General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: Dental Profession Logic Re: Amalgam

Started by Jorge Bonilla · · Last activity · 14 posts · 800 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
15 June 2004
Last activity
18 June 2004
Original author
Jorge Bonilla
Posts
14
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
800
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–14 of 14
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. [email hidden] (Clinton C Zimmerman) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Exactly, amalgam should be treated as a Drug because it releases a
    deadly toxin into the human body.

    Not exactly. It should be treated as a drug if the FDA determines it
    should.

    Quoted message said:


    In the US how does the FDA treat drugs?
    Burden of proof of safety is on the manufacturer and it can take years
    for approval /not so amalgam which was grandfathered in and classified
    as a device to escape evalution for adverse effects from the high
    powered FDA drug
    division.

    Strict manufacturing contols are applied so that all pills or
    release capsules deliver dosage within a certain range and the
    drug company provides manufacturing data from the floor to
    assure compliance. Not so with amalgam where an incompentent dentist
    or assistant can pack amalgam in a way that substantially differs from
    what the manufacturer advertises and even known defective capsules
    from the manufacturere are subject to no regulation.

    Do you mean tampering with amalgam capsules, or placing amalgam in a
    different fashion?

    Quoted message said:


    A packet including all adverse reaction data is included with the
    drug and given to physician and patient. yes, asprin has a warning
    label.

    I have no problem with giving patients all the information they want.
    I make sure to point out what has been accepted by the scientific
    community and what has not.

    Quoted message said:


    Adverse reactions are collected and investigated. Not so FDA dental
    devices
    which has recieved thousands of adverse reaction reports and dumped
    them
    in the garbage.

    So you see, that is exactly the problem. In the US Amalgam isn't
    treated like a drug at all.

    Then you should concentrate your efforts in convincing the FDA that it
    should be treated as a drug.

    Dr. Bonilla

  2. Jorge Bonilla said:

    [email hidden] (Clinton C Zimmerman) wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Exactly, amalgam should be treated as a Drug because it releases a
    deadly toxin into the human body.

    Not exactly. It should be treated as a drug if the FDA determines it
    should.

    Quoted message said:


    In the US how does the FDA treat drugs?
    Burden of proof of safety is on the manufacturer and it can take
    years for approval /not so amalgam which was grandfathered in and
    classified as a device to escape evalution for adverse effects from
    the high powered FDA drug
    division.

    Strict manufacturing contols are applied so that all pills or
    release capsules deliver dosage within a certain range and the
    drug company provides manufacturing data from the floor to
    assure compliance. Not so with amalgam where an incompentent dentist
    or assistant can pack amalgam in a way that substantially differs
    from what the manufacturer advertises and even known defective
    capsules from the manufacturere are subject to no regulation.

    Do you mean tampering with amalgam capsules, or placing amalgam in a
    different fashion?

    Quoted message said:


    A packet including all adverse reaction data is included with the
    drug and given to physician and patient. yes, asprin has a warning
    label.

    I have no problem with giving patients all the information they want.
    I make sure to point out what has been accepted by the scientific
    community and what has not.

    Ah, the ubiquitous "scientific community", where everyone holds hands and
    chants in unison the mantra of the safety of amalgams. Would that include
    the Swedish scientific community, and the Dutch scientific community, or the
    German scientific community?

    I bet the dozens of scientists who have conducted studies exposing the
    potential dangers of amalgam would be upset that you are not including them
    in the "scientific community".

    Obviously in every controversy (and make no mistake, there is a huge
    controversy), each side lays claims to "real science".

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Adverse reactions are collected and investigated. Not so FDA dental
    devices
    which has recieved thousands of adverse reaction reports and dumped
    them
    in the garbage.

    So you see, that is exactly the problem. In the US Amalgam isn't
    treated like a drug at all.

    Then you should concentrate your efforts in convincing the FDA that it
    should be treated as a drug.

    Dr. Bonilla

  3. "ta" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Jorge Bonilla said:

    [email hidden] (Clinton C Zimmerman) wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Exactly, amalgam should be treated as a Drug because it releases a
    deadly toxin into the human body.

    Not exactly. It should be treated as a drug if the FDA determines it
    should.

    Quoted message said:


    In the US how does the FDA treat drugs?
    Burden of proof of safety is on the manufacturer and it can take
    years for approval /not so amalgam which was grandfathered in and
    classified as a device to escape evalution for adverse effects from
    the high powered FDA drug
    division.

    Strict manufacturing contols are applied so that all pills or
    release capsules deliver dosage within a certain range and the
    drug company provides manufacturing data from the floor to
    assure compliance. Not so with amalgam where an incompentent dentist
    or assistant can pack amalgam in a way that substantially differs
    from what the manufacturer advertises and even known defective
    capsules from the manufacturere are subject to no regulation.

    Do you mean tampering with amalgam capsules, or placing amalgam in a
    different fashion?

    Quoted message said:


    A packet including all adverse reaction data is included with the
    drug and given to physician and patient. yes, asprin has a warning
    label.

    I have no problem with giving patients all the information they want.
    I make sure to point out what has been accepted by the scientific
    community and what has not.

    Ah, the ubiquitous "scientific community", where everyone holds hands and
    chants in unison the mantra of the safety of amalgams. Would that include
    the Swedish scientific community, and the Dutch scientific community, or


    the

    Quoted message said:

    German scientific community?

    I bet the dozens of scientists who have conducted studies exposing the
    potential dangers of amalgam would be upset that you are not including


    them

    Quoted message said:

    in the "scientific community".

    Obviously in every controversy (and make no mistake, there is a huge
    controversy), each side lays claims to "real science".

    Yup.

    However, the vast majority of people with amalgams live out their lives
    without incident.

    What's your beef? The politicians will scare everyone out of having them
    anyway in the US. Amalgams will be history and JD will take up knitting.

    Then you can spend your time in the ER assisting the OS on call extracting
    abcessed teeth from people that couldn't afford the alternative
    restorations. If you think this won't be a real problem, guess what - it is
    now.

    carabelli

  4. "ta" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    potential dangers

    I just love that term. *Potential* dangers.

    Definition

    ADJECTIVE: 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential
    problem.
    2. Having possibility, capability, or power.

    IOW, something that does not exist.

    Thank you for porving that the anti-amalgamistas are just scaremongers.

  5. carabelli said:

    "ta" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Jorge Bonilla said:

    [email hidden] (Clinton C Zimmerman) wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...
    >
    >
    > Exactly, amalgam should be treated as a Drug because it releases a
    > deadly toxin into the human body.

    Not exactly. It should be treated as a drug if the FDA determines it
    should.

    >
    > In the US how does the FDA treat drugs?
    > Burden of proof of safety is on the manufacturer and it can take
    > years for approval /not so amalgam which was grandfathered in and
    > classified as a device to escape evalution for adverse effects from
    > the high powered FDA drug
    > division.
    >
    > Strict manufacturing contols are applied so that all pills or
    > release capsules deliver dosage within a certain range and the
    > drug company provides manufacturing data from the floor to
    > assure compliance. Not so with amalgam where an incompentent
    > dentist or assistant can pack amalgam in a way that substantially
    > differs from what the manufacturer advertises and even known
    > defective capsules from the manufacturere are subject to no
    > regulation.

    Do you mean tampering with amalgam capsules, or placing amalgam in a
    different fashion?

    >
    > A packet including all adverse reaction data is included with the
    > drug and given to physician and patient. yes, asprin has a warning
    > label.

    I have no problem with giving patients all the information they
    want. I make sure to point out what has been accepted by the
    scientific community and what has not.

    Ah, the ubiquitous "scientific community", where everyone holds
    hands and chants in unison the mantra of the safety of amalgams.
    Would that include the Swedish scientific community, and the Dutch
    scientific community, or the German scientific community?

    I bet the dozens of scientists who have conducted studies exposing
    the potential dangers of amalgam would be upset that you are not
    including them in the "scientific community".

    Obviously in every controversy (and make no mistake, there is a huge
    controversy), each side lays claims to "real science".

    Yup.

    However, the vast majority of people with amalgams live out their
    lives without incident.

    Maybe so. Regardless, in making any decision that involves human health, we
    must consider more than just the interests of the "vast majority",
    especially when we cannot identify the alleged minority until they have
    already suffered, in some cases, immensely (and especially considering that
    there are safer alternatives that, as far as we know, do not pose the
    serious health risks that amalgams do).

    We have an obligation to protect the health of the minority as well.

    <snip>

  6. [email hidden] (Jorge Bonilla) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] (Clinton C Zimmerman) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Exactly, amalgam should be treated as a Drug because it releases a
    deadly toxin into the human body.

    Not exactly. It should be treated as a drug if the FDA determines it
    should.

    Not really,
    This is like me saying--> we shouldn't drill
    for oil in Alaska because it will not lower oil prices and destroy the
    environment. You reply--> we should drill for oil in Alasaka if and
    only
    if George Bush determines we should.

    Its well known, but you might not be aware that many products could
    potentially be classified as a device or a drug or both. This is not
    just the case for amalgam. It is also well known that if a product is
    classified as a device it will face a different level of scrutiny in
    some areas than if it is
    classified as a drug.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    In the US how does the FDA treat drugs?
    Burden of proof of safety is on the manufacturer and it can take years
    for approval /not so amalgam which was grandfathered in and classified
    as a device to escape evalution for adverse effects from the high
    powered FDA drug
    division.

    Strict manufacturing contols are applied so that all pills or
    release capsules deliver dosage within a certain range and the
    drug company provides manufacturing data from the floor to
    assure compliance. Not so with amalgam where an incompentent dentist
    or assistant can pack amalgam in a way that substantially differs from
    what the manufacturer advertises and even known defective capsules
    from the manufacturere are subject to no regulation.

    Do you mean tampering with amalgam capsules, or placing amalgam in a
    different fashion?

    Are you a dentist. If so, I would ask you what the variability in
    amalgam
    composition is.

    It is known that some capsules are defective and that the composition
    and
    stability of amalgam can vary considerably depending on dentist
    technique.
    See:

    http://www.brooks.af.mil/dis/HOT/valianphd.htm
    http://www.bonet.se/bwf/art/instab/introduction.html

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    A packet including all adverse reaction data is included with the
    drug and given to physician and patient. yes, asprin has a warning
    label.

    I have no problem with giving patients all the information they want.
    I make sure to point out what has been accepted by the scientific
    community and what has not.

    And as Ta pointed out, who is the scientifc community? Also keep in
    mind
    that the government said for 30 years that no mercury leaked from
    amalgam when it was easily provable that amalgam is the largest source
    of mercury in the population. So now should we trust the government?

    However, I do commend you on informing your patients, which in fact
    the
    ADA avoided doing for years, (and they even removed Hg from the safety
    data sheet). Do you post the information in your office so that all
    patients can see it?

    ..

    Quoted message said:


    Then you should concentrate your efforts in convincing the FDA that it
    should be treated as a drug.

    They've heard from congressman Burton and Watson on the issue. It was
    difficult
    for past FDA commisioners to admit that they made a mistake. It will
    be interesting to see what the new commisoner does.

  7. "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t [email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    "ta" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    potential dangers

    I just love that term. *Potential* dangers.

    Definition

    ADJECTIVE: 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a potential
    problem.
    2. Having possibility, capability, or power.

    IOW, something that does not exist.

    Thank you for porving that the anti-amalgamistas are just scaremongers.

    What is the highest amount of Hg, (organic and inorganic) being given off by an
    amalgam today?

  8. "Clinton C Zimmerman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t


    [email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    "ta" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    potential dangers

    I just love that term. *Potential* dangers.

    Definition

    ADJECTIVE: 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a


    potential

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    problem.
    2. Having possibility, capability, or power.

    IOW, something that does not exist.

    Thank you for porving that the anti-amalgamistas are just scaremongers.

    What is the highest amount of Hg, (organic and inorganic) being given off


    by an

    Quoted message said:

    amalgam today?

    What is the *actual* risk at whatever level you think is the highest. The
    "danger" is still potential, i.e., not in existence.

  9. "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t [email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    "Clinton C Zimmerman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t


    [email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    "ta" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    > potential dangers

    I just love that term. *Potential* dangers.

    Definition

    ADJECTIVE: 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a


    potential

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    problem.
    2. Having possibility, capability, or power.

    IOW, something that does not exist.

    Thank you for porving that the anti-amalgamistas are just scaremongers.

    What is the highest amount of Hg, (organic and inorganic) being given off


    by an

    Quoted message said:

    amalgam today?

    What is the *actual* risk at whatever level you think is the highest. The
    "danger" is still potential, i.e., not in existence.

    Do you agree that at some level release of mercury is harmful or poses
    a significant risk? Consider that the actual composition of real
    amalgam
    is highly variable and that the release of mercury amalgam is subject
    to many variables such as galvanic reactions with gold?

    Does the amount of Hg released from the worst case amalgam reach the
    level that
    you think poses significant risk?

    You can't answer the question because you don't know what the worst
    case is.

  10. [email hidden] (Clinton C Zimmerman) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] (Jorge Bonilla) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] (Clinton C Zimmerman) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Exactly, amalgam should be treated as a Drug because it releases a
    deadly toxin into the human body.

    Not exactly. It should be treated as a drug if the FDA determines it
    should.

    Not really,
    This is like me saying--> we shouldn't drill
    for oil in Alaska because it will not lower oil prices and destroy the
    environment. You reply--> we should drill for oil in Alasaka if and
    only
    if George Bush determines we should.

    Its well known, but you might not be aware that many products could
    potentially be classified as a device or a drug or both. This is not
    just the case for amalgam. It is also well known that if a product is
    classified as a device it will face a different level of scrutiny in
    some areas than if it is
    classified as a drug.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    In the US how does the FDA treat drugs?
    Burden of proof of safety is on the manufacturer and it can take years
    for approval /not so amalgam which was grandfathered in and classified
    as a device to escape evalution for adverse effects from the high
    powered FDA drug
    division.

    Strict manufacturing contols are applied so that all pills or
    release capsules deliver dosage within a certain range and the
    drug company provides manufacturing data from the floor to
    assure compliance. Not so with amalgam where an incompentent dentist
    or assistant can pack amalgam in a way that substantially differs from
    what the manufacturer advertises and even known defective capsules
    from the manufacturere are subject to no regulation.

    Do you mean tampering with amalgam capsules, or placing amalgam in a
    different fashion?

    Are you a dentist. If so, I would ask you what the variability in
    amalgam
    composition is.

    It is known that some capsules are defective and that the composition
    and
    stability of amalgam can vary considerably depending on dentist
    technique.
    See:

    http://www.brooks.af.mil/dis/HOT/valianphd.htm
    http://www.bonet.se/bwf/art/instab/introduction.html

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    A packet including all adverse reaction data is included with the
    drug and given to physician and patient. yes, asprin has a warning
    label.

    I have no problem with giving patients all the information they want.
    I make sure to point out what has been accepted by the scientific
    community and what has not.

    And as Ta pointed out, who is the scientifc community? Also keep in
    mind
    that the government said for 30 years that no mercury leaked from
    amalgam when it was easily provable that amalgam is the largest source
    of mercury in the population. So now should we trust the government?

    However, I do commend you on informing your patients, which in fact
    the
    ADA avoided doing for years, (and they even removed Hg from the safety
    data sheet). Do you post the information in your office so that all
    patients can see it?

    .

    Quoted message said:


    Then you should concentrate your efforts in convincing the FDA that it
    should be treated as a drug.

    They've heard from congressman Burton and Watson on the issue. It was
    difficult
    for past FDA commisioners to admit that they made a mistake. It will
    be interesting to see what the new commisoner does.

    The fact remains that the FDA is the entity who will make the
    determination, not us. I doubt they will do it anytime soon, though.
    The key may be to have all insurance companies provide at least an
    alternate benefits clause for amalgam restorations. You will find that
    most of us prefer to place composites.

    Sorry I couldn't view your links, they go to "Page not found".

    We inform our patients of the most common or probable risks in their
    treatment, and I include what the anti-amalgamists say about amalgam.
    I do point out that these views are not accepted by mainstream
    dentistry (I don't feel it would be honest to have them believe that
    it is), and I don't claim to be able to cure any of the so many
    illnesses attributed to amalgam. We also give them a detailed estimate
    of every option.

  11. ..> >

    Quoted message said:

    .

    I couldn't view your links, they go to "Page not found".

    Quoted message said:


    ..

    Sorry there should be a t in valianphd. I don't know what happened to
    the second one, I'll post the correct links later.

  12. "Clinton C Zimmerman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t


    [email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    "Clinton C Zimmerman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t


    [email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    > "ta" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    > news:[email hidden]...
    >
    > > potential dangers
    >
    > I just love that term. *Potential* dangers.
    >
    > Definition
    >
    > ADJECTIVE: 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a


    potential

    Quoted message said:

    > problem.
    > 2. Having possibility, capability, or power.
    >
    > IOW, something that does not exist.
    >
    > Thank you for porving that the anti-amalgamistas are just


    scaremongers.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    What is the highest amount of Hg, (organic and inorganic) being given


    off

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    by an

    Quoted message said:

    amalgam today?

    What is the *actual* risk at whatever level you think is the highest.


    The

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    "danger" is still potential, i.e., not in existence.

    Do you agree that at some level release of mercury is harmful or poses
    a significant risk?

    There is no question that there is a level where it becomes toxic. You raise
    a strawman argument.

    However, the evidence that it is toxic at the levels of vapors from
    amalgams, even assuming that you hold your breat for a few hours a day, is
    absent.

    Consider that the actual composition of real

    Quoted message said:

    amalgam
    is highly variable and that the release of mercury amalgam is subject
    to many variables such as galvanic reactions with gold?

    Highly variable? Hardly.

    Quoted message said:

    Does the amount of Hg released from the worst case amalgam reach the
    level that
    you think poses significant risk?

    That was my question to you. Show that there is a worst case scenario, and
    demonstrable risk at the worst case scenario.

    Quoted message said:

    You can't answer the question because you don't know what the worst
    case is.

    No, you cannot answer the question, as there is no proof of damage at the
    levels of relase of amalgams.

  13. Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Dental Profession Logic Re: Amalgam
    From: [email hidden] (Clinton C Zimmerman)
    Date: 6/16/2004 11:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
    [email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    "ta" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    potential dangers

    I just love that term. *Potential* dangers.

    Definition

    ADJECTIVE: 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a


    potential

    Quoted message said:

    problem.
    2. Having possibility, capability, or power.

    IOW, something that does not exist.

    Thank you for porving that the anti-amalgamistas are just scaremongers.

    What is the highest amount of Hg, (organic and inorganic) being given off by
    an
    amalgam today?

    You'll have to forgive Mark, he is one of those who puts down anything not
    endorsed by *organized medicine and dentsitry*, That's his one and only aim on
    theis ng. He knows not nor cares to know anything about the subject.

    http://www.testfoundation.org/amalgamhgrelease.htm

    Jan

  14. "Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Dental Profession Logic Re: Amalgam
    From: [email hidden] (Clinton C Zimmerman)
    Date: 6/16/2004 11:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 16, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
    [email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    "ta" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    > potential dangers

    I just love that term. *Potential* dangers.

    Definition

    ADJECTIVE: 1. Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent: a


    potential

    Quoted message said:

    problem.
    2. Having possibility, capability, or power.

    IOW, something that does not exist.

    Thank you for porving that the anti-amalgamistas are just scaremongers.

    What is the highest amount of Hg, (organic and inorganic) being given off


    by

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    an
    amalgam today?

    You'll have to forgive Mark, he is one of those who puts down anything not
    endorsed by *organized medicine and dentsitry*, That's his one and only


    aim on

    Quoted message said:

    theis ng. He knows not nor cares to know anything about the subject.

    http://www.testfoundation.org/amalgamhgrelease.htm

    And your sole purpose is to put down anyone who disagrees with you, as you
    did here.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.