 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / December 2005Is this guy a quack?
(I decided to remove his link here, although I doubt he could ever sue if I gave it, could he? I'm not up on the law obviously.) He seems qualified, and he's at a convenient location, but I have read that one should steer clear of dentists who seem to base their practices on replacing amalgam fillings. I'm sorry, but I just don't believe they are unsafe. The observational evidence seems quite clear to me. I would question the integrity of anyone who uses such scare tactics as are on his site. Since I removed the link to his site, I'll have to tell you that it's chock FULL of the ***dangers*** of these fillings..... He' s been practicing for 30 years, and is a member of the ADA, and Fellow in the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. But he also makes my quack meter needle twitch. -- OM > (I decided to remove his link here, although I doubt > he could ever sue if I gave it, could he? I'm not up on [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -- > OM Any dentist who tells you these fillings are dangerous is a quack. I've done a lot of research on this because I have MS. See www.quackwatch.org for more information. Robert >> (I decided to remove his link here, although I doubt >> he could ever sue if I gave it, could he? I'm not up on [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Robert [snip] : Any dentist who tells you these fillings are dangerous is a quack. I've : done a lot of research on this because I have MS. See www.quackwatch.org for : more information. Even before I read further into this thread, this site set off my bullshit alarm. You need to learn about critical thinking, I'd say. > [snip] > : Any dentist who tells you these fillings are dangerous is a quack. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Even before I read further into this thread, this site set off my > bullshit alarm. You need to learn about critical thinking, I'd say. You have lots to learn about quacks. Robert You got me Reverend. I always thought they were called mercury fillings ...... perhaps someone here has heard of that before. Joely > (I decided to remove his link here, although I doubt > he could ever sue if I gave it, could he? I'm not up on [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -- > OM Duckier than a flock of mallards. W : ) > (I decided to remove his link here, although I doubt > he could ever sue if I gave it, could he? I'm not up on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but I have read that one should steer clear of dentists who seem to > base their practices on replacing amalgam fillings. The fact of the matter is that anything is possible. Some dentists who are anti-amalgam may be excellent. Some may be poor. Some may be excellent but as you say "base their practice on the removal of fillings". I'm sorry, but I > just don't believe they are unsafe. The observational evidence seems > quite clear to me. That is interesting because the NIDCR has consistently failed to publish any large trials. Yet many studies have shown health effects from amalgam. The WHO admits that current research is insufficient to establish effects in the top 10% of the population. Amalgam is now the undisputed number one source of elemental Hg. What you observe on a daily basis is the combination of all effects from what you eat, to environmental exposures, to the affect of amalgam, but you seem confident that based on your observation that you "know" what the evidence is. I should also point something else out because Everyone on this list seems to have a really difficult time with this concept. All amalgams are not alike, all do not give off the same amount of Hg. Bacteria near a filling can convert the Hg to a different species. Galvanism and crevice corrosion effects can be highly variable. Hg exposure from amalgam fits a bell curve. It's a variable. Talking about amalgam as if each one were the same like copies from a xerox machine shows the niavety of your approach. I would question the integrity of anyone who > uses such scare tactics as are on his site. > > Since I removed the link to his site, I'll have to tell you that it's > chock FULL of the ***dangers*** of these fillings..... Danger is a relative term isn't it? Someone who recieves the lowest exposure from amalgam would have an exposure equivalent to a multiple of environmental exposure. Is the elemental Hg exposure we get from the environment harmful? I hope you will be able to understand that what matters is how much Hg you are getting from your amalgam and how it affects you, not what the average exposure is or what some statistically small and inconclusive epidemologicals studies claim is the "average" effect of amalgam, nor what some studies may highlight as being health effects at higher levels of exposure. > He' s been practicing for 30 years, and is a member of the ADA, > and Fellow in the International Academy of Oral Medicine and > Toxicology. > But he also makes my quack meter needle twitch. What should make your quack meter twitch is the fact that the ADA now takes no legal responsabilty for the use of amalgam in court. Are many dentists crooks? Sure. They use amalgam don't they. Are some exploiting the amalgam issue? Undoubtedly. > (I decided to remove his link here, although I doubt > he could ever sue if I gave it, could he? I'm not up on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > just don't believe they are unsafe. The observational evidence seems > quite clear to me. The problem as I see it, is that your "observational evidence" is all propaganda. Most likely you got it from mainstream publications (defenders of the status quo, defenders of their advertisers, etc) >I would question the integrity of anyone who uses such scare tactics as are on his site. You might also consider questioning the integrity of dentists who continue putting this toxic substance in the mouths of their victims. (Yes, mercury's toxic, check the EPA site) trivia: ask to see the jar or container, next time you visit . Should be labeled _Poison_, with a Skull & Bones label. This stuff is so toxic, I guess they only safe place to dump it is in people's mouths. > But he also makes my quack meter needle twitch. The major insurer of dentists is having the same experience. As of last fall, there's a half dozen major cases progressing thru the legal system. One, by this dentist, below, suing the supplier, Kerr Co. <snippette from Google> Barnes admitted that he was aware of mercurys toxicity, but testified that in dental school, he was taught that mixed dental amalgam was safe and the mercury rendered inert. However, the Sixth Circuits opinion held that the warning sufficiently notified Barnes that mixed dental amalgam was dangerous. The Court noted, the label on each jar of dental amalgam capsules featured not only a skull and crossbones next to the word Poison, but also a list of illnesses, including bronchiiolitis, pneumonitis, pulmonary edema [and] redness and irritation to [the] eyes and skin. > > (I decided to remove his link here, although I doubt > > he could ever sue if I gave it, could he? I'm not up on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Most likely you got it from mainstream publications (defenders of the > status quo, defenders of their advertisers, etc) My observational evidence is based on the fact that countless **millions** of people have (and have had) these fillings in their mouths, 24 hours a day, for literally **billions** of "people years" yet there has been no compelling evidence (no real link established) that they are harmful to the human body. They are still legal for use, and I have never known anyone whose health began to deteriorate after receiving these things. Have you? Can you name one case where an individual's poor health (whatever the ailment) improved upon removal of these silver fillings? One would think that the opponents of these fillings could offer plenty of even anecdotal evidence, yes? > You might also consider questioning the integrity of dentists who > continue putting this toxic substance in the mouths of their victims. > (Yes, mercury's toxic, check the EPA site) Yes, mercury is a poisonous element to the human body, so what? These fillings are mercury **compounds**. Big difference. It amazes me sometimes how people are not even aware of the basic chemistry they were taught in high school. Compounds containing particular elements often have far different characteristics from the element alone. One common example is table salt, which is essential for human health. But it is made up of sodium, which in its pure form is highly reactive and reacts with water violently, and chlorine, which is highly poisonous to humans. Poster Robert provided a good source. Maybe you should read this page from the site. Read the whole page and tell me why I should believe anyone harping about the dangers of silver fillings shouldn't be considered dishonest, or at least deeply confused. Read this: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html -- OM > My observational evidence is based on the fact that countless > **millions** [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > evidence (no real link established) that they are harmful to the human > body. It was years before smoking was deemed hazadous, but you are wrong on two counts. First the science has not been done and the largest study to date the tubigen study has found compelling connections. Second Hg can diminish health without destroying it. Looking for a connection to say, prostate cancer says nothing about the subtle effects of Hg. > They are still legal for use, and I have never known anyone whose > health > began to deteriorate after receiving these things. Have you? Yes Can you > name > one case where an individual's poor health (whatever the ailment) > improved > upon removal of these silver fillings? One would think that the Check the web. > opponents > of these fillings could offer plenty of even anecdotal evidence, yes? Check the adverse reactions reports at the FDA. People used lead for years. Do you know of anyone who suffered effects from lead, probably not. What does that say about lead. That it is safe. >. > > (Yes, mercury's toxic, check the EPA site) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > alone. > One common example is table salt, which is essential for human health. Amalgam is not comparable to salt. Put salt and an amalgam in strong acid. You still are having trouble comprehending variability as it applies to amalgam. This is because you do not realize that it is a mixture with VARIABlE properties. You think all amalgam is the same and that furthermore all amalgam is some supper stable alloy. WRONG. The release of Hg from amalgam in all forms is a very large variable which could go from a few ug to 100's of ug. It has a vapor pressure, salt doesn't. This can't be explained in any simpler terms. > But it is made up of sodium, which in its pure form is highly reactive > and reacts with water violently, and chlorine, which is highly [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html This is full of disinformation. I suggest you rent a jerome meter (designed for detecting hg vapor) and measure the Hg vapor coming from the supposedly salt-like stable compounds in your mouth. What do you think of Barret now. > > The problem as I see it, is that your "observational evidence" is all > > propaganda. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > compelling evidence (no real link established) that they are harmful >to the human body. Granted, it's difficult to prove causation. These are, after all, "time release" capsules. Long b4 there's any noticeable symptoms, the mercury is quietly destroying healthy cells. >Can you name one case where an individual's poor health >(whatever the ailment) improved upon removal of these silver >fillings? One would think that the opponents of these fillings >could offer plenty of even anecdotal evidence, yes? Actually, I know of 2. One MS patient had a head full of amalgams, hubby said it took a while, 2-3 months after removal to notice obvious lessening of symptoms. The 2nd case only had a few amalgams removed. no effect, she said. > Yes, mercury is a poisonous element to the human body, so what? Too bad you can't poll your brain, heart, kidneys. I'd bet they give it a Thumbs Down. > These fillings are mercury **compounds**. Big difference. It amazes > me sometimes how people are not even aware of the basic chemistry > they were taught in high school. Compounds containing particular > elements often have far different characteristics from the element > alone. Right. When they use high copper in the compound it greatly accelerates the release of mercury. ( when they compound tons of chicken sh.t with beef cattle feed, it's still chicken sh.t) > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html Don't insult me with this rag. I once had the list of sponsors of this site. Only took me a few minutes to decide who the quacks are. I happen to know the background of this (non-board certified) quack, Barret, and his partner, Baratz. Quackbuster "expert witness" may be charged with perjury in Florida Case. http://www.bolenreport.net/archives/bobbie_baratz1.htm Top "Quackbuster" Bobbie Baratz Under Scrutiny in Wisconsin. (old news, actually Baratz was disqualified as an "expert" witness) Quackbusters: "Bullys" Barrett, Baratz, Sued For 1.3 Million in Canada Barrett's claim to being "a retired Psychiatrist," is laughable. In his last five years of practice ending in 1993, legal documents show, Barrett "saw" only nine patients, and his so-called "employment" was at the State Mental Hospital in Allentown, PA from 1979 to 1999, where he worked "4 to 8 hours a week," giving out band-aids in a ward. The National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), the quackbuster flagship, has sunk. It's currently headquartered in a dirty cardboard box in the back room of a Boston area hair removal salon. It used to be based at California's Loma Linda University - before it was rudely evicted. "Jon von Leipzig@myday.com" <JonLeipzig@myway.com> wrote in message > The problem as I see it, is that your "observational evidence" is all > propaganda. Since the advent of amalgam use in the 1800's , life expectancy has almost doubled. Hail amalgam!! How's that for an observation? T > "Jon von Leipzig@myday.com" <JonLeipzig@myway.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > T I know i'm living a lot longer because of "it"... >"Jon von Leipzig@myday.com" <JonLeipzig@myway.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >T I love it. -- Whamatus Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com > He seems qualified, and he's at a convenient location, > but I have read that one should steer clear of dentists who seem to > base their practices on replacing amalgam fillings. I'm sorry, but I > just don't believe they are unsafe. The observational evidence seems > quite clear to me. I would question the integrity of anyone who > uses such scare tactics as are on his site. If you've already decided he was a quack, why pose the question?? There's plenty of info/ opinions on the net. Read and decide. http://www.amalgam.org/ BBC:The Poison in Your Mouth http://www.fluoridealert.org/bbc-mercury.htm Scientific Facts on the Biological Effects of Mercury Amalgams http://curezone.com/forums/m.asp?f=629&i=29 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.