INTERESTING IS...

"Baratz lacks experience as a medical doctor."  "By his own testimony,
Baratz has seen patients in a private office setting for only a few
months out of his entire career as a licensed Physician, which spans
little more than the (10) years."

Then again, "Baratz's obvious anti-alternative animus should
disqualify him as an expert."  "Baratz has made several material
misrepresentations about his practice and work experience."

IT GETS BETTER...

Then, we see - "Based on his own testimony, Baratz's claim that he has
been published more than 150 times is clearly overstated."   When
Baratz was confronted with this, in deposition (knowing we'd hired a
Private Investigator), "He testified  (in deposition) that he HAS
NEVER published a clinical or medical study involving research,
science or data collection in any general literature."

"Apparently Baratz counts internal corporate documents he has written
as 'publications.'  He even includes in his list of 'publications'
those times when he was interviewed off-camera, or quoted in an
article."  "Quite obviously, Baratz has misstated his past history as
an author in an effort to bolster his credibility as an expert.  He
should not be permitted to manufacture credibility by falsely stating
his publication track record."

IT GETS EVEN BETTER...

Get this - Baratz states in deposition - "I've worked for the FDA in
several capacities.  I was invited as a consultant to the FDA to
products review panels of the FDA -- and that was the dental products
panel - on two occasions in '91 and '94."

However, Sharon L. Blount, a Consumer Safety Officer for the FDA
states: "After contacting our committee Management Office,  I have
been informed that we had no consultant by the name of Doctor Robert
S. Baratz on our Dental Products Panel."

AND, BETTER YET...

"Baratz does not qualify as an expert witness under the standards
promulgated by the American Medical Association."  "In AMA Policy
H-265.994(3)(a), it provides in part:  The AMA believes that the
minimum statutory requirements for qualification as an expert witness
should reflect the following: (i) that the witness be required to have
comparable education, training and occupational experience in the same
field as the defendant;  (ii) that the occupational experience include
active medical practice or teaching experience in the same field as
the defendant; and (iii) that the active medical practice or teaching
experience must have been within five (5) years of the date of the
occurrence giving rise to the claim."

BOBBIE'S ALREADY IN TROUBLE - ELSEWHERE...

Bobbie Baratz has tried his tricks in other places -and got himself
battered with reality.  It looks to me that it's just a matter of
time...

Click on the articles below for further information...

Quackbuster Baratz and Barrett Both Hiding Under the Bed...
file://C:\QuackPotWatch\opinionpieces\hidingunderbed.htm
Florida Dental Board Backs Down...
file://C:\QuackPotWatch\opinionpieces\floridaboardbacksdown.htm,
Quackpots Lose AGAIN, in Florida...
file://C:\QuackPotWatch\opinionpieces\quackpotsloseflorida.htm,
Cowardly "Quackbusters" DISMISS Case to Avoid Being DEPOSED?...
file://C:\QuackPotWatch\opinionpieces\cowardly.htm,
The Tables Have Turned" On the Quackbusters...
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/tables%20turned.htm,

THE QUESTIONS HERE ARE...

What kind of nitwit, in Wisconsin, hired this guy?  Didn't anybody at
the State of Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing read
Baratz's resume' - and check on it?  All somebody had to do was pick
up the telephone a few times - and ask a few questions.  Don't they
have any Investigators working at the DORL?

WHAT THE WISCONSIN ASSOCIATION FOR HEALTH FREEDOM IS GOING TO DO...

The committee has been forming, and organizing, for months.  I've been
all over the State, as have others, lecturing on the dangers of
letting any of the quackbuster ilk have an influence on health care
policies in Wisconsin.

THE FOUNDERS OF THE WAHF RECOMMEND FIVE OBJECTIVES...

(1)  Find out who, at the Department of Regulation and Licensing, is
responsible for the hiring of Baratz - and see them adequately
disciplined, making sure that written regulations and policies are set
in place about the hiring standards for future consultants. So that
this won't happen again.

(2)  Demanding, both personally, and through their legislators, that
the Department of Regulation and Licensing FORMALLY INVESTIGATE THE
CLAIMS (in resume' and conversations) made by Baratz, that caused him
to be hired as a expert consultant - determining whether the State of
Wisconsin was criminally defrauded by Baratz's claims, and his
consequent hiring as that expert consultant.

(3)  Asking, both personally, and through their legislators, that the
ATTORNEY GENERAL of the State of Wisconsin FORMALLY INVESTIGATE THE
CLAIMS (in resume' and conversations) made by Baratz, that caused him
to be hired as a expert consultant - determining whether the State of
Wisconsin was criminally defrauded by Baratz's claims, and his
consequent hiring as that expert consultant.

(4)  Demanding that, If it is so found that Baratz criminally
defrauded the State of Wisconsin by either or both of the above, that
the act of  PROSECUTION take place - to the full extent of the law.

(5)  Get legislation passed in Wisconsin, that (a) allows the citizens
of Wisconsin the right to choose their form of healthcare and (b)
freedom for practitioners to offer those choices.

THE LAST WORD...

I think that Baratz, being from the big city of Boston, and all,
probably figured he was dealing with rubes, hicks, and hayseeds, when
he dropped his poisonous anchor in Wisconsin.  After all, the person
that hired him clearly wasn't all that bright.

Rubes, hicks, and hayseeds?  Boy, was he wrong.  That's hardly the
case.  I drove all over that State of Wisconsin, and I have to tell
you that not only are these people SHARP, but they exhibit, and
practice, a version of human relationship UNEXCELLED anywhere I've
been.  They exude warmth and caring.  And, they are genuinely nice.

As a California boy, hardened and aged in the fast lane, it was a
luxury dealing with these people.  I look forward to the
continuance...

Baratz, and whoever hired him, are in for a hard ride...  Already, in
a formal courtroom hearing just this last month in Wisconsin, where
Baratz was severely questioned about his qualifications and resume,
Baratz broke down and CRIED, and SCREAMED, for almost fifteen minutes.
There is a video tape...

Stay tuned... There's MUCH more coming.

Tim Bolen
Consumer Advocate

Dr. Robert Baratz was the expert witness for the Florida Dental Assoc.
before the Florida Dental Board at a hearing on Sept. 29, 2001. The
following is according to him his credentials.

Compare the credentials to the competance in science of the testimony
& rebutal by researchers

Dr. Robert Baratz: (DDS,MD,Phd) (page 6)

"I attended and graduated from Boston University, with a degree in
Biology cum laude, and then went to Northwestern Dental School where I
obtained my doctor-dental-surgery degree almost 30 years ago and I
have been practicing dentistry 30 years in 2002. Yes, I look young. As
do most of you. Along the way I also earned a Ph.D. in cellular
biology and anatomy from Northwestern and after teaching for somewhere
in the order of 15 years, I went to Medical School and obtained a
medical degree from Boston University School of Medicine. I did an
internship and residency in internal medicine, and obtained my board
in oral medicine and have been practicing both internal medicine and
emergency medicine for more than 10 years. I have done a number of
other things as well. I have also worked in the medical device
industry and been the medical director for several companies.
Currently I am the President of International Medical Consultation
Services, Inc., which is a company that does tracking of medical
devices and has do

(Sworn testimony of R. Baratz before the Florida Dental Board on
amalgam rule, Sept 29, 2001)

1. "A dental license is a privilege and a licensee has an obligation
to present factually correct information to the public. And your duty
is to see that that happens." (page 6)

2. "And except for a handful of reports of simple allergies, no
patient, anywhere, has ever been harmed by the materials in a properly
mixed and placed amalgam restoration". (page 7)

3."That is about one milligram. The amount of mercury that might be
released from a dental amalgam is a fraction of that, in a day. A
fraction of a fraction of that. And that is what all the controversy,
if you want to call it that, is about". (page 7)

4."Sodium, if I were to take some sodium metal and drop it into this
glass of water in front of Mr. Nicol here, all of you would be killed
by the explosion." (page 7)

5. "The point is that dental amalgam does not contain mercury. It has
none." (page 7)

6. "It contains things that were mixed together which formerly were
mercury and formerly were a bunch of other metals but once we mixed
them together they are no longer that, those separate materials, they
are now a new material we call amalgam." (page 7)

7. "If you detect traces of mercury that are released from that
material, it is because that material has now been decomposed by heat
and by friction to drive it back towards what used to be the
ingredient."

(page 7)

8."You often hear people say, Well, mercury is a deadly poison.
Amalgam has mercury therefore you are putting poison in people''s
mouths. That is fundamentally false and anyone who says that is not
telling the truth. They do not understand what a poison is. If that is
true, then eating sodium chloride is equivalent to poisoning yourself,
and we do it every day." (page 7)

9. "So to say that dental amalgam has mercury in it is false. It has
what used to be mercury." (page 8)

10. "I don''t have one here but I could take a thermometer that had
mercury in it, snap it into this glass and drink it in front of you
and not be harmed. I could sniff it and not be harmed." (page 8)

11. "The quantities that would be in there would be equivalent to
about the amount of mercury that would go into one amalgam
restoration. That would be about 250 milligrams. To say that that is a
harmful substance is false." (page 8)

12. "There are case reports where people have tried to commit suicide
by drinking not just the amount that was in the thermometer, but a
pint of liquid mercury. Guess what happened. Diarrhea. It is not
obsorbed from the gut. Even in pure form. " (page 8)

13. "And it is even less well obsorbed in the gut as powered amalgam
once amalgam is made."

(page 8)

14. "There are allegations that vapor comes off the surface of a
dental restoration, and indeed a tiny bit does. The amount that comes
off is equivalent to the amount you get every day by breathing the air
in this city, by drinking th water in this city, by eating the food in
this city." (page 8)

15. "Whether you have amalgam or not, you body has mercury in it. Even
the most ardent anti-amalgamist have virtually the same amount of
mercury in their bodies as you do, because there has not been one
patient who has ever been harmed by it." (page 8)

16. "Is this material safe and effective? Yes it is." (page 8)

17. So I am bringing you the same simple message that I brought to the
FDA in 1991, and to legislative boards in other states, there is no
evidence that amalgam is harmful, and suggesting it is, or telling
people it is, while practicing under a dental license or other
professional license, is wrong. It is unprofessional conduct. (page 9)

18. "In other words, these quanities are so small that we didn''t have
the instrumentation to measure them. They are down in the parts per
billion or less, range. This is a drop of water in a huge swimming
pool. That''s how small they are." (page 10)

19, "There are no toxic substances in amalgam although there are
people who advocate that there are, but there are not" (page 10)

(Board member discussion after testimony)

Dr. Garcia:

Dr. Baratz, you may be soft spoken but you made your points very well.
I think you guys have done a super job of establishing a record right
here, today.

Ed Bayo, Atty for Board: (page 12)

I like this rule a lot better than what I saw at Tampa and my
suggestion would be that paragraphs 1 through 4 are the way to go and
drop the last 2 paragraphs. I think that paragraph 6, when you are
going to penalize, that should be addressed in disciplinary
guidelines. It does not belong in Rules. You don''t have any rule that
specifically talks of penalty so that should be included somewhere
else. If I understand Dr. Baratz correctly, I question how much
support there is for the last sentence of paragraph 5, where it''s
much more likely to cause significant damage..I mean if I hear
correctly the vapor released is not that big a deal, but in any event,
I think that 1, 2 3 and 4 is really what you need.

You took action at your last meeting to also amend your advertising
rule and there is language that is already ongoing, I believe that
between this and this, you''re covered.

Having said that, keep in mind that the standard of practice in this
rule may be of guidance in setting a standard of practice but
ultimately that standard of practice may well be decided on the case
or acouple of cases. All of this information and the record that has
been developed here is very valuable when the time comes, if there is
a time when somebody challenges this rule, I''m certainly going to
call on Dr. Baratz and others to bolster any possible challenge.

I think what I said, paragraphs 1 through 4, and between that and what
you already took action last time is plenty. I think that if you
attack from that, you are in good point.

Dr. Baratz: (p11)

I''m not sure I can respond from a legal point of view except to say
that in 1987, I was called by the prosecuting attorney for the
Department of Education in the State of New York, for exactly the
purpose that is before you today. A case involving a dentist that you
may have heard about down here in Florida, named Joel Berger (sp?).
Joel Berger lost his license in the State of New York for exactly the
type of behavior that this rule covers. Subsequently I was called by
the State of California to deal with a Dr. Hullett in the State of
California in the early 90''s. Subsequently I was called by the State
of Colorado to deal with a dentist that some of you may have heard of
named Hal Huggins, who was conducting a number of practices that would
be in violation of the proposed rule. And I could go on with that list
in the States of Iowa, Minnesota, Kentucky, Maine, Rhode Island and
other places where I have been involved in helping the Board try to
deal with practitioners who were practicing outside the realm of

Dr. Laboda: (page 15)

Unfortunately there is a small group of true believers. They''re the
scary ones. They are the ones that really believe it is the correct
thing to do, but that is a minority. The great majority of them do it
for financial gain and so as far as mother and apple pie, this rule is
important and I think we need to pass it.

I would move that we adopt paragraphs 1 through 4, as we get into
rulemaking, with paragraph 6 being moved into disciplinary guidelines.

Dr. Ross: Any other discussion -- All in favor of the motion let me
know by an aye sign. (Chorus of ayes). Those opposed? Motion carries.

Review of FDA witness Dr. Robert Baratz testimony before the Florida
Dental Board by 2 distinguished Chemistry Professors and Researchers

Snip from review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental
Board by Dr. Ralph Dougherty, Department of Chemistry and
Biochemistry, Florida State Univ.

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 ignorence, or intent to deceive."

Sincerely,

Ralph Dougherty

Dr. Boyd E. Haley

Chair, Department of Chemistry

University of Kentucky

3 January 2002

The following is my comments on the content and specific statements
made in the Sept. 29th Florida Dental Board where the FDA presented
"Amalgam Related Material" to support their proposed rule. Please feel
free to share it with whomever you wish and especially the Florida
Dental Board (FDA). Sincerely, Boyd Haley

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 CHEMI

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

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 o

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 b

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.