mary jo fahey
03-03-2002, 11:38 AM
hi,
this is an interesting article by david amrein, the editor of dr. clark's
newsletter. it contrasts the viewpoints of american and european dentists on
the subject of amalgam fillings.
mary jo
anti mercury movement is winning
as little as half a year ago the california legislators fired the whole
dental board over the dental amalgam issue and created a completely new one.
but that was just one battle won for the amalgam activists, the people who
hold that mercury is toxic and does not belong in teeth.
their beliefs are based on over 1500 peer-reviewed medical study or
government agency references documenting mechanisms by which mercury from
amalgam causes over 30 chronic health conditions, which you can find here:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/
but the battle goes on. most people still have mercury fillings
(euphemistically referred to as "silver fillings") in their mouth, and while
in germany and many of the european countries the majority of dentists
refuse to place new mercury fillings because of their known toxicity, the
american dental association still claims they are not harmful
(http://www.ada.org/prof/prac/issues/statements/amalgam.html).
the famous gaze through galileo's telescope has not taken place for american
dentistry as a whole yet. i have been wondering why the american profession
has been so adamant about their position despite the overwhelming scientific
evidence, while the europeans have been able to change their viewpoint and
largely view mercury amalgams as medieval (although they are still used by
the people who can't afford the better fillings).
i believe it is hard to admit that one has advocated something so harmful
for 150 years, telling the public it is perfectly safe. financial interests
may also play a role; but these factors exist in europe also. i think what
it boils down to is that the american legal system cements the status quo.
if the ada now admitted that amalgam was harmful, they and individual
dentists would be sued by probably millions tomorrow, which could throw the
whole dental profession into the abyss. the european legal system which is
more forgiving, on the other hand, has made it possible to adapt. even most
dentists that still use mercury amalgam openly admit it is harmful, but use
it because it is cheap. at least that way the choice is the patient's and he
is properly informed about the dangers of mercury fillings.
this is an interesting article by david amrein, the editor of dr. clark's
newsletter. it contrasts the viewpoints of american and european dentists on
the subject of amalgam fillings.
mary jo
anti mercury movement is winning
as little as half a year ago the california legislators fired the whole
dental board over the dental amalgam issue and created a completely new one.
but that was just one battle won for the amalgam activists, the people who
hold that mercury is toxic and does not belong in teeth.
their beliefs are based on over 1500 peer-reviewed medical study or
government agency references documenting mechanisms by which mercury from
amalgam causes over 30 chronic health conditions, which you can find here:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/
but the battle goes on. most people still have mercury fillings
(euphemistically referred to as "silver fillings") in their mouth, and while
in germany and many of the european countries the majority of dentists
refuse to place new mercury fillings because of their known toxicity, the
american dental association still claims they are not harmful
(http://www.ada.org/prof/prac/issues/statements/amalgam.html).
the famous gaze through galileo's telescope has not taken place for american
dentistry as a whole yet. i have been wondering why the american profession
has been so adamant about their position despite the overwhelming scientific
evidence, while the europeans have been able to change their viewpoint and
largely view mercury amalgams as medieval (although they are still used by
the people who can't afford the better fillings).
i believe it is hard to admit that one has advocated something so harmful
for 150 years, telling the public it is perfectly safe. financial interests
may also play a role; but these factors exist in europe also. i think what
it boils down to is that the american legal system cements the status quo.
if the ada now admitted that amalgam was harmful, they and individual
dentists would be sued by probably millions tomorrow, which could throw the
whole dental profession into the abyss. the european legal system which is
more forgiving, on the other hand, has made it possible to adapt. even most
dentists that still use mercury amalgam openly admit it is harmful, but use
it because it is cheap. at least that way the choice is the patient's and he
is properly informed about the dangers of mercury fillings.