REally, I"M the one spinning? What the abstract actually said was

"Assignment to the amalgam group was associated with a significantly
higher mean urinary mercury level "

"The difference in treatment group change scores was 1.0 (95%
confidence interval, -0.6 to 2.5) full-scale IQ score point. .

Conclusions  In this study, there were no statistically significant
differences in adverse neuropsychological or renal effects observed
over the 5-year period"

So the fact that the study was too small and too brief to measure long
term of
effects of Hg and the fact that there was a "statistcally insignifcant"
change
in IQ in the amalgam group gets converted by the media to "we didn't
see any effect".

Furthermore they stated:

"Although it is possible that very small IQ effects cannot be ruled
out",

Remember,  on average, in the 5 year interval the kids would have
fillings placed for what only 2.5  years?  with no significant decay
(to methylate
the Hg) and the fillings would probably be placed ideally and not
significantly corrode in 2 years? Lets see... a "statistically
insignificant" IQ loss of 1 point every 2 years..by the time they are
40 they'll have alzhiemers!!! This is the buffonery of small studies,
short time intervals and statistics spin, see my version of what the
media could have written in the subject line!