 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / October 2006Fraudelant 2003 study showing no harm from amalgams
A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html which found no harmful effects appears to have been designed not to find any such effects. Basically what they did is to perform a series of mental performance tests on people with various numbers of amalgams. They did find direct linear correlation in blood and urine levels of mercury metabolites with number of amalgams (or surfaces). Clearly the amalgams do cause mercury absorption and show linear dose/response relation. Regarding the mental tests, they cheated by "stratifying" the subjects into categories such as educational level, professional status, socioeconomic status and numerous other "confounders" (using unspecified adjustment). Then they compared mental performance of subjects with and without amalgams _within each subset_. The problem with this approach is that after you adjust for all "confounders" you get subset which by definition will be have level of mental performance corresponding to the parameters held fixed for the subgroup (e.g. professional level, socioeconomic status...). For example if amalgams (which were all placed in teen years) have caused drop in IQ of 30 points, a person who might have been IQ=130 would become IQ=100 and achieve professional status of people with IQ=100. Hence someone who might have been a scientist (with IQ 130), may have turned out, due to amalgams, an average person and would be compared to that subgroup. Similarly a person with pre-amalgam IQ 160, who might have been Nobel laureate, would only become an average scientist corresponding to IQ 130 and would be compared to those. Hence, by fixing great many "confounding variables" within each group, the authors had in effect fixed the equivalent of the mental performance within that subgroup. Comparing subjects within each subgroup will then by definition measure that same fixed level of performance corresponding to that subgroup. The whole experiment was in effect a worthless tautology with guaranteed outcome. It was completely insensitive to the effect of mercury on shifting persons from one "stratum" to another. To give analogy, consider we wish to measure effect of childhood starvation on height of adults. We pick 1000 adults, divide them into subgroups based on weight and height. Then _within_ each subgroup we compare how the remaining small height variations correlate with the data on childhood starvation. Obviously, if we're looking within the 6 ft +/- 10% subgroup, we won't find out how tall a 6 ft person with history of starvation would have been had he not been starving in childhood. The entire study was obviously rigged -- it was devised to be entirely insensitive to the question of amalgam effects on mental performance. The fact that they had to cheat using such cheap statistical sleight of hand means that the amalgams do cause harm and any genuine study would show it. > A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams > http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > sleight of hand means that the amalgams do cause > harm and any genuine study would show it. I don't generally comment on amalgam threads, but I agree that the process of "correcting" for "confounding variables" is a process fraught with peril. In this context I have little confidence relating periodontal disease with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular incidents which have been "corrected" for smoking and other confounding variables. I don't agree that this necessarily was done to achieve the desired effect, but obviously I can't know. Mental performance tests are pretty dicey in any case. Studying obvious parameters related to neurologic damage (neuromuscular markers such as reaction time, tremor etc.) would be easier to measure and less prone to manipulation. Steve > A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams > http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of mental performance tests on people > with various numbers of amalgams. Good point, believe it or not the ADA brought up this worthless study repeatedly at the FDA hearings as well as another 'amalgam counting' study criticized on this NG and full of errors. If you like you can send your comment to the FDA before Nov. Send an email to FDADockets@oc.fda.gov. In the subject line type "Docket Number - 2006N-0352". Send a copy to Mary Ann Newell at bullelkman@aol.com (to insure inclusion in the docket). The expert committe will review your comments. > > A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams > > http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > committe > will review your comments. Thanks Clinton. I just received this from Marie Flowers. Send an email to FDADockets@oc.fda.gov. In the subject line type "Docket Number - 2006N-0352". Send a copy to Mary Ann Newell at bullelkman@aol.com or Freya Koss at frekoss@aol.com so we can make sure that your comments get recorded to the Docket. Deadline is Nov 9, 2006. Jan > > > A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams > > > http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Jan Excuse me, I forgot to post this additional info. The joint panel concluded with personal recommendations by the members. These include that FDA should : · Consider informed consent for patients receiving amalgam · Consider labeling changes restricting its use in pregnant woman and children · Revisit the white paper to include a broader search, include data from other countries, and provide the rationale for study exclusion · Study the pharmacokinetics of mercury · Consider the relevancy of the "precautionary principle." · Not make any rash decisions by having the pubic remove their amalgams because it appears that this problem may affect only a small segment of the population. HOW TO POST TO THE FDA DOCKET Send an email to FDADockets@oc.fda.gov. In the subject line type "Docket Number - 2006N-0352". Send a copy to Mary Ann Newell at bullelkman@aol.com or Freya Koss at frekoss@aol.com so we can make sure that your comments get recorded to the Docket. Deadline is Nov 9, 2006. If you don't post a story, the Advisory Panel will think there are just a few people poisoned from dental fillings instead of a possible 25% rate in the general population. Marie Flowers Dental Amalgam Mercury Syndrome- DAMS www.MercuryPoisoned.com For an in-depth report of what happened at recent FDA hearings look at the top of my website. www.MercuryPoisoned.com The Advisory Panel to the FDA REJECTED the FDA's Safety Report on Dental Amalgam, and suggest labeling changes so that children and pregnant women should not have mercury dental fillings. The Advisory Panel also said that people should be informed before a dentist places mercury dental fillings. Jan >> > A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams >> > http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> repeatedly at the FDA hearings as well as another 'amalgam counting' >> study criticized on this NG and full of errors. This is "talking the talk" -- mere mimicry of science-speak, as various kinds of activist are wont to do these days. What we need here is a clearer exposition of just why counting peoples amalgam surfaces (and presumably including a group with none) and correlating that with neurological performance is a "worthless" approach. We know that the number of amalgam surfaces correlates with mercury exposure. How else might one investigate whether subtle mercury poisoning may sometimes be occurring in patients with amalgam fillings? Peter Moran >>>>A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams >>>>http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>of mental performance tests on people >>>>with various numbers of amalgams. > This is "talking the talk" -- mere mimicry of science-speak, as various > kinds of activist are wont to do these days. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > exposure. How else might one investigate whether subtle mercury poisoning > may sometimes be occurring in patients with amalgam fillings? The problem isn't that they counted amalgams. The problem is their "stratification" which basically fixes subgroups based on their present status (various confounding variables which amount to an equivalent of mental performance). There is no reason why within a subgroup of, say, janitors or equivalent non-professionals, a janitor with 10 amalgams would be any dumber than another janitor with no amalgams. Comparing performance of two janitors doesn't tell you how well the janitor with 10 amalgams might have done had he not had these amalgams i.e. how did amalgams affect his development and resulting mental performance, energy and drive to achieve. Had he not been inhaling mercury vapors since childhood he might have been a doctor or a scientist. By stratifying the data based on variables which amount to a indirect measure of mental performance they have fixed, within some narrow band of arbitrary fluctuations, what performace they will find by measuring it directly. The ADA friendly "researchers" have obviously rigged the "study" to find no significant effect of amalgams by looking through a contrived pinhole defining their subgroups. The fact that they didn't find any more subtle way of rigging indicates that there wasn't any but clumsy and transparent sleight of hand they tried. The real implication is that just about anything else one might have done would have shown the negative impact of amalgams. > The problem isn't that they counted amalgams. I understand what you are saying but to address the above and Peter Moran's comments, counting amalgams is a problem. Why? Galvansim, crevice corrsion, and poor condensation of amalgam makes some amalgams give off much higher levels of Hg than others. Since Hg exposure isn't measured directly, those with the highest level aren't counted. For example, let's say 1 in 100 amalgams is poorly made or undergoes an unusal amount of galvanic activity, and gives off high levels of Hg. Or that this amalgam undergoes what manufacturer refer to as "electrochemical reactions" on the surface which may allow bactria to methylize the Hg released in a corrosion reaction. On average that amalgam will be in the mouth with an individual with an average number of fillings. that means that amalgam counting, by ignoring galvanic activity, poor condensation anc surface electrochemical reactions in "rare" cases actually counts the most adverse effects as evidence of amalgam safety >>The problem isn't that they counted amalgams. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > most > adverse effects as evidence of amalgam safety I think that epidemiological method, unless very carefully designed for this specific purpose and carried over long time, is not very sensitive in detecting long term subtle and far away effects of chronic, low dose mercury poisoning. Direct experiments on primates (or even lower animals which live long enough for low dose mercury toxicity to manifest itself), where the animals with and without amalgams are observed and tested over many years, would work better. Human and animal bodies are marvelous biochemical systems which can compensate and work around lots of damage. Of course, each compensatory process would have a cost downstream, hence one would need to follow fairly long chains of causes and effects to tally the total cost to the organism. Since the compensatory systems are used for variety of repair & detox tasks unrelated to mercury damage, epidemiology & bulk statistics are much too coarse grained to accurately attribute the blame for the final harmful effects to a single far away cause. Additional complication for direct and indirect studies is that people with different genetic profiles are affected differently by amalgams. For example, the effect on brain depends on the actual concentration of Hg in the brain, which for any given exposure level depends on genetics of biochemical detox, such as ApoE2,3,4 alelles. People with ApoE4 alelle from both parents, which is more common in northern Europeans, would detox most poorly and would have the highest Hg concentrations in the brain, while people with ApoE2 from both parents would have the lowest Hg concentration (ApoE3 alelle, most common among southern Europans, falls in between on detox scale). Further series of subtle genetic dependencies enter at the repair and damage compensation/workaround phases. The bottom line, though, is that mercury in low doses, such as those which can be produced by amalgams, is a demonstrable toxin to neurons, as well as to variety of other cells & larger systems in the human and animal bodies. The only variation among individuals is the pattern and degree of damage, but everyone is damaged by them. Hence, the amalgams are at best a Russian roulette using gun with perhaps 5-10 percent of chambers loaded -- if you're lucky you will avoid the most serious consequences, such as MS, Alzheimers, Parkinson disease etc. Amalgams should therefore not only be banished from dental practice, but existent amalgams should be carefully removed and people already damaged should be compensated, all at public expense (since we are all responsible for the government we elect, hence for the bureaucracies they create). At least some "health" bureaucrats, "scientists" (such as the lead authors of this and similar fraudelant studies), CEOs, "educators" and "experts", from public and private sector, who deliberately deceived the public, dental students and dentists should be pursued through courts and punished as criminals. I'll do composites any and all days of the week-more money, more sensitivity, they are weaker=more breakdown, increased chance of RCT leads to more money. SO...why do you think there is a great conspiracy to keep amalgam ? ? ? ? Have you ever researched what's in a composite ("white") filling..hmmmmm??? > >>The problem isn't that they counted amalgams. > > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > deliberately deceived the public, dental students and dentists should > be pursued through courts and punished as criminals. > I'll do composites any and all days of the week-more money, more > sensitivity, they are weaker=more breakdown, increased chance of RCT > leads to more money. SO...why do you think there is a great > conspiracy to keep amalgam ? ? ? ? Have you heard of tobacco industry conspiracy to hide harm and addictiveness of tobacco? Mercury is far more toxic and harmful to humans than even most direct tobacco smoke. For example, while it is practically impossible to induce lung cancers in lab animals by having them breathe smoke, even when inhaling equivalents of hundreds of cigarettes per day, it is very easy to demonstrate harm from mercury in very small amounts to virtually any lifeform, from single cell to human organisms. The dental industry has no choice but to stick tightly to its "silver" story, otherwise it would face the mother of all class action lawsuits. As long as they stick unwaveringly to their `"silver" fillings are safe and effective' mantra, they get paid both ways, to put in the mercury into mouths of their patients, then even more to remove it safely for those who ask years later when the damage is manifest, even when the mercury filling is dentally perfectly fine. The alternative is simply unthinkable for dental industry. While it may surprise those who still believe that TV commercials are all truth and whole truth, most people eventually learn, usually by age of seven or so, that it's not all they see on TV is true and that money has a way to make people lie (and much more), let alone remain silent. Note that, as with many other toxins, there are, of course, genetic differences in efficiency of mercury elimination. For example, the three Apolipoprotein alleles, ApoE2,3,4 affect how efficiently the mercury is excreted from the brain, which in turn determines the rate of mental deterioration (such as onset of senility) due to mercury exposure from amalgams. People with ApoE2 allele from both parents eliminate mercury from brain the most efficiently, while those with double ApoE4 the least efficiently (ApE3 falls in between). It happens that ApoE4 frequency is highest in northern Europe (hence they're more affected by mercury from amalgams) and it drops in favor of ApoE3 which is most prevalent in southern Europe (hence the Mediteranian population is less affected). The IQ of European populations has precisely the opposite gradient, it drops from north to south. Hence, among Europeans, the populations whose brains are damaged more by mercury also have higher IQ. Hence an IQ drop of ApoE4 population due to mercury exposure from amalgams would simply bring it down toward IQ of ApoE2,E3 populations (which is less affected) i.e. it would merely reduce European IQ gradient, bunching everyone toward the middle. Interestingly, the highly promoted (by ADA, EPA and other parties responsible for amalgam use) amalgam 2006 study was done in Portugal, which is among Europeans the population the least sensitive to mercury toxicity to brain (due to larger admixture of African genotype than other European populations). Further, the study observed kids (mostly with ApoE3/E2 alleles) only for few years while the effects on brain, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's take a bit longer to develop and any honest study would not look for such effects in children. Clearly, the study was optimized (in many ways) to find no harmful effects. See also additional critique of this study at: "Unmasking The Unscientific JAMA 2006 CHILDRENS AMALGAM STUDY" http://www.bioprobe.com/ReadNews.asp?article=95 Of course, the fact that dental industry has to use such means to "prove" that "silver" fillings are not harmful only proves that they know better. > Have you ever researched what's in a composite ("white") > filling..hmmmmm??? There is no one "white" filling. Porcelain fillings (as inlays) are probably the least problematic. Even though they do have aluminum, it is not present in porcelain as alloy or amalgam (which is a weak non-chemical mixture of components) but in a form of an orders of magnitude stronger chemical bond. Again, I'll do porcelain fillings as much as you want me to; even MORE money!!! All of your scientific regurgitation on genetics I would never contest, who could?? You are absolutely right-Hg is a neurotoxin-but the risk at the concentration in amalgam is worth the benefits derived in dentistry. Radiation causes cancer-but the risk of it for radiography, detecting structural failures in airplane turbines, and for cancer treatment is WORTH the BENEFIT. Capish the analogy? Placing Hg fillings for the future 'financial gain' of removing them later on is ludicrous, we'll get a better return on 'white' fillings again. The notion that dentistry must 'hide' the real truth about silver fillings because of a looming class-action lawsuit does not hold water, otherwise we'd all be in the courts, eagerly smacking our lips and gleefully rubbing our hands together for a piece of the pie from the class action lawsuit against PCB's in transformers, plasticizers in kid's toys, food bags, chlorine in paper products, DEET in bug spay, selenium in photocopiers, mercury in catalytic converters and so on. It will never happen, and dentistry is not worried that it will. At this time of recent, double-blind, peer-reviewed, independent science, the benefits still outweigh the risks, and this is what the courts will look at. When dentistry bans Hg-laden amalgam and the likes of yourselves are throwing your hats in the air and whooping a cheer of victory-I'll be right there beside, you-cheering for my increased income, placing my bis-phenyl laden 'white fillings' and cementing my porcelain inlays with resin (ie: carcinogen-containing) luting cements. > > I'll do composites any and all days of the week-more money, more > > sensitivity, they are weaker=more breakdown, increased chance of RCT [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > (which is a weak non-chemical mixture of components) but > in a form of an orders of magnitude stronger chemical bond. PS: "Hg far more toxic than cigarette smoke??? I almost spit out my Cheerios!!! You are kidding.....please don't tell me you composed your previous reply with a Marlboro in your hand!!!!! trelbrier...@sympatico.ca wrote: > Again, I'll do porcelain fillings as much as you want me to; even MORE > money!!! All of your scientific regurgitation on genetics I would [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > > (which is a weak non-chemical mixture of components) but > > in a form of an orders of magnitude stronger chemical bond. > Radiation causes cancer-but the risk of > it for radiography, detecting structural failures in airplane turbines, > and for cancer treatment is WORTH the BENEFIT. Capish the analogy? It is always a matter of risk/benefit ratio. That's why the dental industry is working so hard to misrepresent the risks (with no means considered too low, as their latest study illustrates; cf. the critique at the link posted). Consider how cheap is their mindless insistence on calling it euphemistically "silver" filling, even though half of it is mercury while silver is only 20-30 percent. While the benefits might have outweighed risks as far as science knew in 19th century, especially considering the average lifespans of that time, that has long ceased to be so. At various points since then the dental and amalgam industries have crossed from ignorant and negligent into unethical and finally into domain of criminal behavior in the last couple decades. There are only so many lawyers to go around. Give it some time, though, until the packs of lawyers are done with the junk food industry. > PS: "Hg far more toxic than cigarette smoke??? I almost > spit out my Cheerios!!! You are kidding.....please don't > tell me you composed your previous reply with a Marlboro > in your hand!!!!! After offering no specifics or substance of any sort in defense of the phony JAMA 2006 study, you proceeded to demonstrate further facets of your ignorance about relative toxicities of tobacco smoke and mercury. Well, thanks for being so helpful. I suppose one should not expect any better from our modern day Mad Hatters, the folks inhaling mercury dust and vapors every day for much of their lives. FYI, unlike nicotine, which is, in doses obtained from smoking, a beneficial neuro-stimulant and among others, protective against Alzheimer's and Parkinson's (cf. http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm ), the mercury effects on brain are precisely the opposite (in the usual ranges of respective exposures). > > Radiation causes cancer-but the risk of > > it for radiography, detecting structural failures in airplane turbines, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > means considered too low, as their latest study illustrates; cf. > the critique at the link posted). Consider how cheap is their > mindless insistence on calling it euphemistically "silver" filling, > even though half of it is mercury while silver is only 20-30 percent. It was not the dentists or the industry that EVER called them "silver fillings, it was the public in response to what they look like. It makes an easy descriptor for the public. > While the benefits might have outweighed risks as far as science > knew in 19th century, especially considering the average lifespans [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > toxicities of tobacco smoke and mercury. Well, thanks > for being so helpful. Call me ignorant-I have no problem with that; I will not even try to refute your interpretation of the evidence because I don't have the time to read all of the peer-reviewed journals that you obviously do. I do know what comes from peer reviewed journals up my alley. "Phony JAMA study"; your paranoid opinion. "They're all in on it. right??" > I suppose one should not expect any better from our > modern day Mad Hatters, the folks inhaling mercury dust [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the mercury effects on brain are precisely the opposite (in the usual > ranges of respective exposures). ...and I knew it...you ARE a smoker! (probably a lawyer, too). Go ahead and justify your pathetic habit to yourself! I find it always amusing to talk to the hooked smoker who cannot kick their habit, therefore they justify it's need. Anyway, I don't think you'll find any dentist that wouldn't admit that Hg is not good for you, it comes down to -does it's use justify the risk?? And so far the answer is yes. I notice you didn't comment on the components of white fillings or the cements required to bond your porcelain inlays/onlays. Tha answer???? DON'T GET CAVITIES !!!!!!!!!! > ...and I knew it...you ARE a smoker! (probably a lawyer, too). Go > ahead and justify your pathetic habit to yourself! I find it always [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > DON'T GET CAVITIES !!!!!!!!!! One of my patients who consistently banged the amalgam drum was also a smoker. I didn't understand why he was so worried about something of, at best, debatable risk, yet engaged in something with a clear and obvious risk. Didn't make sense to me. T > One of my patients who consistently banged the amalgam drum was also a > smoker. I didn't understand why he was so worried about something of, at > best, debatable risk, yet engaged in something with a clear and obvious > risk. Didn't make sense to me. It's not your fault. It is hard to make sense of half-truths, junk science and propaganda. Tobacco is protective against the toxic effects of mercury on brain, such as those found in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. Smokers at any age have less than half the rates of these diseases than non-smokers. The smokers who quit double after few years their odds for getting these diseases, nearly catching up to never-smokers. Further, the brains of Alzheimer's patients show significant excess of mercury. In test tube the mercury in similar or lower concentration than those commonly found in brains of people with amalgams and who carry single or double ApoE4 allele, produces the same tangles on neurons as those characteristic of Alzheimer's disease (mercury is the only known substance so far that produces such effect on neurons). http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/091602/80027dd5.pdf http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm Note also that almost all longevity record holders, such as those above 110 and still mentally sharp, are life long smokers. Here are some links and summaries of little publicized studies and facts on smoking and anti-smoking: "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking" http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html "In defense of Smokers" (online book) http://www.lcolby.com/ Some studies on therapeutic effects of smoking: http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm http://www.data-yard.net/10/nicoplus.htm http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/life.htm http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/nicotine.htm http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041 Of course, there is a statistical _correlation_ between smoking and poor health (as well as with variety of other problems). Much of it, perhaps all, is the result of strong social pressures against smoking which have reshaped the population of smokers in recent decades, turning smoking into a mere passive marker of various negative traits statistically associated with that highly skewed sample (e.g. risk takers, low socioeconomic status, unhealthy & stressful job environment,... ). As demonstrated in the studies cited & described at the first link above, large controlled experiments spanning decades, in which subjects are randomly assigned to either smoking cessation or to no intervention group, showed no gain, and even increase in some diseases, for the smoking cessation group. Similarly, the studies examining health problems of smokers and non-smokers in otherwise fairly homogeneous groups, such as lung cancers among asbestos workers, have found that lung cancers were much more prevalent among the non-smoking workers. Curiosly, among smokers in general, the lung cancers are also significantly more prevalent among those who do _not_ inhale the smoke than those who do inhale. ------ quoting from ---------------------------- "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking" http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html ------------------------------------------------ By the end of the century general opinion had changed. The Royal College of Physicians of London promoted smoking for its benefits to health and advised which brands were best. Smoking was compulsory in schools. An Eton schoolboy later recalled that "he was never whipped so much in his life as he was one morning for not smoking". As recently as 1942 Price’s textbook of medicine recommended smoking to relieve asthma. These strong opinions for and against smoking were not supported by much evidence either way until 1950 when Richard Doll and Bradford Hill showed that smokers seemed more likely to develop lung cancer. A campaign was begun to limit smoking. But Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the greatest statistician of the 20th century, had noticed a bizarre anomaly in their results. Doll and Hill had asked their subjects if they inhaled. Fisher showed that men who inhaled were significantly less likely to develop lung cancer than non-inhalers. As Fisher said, "even equality would be a fair knock-out for the theory that smoke in the lung causes cancer." Doll and Hill decided to follow their preliminary work with a much larger and protracted study. British doctors were asked to take part as subjects. 40.000 volunteered and 20,000 refused. The relative health of smokers, nonsmokers and particularly ex-smokers would be compared over the course of future years. In this trial smokers would no longer be asked whether they inhaled, in spite of the earlier result. Fisher commented: "I suppose the subject of inhaling had become distasteful to the research workers, and they just wanted to hear as little about inhaling as possible". And: "Should not these workers have let the world know not only that they had discovered the cause of lung cancer (cigarettes) but also that they had discovered the means of its prevention (inhaling cigarette smoke)? How had the MRC [Medical Research Council] the heart to withhold this information from the thousands who would otherwise die of lung cancer?" Five year’s later, in 1964, Doll and Hill responded to this damning criticism. They did not explain why they had withdrawn the question about inhaling. Instead they complained that Fisher had not examined their more recent results but they agreed their results were mystifying. Fisher had died 2 years earlier and could not reply. This refusal to consider conflicting evidence is the negation of the scientific method. It has been the hallmark of fifty years of antismoking propaganda and what with good reason may well be described as one of the greatest scandals in 500 years of modern science. -------- end quote These anti-tobacco social pressures and the resulting mass hysteria being whipped up in recent decades are not accidental. Hundreds of billions are being transferred every year from the pockets of smokers to the pockets of those creating and financing all the "grass roots "antismoking organizations and buying the junk science and politicians in the support of their extortion racket. For example, of $60 per carton of cigarettes in my state (MA), $15 goes to the Big Tobacco, tobacco farmers and all the sales and marketing. The remaining $45 goes to the Big Anti-tobacco. Some links with more details on the money trail are here: http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/08/its-time-for-full-scale-congressiona l.html http://www.forces.org/writers/kjono/pdf/tobacco_control_and_fda_regulation.pdf > It's not your fault. It is hard to make sense of half-truths, > junk science and propaganda. I do not ordinarily respond to the flat earth society--please forgive me. But my father, who was a heavy smoker for over 30 years and who just last week endured a lung lobectomy for adenoca, this is just a bit much for me right now. As someone who has seen some of the many, many people killed by tobacco (and first-hand seen the effects of tobacco in the mouth), I think you can take your no-doubt-Altria-endorsed bullshit and stick it up your propagandistic arse. BTW folks, on a mostly unrelated note, I rented the following movie last weekend--recommended. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/ Steve  SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 > ... you can take your no-doubt-Altria-endorsed bullshit and stick it > up your propagandistic arse. > ... > Steve Thanks Steve for the informative post. I am sure the readers here can hardly wait for the next installment of your wit. Steve, Sorry to hear of your dad, I have experienced thisx2 with my folks. I find this fellow curiously interesting to see how he dedicates (apparently all) of his time to his pet project "Death to Amalgam-Slinging Dentists", yet defends the so-obvious smoking. Notice how he refutes the "half-truths and lies" with no-truths and bullshit? He is an interesting oddity for sure. We must not taunt him, however, as he has been expanding his mind with Nico-vitamins ala Marlboros!!! > > ... you can take your no-doubt-Altria-endorsed bullshit and stick it > > up your propagandistic arse. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks Steve for the informative post. I am sure the readers > here can hardly wait for the next installment of your wit. > Steve, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > him, however, as he has been expanding his mind with Nico-vitamins ala > Marlboros!!! I've been here a while, Doc--since about 2000. I've seen 'em come, and I've seen 'em go. I also have considerable tolerance for other people's views--even patently (to me) ridiculous ones, so long as they cannot hurt the people I care about. I also have a healthy respect for the fungibility of the "conventional wisdom". But I hadn't heard anyone referring to tobacco as a tonic in a long time (I know doctors endorsed Camels back in the '40s), and it was just a little too raw for me. Thanks for the kind words about my dad. Just found out this morning his nodes and pleura are clean, so we're optimistic. Thanks, Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 >> It's not your fault. It is hard to make sense of half-truths, >> junk science and propaganda. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > who just last week endured a lung lobectomy for adenoca, this is just a > bit much for me right now. I wish your dad well. > As someone who has seen some of the many, many people killed by > tobacco (and first-hand seen the effects of tobacco in the mouth), I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Steve > I wish your dad well. Thanks, Mark! Steve >> As someone who has seen some of the many, many people killed by >> tobacco (and first-hand seen the effects of tobacco in the mouth), I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Steve >Further, the brains of Alzheimer's >patients show significant excess of mercury. Oh, sure they do. Let's see some references. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher >>Further, the brains of Alzheimer's >>patients show significant excess of mercury. > > Oh, sure they do. Let's see some references. Apparently you haven't checked the links provided. Right after the sentence that followed the one you quoted there is a link to a page titled: "Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels and Alzheimer's Disease" http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm See also the second link posted there: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/091602/80027dd5.pdf for further biochemical parallelism between the physiological signatures of Alzheimer's (e.g. neuronal tangles) and the indistinguishable low concentration mercury effects on neurons. Note also that the strong protective effects of tobacco smoke against Alzheimer's which have been known for decades as a well established epidemiological fact (so much so that nicotine patches were recommended for Alzheimer's patients), in light of the above relation of Alzheimer's and Hg accumulation in the brains, also have a direct biochemical explanation: several components in the tobacco smoke stimulate both the production capacity and the baseline levels of glutathione (and various other antioxidants), all as a side-effect of the need to remove tobacco smoke metabolites. Since glutathione is also the chief mercury eliminator in humans (via liver-bile-fecal pathway which is responsible for 90% of human mercury elimination), at any exposure level the smokers end up having much stronger excretion of Hg than non-smokers and thus suffer far less from its effects on brain and immune system (e.g. smokers also have lower rates of various autoimmune diseases than non-smokers, see the other links posted, especially the page: http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm ). At the other end of the glutathione spectrum are autistic children who tend to have genetically very low glutathione production, which in turn increases the mercury (such as that from thimerosal used until recently in all childhood vaccines, also in fungicides, maternal amalgams & cosmetics esp. skin whiteners, fish,...) accumulation in their brains. The rise of autism in recent decades, which closely followed in time and space the massive proliferation of the thimerosal laden childhood vaccines, is paralleled by the simultaneous rise in the auto-immune diseases in vaccinated children (e.g. allergies, asthma), which at least in part can be attributed to the side-effects of mercury toxicity. True to its role as a paid agent of the Big Pharma (which not only makes big bucks from the vaccines but even more from the treatment of the damage they do to children), and similarly to its position in the ongoing dental amalgam battle, the FDA acted as a fox guarding the hen house by fighting tooth and nail the requests from scientists to ban thimerosal from children vaccines (and is still fighting its removal from others, such as flu vaccines, also given to children). As result of the shameful FDA and CDC delaying actions, the thimerosal was banned in pet vaccines years before it was banned in children vaccines. Hopefully some day we will see at least few of these corrupt bureaucrats and their Big Pharma puppeteers go to prison for the needless damage to hundreds of thousands of children. > > > >>Further, the brains of Alzheimer's [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > corrupt bureaucrats and their Big Pharma puppeteers go to prison > for the needless damage to hundreds of thousands of children. ..."Hopefully some day we will see ALL of these corrupt beurocrats and their big tobacco-producing puppeteers AND the mindless, spineless smokers go to prison for the needless damage of thousands of children due to second-hand smoke. " PS: Had a good laugh looking at NL's sources "published literature", Just because it sits on a website or on the rack next to the National Enquirer does not put it in the same league as JAMA or JADA!! But then again, I know know it's like trying to convince him the sky is blue. anyway, puff away......we like it when you do that. Place a bag over your head while you do it, so you don't lose any of those mind-expanding nico-vitamins. > > > > > >>Further, the brains of Alzheimer's [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > smokers go to prison for the needless damage of thousands of children > due to second-hand smoke. " >>>"Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels >>>and Alzheimer's Disease" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> >>>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/091602/80027dd5.pdf > PS: Had a good laugh looking at NL's sources "published literature", > Just because it sits on a website or on the rack next to the National [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your head while you do it, so you don't lose any of those > mind-expanding nico-vitamins. It seems that by the time you came back from checking links to type in your "reply" you forgot what was on the page you just visited. Breathing mercury vapors and dust all your life can do that to your short term memory, ADA's mantras notwithstanding. I gave two links in the post you replied to. The first link is a page of references & abstracts on relation between brain concentration of mercury and Alzheimer's. That list starts and ends with JADA papers. The second link is B. Haley's summary of the research on that topic, which includes a brief critique of the first JADA paper (the one which didn't find, because it clearly didn't want to find, relation between mercury from amalgams and Alzheimer's). In any case, other than knee-jerk barking at the messenger, you have no specific critique, or anything of any substance at all, to say on the papers and studies mentioned. Just so you don't get depressed, the responses of other dentists here are even less pertinent. Altogether, the collective vapidity of the responses here demonstrates quite well what breathing elemental mercury vapors and dust for few years can do to human brains. My question is.....WHY would they NOT want to find a link between Alzheimer's and Hg?? Then they will ban amalgam, we carry on with composite, porcelain , wood and so forth, and life goes on. There is very little "money" in 'mercury fillings, both for the dentist and the dental industry. I (my opinion) do not think the threat of a lawsuit is the force behind the 'conspiracy'. And why would all the independent research (and I mean legitimate studies....I'm assuming you're smart enough to know what that entails) 'protect' amalgam? DOn't tell me their getting paid too. My theory....they are not protecting amalgam, the evidence is inconclusive, therefore the risk is worth the benefit. > >>> > >>>"Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > elemental mercury vapors and dust for few years can do to > human brains. > My question is.....WHY would they NOT want to find a link between > Alzheimer's and Hg?? That's a transparent attempt to sidetrack the debate. The motivation of ADA officials is entirely irrelevant for the scientific question of Hg role in Alzheimer's disease. There is a body of scientific literature, as indicated at the link given, establishing this role. Your attempt to divert the debate into psychoanalysis of motives of ADA officials and lawyers is an acknowledgment that you have no answer to the scientific facts already established. > Then they will ban amalgam, we carry on with > composite, porcelain , wood and so forth, and life goes on. There is > very little "money" in 'mercury fillings, both for the dentist and the > dental industry. I (my opinion) do not think the threat of a lawsuit > is the force behind the 'conspiracy'. You may wish to examine tobacco industry lawsuits to see why ADA might not wish its internal documents, emails, meeting notes, insider testimonies under oath,... brought up into open. These kinds of materials would likely show their damage control efforts over decades, ranging from unethical to illegal, to keep the public in dark on hazards of mercury amalgams. > And why would all the > independent research (and I mean legitimate studies....I'm assuming > you're smart enough to know what that entails) 'protect' amalgam? > DOn't tell me their getting paid too. My theory....they are not > protecting amalgam, the evidence is inconclusive, therefore the risk is > worth the benefit. There is plenty of legitimate research showing harmfulness of amalgams. I provided some links to papers related to Alzheimer's. Just because ADA approved researchers don't wish to measure directly the amounts Hg vapors released by amalgams (which many others have done and published in peer reviewed papers) or pursue the effects of these levels of exposure (which again, many others have done), that doesn't mean the evidence is "inconclusive". Other countries, especially those in which ApoE4 allele (see earlier posts in this thread) is more prevalent, such as northern Europeans, have taken strong measures to eliminate mercury in dental restorations. The ADA position (supported also by FDA/CDC staffers) you and other dentists here are parroting has already been judged as "unreasonable" by the recent (oct 2006) scientific panel reviewing the research on amalgam safety: Transcripts from the FDA hearings: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/cdrh06.html#dentalproductspanel Informal summaries & links to references: http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/FDA%20hearings/advisory_panel_rejects_amalgam_saf ety.html Haley's critique: http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/research/haley_review_of_phony_science_concerning _amalgam_safety.html Other reactions: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&q=FDA+amalgam+hearings+unreason able&sa=N&tab=nw >The second link is B. Haley's summary >of the research on that topic Bwahahahahah!!! Boyd Haley!! Old 50% Boyd! Now there's a great authority on stuff. SignaturePeter 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 >>The second link is B. Haley's summary >>of the research on that topic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Now there's a great authority on stuff. It seems you clicked the wrong link. Your newsgroup is here: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.clueless/ >>>The second link is B. Haley's summary >>>of the research on that topic [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It seems you clicked the wrong link. Your newsgroup is here: So how long have you had fecalencephalopathy? Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ >>>>The second link is B. Haley's summary >>>>of the research on that topic [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So how long have you had fecalencephalopathy? 00000000000000--such a big word. *I don't give a damn if Peter lies to you, this newsgroup, his mother or the pope*. http://www.ratbagsLIES Three dead Children http://tinyurl.com/9hkaj http://tinyurl.com/bgqou > http://www.acahf.org.au [snip spam] NO medical training > http://www.quackwatch.org/ QUACK QUACK *Alternative therapy" is a marketing term that should not be permitted.* http://www.napa.ufl.edu/98news/alternat.htm Schools Opening Up to Alternative Medicine *While a few of those so accredited are naive physicians, most are nonmedical persons who only play at being doctor and use this certification as an umbrella for a host of unproven New Age hokum treatments. Unfortunately, a few HMOs, hospitals, and even medical schools are succumbing to the bait and exposing patients to such bogus treatments when they need real medical care* The National Council Against Health Fraud has concluded: a.. Acupuncture is an unproven modality of treatment That clearly is a LIE!!!!! http://tinyurl.com/8qeg3 http://tinyurl.com/8caw5 http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/42/12/1508 http://tinyurl.com/7ajgz {spin spam} >>>The second link is B. Haley's summary >>>of the research on that topic [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.clueless/ LOL! You must learn about the many LIES on Peter Bow-itch's website. >>>>The second link is B. Haley's summary >>>>of the research on that topic [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >LOL! You must learn about the many LIES on Peter Bow-itch's website. Which site is that, Jan? If you are going to refer to sites owned by people who don't post here you should always provide the URL. SignaturePeter 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 "Peter Bow-itch" >>>>>The second link is B. Haley's summary >>>>>of the research on that topic [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Which site is that, Jan? Posted @ 2:09 am http://www.ratbagsLIES Three dead Children http://tinyurl.com/9hkaj http://tinyurl.com/bgqou > http://www.acahf.org.au [snip spam] NO medical training > http://www.quackwatch.org/ QUACK QUACK *Alternative therapy" is a marketing term that should not be permitted.* http://www.napa.ufl.edu/98news/alternat.htm Schools Opening Up to Alternative Medicine *While a few of those so accredited are naive physicians, most are nonmedical persons who only play at being doctor and use this certification as an umbrella for a host of unproven New Age hokum treatments. Unfortunately, a few HMOs, hospitals, and even medical schools are succumbing to the bait and exposing patients to such bogus treatments when they need real medical care* The National Council Against Health Fraud has concluded: a.. Acupuncture is an unproven modality of treatment That clearly is a LIE!!!!! http://tinyurl.com/8qeg3 http://tinyurl.com/8caw5 http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/42/12/1508 http://tinyurl.com/7ajgz {spin spam} >"Peter Bow-itch" >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >http://www.ratbagsLIES That's not a working URL. Please try to answer the question. >Three dead Children > >http://tinyurl.com/9hkaj That's Google's web site. It doesn't seem to belong to Peter Bow-itch, whoever he is. >http://tinyurl.com/bgqou Another Google site. What are you trying to demonstrate here? When are we going to be pointed to a site owned by this Peter Bow-itch? >> http://www.acahf.org.au An excellent site owned by a non-profit organisation, but still not Peter Bow-itch's site. >[snip spam] > > NO medical training What does this mean, Jan? Are you referring to yourself? >> http://www.quackwatch.org/ That site seems to belong to a retired psychiatrist named Dr Stephen Barrett. Is Peter Bow-itch an alias Dr Barrett uses? If not, why is Quackwatch being mentioned. >QUACK QUACK > >*Alternative therapy" is a marketing term that should not be permitted.* Fair comment. Where does it appear on the site owned by this mysterious Peter Bow-itch? >http://www.napa.ufl.edu/98news/alternat.htm >Schools Opening Up to Alternative Medicine [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >even medical schools are succumbing to the bait and exposing patients to >such bogus treatments when they need real medical care* Good stuff. I might put it up on my web site. Do I have to ask Peter Bow-itch for permission (assuming that it came from his site) or can I just claim permission in the same way that someone here once claimed to have permission to publish "Stupid Skeptic Tricks"? >The National Council Against Health Fraud has concluded: > > a.. Acupuncture is an unproven modality of treatment > >That clearly is a LIE!!!!! Is it a lie that NCAHF has concluded this? Please try to use English as she is spoke. >http://tinyurl.com/8qeg3 Peter Bow-itch owns PubMed? Do you know that there are 18 papers indexed by PubMed that can be found by using the search term "phlogiston"? Does this make phlogiston real? >http://tinyurl.com/8caw5 I'd be scared to take a leak if I thought that someone was going to stick needles into me, but I don't see what this has to do with either amalgams or the apocryphal Peter Bow-itch >http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/42/12/1508 Does this mysterious Peter Bow-itch own the journal Rheumatology? He doesn't seem to be any of the authors of this paper, and it doesn't seem to have much to do with amalgams or the idiocy of Boyd Haley. >http://tinyurl.com/7ajgz Does this Peter Bow-itch get migraines? Do these migraines come from amalgams? What has this article to do with anything? >{spin spam} Are you having flashbacks to your LSD experiences, Jan? There's that name again. But where is his web site with all the lies? SignaturePeter 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 "Peter Bow-itch" Harassing again. >>>>>The second link is B. Haley's summary >>>>>of the research on that topic [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Which site is that, Jan? If you are going to refer to sites owned by > people who don't post here you should always provide the URL. Posted today. Now--are you done making a fool of yourself? >"Peter Bow-itch" Harassing again. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Posted today. Now--are you done making a fool of yourself? You posted, in response to a polite request to show us the web site full of lies belonging to a "peter Bow-itch": a) An unworkable URL that lead nowhere. b) Two links to Google Groups (which is not a site owned by this Peter Bow-itch, whoever he is). c) A link to the excellent site belonging to the Australian Council Against Health Fraud. d) A link to Quackwatch e) Some links to PubMed. So for you to say that the link to this Peter Bow-itch's web site was posted earlier today is a LIE. SignaturePeter 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 >>> The second link is B. Haley's summary >>> of the research on that topic [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.clueless/ Does Boyd Haley post there? I thought he was licking his wounds when he was recently barred from testifying as an expert. >>>> The second link is B. Haley's summary >>>> of the research on that topic [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Does Boyd Haley post there? I thought he was licking his wounds when he > was recently barred from testifying as an expert. Too bad, you have NO shame for being disbarred. HYPOCRITE! In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner. 92-02731 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT 183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747 November 9, 1992, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S. Probert. DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and it is further, HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred. COUNSEL: Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for petitioner. JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur. Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and it is further, Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further, Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further, Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent, Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law. OPINIONBY: Per Curiam. OPINION: [*282] [**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29, 1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4, 1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee. [**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992. The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the default motion. The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of professional misconduct. The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly, the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately Source: NY UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, ATTORNEY REGIST. UNIT Currency Status: ARCHIVE RECORD NAME & PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION Name: MARK PROBERT Date Of Birth: 11/XX/1946 Gender: MALE Address: 1698 WEBSTER AVE MERRICK, NY 11566 County: NASSAU Phone: 516-968-5572 EMPLOYER INFORMATION Employer: MARK S PROBERT ESQ Organization: PERSON LICENSING INFORMATION Licensing Agency: NY STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION License/Certification Type: ATTORNEY License Number: 1253889 Issue Date: 00/00/1978 License Status: DISBARRED License State: NY Tells you birthday............. From: Mark Probert - view profile Date: Sun, Feb 11 2001 4:17 pm Email: Mark Probert <markpr...@my-deja.com> Groups: k12.chat.teacher Noah has had one since 11/26/96 (my birthday). "Peter Bow-itch" > trelbrierley@sympatico.ca wrote: >> My question is.....WHY would they NOT want to find a link between [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Other reactions: > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&q=FDA+amalgam+hearings+unreason able&sa=N&tab=nw > > > >>Further, the brains of Alzheimer's [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/091602/80027dd5.pdf I see your two Boyd Haley's and request real proof. >> > >> >>Further, the brains of Alzheimer's [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I see your two Boyd Haley's and request real proof. The first link lists no Haley's papers. The second link is Haley's summary of literature and his research on the topic (also on thimerosal). >>> > >>> >>Further, the brains of Alzheimer's [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > The first link lists no Haley's papers. Who do you think owns Altcorp? The second link > is Haley's summary of literature and his research on the > topic (also on thimerosal). >>>> "Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels >>>> and Alzheimer's Disease" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Who do you think owns Altcorp? If that's your best shot at the scientific references listed then the scientific argument is settled. Apparently, having nothing to say on the scientific aspects of neuro-toxicity of mercury from amalgams, you are now trying to debate the amalgam intrigue and psychology. Sorry, I will leave that subject to dentists. >>>>> "Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels >>>>> and Alzheimer's Disease" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If that's your best shot at the scientific references listed > then the scientific argument is settled. No, I thought, incorrectly it seems, that you knew that Boyd Haley has been totally discredited and his testimony was barred by a court since he is not an expert. I also thought, incorrectly again, that you knew that Boyd Haley has demonstrated that he bullshits about chemistry when he claims that thimerosal is 49.?% mercury, as if that is supposed to mean something. Apparently, having > nothing to say on the scientific aspects of neuro-toxicity of > mercury from amalgams, you are now trying to debate the > amalgam intrigue and psychology. Sorry, I will leave that > subject to dentists. It has been dealt with a hundred, if not a thousands times before. Do dredge it up from Google Groups archives. Yawn. > No, I thought, incorrectly it seems, that you knew that Boyd Haley has > been totally discredited and his testimony was barred by a court since > he is not an expert. That's a red herring. I don't care about the intrigues and politicking from EPA/ADA staffers and lawyers. Haley is university professor of chemistry. If you're a rule maker for the FDA hearings who defines the term "expert-FDA-2003" for the purpose of testifying in the FDA 2003 hearings, it is trivial to make them exclude Haley, e.g. by requiring that "expert-FDA-2003" must be a medical doctor (in addition to any other conditions). That has nothing to do with the scientific validity of Haley's peer reviewed papers or the related experiments. The scientific work is falsified only by other scientific work, not by bureaucratic intrigues and legalistic gimmicks in courts. You don't seem to differentiate these two very distinct realms and keep trying to steer debate into political/bureaucratic realm since your case has been lost for decades in the scientific realm. Further, the list of references on mercury & Alzheimer's I gave you has no Haley's papers. So your remark is doubly pointless. "Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels and Alzheimer's Disease" http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm If you have anything of substance to say in the scientific realm, give it a shot. > I also thought, incorrectly again, that you knew > that Boyd Haley has demonstrated that he bullshits about chemistry when > he claims that thimerosal is 49.?% mercury, as if that is supposed to > mean something. He is right. If you receive 50 mcg of thimerosal, you have then received ~25 mcg of mercury, which is the figure relevant when comparing mercury exposure to various safety limits. The safe exposure limits specify maximum _weight_ of Hg e.g. as 0.1 micrograms of Hg per kg of person's weight, and not as the count of Hg atoms. Why don't you explain what is wrong with the 50% figure used to estimate mercury exposure from a given quantity of thimerosal? >> Apparently, having >> nothing to say on the scientific aspects of neuro-toxicity of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It has been dealt with a hundred, if not a thousands times before. Do > dredge it up from Google Groups archives. The only paper debated and debunked, as found by google searches, is the first one on the list, the JADA paper (rejected multiple times by the reputable peer review journals and finally published in JADA, the non-peer-review trade journal of mercury-peddling ADA itself) which failed to find correlation between Alzheimer's and mercury levels in brains of patients (because it was designed not find it, among others by cherry picking the control group among subjects with high recent Hg exposure). If you have links where any of the remaining peer reviewed studies showing elevated levels of Hg in the brains of Alzheimer's patients, have been refuted _scientifically_, you are welcome to provide such links. Otherwise we can consider the scientific debate concluded. >> No, I thought, incorrectly it seems, that you knew that Boyd Haley has >> been totally discredited and his testimony was barred by a court since >> he is not an expert. > > That's a red herring. No, that is the truth. > I don't care about the intrigues and politicking from EPA/ADA > staffers and lawyers. Haley is university professor of chemistry. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to do with the scientific validity of Haley's peer reviewed > papers or the related experiments. You should brush up a tad. Haley was not permitted to testify as he did not measure up under the Daubert rule. Learn it. > The scientific work is falsified only by other scientific work, > not by bureaucratic intrigues and legalistic gimmicks in courts. > You don't seem to differentiate these two very distinct realms > and keep trying to steer debate into political/bureaucratic > realm since your case has been lost for decades in the > scientific realm. Your imagination is running wild. I did not mention the FDA, etc. It was the USDOJ that successfully opposed Haley being admitted as an expert under the Daubert rule. > Further, the list of references on mercury & Alzheimer's I gave > you has no Haley's papers. So your remark is doubly pointless. > > "Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels and > Alzheimer's Disease" > http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm Haley owns Altcorp. > If you have anything of substance to say in the scientific > realm, give it a shot. See above. >> I also thought, incorrectly again, that you knew that Boyd Haley has >> demonstrated that he bullshits about chemistry when he claims that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > micrograms of Hg per kg of person's weight, and not as the count > of Hg atoms. No, he is incorrect, since the percentage of the molecular weight of one atom of the molecule is irrelevant to its chemical properties, and, the mercury in thimerosal never becomes elemental mercury. Locate your high school chemistry notes and look it up. > Why don't you explain what is wrong with the 50% figure used to > estimate mercury exposure from a given quantity of thimerosal? See above. Further, the toxicity of E-Hg is far different that that of MeHg or elemental Hg. >>> Apparently, having >>> nothing to say on the scientific aspects of neuro-toxicity of [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > to provide such links. Otherwise we can consider the scientific > debate concluded. >> That's a red herring. > > No, that is the truth. "Red herring" may be true or false. You seem to imagine that "misleading" is a synonim for "false": ------------------------------------------------------- Red herring: ... 2. something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue. ------------------------------------------------------- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=red+herring&x=0&y=0 >> I don't care about the intrigues and politicking from EPA/ADA >> staffers and lawyers. Haley is university professor of chemistry. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You should brush up a tad. Haley was not permitted to testify as he did > not measure up under the Daubert rule. Learn it. That has nothing to do with scientific research and findings by others (the list I gave you). >> The scientific work is falsified only by other scientific work, >> not by bureaucratic intrigues and legalistic gimmicks in courts. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the USDOJ that successfully opposed Haley being admitted as an expert > under the Daubert rule. You obviously wish to debate the amalgam issue in any other realm, but the realm of science. >> Further, the list of references on mercury & Alzheimer's I gave >> you has no Haley's papers. So your remark is doubly pointless. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Haley owns Altcorp. Again, you are diverting debate into the realm of analysis of motives of web hosts, not the realm of science. Who owns the web site that listed the references to published, peer reviewed scientific studies done by other scientists is entirely irrelevant in the realm of science. What is relevant are the studies themselves. >> If you have anything of substance to say in the scientific >> realm, give it a shot. > > See above. There was no substance above. Just few of your lame attempts to debate intrigue, courts, gossip, psychology of web host motives,... and everything else but the scientific facts of mercury toxicity. >> He is right. If you receive 50 mcg of thimerosal, you have then >> received ~25 mcg of mercury, which is the figure relevant when [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > mercury in thimerosal never becomes elemental mercury. Locate your high > school chemistry notes and look it up. You're answering the wrong question. The 50% figure refers to weight of mercury within given weight of thimerosal, which is what you need to know to compare the mercury exposure (organic, inorganic or elemental) to the corresponding (organic, inorganic, elemental) published safety limits. Both the amounts of thimerosal in vaccines and the safety limits are given in units of weight of Hg (such as micrograms). There is no unit or figure that specifies how many "chemical properties" are safe, as you seem to imagine. Hence, your answer is a complete non sequitur. >> Why don't you explain what is wrong with the 50% figure used to >> estimate mercury exposure from a given quantity of thimerosal? > > See above. Further, the toxicity of E-Hg is far different that that of > MeHg or elemental Hg. There are different mercury safety limits for different mercury compounds. For example, there are limits (e.g. in micrograms of Hg per kg of person's weight) for Hg exposure from fish, which would be the exposure mostly from the organic mercury compounds. >>> That's a red herring. >> >> No, that is the truth. > > "Red herring" may be true or false. You seem to imagine > that "misleading" is a synonim for "false": There was no misleading. I was pointing out that your so-called expert, Boyd Haley, is not accepted as an expert. Sorry you cannot handle that. If I had mentioned that he is a despicable human being for calling ASD "Mad Child Disease", then you might have a gripe. > ------------------------------------------------------- > Red herring: [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > per kg of person's weight) for Hg exposure from fish, which would be > the exposure mostly from the organic mercury compounds. "Mark Probert" http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/A1974true/73819e3a.gif I THis sums it up raather nicely: What makes antiamalgamists tick? James R. Berry, associate publisher of the American Dental Association's newspaper, has characterized them this way: We know that some few of them are sincere, though confused by the Scientific Method. They read nonsense and accept it. Others have clearer vision and no excuses. They see plainly enough, and what they see is opportunity, which comes in green. When the universal quest for health collides with greed, the collision is loud and dangerous. People get hurt by those they expect, at minimum, to do no harm. The anti-amalgamists-with their mercury meters . . . would be comical figures if they weren't so insidious. They prey on easy targets: the desperately ill grasping for hope against a dark alternative [19]. > >>> That's a red herring. > >> [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] > > per kg of person's weight) for Hg exposure from fish, which would be > > the exposure mostly from the organic mercury compounds. > What makes antiamalgamists tick? James R. Berry, associate publisher of > the American Dental Association's newspaper, has characterized them [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > figures if they weren't so insidious. They prey on easy targets: the > desperately ill grasping for hope against a dark alternative [19]. In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection > In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a > defense mechanism in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one's > own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection > reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious > impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. ... Good point. But how to get the message across to dentists that Hg does leave amalgam in large quantities. Perhaps you could employ the "commonsense" approach. Just as people refused to believe that the Earth revolved around the Sun, before the invention of the telescope, perhaps pro-amalgmists would be convinced if they rented a Jermone Hg meter. By the way what is you interest in this issue? Concerned citizen or scientist, amalgam victim, random poster? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection > Earth revolved around the Sun, before the invention of the telescope, > perhaps pro-amalgmists would be convinced if they rented a Jermone Hg > meter. Using this kind of meter in any medical or dental care or diagnosis is absurd. It is the equivalent of using a truck scale to weigh a child and making a diagnosis based on such data. It is the wrong tool for the job...unless the job is a con job. T > > Earth revolved around the Sun, before the invention of the telescope, > > perhaps pro-amalgmists would be convinced if they rented a Jermone Hg [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > T The Jerome meter? I'm afraid not. The Jerome meter is designed to measure very low levels of Hg vapor up to industrial levels of exposure. It can easily measure the amount of Hg coming off an amalgam. It is the equivalent of an accurate chem lab balance and a "truck scale" in one. > > Earth revolved around the Sun, before the invention of the telescope, > > perhaps pro-amalgmists would be convinced if they rented a Jermone Hg [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > making a diagnosis based on such data. It is the wrong tool for the > job...unless the job is a con job. Also, now that you've no doubt discoverd how accurate a jerome meter is, you can rent them from Arizona insturments. I think 175-per day including shipping. What you do is put a straw in the meter, and during the "detection period" move the end of the straw directly over a filling. Then have the patient chew gum, repeat, and compare the readings. I hear employee's at a certain meter company get bored and have gum chewing contests to see who can get the highest Hg reading... > > > Earth revolved around the Sun, before the invention of the telescope, > > > perhaps pro-amalgmists would be convinced if they rented a Jermone Hg [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is, > you can rent them from Arizona insturments. I don't doubt the accuracy of the device, just its application to this issue. A tape measure can be very accurate for measuring the size of a room, but isn't all that useful in measuring microscopic particles. I stand by my opinion that use of this device in any medical or dental care is part of an effort to fool someone. T > > > > Earth revolved around the Sun, before the invention of the telescope, > > > > perhaps pro-amalgmists would be convinced if they rented a Jermone Hg > > I don't doubt the accuracy of the device, just its application to this > issue. >A tape measure can be very accurate for measuring the size of a room, > but isn't all that useful in measuring microscopic particles. So how accurate/precise do you think a Jerome meter is? How many Hg particles do you think an amalgam filling gives off? > So how accurate/precise do you think a Jerome meter is? How many Hg > particles > do you think an amalgam filling gives off? sigh....nah...I'll pass. T >> So how accurate/precise do you think a Jerome meter is? How many Hg >> particles [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > T Why? Cannot answer? > >> So how accurate/precise do you think a Jerome meter is? How many Hg > >> particles [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > Why? Cannot answer? Yes T >> >> So how accurate/precise do you think a Jerome meter is? How many Hg >> >> particles [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > T Thank you. yet you still use mercury fillings and claim to inform your patients. > > So how accurate/precise do you think a Jerome meter is? How many Hg > > particles [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > T Okay, Jerome company claims that it can measure levels .003 to .999 mg/m3 over a sampling time of about 3-10 seconds. So .003 mg equals 3 ug/M3 which would be 3/10000000 ug/cm3, ever 3-10 seconds. Considering that an amalgam could on average give off in the range of 1-50 ug/per day = 1 ug x 10 / 24 (3600) = 1/(24)(3600) ug ever ten seconds in an area on the order of 1 cm3, I'd say it's very accurate > > > So how accurate/precise do you think a Jerome meter is? How many Hg > > > particles [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > seconds > in an area on the order of 1 cm3, I'd say it's very accurate ...and how many cubic meters of air would one expel during that 3 to 10 second test? This device measures on a basis of "cubic meters" of air, yet during the 3 to 10 second test length you describe the most air one would expect to be expelled from the average human would be about 0.001 cubic meters of air. How does this form the basis for a good test? T > ...and how many cubic meters of air would one expel during that 3 to 10 > second test? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > T That is just a number for concentration. Industry likes to talk in terms of cubic meters. if they had said per mm3 then would you claim it could measure no more than a mm3 of air? The device samples a concentration in a certain area around the sensor, which is pretty small. The measuring time is also very small. It can't measure a "cubic meter of air". How could a portable device which is stationary measure an entire cubic meter of air in 3-10 seconds? Can you imagine the vacum that would have to be on that thing? What the meter is going to do is sample the air around the sensor in a small area, and compute the concentration in that area,-- of course you would assume in most applications that the Hg concentration is uniform, throughout the room being measured. Yes a slight vacum is created, to collect all the Hg in the very small area being sampled, but that is probably on the order of a few cubic cm. For example, if you don't place the jerome meter sensor directly over the amalgam (usually accomplished with a straw connected to the sensor) it will not record the Hg coming off the amalgam. It is not an Hg "radar gun" or an industrial strength Hg vacum sweeper. > That is just a number for concentration. Industry likes to talk in > terms of cubic meters. if they had said per mm3 then would you claim it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > an entire cubic meter of air in 3-10 seconds? Can you imagine the vacum > that would have to be on that thing? The problem arises from the fact it takes that tiny air sample and extrapolates to give a result in cubic meters, which introduces massive potential for error. In a big room, where the air is generally the same throughout the room, a 3 to 10 second sample gives a reasonably representative sample and even with the calculation up to cubic meters, result is fairly meaningful. When one is moving magic wand where they want it, creating a big variable, sample may or may not be representative of what is being found on a general basis. Factors such as exact wand placement, if patient is inhaling or exhaling, strength of inhale/exhale, what they just ate, etc. all come in to play and once these factors are calculated up to give your cubic meter result, the #'s are meaningless. If I measure your weight on a massive scale calibrated in tons, it will report your weight as some fraction of a ton. This is likely quite inaccurate. You give example of a very sensitive instrument. If I measure you on a scale calibrated in ounces it will give a highly accurate reading. A device calibrated to measure and report in cubic mm would be far more appropriate. T > The problem arises from the fact it takes that tiny air sample and > extrapolates to give a result in cubic meters, which introduces massive [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > may not be representative of what is being found on a general basis. Factors > such as exact wand placement, if patient is inhaling or exhaling, Correct, the ADA doesn't count "exhaled" Hg. Did you consider that Hg absorbed in saliva, and absorbed directly into the tooth from the amalgam is not even measured. strength > of inhale/exhale, what they just ate, etc. all come in to play and once > these factors are calculated up to give your cubic meter result, the #'s are > meaningless. They are very meaningful, you can't measure what isn't there. Clearly a lot of Hg is coming off the amalgam, and is at a magnitude easily measureable by the Jerome meter. The only air which is meaningful is that in the patients mouth. Assumptions work both ways , if a few amalgams are much more leaky a random measurement will give measures of the amalgam leaking less Hg. On the other hand why would you want to measure the Hg concentration far away from the tooth. It is the amount of Hg coming off the filling which you are interested in, not the diluted concentration, after the patient inhales fresh air. In different papers, the ADA makes all kinds of humours assumptions, about nose breathing, exhaled air etc. In fact pro-amalgamists don't count the Hg which travels through the GI tract or is exhaled as coming from the filing. The fact is, that there are many questionable assumptions you could make one way or the other to adjust the numbers, and there are some complex adjustments to take into account, including the air flow rate of the Jerome meter. I read Mackerts paper (the ADA rep) and it was clear he made many silly assumptions to drive the numbers down, but these were just adjustments to save face-about a factor of 10 at most. It's like making a lot of excuses after a football game, Yeah the score was 40-10, but our quaterback was injured and the referee made a lot of bad calls, and if you don't count the 2 100 yard kick returns and our regular quaterback had completed those 3 passes in the endzone.....I could make a whole set of assumptions about air flow rate and exhalation patterns which would drive the results up by factor of 100. The original point is that the Jerome meter is much more sensitive than necessary to count the Hg atoms coming off a filling in the sampled area. You implied it was not. The Gold foil technology can trap minute amounts of Hg. You can make any set of adjustments you want, but that is experimental design. That is human error. Once the correct physics of the air flow and concentration are worked out the Jerome meter is an ideal insturment for measuring the Hg coming directly off the filling in vapor form (which is only a fraction of the total Hg released by the filling in any event) > If I measure your weight on a massive scale calibrated in tons, it will > report your weight as some fraction of a ton. This is likely quite > inaccurate. You give example of a very sensitive instrument. See below. The Jerome gold foil technology IS very sensitive. You are arguing about flow rates, not the ability to count Hg atoms. If I measure > you on a scale calibrated in ounces it will give a highly accurate reading. > A device calibrated to measure and report in cubic mm would be far more > appropriate. Okay, it doen't matter anyway. The Jerome meter is certainly sensitive enough to collect and measure all the Hg vapor in the air it samples. Yes a volume factor will be factored in to give the final reading, but that is just a constant number. Once you get the measurement you can multiply by any adjustment factor you want. for example say the meter assumes it samples 5cm3 of air in 3 seconds. It will count very accurately the amount of Hg that comes into the sensor. It's accuracy is far greater than the amount of Hg given off by the filing. Once it counts the Hg atoms it will probably divide by the sampled volume and multiply by a flow rate factor and a dilution factor, but if you disagree with the assumptions about the sampled volume and flow rate constants you can multiply/divide by the assumed constants to cancel them, and then multiplt/divide by the *correct* factor. For example suppose a certain amount of air flow past the sensor. Let A=number of Hg atoms detected F=flow rate T= time sampled C= concentration factor the Jerome meter gives a reading of A*F*T*C= R If you think the flow rate constant F is wrong then comupute your own flowrate F2 and multiply by F2/F. the "correct" reading is now R*F2/F What I don't like about the ADA propaganda is that they are trying to confuse quibbiling about flow rates with the ability of the meter to accurately count Hg atoms. In your above weight analogy, the ADA position would be more like, yes the scale can measure ounces, but we think the average weight of a person's shoes was underestimated and realisticly most people have about 10 pounds of water weight, therefore the ounce scale cannot measure the weight of people. Doesn't matter, just run an experiment to determine the correct average weight of a shoe or adjust the flow rate to whatever you think it is. The meter can accurately count the number of Hg atoms in the air which flows past the sensor. > What I don't like about the ADA propaganda is that they are trying to > confuse > quibbiling about flow rates with the ability of the meter to accurately > count > Hg atoms. I am not the ADA. I think we will have to agree to disagree. A carpenter has a big hammer and a small hammer and uses the one that is right for the job. I do not dispute the fact this device can detect the presence of Hg, but disagree with you about the relevance of findings one will obtain with the device. It is simply the wrong tool for the job. That is my opinion. I understand yours, I just don't agree. Happy Halloween!! T > > What I don't like about the ADA propaganda is that they are trying to > > confuse [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I am not the ADA. Nobody said you were. Dance, Tony, dance. > I think we will have to agree to disagree. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > T You too. Time to get back to the subject. A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html which found no harmful effects appears to have been designed not to find any such effects. Basically what they did is to perform a series of mental performance tests on people with various numbers of amalgams. They did find direct linear correlation in blood and urine levels of mercury metabolites with number of amalgams (or surfaces). Clearly the amalgams do cause mercury absorption and show linear dose/response relation. Regarding the mental tests, they cheated by "stratifying" the subjects into categories such as educational level, professional status, socioeconomic status and numerous other "confounders" (using unspecified adjustment). Then they compared mental performance of subjects with and without amalgams _within each subset_. The problem with this approach is that after you adjust for all "confounders" you get subset which by definition will be have level of mental performance corresponding to the parameters held fixed for the subgroup (e.g. professional level, socioeconomic status...). For example if amalgams (which were all placed in teen years) have caused drop in IQ of 30 points, a person who might have been IQ=130 would become IQ=100 and achieve professional status of people with IQ=100. Hence someone who might have been a scientist (with IQ 130), may have turned out, due to amalgams, an average person and would be compared to that subgroup. Similarly a person with pre-amalgam IQ 160, who might have been Nobel laureate, would only become an average scientist corresponding to IQ 130 and would be compared to those. Hence, by fixing great many "confounding variables" within each group, the authors had in effect fixed the equivalent of the mental performance within that subgroup. Comparing subjects within each subgroup will then by definition measure that same fixed level of performance corresponding to that subgroup. The whole experiment was in effect a worthless tautology with guaranteed outcome. It was completely insensitive to the effect of mercury on shifting persons from one "stratum" to another. To give analogy, consider we wish to measure effect of childhood starvation on height of adults. We pick 1000 adults, divide them into subgroups based on weight and height. Then _within_ each subgroup we compare how the remaining small height variations correlate with the data on childhood starvation. Obviously, if we're looking within the 6 ft +/- 10% subgroup, we won't find out how tall a 6 ft person with history of starvation would have been had he not been starving in childhood. The entire study was obviously rigged -- it was devised to be entirely insensitive to the question of amalgam effects on mental performance. The fact that they had to cheat using such cheap statistical sleight of hand means that the amalgams do cause harm and any genuine study would show it. >> What makes antiamalgamists tick? James R. Berry, associate publisher of >> the American Dental Association's newspaper, has characterized them [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection True. The anti-amalgamistas I have encountered project their problems onto others. Do you have a cite for this? It sounds as if it is part of a well reasoned article and I would like to read the footnotes. > I THis sums it up raather nicely: > What makes antiamalgamists tick? James R. Berry, associate publisher of [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] >>> per kg of person's weight) for Hg exposure from fish, which would be >>> the exposure mostly from the organic mercury compounds. >>>>>> "Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels >>>>>> and Alzheimer's Disease" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>> >>> Who do you think owns Altcorp? Yes, WHOM? >> If that's your best shot at the scientific references listed >> then the scientific argument is settled. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > claims that thimerosal is 49.?% mercury, as if that is supposed to mean > something. ZZzz. Mark keeps harping on this, while NOT repsonsing at all. When he was disabarred. He also believes his buddy's LIE. Dr. Haley wrote: Ethylmercury is extremely neurotoxic, killing neurons at 10-25 nanomolar levels. For your information the vaccine is 125,000 nanomolar in thimerosal and injecting one vaccine (12.5 micrograms) into one 4-6lbs infant would represent a very toxic exposure. Furhter, unlike many elements (N,O,C, etc.) Hg has no known usefulness in biological systems, being toxic to them all. Also, all occurring forms of Hg (methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+, etc.) have been reported to be extremely toxic. Here is what Peter Said: A professor of chemistry deliberately talks about two different chemical compounds (ethylmercury and methylmercury) as if they are interchangeable and have identical properties. That is a LIE. Dr Haley said NO such thing. He said: (methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+, etc.) have been reported to be extremely toxic. He is absolutely correct. Ethylmercury has also been shown, like methylmercury, to accumulate in the brain and causes tissue damage methylmercury, to accumulate in the brain and causes tissue damage Like methylmercury, ethylmercury is toxic to the brain and crosses the blood-brain barrier. (9) "Higher-dose exposure to ethylmercury from Thimerosal results in toxicity comparable to that observed after high-dose exposure to methylmercury." > Apparently, having >> nothing to say on the scientific aspects of neuro-toxicity of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yawn. Another famous word of Mark's. >>>> Who do you think owns Altcorp? > > Yes, WHOM? No, "who," not "whom" is correct. "Who" is the subject of the verb "owns" in this sentence, not its object. If the sentence were, "Altcorp is owned by whom," then "whom" would be an object (of the preposition "by"), and would, of course, be the correct term. Just trying to help. Remedial English, Jan. Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ > >>Further, the brains of Alzheimer's > >>patients show significant excess of mercury. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/091602/80027dd5.pdf Boyd Haley's credibility went to zero long ago. Sorry. As for your first reference, it's from Haley's company and it's totally one-sided. There are numerous other studies showing things like no correlation of mercury levels to number of fillings, and no correlation of mercury levels to Alzheimer's. Some of the other evidence is suggestive, but it's hardly definitive. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher > Boyd Haley's credibility went to zero long ago. Sorry. What _specific_ published paper of Haley was found fraudelant or at least falsified _scientifically_? Just because some mercury peddlers with vested financial interests have declared Haley_credibility=0 it doesn't mean it is so. Hence pick one of his published papers or studies and show specifically what was _scientifically_ falsified. Which of his published papers had to be retracted due to fraud or errors demonstrated _scientifically_ by others? Note that the collective braying of some mutual back-patting society doesn't constitute a _scientific_ falsification. If you can't provide such scientific falsification, you claims about Haley's credibility have themselves zero credibility. > As for your first reference, it's from Haley's company and it's > totally one-sided. There are numerous other studies showing things > like no correlation of mercury levels to number of fillings, and no > correlation of mercury levels to Alzheimer's. The list of papers you provided has _zero_ papers, which is _infinitely_ many times shorter list than the list you criticize as insufficient. Your transparent attempts to divert debate from scientific realm into the realm of politics, gossip and intrigue, psychoanalysis of web host motives... indicates you are aware that your position was defeated in the scientific realm. > Some of the other > evidence is suggestive, but it's hardly definitive. If you have ten people looking for Waldo in a picture and one finds it while nine don't, does that prove that the presence of Waldo in the picture is "hardly definitive"? Especially if the nine who didn't find Waldo have vested interests in Waldo not being found? There are millions of ways not to find something you don't wish to find. Does it matter at all for the question whether Waldo was in the picture, whether the person who found Waldo has vested interest in the positive answer? Of course, not. If dozens of studies have found elevated mercury levels in brains of Alzheimer's patients, then you can falsify _these_ findings only by looking for mercury in the same type of samples and locations, not by looking somewhere else (different kind of sample, as the phony JADA 1999 study did, by stacking the control group with subjects who had _recent_ mercury exposure, which had the effect of blurring the statistical significance of the correlation) and showing that you don't see it there. In other words, to declare the positive findings "not definitive" you have to reproduce the very same experiments and show that the original authors have made a mistake and that their measurements cannot be replicated and are thus erroneous. Showing that you can't find it by doing something different and looking somewhere else doesn't affect, let alone represent a scientific falsification, of the original positive findings. Those findings are _definitive scientific facts_ unless they can be scientifically falsified. It is also completely irrelevant for the _scientific_ questions, who and for what reason is providing or web-hosting the list of such studies with positive findings. To claim they are scientifically falsified you need to point to _specific_ scientific studies (at equal level of peer review) which are explicitly replicating the original experiments and showing that the original results are not reproducible i.e. the original authors have made a mistake. All you and other mouthful-of-mercury-causes-no-harm posters here have done so far is to try diverting debate into the realm of gossip, intrigue, politics, psychoanalysis of motives of web hosts,... In short, pathetic. >> Boyd Haley's credibility went to zero long ago. Sorry. > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > the realm of gossip, intrigue, politics, psychoanalysis of > motives of web hosts,... In short, pathetic. Both David and Peter Bowditch say there is no such things as mercury amalgams. Quack Barrett had it on his website, Peter e-mailed him and VERT shortly after, he changed it. There are 235 on Medline which states mercury amalgams. The *gang members* are here to do nothing other than try and protect the lies of the AMA and ADA, and harass. >Both David and Peter Bowditch say there is no such things as mercury >amalgams. A perfectly correct statement, because the term "mercury amalgam" is a tautology. Anyone who continues to use the expression after being told that it is wrong is either a fool or uneducatable. >Quack Barrett had it on his website, Peter e-mailed him and VERT shortly >after, he changed it. Correct. I pointed out an error to Dr Barrett and, like anybody should do when they are shown to be in error, he corrected the error. >There are 235 on Medline which states mercury amalgams. There are 18 references in Pubmed to phlogiston. "Mercury amalgams" are just as real as phlogiston. What Jan can't seem to see is that using an incorrect expression just makes the case against silver amalgam less powerful, as others can see that accuracy doesn't matter to the person using the incorrect expression. I am quite prepared to look at any evidence for harm caused by silver amalgam dental fillings, but as a "mercury amalgam" would be a liquid at body temperature it would be totally unsuitable for restoration work. Unless you are talking to the fool who said that mercury has a melting point of 39 deg C, but that's another story - http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2005/03march.htm#12mercury SignaturePeter 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 > Both David and Peter Bowditch say there is no such things as mercury > amalgams. > Quack Barrett had it on his website, Peter e-mailed him and VERT shortly > after, he changed it. > > There are 235 on Medline which states mercury amalgams. Medline citations found by searching "phrenology," 146. Medline citations found by searching "phlogiston," 18. Medline citations found by searching "fairy dust," 3. Medline citations found by searching "funny bone," 6. Showing up in a Medline search does not lend a word or phrase scientific validity or grammatical correctness. > The *gang members* are here to do nothing other than try and protect the > lies of the AMA and ADA, > and harass. Says the mha queen of harassment who is here only to protect the lies of EVERY altie quack, no matter how fraudulent. Now, it's time for another Remedial English lesson. "Both David and Peter Bowditch say there is no such things as mercury amalgams." "There is" is incorrect. The verb "is" is singular, and does not match its subject, "things." The sentence should read: "Both David and Peter Bowditch say there are no such things as mercury amalgams." OR "Both David and Peter Bowditch say there is no such thing as mercury amalgam." Either would be correct. "Quack Barrett had it on his website, Peter e-mailed him and VERT shortly after, he changed it." This is a run-on sentence. It could be broken up into separate sentences expressing the two different ideas. The first sentence would thus be: "Quack Barrett had it on his website." Now that is grammatically correct, but its meaning is unclear. Better is: "Quack Barrett had the term 'mercury amalgam' on his website." (Note that I used single quotes around the phrase because it is internal to the whole sentence that I have in double quotes. If you were posting this sentence as in the original, double quotes would be correct.) The second sentence that's left is "Peter e-mailed him and VERY shortly after, he changed it." (We will, of course, forgive the typo, even though you emphasized it with caps.) The use of the word "after" is incorrect here. The adverb "after" wants a subject, i.e., after what? Better would be: "Peter e-mailed him and VERY shortly thereafter, he changed it." So now we have: Quack Barrett had the term "mercury amalgam" on his website. Peter e-mailed him and VERY shortly thereafter, he changed it. Now that we have the grammar corrected, let's look at style. I really appreciate your TRYING to compose a compound sentence, so let's see if we can recombine our two sentences without creating the dread run-on. How about: After Peter e-mailed Quack Barrett about the use of the term "mercury amalgam" on Quackwatch, it was quickly removed from the site. The only thing left is to correct the term "Quack" Barrett. From www.m-w.com: Main Entry: quack Function: noun Etymology: short for quacksalver 1 : CHARLATAN 2 2 : a pretender to medical skill Now, you may believe that Dr. Barrett is a charlatan and/or a pretender to medical skill, but this definition is of a noun, not a term of address. The adjective form of the word is defined: Main Entry: quack Function: adjective : of, relating to, or used by quacks <quack cancer cures That does not allow its use as a title or term of address, either, nor do any of the other definitions. So that usage is your own (or, more probably Ilena's) and has no foundation or grammatical correctness. Remedial English lesson continued: "There are 235 on Medline which states mercury amalgams." This is a very ugly sentence. First, "235," as used here, is an adjective and requires a subject, as does the sentence as a whole. This use of an adjective as the subject of a sentence or clause is a grammatical error you make often, Jan. You should stive to understand the concept to improve your writing. Next, we have "which states," again a disagreement in number of the subject of the sentence (if there were one) and its verb. So first, let's correct those two errors: There are 235 abstracts on Medline which state mercury amalgams. But this is still a mess. Abstracts (or whatever you want to say there are 235 of) don't "state" "mercury amalgams." (The term "mercury amalgams" should be in quotes in your sentence too, since you are discussing the term, not the amalgams themselves.) So: There are 235 abstracts on Medline which include the term "mercury amalgams." Now the grammar is correct, but the content is not. You don't know how many Medline abstracts contain the term "mercury amalgams." You only know how many were found when you plugged the term into Medline's search engine. So to reflect that fact: A search of Medline for "mercury amalgams" produces 235 citations. Finally: The *gang members* are here to do nothing other than try and protect the lies of the AMA and ADA, and harass. The grammatically-correct use of the asterisk in English is to refer to a footnote. I understand that its use for emphasis is not your invention, and that it stems from the lack of the ability to use the correct emphatic, the underline, in the text format common to newsgroups. I personally prefer the use of caps for emphasis, but I won't chastise you for the asterisks in this sentence. On the other hand, it's not clear why the term "gang members" needs any emphasis at all. As for the sentence itself, you left out two "to's." It should read: The gang members are here to do nothing other than to try and protect the lies of the AMA and ADA, and to harass. That leaves the construct "try and" as the final grammatical error. You mean try "to" protect. Thus: The gang members are here to do nothing other than to try to protect the lies of the AMA and ADA, and to harass. Now it's grammatically correct, even though it is, by your own standards, a LIE! (Of course most of us would consider it an opinion, and thus NOT a lie, but you refuse to accept that concept.) Signature--Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ > > Both David and Peter Bowditch say there is no such things as mercury > > amalgams. [quoted text clipped - 145 lines] > LIE! (Of course most of us would consider it an opinion, and thus NOT a lie, > but you refuse to accept that concept.) That was fun to read, as it must have been to compose. One teensy little niggle though: "There are 235 abstracts on Medline which include the term 'mercury amalgams.'" should technically be "There are 235 abstracts on Medline that include the term 'mercury amalgams.'" Although that's a distinction more honoured in the breach than the observance these days, to the extent that a publisher once told me not to bother about it; granted, the writer of that particular paper had much more to worry about:) Cathy > -- > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ` > end >> > Both David and Peter Bowditch say there is no such things as mercury >> > amalgams. [quoted text clipped - 184 lines] > > Cathy Good catch. I knew that, but I missed it. I stand corrected. :o) Rich > Both David and Peter Bowditch say there is no such things as mercury > amalgams. > Quack Barrett had it on his website, Peter e-mailed him and VERT shortly > after, he changed it. If there is any rewarding aspect of the time squandered here "debating" the mouthful-of-mercury-is-safe wolfpacks, it would be watching them make publicly fools of themselves by responding to every specific argument or scientific fact in vapid mantras, postures of authority, mutual back-patting and other swarm mannerisms, without a concrete thought or pertinent fact behind. Having been so helpful in exposing their "intellects", they deserve now to be left alone in their little sandbox, to have some healing time all on their own, so they can reassure each other and lick their wounds. > Having been so helpful in exposing their "intellects", they > deserve now to be left alone in their little sandbox, to have > some healing time all on their own, so they can reassure each > other and lick their wounds. Obviously the defense of mercury by certain groups, including dentists would be comical if it were not so sad. However, dentists and quackwatch don't work in a vacum. Society itself, including educated professionals such as engineers, scientists, doctors, lawyers etc not to mention the federal governemen allow the use of Hg in dentistry. Do you think the society which allows dentistry to use Hg is more or less to blame, especially since it appears many pro-mercury types just don't have the scientific acumen to understand what they are saying. >> Having been so helpful in exposing their "intellects", they >> deserve now to be left alone in their little sandbox, to have [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >to blame, especially since it appears many pro-mercury types just don't >have the scientific acumen to understand what they are saying. Thanks for the condescention, Clinton. Much appreciated by all, I'm sure, as you look down from your Olympian heights of knowledge and intellect. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher >>> Having been so helpful in exposing their "intellects", they >>> deserve now to be left alone in their little sandbox, to have [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > sure, as you look down from your Olympian heights of knowledge and > intellect. Oh, dear. David has just described himself. > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. > "George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher >> Both David and Peter Bowditch say there is no such things as mercury >> amalgams. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >some healing time all on their own, so they can reassure each >other and lick their wounds. And your "intellect" was telling us that smoking is good for us because it protects us from Alzheimer's Disease. Except it probably doesn't: Neurology. 1999 Apr 22;52(7):1408-12. Comment in: Neurology. 2000 Feb 8;54(3):777-8. The influence of smoking on the risk of Alzheimer's disease. * Merchant C, Tang MX, Albert S, Manly J, Stern Y, Mayeux R. Gertrude H. Sergievsky Center, Department of Neurology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between cigarette smoking and Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a prospective community-based study in northern Manhattan. BACKGROUND: Results from previous case-control studies suggest that there is a protective effect of smoking on AD. However, the recent prospective Rotterdam Study found that there was an increased risk of AD for smokers, particularly those without an apolipoprotein E (APOE)-epsilon4 allele. METHODS: The authors examined data from a community-based longitudinal study of local elders residing in northern Manhattan to determine whether tobacco use increases or decreases the risk of AD. Information regarding the frequency of tobacco use was obtained in structured interviews at the baseline assessment. Standardized clinical assessments were subsequently completed on each subject at annual visits during which incident cases of AD were identified. RESULTS: The relative risk (RR) of AD among former smokers was 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5 to 1.1). The RR among current smokers was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.2 to 3.0). Smokers without an APOE-epsilon 4 allele had the highest risk of AD (RR = 2.1; 95% CI, 2.1 to 3.7) compared with those with an APOE-epsilon 4 allele (RR = 1.4; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.3). CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent with the observation that smoking increases the risk of AD. However, we found that among previous smokers who quit smoking, there may be a slight reduction in the risk of AD. PMID: 10227626 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] and Int J Epidemiol. 1999 Feb;28(1):77-81.Click here to read Links The effects of wine and tobacco consumption on cognitive performance in the elderly: a longitudinal study of relative risk. * Leibovici D, Ritchie K, Ledesert B, Touchon J. INSERM CJF 97-02, Epidemiology of Neurodegenerative Pathologies of the CNS, CRLC Val D'Aurelle, Montpellier, France. BACKGROUND: Evidence relating to the potentially protective effect of smoking and alcohol consumption in relation to senescent cognitive decline and Alzheimer's disease is inconclusive. METHODS: The relationship between wine and tobacco consumption and cognitive change was assessed within a longitudinal study of normal elderly people showing recent instability in cognitive functioning using an extensive battery of cognitive tests. RESULTS: While moderate wine consumption was found to be associated with a fourfold diminishing of the risk of Alzheimer's disease (OR = 0.26), as found in other studies, this effect was found to disappear when institutionalization was taken into account. Wine consumption was associated with an increased risk of decline over time in attention and in secondary memory. No protective effect for Alzheimer's disease was found for smoking, although smoking was associated with a decreased risk for decline over time in attentional and visuospatial functioning. No clear combined effect of smoking and drinking was found, even though smoking was found to increase the risk of decline in language performance when adjusted on wine consumption. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to suggest that wine and tobacco consumption may protect against Alzheimer's disease. PMID: 10195668 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher >>> Both David and Peter Bowditch say there is no such things as mercury >>> amalgams. [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > PMID: 10195668 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Subject: Crematoria major source of mercury emissions due to amalgam; Gov't action in UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4160895.stm BBC News World Edition Jan 10, 2005 Crematoria warned over mercury: Crematoria contribute 16% of the UK's mercury emissions Strict rules for crematoria to limit mercury pollution caused when tooth fillings are vaporised have been announced by ministers. The industry has been told mercury filtering equipment must be fitted at crematoria by 2012 to halve emissions. Exposure to the metal is linked to damage to the brain, nervous system and fertility with crematoria responsible for 16% of the UK's mercury pollution. But the industry said it was an over-reaction and would lead to price rises. The filters are quite large and some crematoria are in small buildings that are listed so it may not be possible to install them." He also said the equipment, which costs ££250,000, would be too expensive for some of the 650 crematoria in the UK. However, he allayed fears crematoria would be forced to close - originally it was thought one in four would not be able to cope once the new rules came into place. Emissions He said the industry was setting up a "trading scheme" which would allow crematoria without filters too buy credits off ones that do have them. As the equipment reduces mercury emissions by up to 99% and the rules stipulate emissions must be halved, crematoria with the equipment will be able to make up the shortfall for crematoria without the filters. And the National Association of Funeral Directors (NAFD) estimated it would add upto ££100 to the price of cremation, which currently cost between ££250 to ££350. Alan Slater, chief executive of the NAFD, said: "What concerns us is that bereaved families will have to bear the cost of this. "Crematorium managers will pass the costs on but it is funeral directors who will have to address the issue with relatives." However, the government defended the new rules, saying that unless action was taken mercury emissions would rise by two-thirds by 2020. The government is committed to reducing mercury pollution under the UN Heavy Metals Protocol. Restrictions on other industries have already helped reduce mercury emissions from 31.6 tonnes in 1990 to eight tonnes in 2002. And Environment Minister Larry Whitty said: "By 2020, crematoria will be by far the biggest single contributor to mercury emissions in this country. "Something must be done. Our decision - on which we consulted widely - strikes a balance between the concerns about cost to crematoria and the need to control emissions of a substance which can damage human health and the environment." http://www.jg-shelton.co.uk/id14.html http://www.toxicteeth.org/pressRoom_pastPress.cfm > -- David Wright :: > And your "intellect" was telling us that smoking is good for us > because it protects us from Alzheimer's Disease. Except it probably [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > PMID: 10195668 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] More recent studies about effects of smoking show that smoking correlates positively with just about any disease. These correlations are the result of intense social pressures directed against smoking which have resulted in a statistically highly skewed samples for smokers. Thus a sample of present-day smokers will have statistically lower socioeconomic status, lower education, lower intelligence, poorer nutrition, more hazardous and stressful job, poorer dental health (e.g. more amalgams), more work exposure to toxins,... than non-smokers, (those who quit under present pressures would fall in between). Many of these same negative factors which are correlated with smoking are also positively correlated with Alzheimer's. Hence, for any single or a two factor studies, such as the two you cited, the smoking is simply a statistical marker for the entire the array of negative factors known to be correlated with Alzheimer's. Only a multifactor study which compares subjects with all other factors for Alzheimer's same, except for smoking, would detect a protective effects of smoking for Alzheimer's (and similarly Parkinson's and schizophrenia). Before the present era of intense anti-smoking social engineering (which started in earnest in late 1970s), the samples of smokers were much less skewed and the strong negative correlation between smoking and Alzheimer's was transparent even in the single factor studies (which is even hinted in the abstract of the first paper you cited). As the closest proxy for the genuine multifactor studies related to smoking among the studies of recent couple decades, one would have to read studies looking at smoking within family, such as siblings or preferably twins. Indeed, there are such studies on this same topic, Alzheimer's and smoking, such as: ------------------------- van Duijn CM, Havekes LM, Van Broeckhoven C, de Knijff P, Hofman A. "Apolipoprotein E genotype and association between smoking and early onset Alzheimer's disease" Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Erasmus University Medical School, Rotterdam, Netherlands. OBJECTIVE--To investigate the hypothesis that differential survival between smokers and non-smokers leading to a decrease in the frequency of the e4 allele of the apolipoprotein E gene may explain the inverse relation between smoking history and early onset Alzheimer's disease. DESIGN--A population based case-control study. SETTING--The four northern provinces of the Netherlands and metropolitan Rotterdam. SUBJECTS--175 patients with early onset Alzheimer's disease and two independent control groups of 159 and 457 subjects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Frequencies of the apolipoprotein e4 allele and relative risk of early onset Alzheimer's disease. RESULTS--The inverse association between smoking history and early onset Alzheimer's disease could not be explained by a decrease in the frequency of the apolipoprotein e4 allele. Among carriers of this allele with a family history of dementia subjects with a history of smoking had a strongly reduced risk of early onset Alzheimer's disease (odds ratio 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.87)). CONCLUSIONS--The results suggest that the inverse relation between smoking history and early onset Alzheimer's disease cannot be explained by an increased mortality in carriers of the apolipoprotein e4 allele who smoke. The association is strongly modified by the presence of the apolipoprotein e4 allele as well as by a family history of dementia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra ctPlus&list_uids=7703749&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_docsum ----------------------------------------------- Hence, when genetic and other cofactors are more similar among the subjects being compared, such as those within family as opposed to general population, the protective effects of smoking are more than clear: the smoking reduced odds ratio for Alzheimer's tenfold! The key mechanism for this drastic protective effect of smoking is the stimulation of glutathione production in smokers, which is also the primary vehicle for mercury elimination (and its relation to ApoE4 allele and mercury toxicity to brain) was sketched in the two earlier posts: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.dentistry/msg/c6e84f975e24c648 http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.dentistry/msg/8062a2e3acad3f0d As explained above, the strongest protective effect of smoking occurs for carriers of double ApoE4 allele, and the weakest for double ApoE2 carriers (the order for all 6 ApoE sub types is: STRONGEST E4/4, E4/3, E4/2, E3/3, E3/2, E2/2 WEAKEST). A separate protective mechanism of smoking is via stimulation of nicotine receptors. Note that the first study you cited used ApoE4 allele as the second factor analyzed (in addition to smoking), while the second study didn't control for ApoE4. In full agreement with the described protective mechanism of smoking, the first study shows that the combination of all other cofactors for Alzheimer's which are more prevalent among smokers, overrides the protective effects of smoking, but less so for the ApoE4 carriers (for whom the protective mechanism is the strongest), than for non-ApoE4 (RR=1.4 vs RR=2.1). Interestingly, in case of "former smokers", which would have reduced Alzheimer's cofactors (e.g. better educated, higher socioeconomic status, better nutrition,... than smokers, but not as much as non-smokers), the protective effects of smoking come trough more clearly even in a single factor analysis: the "former smoker" RR=0.7 i.e. former smokers, despite the baggage of the residual cofactors, still have lower risk than the baseline. Another way that the recent single/two-factors studies will show protective effect of smoking is if they consider dose/response relation among former smokers i.e. the pack years. For example, a 2006 paper, which also controlled for ApoE allele polymorphism, shows strong dose/response relation i.e. among former smokers, the more pack years of smoking, the lower incidence of AD: ----------------------------------------------------------- Aggarwal NT, Bienias JL, Bennett DA, Wilson RS, Morris MC, Schneider JA, Shah RC, Evans DA "The relation of cigarette smoking to incident Alzheimer's disease in a biracial urban community population" Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center, Rush University Medical Center, Armour Academic Center, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. naggarw@ush.edu The relationship between smoking status and incident Alzheimer's disease (AD) was investigated in a random stratified sample of a biracial community in Chicago. Analyses are based on 1,064 persons (of 1,134 evaluated) who had data on smoking status, disease incidence, and key covariates such as apolipoprotein allele status. During a mean of about 4 years of follow-up, 170 persons met criteria for incident AD. Current smoking was associated with increased risk of incident AD (OR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.4-8.0) compared to persons who never smoked. There was no apparent increase in risk of AD for former smokers compared to persons who never smoked (OR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.5-1.7). Apolipoprotein E allele status modified this association in that former smokers with a upsilon4 allele were less likely to develop AD (p = 0.04) than those who never smoked. Former smokers also appeared to have a reduced risk of developing AD as their pack-years of smoking increased (p = 0.02)such that the odds of developing AD increased by 50% for every 10 years of smoking cessation (OR = 1.3, CI = 0.9-1.7). The results suggest that older people who currently smoke are more likely to develop AD compared to those who never smoked; the relation between those who used to smoke but quit and the risk of AD is complex and requires further research. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra ctPlus&list_uids=16493200&query_hl=22&itool=pubmed_docsum -------------------------------------------------------------------- In short, if you compare apples and apples i.e. subjects with all other cofactors for Alzheimer's matching, smoking is strongly (e.g. risk drops by 10 times even for very coarsely matched cofactors) protective against Alzheimer's (also Parkinson's, schizophrenia, various autoimmune diseases, asthma,... etc), as it always was. It was, of course, much easer to see that using only _simple_ one or two factor studies few decades ago, before the years of intense anti-smoking social engineering had skewed the sampling of smokers. But, as indicated above, even the present-day highly skewed samples analyzed only via one/two factor studies, still show the protective effect. An individual, who by definition has all cofactors fixed, changing one cofactor, say from smoking to non-smoking, will significantly increase his odds for Alzheimer's, and the sooner they do it (i.e. after having fewer pack years), the greater the increase of the risk (by 50% for losing each 10 pack years). And of course, if an individual changes status from non-smoker to smoker, with all other co-factors in his life unchanged (same work, same diet,..., genetics is by definition fixed), his risk of Alzheimer's will drop significantly, and more so the sooner he starts smoking. > > One of my patients who consistently banged the amalgam drum was also a > > smoker. I didn't understand why he was so worried about something of, at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's not your fault. It is hard to make sense of half-truths, > junk science and propaganda. Oh, I think I am making sense of it allright. The info you posted cleared it up quite nicely. T >> > One of my patients who consistently banged the amalgam drum was also a >> > smoker. I didn't understand why he was so worried about something of, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > T I agree. Indeed nightlight did EXACTLY that. > trelbrierley@sympatico.ca wrote: >> My question is.....WHY would they NOT want to find a link between [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Other reactions: > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&q=FDA+amalgam+hearings+unreason able&sa=N&tab=nw A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html which found no harmful effects appears to have been designed not to find any such effects. Basically what they did is to perform a series of mental performance tests on people with various numbers of amalgams. They did find direct linear correlation in blood and urine levels of mercury metabolites with number of amalgams (or surfaces). Clearly the amalgams do cause mercury absorption and show linear dose/response relation. Regarding the mental tests, they cheated by "stratifying" the subjects into categories such as educational level, professional status, socioeconomic status and numerous other "confounders" (using unspecified adjustment). Then they compared mental performance of subjects with and without amalgams _within each subset_. The problem with this approach is that after you adjust for all "confounders" you get subset which by definition will be have level of mental performance corresponding to the parameters held fixed for the subgroup (e.g. professional level, socioeconomic status...). For example if amalgams (which were all placed in teen years) have caused drop in IQ of 30 points, a person who might have been IQ=130 would become IQ=100 and achieve professional status of people with IQ=100. Hence someone who might have been a scientist (with IQ 130), may have turned out, due to amalgams, an average person and would be compared to that subgroup. Similarly a person with pre-amalgam IQ 160, who might have been Nobel laureate, would only become an average scientist corresponding to IQ 130 and would be compared to those. Hence, by fixing great many "confounding variables" within each group, the authors had in effect fixed the equivalent of the mental performance within that subgroup. Comparing subjects within each subgroup will then by definition measure that same fixed level of performance corresponding to that subgroup. The whole experiment was in effect a worthless tautology with guaranteed outcome. It was completely insensitive to the effect of mercury on shifting persons from one "stratum" to another. To give analogy, consider we wish to measure effect of childhood starvation on height of adults. We pick 1000 adults, divide them into subgroups based on weight and height. Then _within_ each subgroup we compare how the remaining small height variations correlate with the data on childhood starvation. Obviously, if we're looking within the 6 ft +/- 10% subgroup, we won't find out how tall a 6 ft person with history of starvation would have been had he not been starving in childhood. The entire study was obviously rigged -- it was devised to be entirely insensitive to the question of amalgam effects on mental performance. The fact that they had to cheat using such cheap statistical sleight of hand means that the amalgams do cause harm and any genuine study would show it. It's like listening to a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses...it doesn't matter what you throw back at them, they don't hear it. "My evidence is good....yours is bad". Do you people actually work for a living, or do you just tap away, copying and pasting your plagarized opinions, correcting grammar, and saying "I'm right. no I'm right.......what a joke. > >> > One of my patients who consistently banged the amalgam drum was also a > >> > smoker. I didn't understand why he was so worried about something of, [quoted text clipped - 141 lines] > sleight of hand means that the amalgams do cause > harm and any genuine study would show it. > It's like listening to a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses...it doesn't > matter what you throw back at them, they don't hear it. "My evidence > is good....yours is bad". You are projecting again. That kind of drowning the opposition with shouting and smear is exactly what the mouthfoul-of-mercury-is-safe crowd is doing. Just check back in this thread, e.g. attacking the list of peer reviewed studies based on the fact that web host on whose site the list was posted, is owned by a chemistry professor who was not allowed to be a medical expert witness on some subject, in some trial. It doesn't get cheaper or more ridiculous than that. In contrast, I told you precisely what was wrong with the study which started this thread, how it cheated, or similarly for the couple studies cited later from your side. What shouting?, What smearing? You are trying to disprove scientific studies that 'support' amalgam, they are trying to disprove your science. I don't see a winner; it is not a convincing debate, nor is it entertaining to read-it's frustrating Hey, stop avoiding the question, do you do this for a living, or do actually find time to do a little work?? I'm curious to know how you and some of the others on this thread find the time to partake in this to this degreee. > > It's like listening to a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses...it doesn't > > matter what you throw back at them, they don't hear it. "My evidence [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > or similarly for the couple studies cited later from > your side. > It's like listening to a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses...it doesn't > matter what you throw back at them, they don't hear it. "My evidence > is good....yours is bad". Do you people actually work for a living, > or do you just tap away, copying and pasting your plagarized opinions, > correcting grammar, and saying "I'm right. no I'm right.......what a > joke. Thank you for sharing the 'reflection' of the posting pool! 'Jehovah's Witnesses' is a new visual tag I'd not heard before, but you get the picture clearly. Visit and read here at your own risk....strictly for entertainment value <g>. (And yes....I AM right about that!) >> >> > One of my patients who consistently banged the amalgam drum was also >> >> > a [quoted text clipped - 146 lines] >> sleight of hand means that the amalgams do cause >> harm and any genuine study would show it. Footnote: no intention to 'smear' Jehovah's Witnesses, they are just unyieldingly firm in their beliefs; I lived with one for 3 years. > > It's like listening to a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses...it doesn't > > matter what you throw back at them, they don't hear it. "My evidence [quoted text clipped - 158 lines] > >> sleight of hand means that the amalgams do cause > >> harm and any genuine study would show it. Absolutely understood! > Footnote: no intention to 'smear' Jehovah's Witnesses, they are just > unyieldingly firm in their beliefs; I lived with one for 3 years. [quoted text clipped - 170 lines] >> >> sleight of hand means that the amalgams do cause >> >> harm and any genuine study would show it. > > It's like listening to a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses...it doesn't > > matter what you throw back at them, they don't hear it. "My evidence > > is good....yours is bad". Do you people actually work for a living, > > or do you just tap away, copying and pasting your plagarized opinions, > > correcting grammar, and saying "I'm right. no I'm right.......what a > > joke. Interesting you seem to find the time to post while you accuse others of having nothing to do, but hypocrisy never stopped a dentist. I like this list because it shows what jerks dentists really are. The ADA get's up in front of congress and is all like, GEE we are just so concerned about the patient and all types of informed consent. then you get on this list and when they don't use their real names, it's screw the patients we posion with amalgam screw the hygenists we posion with amalgam, screw the science, screw everything but our paycheck and our big fat-mouthed peaprained anonymous dental selves. >> > It's like listening to a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses...it doesn't >> > matter what you throw back at them, they don't hear it. "My evidence [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > amalgam, screw the science, screw everything but our paycheck and our > big fat-mouthed peaprained anonymous dental selves. Since you replied to my post (and deleted what "I" had written, but left what the previous poster wrote), I will comment. You appear to be sour-pussed and anti-dentist in general. Clinton : Ouch.... PS: Actually I'm posting in between patients and...I'll say it again, I'll do 'white' fillings any day of the week-more $$, more breakage, more root canals. Why would we 'protect' amalgam? I ALSO repeat....have you ever asked what's in a WHITE filling?? Anunymous, eh?? Let's have coffee... > >> > It's like listening to a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses...it doesn't > >> > matter what you throw back at them, they don't hear it. "My evidence [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > amalgam, screw the science, screw everything but our paycheck and our > > big fat-mouthed peaprained anonymous dental selves. > Since you replied to my post (and deleted what "I" had written, > but left what the previous poster wrote), I will comment. You > appear to be sour-pussed and anti-dentist in general. > Clinton : Ouch.... > PS: Actually I'm posting in between patients and...I'll say it again, > I'll do 'white' fillings any day of the week-more $$, more breakage, > more root canals. Why would we 'protect' amalgam? I ALSO > repeat....have you ever asked what's in a WHITE filling?? I was posioned by an amalgam in the 80's , 90's way before they had white fillings. I'll agree that white fillings haven't been proven safe. I'll also concede two points: 1) Dentists don't place amalgams in a vacum, it's not like society isn't aware of the use of Hg by dentists and approving of it. In fact in such an environment (in the past) if the dentist's who used mercury gave it up they would be replaced by other dentists who used it. 2) Dentists do willingly breathe in the vapors themselves, especially when they drill out old fillings. Does that mean they don't understand the danger of Hg for them and their patients...? I guess that is up to the reader to decide. >> Clinton : Ouch.... >> PS: Actually I'm posting in between patients and...I'll say it again, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > up to > the reader to decide. This Clinton dude could solve his problem easily.....quit going to dentists altogether. Live 'natural' and then pull your own teeth as they rot out of your mouth. No poisoning to worry about and nothing to bitch & whine about either. > This Clinton dude could solve his problem easily.....quit going to dentists > altogether. Live 'natural' and then pull your own teeth as they rot out of > your mouth. No poisoning to worry about and nothing to bitch & whine about > either. Let's see who do you work for Barret? Why don't you shove your (edited) anomyous little (edited) down the (edited). Why should I have to pull my teeth out because some lying dentist posions me? Get a Jerome Meter and take some measurements you ignorant (edited)- kissing (edited for content). Oh and ...sometime you could use your real name to. Ok, I can see the IQ level on this list hasn't changed but I guess for the quackwatch lacky's the kissup factor will either remain the same, and/or increase. Toodalooo >>> Clinton : Ouch.... >>> PS: Actually I'm posting in between patients and...I'll say it again, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > rot out of your mouth. No poisoning to worry about and nothing to bitch & > whine about either. A nice Christian post there. How would you feel if others' said that to you--when you were ill? > A nice Christian post there. > > How would you feel if others' said that to you--when you were ill? Oh the irony! T >> trelbrierley@sympatico.ca wrote: >>> Clinton : Ouch.... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > rot out of your mouth. No poisoning to worry about and nothing to bitch & > whine about either. A nice Christian post there. How would you feel if others' said that to you--when you were ill? >> A nice Christian post there. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > T What irony, Tony? Do tell us again how you still use *mercury* amalgams. How you have posted the risks, and give consent forms. > "Tony Bad" <spamspamspam@bakedbeans.spam> wrote in message > > > What irony, Tony? > > Do tell us again how you still use *mercury* amalgams. > How you have posted the risks, and give consent forms. Why spend the 3 cents on a piee of paper to warn a patient they may be posioned? He could use the money to buy a new pen (if he buys in bulk). >>> trelbrierley@sympatico.ca wrote: >>>> Clinton : Ouch.... [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> > What irony, Tony? Ziiiiiiiiiiip! Yes Tony....the rest got it. >>>> trelbrierley@sympatico.ca wrote: >>>>> Clinton : Ouch.... [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> >> How would you feel if others' said that to you--when you were ill? It is noted you, Coleah didn't answer the question. >>>> A nice Christian post there. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Ziiiiiiiiiiip! > Yes Tony....the rest got it. What irony, Tony? Show us. > What irony, Tony? > > Show us. The irony is in the fact you seem to not be aware of the concept of introspection. T >> What irony, Tony? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > T I didn't ask for your opinion. Evidently, you cannot show us. Btw, glad to see you are ignoring what I say. That seem to be a proven lie. > >> What irony, Tony? > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > I didn't ask for your opinion. You did ask for my opinion...see above. T >> >> What irony, Tony? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > T No, I did not. >> What irony, Tony? >> >> >> >> Show us. Not asking for your opinion. asking you to show us where (in my own words) there was any so-called irony. So far, you have not. >>> >> What irony, Tony? >>> >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >there >was any so-called irony. So far, you have not. If that's not a QED I don't know what is. SignaturePeter 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 > Not asking for your opinion. asking you to show us where (in my own words) > there > was any so-called irony. So far, you have not. The fact you cannot see it is what makes it ironic. Don't try to understand...your actions and words make it abundantly clear the point I was making is wholly lost on you. Sorry for any confusion. T >> Not asking for your opinion. asking you to show us where (in my own >> words) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > T More opinion. No posts from me. > Clinton : Ouch.... > PS: Actually I'm posting in between patients and...I'll say it again, > I'll do 'white' fillings any day of the week-more $$, more breakage, > more root canals. Why would we 'protect' amalgam? I ALSO > repeat....have you ever asked what's in a WHITE filling?? Anunymous, > eh?? Let's have coffee... You watch the Sopranos, too, while you are working? I suggest you go back to alt.tv.sopranos. ~~~~~~~~~~ A few of your posts. "I gotta go try and take a sh.t" - pretty much sums up what I shoulda done rather than watch that episode. That was the epitomy of anticlimactic. I woulda been mildly pleased if Tony had shoved an icepick into the eye of that little fat f.ck who was guarding Phil's hospital room. I'm no fuckin' writer, but.... Finally, some much-needed action, but how can they play those two diammetrically-opposed storylines (vito vs. carmella) at the same time??? It was like taking speed, then downers, then speed, then downers.... FAWK!!!!!!! Anyway, I loved when Sil jumped on his back... ~~~~~~ In the words of the Blessed Mary................Holy sh.t ~~~~~~~ I love how some of these threads erupt into a room-clearing brawl!!! "Oh yeah?.,....well...yer fuckin' GAY !!!! Ha HAAAAAAAAAAH Ah sh.t, I'm just sitting here drinking a nice Barolo, reading this thread.. then i read " ......"you're probably a queer"....I can just see the other guy, backing away from his computer, hands on his head, breathing heavy....thinking "sh.t...he thinks I'm QUEER!! Maybe.........I AM!!!!! DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm goin' to the fuckin' bar now, dress up like Vito and slap some a.s! WooHoooooo!!!! (Time for another Barolo...fuckin' shinebox crowd) >> >> > It's like listening to a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses...it doesn't >> >> > matter what you throw back at them, they don't hear it. "My [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> but left what the previous poster wrote), I will comment. You >> appear to be sour-pussed and anti-dentist in general. How refreshing! trelbrierley@sympatico.ca has a sense of humor <g>! >> Clinton : Ouch.... >> PS: Actually I'm posting in between patients and...I'll say it again, [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >>> but left what the previous poster wrote), I will comment. You >>> appear to be sour-pussed and anti-dentist in general. > How refreshing! trelbrierley@sympatico.ca has a sense of humor <g>! Your <g> won't save you, non-practicing Christian. One can have a sense of humor without being vile. Sad that you approve of it. Some Christian example. >>> Clinton : Ouch.... >>> PS: Actually I'm posting in between patients and...I'll say it again, [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] >>>> but left what the previous poster wrote), I will comment. You >>>> appear to be sour-pussed and anti-dentist in general. >>How refreshing! trelbrierley@sympatico.ca has a sense of humor <g>! > > Your <g> won't save you, non-practicing Christian. > > One can have a sense of humor without being vile. > Sad that you approve of it. Some Christian example. Didn't you already notice that the mouthful-of-mercury-is-safe crowd are worshipers of Mammon. They have no sense of Christian spirit. > > How refreshing! trelbrierley@sympatico.ca has a sense of humor <g>! > > Your <g> won't save you, non-practicing Christian. ..and a fine brand of christianity you practice there Ms. Drew! Your picture is going to appear in the dictionary next to the word irony if you keep this up. Too funny! T > How refreshing! trelbrierley@sympatico.ca has a sense of humor <g>! Your <g> won't save you, non-practicing Christian. One can have a sense of humor without being vile. Sad that you approve of it. Some Christian example. > "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:sKyZg.21010$7I1.4130@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >> fuckin' bar now, dress up like Vito and slap some a.s! WooHoooooo!!!! >> (Time for another Barolo...fuckin' shinebox crowd) >> > How refreshing! trelbrierley@sympatico.ca has a sense of humor <g>! >> >> Your <g> won't save you, non-practicing Christian. > > ..and a fine brand of christianity you practice there Ms. Drew! That IS Jan Drew. Who uses my real name. Neither is it Ms, but you knew that. > Your picture is going to appear in the dictionary next to the word irony > if > you keep this up. Too funny! > > T What irony, Tony? Show it. > I like this list because it shows what jerks dentists really are. The > ADA [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > amalgam, screw the science, screw everything but our paycheck and our > big fat-mouthed peaprained anonymous dental selves. Why would I use my real name? To promote further contact with the likes of you? Give me the upside. T > > I like this list because it shows what jerks dentists really are. The > > ADA [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Give me the upside. You mean the likes of a 12 year old kid who get's poisoned by his dentist because the ADA can't spend 2 cents on a piece of paper to warn a kid that he's going to be poisoned over the next decade. That kind of person? Like I said , you want to run your- mouth to attack the people you poision, the upside is, you...show you have a spine. No one is really anonyoums on these server's anyway. But hey, I understand.. you breathe the stuff yourself and "SOCIETY" made you do it, it's always nobody's fault but the people who get posioned. They are trash because they had the "nerve" to get poisoned. And what about the dental assistants whose lives you (the ADA) ruins. You anyonomous dentists trying to avoid the "likes" of them to?, or just running from your own "hypocratic" shadows? Clinton, '1)White fillings (silicate-based) were around in the 80's, 90's and the 70's. 2) Thank you for conceding that white fillings may also pose some health hazards 3) ADA/CDA, & dentists knew and still know there is Hg in amalgam, and I for one will say sure there must be some risk in it being there, but we still work on the premise that current research does not indicate the risks outweigh the benefits of it's use. 4) man., Coleah gets you riled up!! > > > I like this list because it shows what jerks dentists really are. The > > > ADA [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > running > from your own "hypocratic" shadows? > Clinton, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the risks outweigh the benefits of it's use. > 4) man., Coleah gets you riled up!! (#4: Logic and balance does that to fanatics <g>) > Clinton, > > '1)White fillings (silicate-based) were around in the 80's, 90's and > the 70's. Composite I believe has been around since the mid 1960s, when Johnson and Johnson came out with Adaptic, which IIRC was the first filled bis-GMA filling. Before that acrylics were used (you think composite shrinks? You shudda seen this crap!) and silicates have been around forever--at least since the 1950s. I know Buonocore did his first studies with acid etching/bonding in the 1950s--not sure what resin he used. The first light-cured composites I remember were actually UV-cured resins--I think it was the Nuva system--it was already in use in the early-mid '70s--my dental school years). Steve > 2) Thank you for conceding that white fillings may also pose some > health hazards [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >>running >>from your own "hypocratic" shadows? SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 > > > I like this list because it shows what jerks dentists really are. The > > > ADA [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > running > from your own "hypocratic" shadows? You really didn't answer my question, yet your delusional ramblings once again prove my point. If my "anonymous" posts bother you, or lack credibility because I don't attach my name, ignore them. I usually ignore yours and things work nicely that way. Give it a try! T >> > > I like this list because it shows what jerks dentists really are. The >> > > ADA [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > You really didn't answer my question, yet your delusional ramblings once > again prove my point. Ahh. The usual attacking from a dentist who still uses *mercury* amalgams. > If my "anonymous" posts bother you, or lack credibility because I don't > attach my name, ignore them. I usually ignore yours and things work nicely [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > T We see you ignoring those you said-- you did-- and do not. Whoa!!! I missed a few posts back there-so I'm non Christian because I watch Sopranos? or because I use amalgam???? Both??? Oh well......and hey...those posts are FUNNY !!!!!(if you watch Sopranos.....) Anyway....that was a slick way to try and "turn up the dirt' on me with my Sopranos posts. Anyway..lets check into Jan's posting history...lessee....Woohooooo!!! alt.spanking, alt.bizarre., Ok..there's alt.religion.christian (how dare YOU decide what is and is not Christian...are you GOD??). I see you've got a lot of people loving you on newsnet! Even stalkers! > >> > > I like this list because it shows what jerks dentists really are. The > >> > > ADA [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > > We see you ignoring those you said-- you did-- and do not. > Whoa!!! I missed a few posts back there-so I'm non Christian because > I watch Sopranos? or because I use amalgam???? Both??? Oh > well......and hey...those posts are FUNNY !!!!!(if you watch > Sopranos.....) Anyway....that was a slick way to try and "turn up the > dirt' on me with my Sopranos posts. Anyway..lets check into Jan's > posting history...lessee....Woohooooo!!! alt.spanking, alt.bizarre., Yes, do that. FACT: I have never posted in either one. > Ok..there's alt.religion.christian Never posting there--either. You are batting zero. (how dare YOU decide what is and is > not Christian...are you GOD??). I see you've got a lot of people > loving you on newsnet! Even stalkers! I suggest you go back to alt.tv.sopranos. ~~~~~~~~~~ A few of your posts. "I gotta go try and take a sh.t" - pretty much sums up what I shoulda done rather than watch that episode. That was the epitomy of anticlimactic. I woulda been mildly pleased if Tony had shoved an icepick into the eye of that little fat f.ck who was guarding Phil's hospital room. I'm no fuckin' writer, but.... Finally, some much-needed action, but how can they play those two diammetrically-opposed storylines (vito vs. carmella) at the same time??? It was like taking speed, then downers, then speed, then downers.... FAWK!!!!!!! Anyway, I loved when Sil jumped on his back... ~~~~~~ In the words of the Blessed Mary................Holy sh.t ~~~~~~~ I love how some of these threads erupt into a room-clearing brawl!!! "Oh yeah?.,....well...yer fuckin' GAY !!!! Ha HAAAAAAAAAAH Ah sh.t, I'm just sitting here drinking a nice Barolo, reading this thread.. then i read " ......"you're probably a queer"....I can just see the other guy, backing away from his computer, hands on his head, breathing heavy....thinking "sh.t...he thinks I'm QUEER!! Maybe.........I AM!!!!! DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm goin' to the fuckin' bar now, dress up like Vito and slap some a.s! WooHoooooo!!!! (Time for another Barolo...fuckin' shinebox crowd) > > Whoa!!! I missed a few posts back there-so I'm non Christian because > > I watch Sopranos? or because I use amalgam???? Both??? Oh [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Never posting there--either. Jan, you are lying. You have so posted in alt.christian.religion! Don't make me go cut and paste it. Lying-very un-Christian. I also notice you post in .fibromyalgia and alternative health-another hangout for those who like to steal money from the gullible and ignorant. Do you steal their money?? > You are batting zero. > > (how dare YOU decide what is and is > > not Christian...are you GOD??). I see you've got a lot of people > > loving you on newsnet! Even stalkers! Intersting how you have no response to the above comment, except to "go back to alt. Sopranos" . And I will when the last season starts up in January! I suggest you go back to alt.bizarre and alt.parent.spanking where you can have some formative input. Stay out of dentistry where you know nothing. PS: Go into alt Sopranos and send a couple of replies to Flagstaff Frank and Big Al Tomatoes-they will chew you up and spit you out! > I suggest you go back to alt.tv.sopranos. > ~~~~~~~~~~ [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > fuckin' bar now, dress up like Vito and slap some a.s! WooHoooooo!!!! > (Time for another Barolo...fuckin' shinebox crowd) >> > Whoa!!! I missed a few posts back there-so I'm non Christian because >> > I watch Sopranos? or because I use amalgam???? Both??? Oh [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > Jan, you are lying. You have so posted in alt.christian.religion! Oh, really? Do post it--and see if it was crossposted. > Don't make me go cut and paste it Why not? Afraid to? . Lying-very un-Christian. I also > notice you post in .fibromyalgia and alternative health So? -another hangout > for those who like to steal money from the gullible and ignorant. Do > you steal their money?? NO. >> You are batting zero. >> >> (how dare YOU decide what is and is >> > not Christian...are you GOD??). I see you've got a lot of people >> > loving you on newsnet! Even stalkers! No, I am not GOD! What you see is the *gang* who stalking me because I posted my *mercury poisoning* message. > Intersting how you have no response to the above comment, except to "go > back to alt. Sopranos" . And I will when the last season starts up in > January! I suggest you go back to alt.bizarre and alt.parent.spanking FACT: I found you fifthy posts in alt.Sopranos > where you can have some formative input. Stay out of dentistry where > you know nothing. Wrong. Look up my many posts. I do indeed know much about the subject. *I* lived through mercury poisoning. Why are you there? PS: Go into alt Sopranos and send a couple of > replies to Flagstaff Frank and Big Al Tomatoes-they will chew you up > and spit you out! >> I suggest you go back to alt.tv.sopranos. >> ~~~~~~~~~~ I have no interest in the Sopranos. >> A few of your posts. >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> fuckin' bar now, dress up like Vito and slap some a.s! WooHoooooo!!!! >> (Time for another Barolo...fuckin' shinebox crowd) This is all a diversion from the subject. A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html which found no harmful effects appears to have been designed not to find any such effects. Basically what they did is to perform a series of mental performance tests on people with various numbers of amalgams. They did find direct linear correlation in blood and urine levels of mercury metabolites with number of amalgams (or surfaces). Clearly the amalgams do cause mercury absorption and show linear dose/response relation. Regarding the mental tests, they cheated by "stratifying" the subjects into categories such as educational level, professional status, socioeconomic status and numerous other "confounders" (using unspecified adjustment). Then they compared mental performance of subjects with and without amalgams _within each subset_. The problem with this approach is that after you adjust for all "confounders" you get subset which by definition will be have level of mental performance corresponding to the parameters held fixed for the subgroup (e.g. professional level, socioeconomic status...). For example if amalgams (which were all placed in teen years) have caused drop in IQ of 30 points, a person who might have been IQ=130 would become IQ=100 and achieve professional status of people with IQ=100. Hence someone who might have been a scientist (with IQ 130), may have turned out, due to amalgams, an average person and would be compared to that subgroup. Similarly a person with pre-amalgam IQ 160, who might have been Nobel laureate, would only become an average scientist corresponding to IQ 130 and would be compared to those. Hence, by fixing great many "confounding variables" within each group, the authors had in effect fixed the equivalent of the mental performance within that subgroup. Comparing subjects within each subgroup will then by definition measure that same fixed level of performance corresponding to that subgroup. The whole experiment was in effect a worthless tautology with guaranteed outcome. It was completely insensitive to the effect of mercury on shifting persons from one "stratum" to another. To give analogy, consider we wish to measure effect of childhood starvation on height of adults. We pick 1000 adults, divide them into subgroups based on weight and height. Then _within_ each subgroup we compare how the remaining small height variations correlate with the data on childhood starvation. Obviously, if we're looking within the 6 ft +/- 10% subgroup, we won't find out how tall a 6 ft person with history of starvation would have been had he not been starving in childhood. The entire study was obviously rigged -- it was devised to be entirely insensitive to the question of amalgam effects on mental performance. The fact that they had to cheat using such cheap statistical sleight of hand means that the amalgams do cause harm and any genuine study would show it. > >> > Whoa!!! I missed a few posts back there-so I'm non Christian because > >> > I watch Sopranos? or because I use amalgam???? Both??? Oh [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > What you see is the *gang* who stalking me because I posted my *mercury > poisoning* message. The criminals are the ones who try to "un-poison" the mercury-afflicted....as I've said before--blame yourself for getting cavities in the first place!!! You getting cavities and going to a dentist to fix them is your submission-your informed consent-to allow the materials deemed acceptable by the ADA to be placed in your body. > > Intersting how you have no response to the above comment, except to "go > > back to alt. Sopranos" . And I will when the last season starts up in > > January! I suggest you go back to alt.bizarre and alt.parent.spanking > > FACT: I found you fifthy posts in alt.Sopranos > Oh come on !!!! You've never talked dirty once in a while???? That IS Sopranos. Don't read it if you don't like it. > > where you can have some formative input. Stay out of dentistry where > > you know nothing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why are you there? I'm a dentist > PS: Go into alt Sopranos and send a couple of > > replies to Flagstaff Frank and Big Al Tomatoes-they will chew you up [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I have no interest in the Sopranos. So for what reason do you think that anyone in sci.med.dentistry has any interest in your posts?? > >> A few of your posts. > >> > >> "I gotta go try and take a sh.t" hey, that's a direct quote from Sopranos!!!! No fair! > >> - pretty much sums up what I shoulda done rather than watch that > >> episode. That was the epitomy of anticlimactic. I woulda been [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > sleight of hand means that the amalgams do cause > harm and any genuine study would show it. >You getting cavities and going to a > dentist to fix them is your submission-your informed consent-to allow > the materials deemed acceptable by the ADA to be placed in your body. The ADA may like you to believe that, but that is not how informed consent works. You and you alone are responsible for the materials you place and informed consent. If your state uses a patient based standard, the standard is what a "reasonable" patient would want to know. If the ADA and WHO deems them safe for use, then the law will side with us as far as consent goes. At this point, we would not even have to inform the patient of a 'potential risk' of placing an amalgam filling, because the risk is worth the benefit. As you well know, today if a patient sues a dentist for not warning him/her about the 'evils of amalgam', he/she will lose. > >You getting cavities and going to a > > dentist to fix them is your submission-your informed consent-to allow [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > standard, the standard is what a "reasonable" patient would want > to know. > If the ADA and WHO deems them safe for use, then the law will side with > us as far as consent goes. i can see you know as much about the law as about science. The ADA is considered a "trade organization". It is not an authoritative scientific authority. The WHO has deemed amalgam potientially harmful. As far as malpractice is concerned what is important is the "standard of care", which is not based on the ADA position, although the standard of care may agree with some ADA standards. Informed consent is not based either on what the ADA says or even the standard of care, only the available science. At this point, we would not even have to > inform the patient of a 'potential risk' of placing an amalgam filling, > because the risk is worth the benefit. Benifit has nothing to do with it, you are supposed to inform of the risk. Whether it was reasonable to inform the patient depends on the risk/scientific evidence available, not the opinions of the ADA. Judges have wide discretion to admit science they consider valid. It's true the judge could consider the ADA opinion scientific, on the other hand they could look at the real science and laugh at the ADA statements. What is more important is if your state uses a patient based standard. As you well know, today if a > patient sues a dentist for not warning him/her about the 'evils of > amalgam', he/she will lose. Actually the ADA is being sued for Fraud right now and the case was not dismissed. As far as suing an individual dentist who knows how many cases are in litigation. I wouldn't want to have a case a case pending after the recent FDA findings....It is true that before prevailing in a case against a dentist was difficult, but that is because it was difficult to measure Hg exposure, not because the court will throw out an informed consent charge on the "sayso" of the ADA. Getting the case into court or through arbitration based on "informed consent" is not difficult at all. > > If the ADA and WHO deems them safe for use, then the law will side with > > us as far as consent goes. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > into court or through arbitration based on "informed consent" is not > difficult at all. >> >> > Whoa!!! I missed a few posts back there-so I'm non Christian >> >> > because [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> >> Why not? Afraid to? Well? >> . Lying-very un-Christian. I also >> > notice you post in .fibromyalgia and alternative health [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > The criminals are the ones who try to "un-poison" the > mercury-afflicted.... Criminals is not the subject. as I've said before--blame yourself for getting > cavities in the first place!!! You have said much, now you are being down right stupid. You getting cavities and going to a > dentist to fix them is your submission-your informed consent-to allow > the materials deemed acceptable by the ADA to be placed in your body. The ADA. Laughable. *Organized dentistry LIES*! ! >> > Intersting how you have no response to the above comment, except to "go >> > back to alt. Sopranos" . And I will when the last season starts up in >> > January! I suggest you go back to alt.bizarre and alt.parent.spanking >> >> FACT: I found you fifthy posts in alt.Sopranos >> Oh come on !!!! You've never talked dirty once in a while???? NO, way back when I was a teenager, I tried it once. Felt terrible. It was against all that I had been taught. That IS Sopranos. Don't read it if you don't like it. I don't, just found your filty posts there. After seeing you respones in this thread. FACT: I found you fifthy posts in alt.Sopranos. Now--you are weaseling. >> > where you can have some formative input. Stay out of dentistry where >> > you know nothing. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > I'm a dentist Really? Prove it. >> PS: Go into alt Sopranos and send a couple of >> > replies to Flagstaff Frank and Big Al Tomatoes-they will chew you up [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So for what reason do you think that anyone in sci.med.dentistry has > any interest in your posts?? If you did a search, *new poster*, you would already know that. I have a message. I have helped others and will continue. >> >> A few of your posts. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] >> sleight of hand means that the amalgams do cause >> harm and any genuine study would show it. >You getting cavities and going to a > dentist to fix them is your submission-your informed consent-to allow > the materials deemed acceptable by the ADA to be placed in your body. The ADA say's What person could have said the following? (Not a Sopranos cast member) "Oh how I love that universal and anyonymous appeal to authority-'ADA says'" "No ignobility but only enlightenment, attends our reduction to appropriate size, for when we smash pedestals, we grant a ray of freedom to our very own defining human peculiarity, the human mind. I don't know if the truth about amalgam can make us free, but I do believe that our unique mentality thrives on this form of soul food, whatever the pain of lost illusions" > We see you ignoring those you said-- you did-- and do not. Trust me dear, even when I read what you wrote, I ignore it. T > > We see you ignoring those you said-- you did-- and do not. > > Trust me dear, even when I read what you wrote, I ignore it. > > T lol. Like you are ignoring what I wrote. You didn't ignore it you posted a response. We see you ignoring those you said-- you did-- and do not. |
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
|
©2009 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.