General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: Suppressing The Truth

Started by Jan · · Last activity · 1 post · 192 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
13 November 2003
Last activity
13 November 2003
Original author
Jan
Posts
1
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
192
Views / 30 days
0

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

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

Text size
  1. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12213

    Dentist says state told him to clam up about mercury fillings

    By The Associated Press
    11.13.03 NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A dentist who has clashed with state health
    officials over mercury-based dental fillings is suing the state Department of
    Public Health in a free-speech case.

    Dr. Mark Breiner, an Orange dentist who claims there are health risks in the
    mercury-based fillings, has had a federal lawsuit filed on his behalf by the
    Connecticut Civil Liberties Union.

    In December 2001, Breiner agreed to stop recommending that his patients replace
    their amalgam fillings, as part of a consent decree with the state health
    department to keep his license.

    But in July 2002, Breiner wrote a commentary for the Connecticut Post
    newspaper, urging legislation banning mercury-based filings.

    The commentary drew the ire of state health officials within weeks of its
    publication. Health officials told Breiner that his opinion piece appeared to
    violate his consent decree.

    Health officials then informed Breiner in a letter dated Aug. 8, 2002, that
    they would take no further action against his license "contingent upon your
    agreement to refrain from submitting any more editorials concerning your
    opinion of amalgam fillings and/or legislation regarding such."

    Breiner's lawsuit, filed yesterday in U.S. District Court, seeks a judgment
    declaring the alleged health department threat unconstitutional.

    "The DPH may be able to regulate what a practitioner says in his office or to
    his patients," said Teresa Younger, CCLU's executive director. "But the bottom
    line is, no public agency is able to ever squelch the First Amendment when
    dealing with the general public."

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.