We know definitively that a certain percentage of the
population experiences significant health problems due to
amalgams. We also know that not everyone - indeed, most
people - either do not react at all, do not have enough
amalgam to react, are not genetically predisposed to
react, or eventually experience illnesses that simply
cannot definitively be linked to amalgam. It cannot be
proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that amalgams cause
this or that, but there is an abundance of evidence (both
clinical and anecdotal) that amalgam is dangerous in at
least some people.
Anti-amalgam position: since there is no way of knowing
whether individuals will react negatively to amalgam, and
the health implications are so serious, amalgams should not
be used at all, especially considering that there are
suitable alternatives to amalgam. In other words, we should
err on the side of caution, given that there is, at the very
least, reasonable doubt. We have a moral obligation not to
roll the dice with people's health.
Dental profession position: a) we deny that amalgam is
dangerous or b) only a small fraction of the population
reacts negatively to amalgam - too bad for them or c) you
must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that amalgam is
dangerous before we will discontinue its use.
Analysis:
Position a) is simply blanket denial in the face of
overwhelming evidence of the potential dangers of amalgam.
Position b) is entirely immoral, although this seems to be
the stand of many dentists, including some who post here.
Position c) is entirely unreasonable, given that the burden
of proof must be on the dental industry to show that a known
poisonous substance is safe beyond all reasonable doubt
before putting it in people's mouths. There is reasonable
doubt; therefore, amalgam should not be used.
Anyone who has honestly researched this issue can come to no
other conclusion that, at the very least, there is
reasonable doubt about the safety of amalgam.