Cent4dent Blog

April 26, 2007

About 10 days ago, I was invited to attend a meeting of parents of children who had attended Kiddie Kollege, in Franklinville, NJ, about 40 minutes from my home. Kiddie Kollege had been established in a building that had been a thermometer factory. It was supposed to be a toxic waste site. Through the purported miracle of political corruption, it was knowingly sold by the owner to someone who intended to use it for a nursery school. Mercury was used in these thermometers. As you know, mercury is also the most toxic naturally occurring substance on the planet.

The medical expenses that the families of these children will have, until their predicted early demise will be tremendous. The families do not have the wherewithal to fight the government, the organizational skills to move forward, or a spokesperson to represent them. As a consequence, very few parents attended this meeting, because of the group’s frustration in its inability to coalesce a plan. Hair follicle studies have shown a chronic exposure four times greater than allowable for a 200 pound man. Parents are talking about significant short term memory loss in their children as one of the many symptoms they are observing.

It is my hope that you have read the letter this far, and can help in some regard by acting on your own, to contact the representative of the group Sharon Frank at jellybeanheart68@aol.com or by forwarding this letter on, to other individuals you think can help. This story deserves national attention, before these children start dying of the cytotoxic effects of mercury toxicity.

My observations are that what is needed is:
1. Funding from local and national sources to help establish a foundation to help with medical expenses.
2. A person with organizational skills to step forward and become a campaigner for these unfortunate families. If anyone knows about a corporation with an “executive on loan” program, would you please see to it that this matter gets attention.
3. National publicity – connections with investigative shows like 20-20, Dateline, 60 Minutes would certainly get the ball rolling
4. Someone like Erin Brockovitch to take over
5. Local media sources to take up the story and not let it die until the innocent are given their retribution and the guilty are made to pay.
6. Medical information from one source for all families, who are getting conflicting information from their MD’s and from the state, which is not willing to provide the types of testing needed to evaluate all the children.

Without this help, this group has already become decimated, and those responsible think they are walking away unscathed. For more information and articles that have been written about this travesty, please look at the upper left hand corner of my website at http://www.cent4dent.com/html/mercury_issues/links.html Please think about who you know who could help with one of the 6 items above. Do not let those who willfully exposed over 100 children to toxic levels of mercury escape justice. Thank you for your time.

To learn more about the environmental/legal aspects of this situation, read http://www.envirobank.org/upload/articles/Kidde_Kollege_Debacle-SEJ.pdf

Steve Markus, DMD

Dear Dr. Markus,

I am writing to tell you how pleased I am with my new smile. I had veneers placed on my upper teeth over seventeen years ago to cover gaps that could not be closed after extensive orthodontic treatment. Due to gum loss and visibly prominent eye teeth, I became increasingly unhappy and self-conscious with my teeth’s appearance. After a consultation and thorough evaluation by you and your staff, I felt confident in my decision to proceed with your office. I was very impressed with your state-of-the-art facility, digital x-rays and computerized bite analysis. Additionally, you were very informative and helpful in selecting the appropriate shade, shape and contour of my veneers. I explained to you that while I was in no rush, I was constrained by my job and role as a mother of twin toddlers in the amount of visits in which the veneers could be replaced. True to your word, in just a few visits, you took an impression, placed temporaries, ordered the veneers and placed them.

Notably, while I was waiting for my permanent veneers to come in, I had a minor emergency and Dr. Scott treated me at 8:00 p.m. on Saturday night! I am extremely pleased with the final results and trust me, I am a very hard person to please!

See her photos on the Testimonials page of our website.

Dear Anita,

I was notified this morning by other members of the Academy of Contemporary Esthetics, of which I am a Fellow, about the story you did last night that made national attention this morning. While I think you attempted to be very even-handed in this report, presenting both sides of the story, I think that the public needed to understand the fact that Lumineers are not widely accepted by those of us practice cosmetic dentistry full-time.

I know you and I have done several stories together in the past, and have offered my services as a consultant when I have dealt with your assistant Dawn Heefner.

Think about this situation for a second. Let’s say you wanted to place an artificial foot on someone, but rather than amputating the foot so you could put the person back at the same height, you just built the new foot over the old one. That would leave the patient with quite a limp, and their shoes wouldn’t fit any longer, because the new foot would be wider, longer and taller than the old one.

Form must follow function. In the mouth, if veneers are done before the bite has been equilibrated to perfection; you are only magnifying the unevenness in the bite by changing the smile without correcting the bite. Add to that the fact that most Lumineers, especially on lower teeth, can substantially modify the bite, and you’ve got a problem.

What the public needs to be aware of is that Lumineers are generally done by dentists who haven’t had the training in cosmetic dentistry that cosmetic dentists have. Lumineers have limited application: To make teeth longer, or to close gaps between teeth.

In the case you showed on TV today, you made several assertions which I would like to expand upon:

1. Lumineers can be done without the discomfort of injections – this is true, in the right applications, but most cosmetic cases we treat require more than correcting already perfectly aligned teeth, and to do that, teeth have to be shortened, narrowed, recontoured and made to fit back in the curvature of the arch. To do so requires some drilling, and therefore anesthesia. Most dentists I know pride themselves on their ability to minimize the discomfort of injections by adhering to a specific order and type of anesthetic. We also have many other anxietolytic remedies including nitrous oxide, headphones, sedation.

2. Ultrathin – How do you develop natural translucency in a thin layer when you have a dark underlying tooth, without the veneer appearing opaque? Most Lumineer cases I have seen are monochromatic without characterization of incisal edges which makes them look more natural.

3. Your ADA representative stated something about wanting to take a wait and see attitude. This made me laugh. These lumineers have been around for 20 years. How long does he have to wait? The ADA gets a lot of advertising dollars from DenMat, so what is a representative of the ADA going to say? Just this week I got a letter from the attorney for DenMat asking me to take down negative references to Lumineers on my website. My colleagues felt I had done nothing wrong, and should have kept the information up, but I don’t have the time for legal battles. The purpose of that information on the site was to dissuade individuals who were contemplating laminates by untrained dentists, to re-think the process. I am currently involved as an expert witness in a case that was one of the worst examples of what happens when untrained dentists are led to believe they can be cosmetic dentists by manufacturers of these products. This is not to say that these restorations are improper. Case selection (and dentist selection) are of the essence. Those pages will be back up on the site soon, after we have modified the terminology.

4. You state that Lumineers have a record of strength and durability. In our experience (and I have asked my colleagues for affirmation in this realm), this is not exactly the truth.

5. Where do you come up with a $1000 per veneer fee? You know, you can buy wigs in a wig store for $29.95, or pay a wigmaker ten or more times as much to get something custom made for you. There should have been a range presented. We used to think about putting a sign out in front of our office saying “We repair $600 Lunineers”.

6. Finally, you have the patient stating that she thinks her smile looks fabulous. This is certainly true from a layman’s standpoint. While the after pictures are not close-up enough for me on my computer screen to assess thoroughly (and I would be happy to critique them further for you if you can send me the jpeg files) the veneers look extremely over-contoured and fat to me and the gums look really puffy. This is typical of the result you get when you don’t adequately prepare the teeth. They also look very monochromatic and opaque, although that may be my prejudice against Lumineers coming through.

Sincerely,
Steve Markus, D.M.D., F.A.C.E
The Centre for Dentistry at Haddon
www.cent4dent.com
Symphonic Smiles – hands-on training in cosmetic dentistry and library of dental office letters
www.symphonicsmiles.com
1 800 520 3440

Watch my TV show Smile on Comcast Cable .
Live! Every Monday at 9 PM
Channel info: Camden County (21) Burlington (32) Other areas try 15 or channel surf looking for me!

You see, when I originally started this website, it was to educate the innocent public about the hazards of managed care, as I saw it, and the dangers of mercury fillings (the “silver” fillings in your teeth are really 50% mercury, the most toxic naturally occurring substance on earth. Today, I got this email from Charlie Brown, the attorney for many citizens’ anti-mercury concerns. This is very exciting, because for the first time, those of us who have been concerned for a long time, are thinking that we’re going to see a dramatic turnaround on the parts of the FDA and the ADA. Here is Charlie’s email:

Court declines to rule on merits in Moms Against Mercury v. FDA –

but suggests road map to victory

The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that it lacks jurisdiction (the statutory authority to rule) in Moms Against Mercury, et al. v. FDA, adding the decision is not a ruling on the merits of our cause and implying a remedy could lie in the U.S. District Court. (Full opinion at www.cadc.uscourts.gov — on right side click “All Opinions”; see Apr. 13, 2007, 4th case).

To win this round, FDA paid an enormous price. To achieve credibility with the court, FDA abandoned its long-time role of cheerleader for amalgam, five times admitting in its court brief that it FDA doesn’t know if mercury fillings are safe or unsafe. (Those 5 admissions at www.toxicteeth.org/natcamp_fedgovt_fda_admits_Mar07.cfm)

That a federal agency continues to allow untrammeled sales of a mercury-based device to pregnant women and children while conceding “the lack of definitive scientific evidence” and “intense disagreement about the scientific evidence” is reckless, contemptible, and immoral. FDA must be hoping that no one outside the Capital Beltway finds out. Or perhaps some of FDA’s protectors of mercury fillings (see next paragraph) intend to disavow those admissions before the ink is dry on the court decision. Suspecting just that, I sent a warning letter to FDA counsel advising that any statements by FDA returning to the status quo ante constitutes a Fraud on the Court. (Letter at www.toxicteeth.org/natcamp_fedgovt_fda_brown_Apr07.cfm)

FDA’s hard-line protectors of mercury fillings include Associate Comm’r Norris Alderson, who presented the “white paper” apologia for amalgam in September, a position soundly rejected by two Scientific Advisory Committee position; Center for Devices Director Dan Schultz, MD, and Dep. Director Linda Kahan, Esq., who together uphold the outrageous “professional courtesy” stand to allow self-interested dentists ignorant of toxicological issues to make the decision, hence giving primacy to dental economics over children and fetal health; Division Director Chiu Lin, who used an unauthorized substantial equivalence test to OK an application for mercury fillings, even though the applicant himself advised Lin that mercury fillings aren’t allowed for pregnant women and children in its home country, the U.K.; and Dental Devices Branch Director Mary Susan Runner, the initiator of the notorious BETAH-LSRO contract and the ADA’s fifth columnist inside FDA.

The astonishing gap between FDA’s position (doesn’t know if it’s safe) and its policy (may be implanted into anyone without even warnings) is setting off a grassroots firestorm. Ken Stoller, M.D., filed a sworn complaint to the New Mexico Board of Pharmacy asking that mercury fillings, no longer certified as safe by FDA, be banned in that state (want to help?–write Ken, hbotnm@netzero.com). Philadelphia Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown plans hearings in early May (want to help?–write Freya Koss, frekoss@aol.com). The latest example of a reckless dentist leaving bottles of mercury for children to get exposed happened in West Virginia; this time, we have a plan to fight back (want to help?–write Sandy Keech Esq., sandraK@toxicteeth.org). In Ohio, the movement is growing to add a mercury-free dentist to a dental board whose policy is to block from consumers disclosures that “silver fillings” aren’t really silver (want to help?–write Jessica Kerger, Esq. JessKerger@aol.com). Congresswoman Watson is closely monitoring these developments in consultation with Members of the House Government Reform Committee (want to help?–write Elizabeth Wright, elizabeth@toxicteeth.org)

Here’s the good news about the Court opinion: It appears to suggest an ongoing violation of law. The Court holds that FDA may not approve mercury amalgam by using a “substantial equivalent” test. But that is exactly what FDA is doing when it approves mercury amalgam applications.

In the days ahead (stay tuned to our web site), we will announce our next step to reign in an FDA bureaucracy that exhibits both contempt for the law and reckless indifference to the health, and very lives, of America’s born and unborn children.

Charlie Brown, 4/14/07

Charles G. Brown, National Counsel

Consumers for Dental Choice

1725 K St., N.W., Suite 511, Washington DC 20006

Ph. 202.822-6307; fax 822-6309

charlie@toxicteeth.org, www.toxicteeth.org