Cent4dent Blog

Posted by: Dr. Mercola
November 28 2009 |

U.S. health authorities have made pregnant women one of the highest priority groups for getting the H1N1 swine flu vaccine, but is it actually safe for pregnant women and their babies?

In fact, the package inserts for the swine flu vaccines actually say that the safety of these vaccines for pregnant women has not been established. And miscarriage reports from pregnant women who have taken the H1N1 swine flu vaccine are starting to pour in from all over the nation.

The link below contains stories that will shock and anger you. If you are a pregnant mother, please do not take the H1N1 swine flu vaccine. Instead, do everything that you can do to avoid public places and make sure to wash your hands more than you usually would. Research the many great natural ways there are for fighting the flu.

As a pro-safety drug- and vaccine advocate, I believe it’s imperative to be able to unequivocally prove that a drug or vaccine will cause no harm, AND be able to show that it offers measurable benefit, before releasing it to market. This is especially important when we’re dealing with pregnant women and young children.

Neither is true for the flu vaccine during pregnancy, and even less so for the H1N1 vaccine when given to pregnant women.

Flu vaccine manufacturers clearly indicate that safety and effectiveness of their flu vaccines have not been established for pregnant women and nursing mothers. Ditto for their H1N1 vaccines.

Heartbreaking Stories of Losses After H1N1 Vaccination

The source links above contain personal stories of heartbreak – women who lost their babies just hours or days after getting the H1N1 vaccine this year. Naturally, the standard comeback is that miscarriages are commonplace, and surely have nothing to do with the vaccine. However, to simply dismiss these events as “coincidences” is a serious mistake.

Perhaps some of the 20 women on one of the blogs would have miscarried anyway, but when a number of women have healthy, uneventful pregnancies up until they’re injected with a vaccine, and then suddenly miscarry, it most certainly warrants investigation!

Be Part of the Solution – REPORT All Side Effects to VAERS!

I’m willing to bet that most of these incidents have not been properly reported to the authorities, and this is something everyone needs to be better informed about.

Please know that any time you take a pharmaceutical drug, or are injected with a vaccine of any kind, you need to report any and all side effects to your doctor and insist that he or she report it to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Ask to get a copy of the report to make sure it was done.

Also know that YOU can report it yourself! You don’t have to go via your doctor.
The VAERS web site allows you to fill out an adverse event report on your own.
Unfortunately, since reporting side effects to VAERS is voluntary, only one to 10 percent of all side effects are ever reported!

Yet VAERS can serve a vital function, alerting authorities to significant problems with various drugs and vaccines. We NEED this information, because without it, authorities and drug makers can simply continue to say that a drug or vaccine has been used safely for a number of years, without ever having done any real studies and follow up.

The truth is, we know extremely little about the true safety and effectiveness of most drugs and vaccines on the market.

None of the H1N1 Flu Vaccines Have Ever Been Tested on Pregnant Women
If you are willing to be a guinea pig, then so be it. But I urge you not to be. It’s simply not your responsibility to subject yourself to this type of cruel field testing. Know this: the vaccine manufacturers and the doctors administering the shots are legally protected, should something go wrong. You cannot sue them for damages.

If you read the package inserts, you’ll find that NONE of them have ever been tested for safety and effectiveness in pregnant women and nursing mothers, and none of them are recommended for pregnant women “unless clearly needed.”
(And this is something I’ll get to in a moment…)

You also need to understand that no reproduction studies have been done to determine how these flu vaccines (whether for seasonal- or the H1N1 vaccine) affect future fertility, and whether or how they affect a developing fetus.

So truly, YOU are little more than a test subject; a statistic that may or may not be counted, depending on whether your side effects are properly reported and investigated, should something go awry.

In the US, four H1N1 vaccines have achieved FDA approval, and you can read their package inserts by clicking on the hyperlinks below:
• MedImmune (intranasal spray)
• Novartis
• Sanofi-Pasteur
• CSL Biotherapies, Inc.

For more information about these vaccines, and a quick review of each vaccine’s list of ingredients, please see my previous article A Review of Four Approved Swine Flu Vaccines’ Ingredients.
How Effective is the H1N1 Vaccine, Really?

If you read through the package inserts (hyperlinked above) for the injectable, inactivated flu vaccines, you will find the following paragraph:

“Specific levels of HI antibody titers post-vaccination with inactivated influenza virus vaccine have not been correlated with protection from influenza virus. In some human studies, antibody titers of 1:40 or greater have been associated with protection from influenza illness in up to 50% of subjects.”
What that paragraph explains, is that, to the best of our knowledge, the vaccine only works in half, or less, of those individuals who attain the specified level of seroconversion after vaccination.
The FDA defines seroconversion as achieving an antibody titer of 1:40.
This means that if a vaccine was 100 percent effective at achieving this level of seroconversion, it would protect up to 50 percent of the recipients of the vaccine.

But none of the vaccines are 100 percent effective at achieving seroconversion.
CSL’s vaccine insert, for example, (see pages 11-12), states that their H1N1 vaccine provides seroconversion for:
• 48.7 percent of people aged 18-65
• 34 percent for seniors, 65 and older

That means that, at best, their vaccine works in one out of every four people! (49 percent of 50 percent).

Which, of course, means that the vaccine does NOT work in three out of every four people…
Is a 25 percent chance of reaping any sort of benefit worth the risk, especially if you’re pregnant?
Many health officials and doctors say this benefit is worth the risk, and urge pregnant women to get vaccinated with one or both flu vaccines this year. They claim the potential dangers inherent in getting sick with the flu while pregnant is a far more significant than any potential danger from the vaccine.

But is that really true?

How Dangerous is the Flu While Pregnant, and is Flu Vaccination Warranted?
A paper published in the summer 2006 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, titled Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Critical Assessment of the Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), concludes that the flu vaccine recommendation for pregnant women should be withdrawn as:
a) flu is rarely a complication for pregnant women, and
b) no safety studies have been done

The authors’ state:
“Influenza vaccination during all trimesters of pregnancy is now universally recommended in the United States. We critically reviewed the influenza vaccination policy of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice and the citations that were used to support their recommendations.
The ACIP’s citations and the current literature indicate that influenza infection is rarely a threat to a normal pregnancy.

There is no convincing evidence of the effectiveness of influenza vaccination during this critical period.

… The ACIP policy recommendation of routinely administering influenza vaccine during pregnancy is ill-advised and unsupported by current scientific literature, and it should be withdrawn…”
Interestingly, it explains that the ACIP’s recommendations are based on just TWO scientific papers that support the claim that the flu is more serious during pregnancy than at other times, and points out the multiple flaws with each of these two studies.

Here’s an excerpt explaining the lack of true evidence presented by the first study:
“A British study compared maternal and neonatal outcomes in women infected with the influenza virus during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy with those of pregnant, uninfected controls. Only 11% of the 1,659 pregnant subjects had serological evidence of the illness; none had detectable influenza A-specific IgM.

There was also no evidence for transplacental transmission of the influenza virus, or autoantibody production in influenza-complicated pregnancies. Influenza infection had no significant impact on labor outcomes, health of the newborn, or maternal well-being.

The authors claimed that overall “complications” in pregnant women with influenza infection occurred more frequently than in controls; however, no individual complication achieved statistical significance.
Many of the listed complications appeared to be subjective complaints such as chest pain and “taking medication,” rather than specific diagnoses, and some could have been related to comorbid conditions that the authors failed to address.

While there was only one recorded case of pneumonia during pregnancy, an uncommon but serious complication of influenza, all other “complications” lacked biological plausibility.
When such nonspecific complications were excluded, there were no significant differences between the two groups…”

Another interesting fact brought to light in this paper is that, ironically, some of the “evidence” used to create the recommendation for flu vaccination for pregnant women shows that it may cause more harm than good!

“Munoz et al. also failed to demonst
rate effectiveness of influenza vaccination in pregnancy during five influenza seasons (1998-2003). Rates of upper respiratory tract infection did not significantly differ between vaccinated and unvaccinated women.

Paradoxically, the authors found four times as many influenza-like illness-related hospitalizations in vaccinated women (2.8% vs 0.7%), an observation similar to that of Neuzil et al (2.2% vs 0.7%) [the second study used to support the ACIP recommendation].

These observations not only challenge vaccine effectiveness, but also raise concern that vaccination actually carries added risk of influenza-like illness.” [Emphasis mine.]
Lastly, the paper questions the rationale for using a polio vaccine study – which was rejected by the Institute of Medicine on the basis of flawed study design – in support of their decision that flu vaccinations are safe for pregnant women.

The authors called the decision “peculiar.”
Indeed…

Final Thoughts
Hopefully, this information will help you weigh the risks and benefits to make a more educated decision for yourself and your family. No one can, nor should, make this decision for you.
I urge you to continue educating yourself about vaccines before yet another generation is lost to medical arrogance and greed.

In this eye-opening interview, CBS News correspondent and award-winning investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson shares the details she unearthed when investigating the swine flu.

The government, OUR GOVERNMENT, for some reason is using scare tactics to get us all to take a shot. The methods of reporting the incidence of swine flu are bogus. Click here to listen to the full report.

Brought to you as a public service, to show there are two sides to every story, by Dr. Markus and www.SmileSouthJersey.com

This is just one paragraph, from a great synopsis of why the vaccination is crap.

What can I do? These are just a few suggestions; please come up

with more of your own! Add to this list and spread the word.

•Give this information to everyone you know and love.

•Contact local first responders (EMTs, Paramedics, Fireman, etc). Tell

them what is will be in the flu shots and that “they” will be the first

ones to get it.

•Contact local police and discuss concerns about mandatory

vaccination. You go to church and to the grocery store with these

folks and their kids play with your kids. They are not “scary” people.

Take them coffee and a treat to get in the door… !

•Contact local city council members about your liberties. You need

their support to maintain your right to refuse.

•Write a small article for LOCAL, community newspapers. Watch for

samples on www.DrTenpenny.com

•Have at least 3 weeks of food and water at your house and be

prepared to voluntarily self-quarantine of given no other options.

Stock up on Vitamin D3 (3000IU per person), Mixed carotenoids, Vitamin

C (buffered), etc and beta-1,3/1,6-glucan (an immune stimulant that targets cellular immunity, the most effective against flu virus)

Please visit the swine flu data page of http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

What experience and history teach is this — that people and governments never have learned anything from history or acted on principles deduced from it.” G.W.F. Hegel

I have been following the evolving “pandemic” of H1N1 influenza beginning with the original discovery of the infection in Mexico in March of this year. In the course of this study I have tried to utilize as my sources high-quality, peer-reviewed journals, data from the CDC and accepted textbooks of virology.

read and listen

Hi Steve,

Erich asks a great question and I’ve just recently re-looked at the smoking teeth video because I used a segment of it in the Seminars Paul Rubin and I recently put on How to Make Your Practice Mercury Safe: Minimizing Occupational Exposure to Mercury at the Dental Office. I’m pretty sure I mentioned them to you and we are getting ready to offer the DVD format of the seminar.

Anyway, I thought that overall it provided some good and accurate information but there were a few places where I either didn’t agree with what David Kennedy said or couldn’t confirm the numbers. I’ll explain.

In the first part of the video, where he is stimulating the 25 year old amalgam filling in various ways he makes a statement that if you can see mercury vapor coming off of an amalgam filling (of course using a backdrop that will show it as he does) then it is at least 1,000 times higher than the EPA allows in the air we breathe. The EPA deals with emissions, such as mercury from coal burning power plants and I’ve still not been able to find the so-called allowable number in the way it is normally regulated by OSHA and the other regulatory agencies in the workplace (which I consider the most important for the majority of people), such as in mcg/Hg/m3. Here is a bit of information about what the EPA has announced. The nation’s 450 coal-fired power plants are the main culprits. They emit some 48 tons of mercury into the atmosphere each year. The new regulations aim to cut those emissions to 38 tons in five years, and to 15 tons by 2018.

I’ve not seen anything from the EPA regarding office/workplace air. But the agencies that do regulate this air, or make suggestions, all vary in the amount that they consider safe. These figures range from 3mcg’s per hour over a 24 hour period to 50 mcg’s as a time weighted average based on a 8 hour day or 40 hour week. WHO is in the middle at 25mcg’s.

David also used an eraser to heat the filling, an odd choice in my opinion when it would have been just as easy to use a toothbrush (a much more common way of stimulating an amalgam filling. But I’ve used a Jerome Mercury Vapor Analyzer for many years and I’d say that during a 4 year period I tested hundreds of amalgam fillings using a soft bristle tooth brush and the numbers I got ranged from 150mcg’s to over 400mcg’s, depending on how hard I brushed and probably the type of amalgam, high copper or not.

During our Seminar I also used an eraser and the Jerome recorded about 250mcg’s, I can’t remember exactly.

But clearly, none of these numbers come close to being 1,000 times higher than the EPA (which I still don’t believe uses mcg’s) or any of the other regulatory agencies figures for mercury levels. However, drilling out an amalgam unsafely can generater 1,000mcg’s, or more, as I”ve tested that using a Jerome during removal and it went off the highest level the Jerome can record, 999mcg’s. (By the way, I believe that David also said unsafe removal can generate 4,000mcg’s of mercury vapor, but I was unable to substantiate that number, even though it could well be accurate. I say this because the Jerome I used only went up to 999mcg’s.)

It should also be pointed out that these numbers, 3, 25, 50, all give an appearance of being small numbers and who could be concerned about 3, or 25? But the fact is that 1 mcg of mercury contains 3 trillion atoms of it. Regardless, the key point here is that no matter what levels these agencies deem as being safe, there is no safe level of mercury and even one atom of it is doing harm to the body, albeit will take many, many trillions of it to chronically accumulate over time to cause an observable symptom of it to appear. This alone is a huge subject and I cover it in detail in my book, The Poison in Your Teeth: Mercury Amalgam (Silver) Fillings . . . Hazardous to Your Health.

I suggest that if Eric is as interested in the amalgam issue as he sounds that he will appreciate the book and I know it will answer many of his questions and add to his background knowledge.

That said I’ll briefly address Erich’s key questions.

As I mentioned, I’ve tested a number of amalgams, a number of which the patient believed to be over 25 years old and all still showed high levels of mercury being released, depending on a number of factors. I’m not sure just how scientific this is but I did observe it and that was proof enough for me. If Erich had a Jerome he would find the same results.

The video does say that a lot of mercury vapor is emitted during placement, and that is true. I’ve tested this and during actual placement, where elemental mercury is actually pooling on the filling as it is being compressed, will exceed the recorded limits of the Jerome, 999mcg/Hg/m3. The same would be true if you broke a thermometer (containing elemental mercury) and tested the mercury vapor levels at room temperature. It will also exceed the recording limits of the Jerome and I’ve done this test too.

Thus, it is true that mercury is released during placement, during stimulation while in the tooth (to various levels and depending on a number of factors) and while it is being unsafely removed. Relatively speaking and considering that no amount of mercury is safe, these are all high amounts of mercury. Again, I believe the book will also be of value to Erich if he provided it to patients who want to go into detail about the pro’s and con’s of amalgam and will save him and his staff a lot of time not having to deal with this at the office. You might have to treat them at the office but you don’t have to teach them there.

As Erich pointed out with his basic math section, there is 400mg of Hg in a 3 spill capsule. As I pointed out, that is LOT of mercury, 400,000mcg’s of it, times 3 trillion atoms. It has to be remembered that the mercury that is released during stimulation takes place on the surface but as the amalgam is worn down new surface areas are created exposing more mercury. I’ve never seen a study that shows or proves that the mercury being released during stimulation (the amount of elemental mercury vapor released in any situation is directly proportional to the temperature) comes from inside the filling. Thus, as we all know, even a 25 year old amalgam would still have a lot of mercury left in it, although I’ve not seen any studies that have attempted to determine that amount.

He is also right in figuring out that most of the mercury that was released during those 25 years in the tooth will have entered the body, 80% of it is the number that is used. How much of what has entered is still there is impossible to tell because the body can remove it, up to a point (this process is also described in my book).

I really think Erich is asking very good and legitimate questions, many of the ones I asked myself when I embarked on my research for writing my books. I wrote the book for the layperson but I feel it is even more important for the dentist and health professional. It took me a book to explain everything I felt people should know about it and there is no way I can deal with everything I feel Erich would want to know in this email. But hopefully it will help in some way to address the specific questions he had. I also don’t think there is anything simple when looking for answers to questions and wanted to know more about something and I only wish more dentists were as open minded as Erich is.

Thanks for sending this along Steve and I hope it makes some sense. In some ways it is information taken out of context from my book as some of this should be prefaced and followed up on. I do hope you are well and keep up the great work you do, for the public, the profession and your patients.

In Health,

Tom

Tom McGuire, DDS

President, The Dental Wellness Institute

Founder, International Association of Mercury Safe Dentists (IAMSD)

Co-Founder, New Directions Dentistry, LLC

Member, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT)

Telephone Contact

Within the USA: 1-800-335-7755

Outside the USA: 707-829-7220

Email: dentwell@pacbell.net

Address

Dental Wellness Institute

321 S. Main St. #503

Sebastopol, CA 95472

Dear Lorin,

> HOW MUCH mercury is still being released after 25 years ??
>And beyond that ,
> how much is inhaled,
>ingested and
>absorbed into vital tissues??

These are very fundamental questions that were addressed 20+ years ago by numerous research papers. Some of the initial research funded by the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology addressed these exact issues. In fact, it is our belief that if you cannot answer these issues first then you are not scientifically ready to address the next set of issues which are specifically injury to dentists and dental personnel and links to specific diseases.

HOW MUCH mercury is still being released after 25 years ??

Since it takes 25 years to set up such an experiment I cannot personally think of a good way but I do recall Stewart measured old amalgams of indeterminate age but all over 10 years and found that on average they had lost 25% of their estimated original mercury content. Again this experiment is very flawed for may reasons but mainly because no retrospective study knows for certain how the original filling was made and under what circumstance it was compacted.

To specifically answer your question I’ve attached a recent study where Boyd Haley, PhD measured 10 brands of amalgam made by 9 different dentists in standardized round blocks in vitro under extraordinarily mild conditions (room temperature, static conditions, water diluents and no stimulation). The specimens were first allowed to age so that any superficial excess was not part of the study. (PDF attached)

As you can read just one of the very best performing amalgam released considerably more mercury daily than is considered safe by any regulatory body. There was enormous variation between different manufacturers, different batches of the same manufacturer and between individual dentists. This fact alone makes it virtually impossible to guestimate your clients daily dose from old amalgams.

And beyond that , how much is inhaled,

This question was addressed in Vimy Lorscheider’s 1986 study using standard medical respiratory rates and mercury absorption rates, number of fillings and oral mercury vapor rates. (PDF attached)

ingested and absorbed into vital tissues??

1987 Eggleston did Neutron activation analysis of human brain and kidney to determine mercury content. The amount in brain and kidney the day you die is proportional to the number and size of mercury/silver fillings in your teeth. (PDF attached)

This simple experiment in my mind should have ended the endless arguments on whether or not amalgams pose a significant source of mercury considering the fact that there are other environmental, medical and nutritional sources as well. They were proven to be substantially less significant than implanted in situ in vivo amalgams.

——————————————————————————–
Now bear with me a second and address a significant point that I’d like to emphasize:

Had you attended one of the IAOMT fundamentals courses given over the last 25 years you could have answered these questions for yourself. Why couldn’t you? Not just because you didn’t take our course but because tragically the courses offered to dentists through their local dental society and various “educators” do not address even these fundamental issues.
You can answer all of these questions for yourself and many more simply by accessing the “Scientific case against amalgam” where these issue and many others is addressed on our web site open to the public at www.iaomt.org.
Even better you can read arguments both for and against the use of amalgam presented to the FDA expert panel form all over the world that address many more issues. I’ve not only filed several on behalf or the IAOMT but read those submitted by others. Did you? If not why not?
Why has this happened? Because as I said in my response to Tonganoxie our profession is very poorly educated in basic sciences and we are kept captive by our trade associations who make money from not only from our dues but also from product endorsement, trade shows and certificates of approval. This is a gross conflict of interest and does not serve us or the public well.

Again I am always ready and willing to help my fellow professionals locate research that addresses their particular issue but I won’t sit idly by while my personal integrity is impugned by someone who hasn’t bothered to even begin to look beyond the propaganda they were force fed in their so called “dental education”.

Sincerely,

David Kennedy, DDS
Past President
International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
4380 Monaco Street
San Diego, CA 92107
Email: davidkennedy-dds@cox.net
Phone: (619) 222-8177
Cell: (619) 247-5738

This following interchange should be read from the bottom up. It shows how ill-prepared and uneducated even the strongest of dentists are when it comes to the handling of mercury, the most toxic, naturally-occurring substance on the planet surface.

The story is one of a female patient who after having her mercury fillings ground down for crowns went into a mercury storm.

You are correct Steve about the sheep but incorrect about humans. The Frykholm study in 1957 crude by today’s standards found mercury in urine of humans both upon placement and removal. We now know that some mercury remains in those experimental subjects to this day. ( Frykholm KO: On mercury from dental amalgam. Its toxic and allergic effects and some comments on occupational hygiene. Acta Odont Scand 15:7-108, suppl 22, 1957)

Vimy and Lorscheider had already repeated the Sheep study in monkeys by the time the sheep study was published so they knew that exactly the same think occurred in monkeys. That is why in the Smoking Tooth video I ask, “So what’s the problem with monkeys?”

( Hahn, Leszek J.; Kloiber, Reinhard; Leininger, Ronald W.; Vimy, Murray J.; & Lorscheider, Fritz L. Whole-body imaging of the distribution of mercury released from dental fillings into monkey tissues. FASEB, Vol. 4, Nov. 1990, pp. 3256-3260.)

I will hasten to point our for the scientifically inclined that the journals that published Dr. Vimy’s sheep and monkey studies is THE most prestigious physiological journal in the world. They are not only peer reviewed by the worlds experts in medical physiology but their journal is ad free and this not subject to the pressures of advertisers and then truly a scientific journal.

All mercury fillings leak mercury. It has been proven. So now deal with the next issue body burden.

Eggleston’s autopsy study did a very good job of answering that question. (see previous post to Guy)

So now we are down to the final hurdle a specific disease. Ziff published in a review of numerous articles that found bone loss in humans from implanting amalgams. ( Ziff, MF. Documented Clinical Side-Effects to Dental Amalgam. Adv Dent Res, 6:131-4, 1992.)

Isn’t periodontal disease a wide spread disorder of mankind? Obviously since some people don’t have amalgams and do have the disease, mercury from amalgams can only be considered linked rather than causative but nevertheless a disease accelerated by implanting mercury/silver fillings.

BTW by the Doctrine of Learned Intermediary mercury packers are obligated to share with their patients prior to treatment the manufacturer’s warnings. Have you read what they say?

Sincerely,

David Kennedy DDS

On 11/8/09 2:26 PM, “Steve Markus” wrote:

The famous sheep study, by Vimy, using radioisotopes of Hg in amalgam proved that mercury dispersed to all parts of the body. What you may not be aware of is that Vimy, a wet-fingered suburban dentist like many of us designed the study, under supervision of the medical school at Calgary, to prove Huggins was confused about the non-binding nature of mercury in Amalgam. Vimy was shocked to find his results. The ADA, in a very weak moment told the NYTimes that “this study was done on sheep, it wasn’t done on humans.” Vimy repeated the same results in primates.
Steve Markus
The Centre for Dentistry at Haddon
209 White Horse Pike
Haddon Heights, NJ 08035
856 546 0665

—– Original Message —–

From: David Kennedy DDS

To: agoodman@agoodmandds.com

Cc: gmoor@windstream.net ; William Domb ; Lorin Berland ; Erich Herber ; rcarterdds@comcast.net ; smarkus147545@comcast.net ; gkodish@gkodish.algxmail.com ; DrSteveRoss@aol.com ; TonganoxieDental@aol.com ; Erich Herber DDS

Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 12:53 PM

Subject: Re: amalgam causes any disease or disorder in the human body

Actually Ashley, if you read carefully my post I was agreeing with you.

Dr. Huggins makes exactly the same error that many pro-mercury dentists and the Quackwatchers do. They make claims that are not supported or supportable by the peer reviewed scientific literature like no links to any disorder of man and 99+% exposure from sources other than amalgam.

I too am familiar with this group and they do not have a scientific leg to stand on. While they purport to represent themselves as evidence based you will note that they have never published any research, never appeared nor were consulted by the FDA.

The claim that amalgam mercury is benign was so soundly rejected by the FDA neurologists it surprised many of us when a dentist Susan Runner held a press conference July 28th 2009 to once again make the very same assertions that were so resoundingly rejected by her hand picked FDA panel.

That was my comment not about some indefensible claims of harm or safety.

David Kennedy, DDS
Past President
International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology

On 11/7/09 10:29 PM, “Ashley Goodman” wrote:

Dave, I made one assertion, “There wasn’t much science coming from Hal Huggins at his hearing and drew several admonitions by the Admin Law Judge on the case.” I also provided a link to Quackwatch.com for more background with references on the subject.

Huggins assumed the burden of proof in the Admin Law Hearing to counter the charges by the state of Colorado for his defense with expert witnesses corroborating his assertions after the state produced substantiation, etc., for their allegations. He was unsuccessful as can be verified by the finding of the admin law judge and, as I recall but not positive about, his entitled appeal of the hearings findings. Carol Brown, DDS was the testifying expert on the case and is licensed in the state of Colorado while I am not licensed there. She also testified in some of the MP cases brought in civil court in Colorado and lost by Huggins.

I am familiar with your background and that of your group. I have no desire to debate the case with you long after the fact. The case is public record. Any argument for his defense, etc., should have been introduced during the hearing or appellate period. He didn’t provide a preponderance of the evidence in his own behalf for his actions or “beliefs”.
Ash

—————————————
Ashley Email: agoodman@agoodmandds.com
Web: http://www.agoodmandds.com
—————————————

David Kennedy DDS wrote:

amalgam causes any disease or disorder in the human body Ashley I pretty much agree with you regarding Dr. Huggins grasp of the scientific literature but strongly disagree with your other assertions as did the FDA’s expert neurological panel.

First let me state for the record that the reason the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology was founded was to bring published peer reviewed scientific evidence into the debate regarding the safety of materials used in dentistry. To that end we’ve help design and funded a large body of research intended to fill the substantial gaps in our knowledge of the biological impact of dental treatments. I can furnish a list of the 25 or more studies we’ve funded over the many years and the results were all published in scientific journals. Among other things they show substantial mercury exposure, intake and increased body burden from in situ mercury/silver tooth filling implants.

In 2006 as a result of a long standing consumer lawsuit the FDA convened an expert panel to review the classification of mixed precapsulated dental amalgam. Because the dental panel did not have the medical expertise to diagnose or treat any of the diseases caused by exposure to mercury the FDA tapped the neurologists to sit on this expert panel. Then the dentists gave themselves 50% of the votes.

In a very biased fashion the FDA dentists invited only advocates for continued mercury use to present their information before the panel. Hundreds of pages of written submissions documentation and individuals reports were submitted during the 60 day public comment period.

The Draft FDA White Paper makes many of the same arguments you have and are often heard in dental circles including the one about any specific disease related to amalgams. Obviously this is because it was written almost entirely by dentists with Susan Runner, DDS leading the project.

When it came down to a vote the pivotal questions were asked:

2. Does the FDA White Paper objectively and clearly present the current state of knowledge about the exposure [to mercury] and health effects related to dental amalgam?

3. Given the amount and quality of the information available for the draft FDA White Paper, are the conclusions [exposure to mercury from amalgam is safe] reasonable.

The physician and toxicologist members of the neurological panel resounding and overwhelmingly rejected these claims of mercury safety by a vote of 9 to 1. Even the 1 favorable vote explained away her vote by stating that she did not believe it was her obligation to consider evidence that the FDA had not given her. No one else on the panel agreed. The dentists on the panel supported the paper but only partially and as a result the White Paper was rejected by a vote of 13 to 7.

Guy claims: Every major health organization in the world disagrees on the
stance that mercury in amalgam causes any disease or disorder in the human
body.

Can you support that claim?

Research long ago confirmed that amalgams cause bone loss around teeth. Isn’t periodontal disease a disease of the human body?

FYI it is just as unlawful for dentists to make claims and diagnose that mercury does not cause some disease (other than oral of course) as it is unlawful to diagnose that it does. So when a dentist claims that exposure to mercury is without harm then he/she has traversed into the unlawful practice of medicine. A negative medical diagnosis is a diagnosis nevertheless.

Sincerely,

David Kennedy DDS

On 11/7/09 10:26 AM, “Ashley Goodman” wrote:

Guy pretty much has it right. There wasn’t much science coming from Hal Huggins at his hearing and drew several admonitions by the Admin Law Judge on the case.

I was a consulting non testifying expert on the case (Prosecution) and was very familiar with the case facts.

http://quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html

Ash

—————————————
Ashley A. Goodman, D.D.S.
8736 Lake Murray Blvd. #108
San Diego, CA 92119
Phone: 619-697-6677
Fax: 619-697-6632
Email: agoodman@agoodmandds.com
Web: http://www.agoodmandds.com
—————————————

Guy Moorman wrote:

No one called you a quack, Steve, but a lot of us strongly disagree with your stance on dental amalgam even though we don’t use it. Every major health organization in the world disagrees on the stance that mercury in amalgam causes any disease or disorder in the human body.

Your anger is misplaced. You should be angry at the lack of true science showing amalgam causes illness. There simply is none. There is speculation. There is anecdotal belief. But there is nothing acceptable to the CDC, FDA, WHO or any other major group dealing with true solid research and science and you can bet your arse they are studying it like crazy because of the vaccines. They have yet to find a connection even there.

These damned scientifically challenged talk show hosts who are advising people not to take the H1Ni vaccine are going to be responsible for a lot of serious illness and even death. No real science Steve. You can do what you want in your office but telling a patient that removing amalgam is going to cure or help any existing disorder or prevent any disorder is stated to be unethical by every state board, the ADA, and every major dental group in the country other than those directed totally at holistic treatment of patients. Your anger is misplaced.

Guy W. Moorman, Jr. DDS

The Swamp

Douglas, Georgia

From: Steve Markus [mailto:smarkus147545@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 8:35 AM
To: rcarterdds@comcast.net; gkodish@gkodish.algxmail.com; ACEsthetics@googlegroups.com; DavidKennedy-dds@cox.net; Tom McGuire, DDS
Subject: Re: [ACEsthetics] My nightmare case

My comments in ANGRY RED below

Steve Markus
The Centre for Dentistry at Haddon
209 White Horse Pike
Haddon Heights, NJ 08035
856 546 0665

—– Original Message —–

From: rdc

To: gkodish@gkodish.algxmail.com ; ACEsthetics@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 1:31 AM

Subject: RE: [ACEsthetics] My nightmare case

I saw a case like this on House. It was the spouse that was gradually doing it>>Yeah, let’s blame whoever we can instead of learning about the science. Why not remove the temps flush them out>>you just don’t get it, it was the Hg liberated by the preparation of the teeth. When there is a mercury spill, do they just flush it out? No, It’s a hazardous waste site. , cut them apart . or send them to one of those quack dentists>>I resent that, and wonder whether you knew that the term quack was derived from the blacksmiths and barbers in this country who started using mercury (quaksolder in German) fillings that were invented in Germany- therefore, you**, sir, are the quack. and let him handle the case and just work out fees with him. JUSt say that you’ve done a ton of this work and didn’t have any reactions before and that she must be aspecial case . Lay out a plan , but add that if they think the other dentist would be a better fit for her, then you would understand and would be willing to work out fees with him so she wasn’t at a loss. Remind her of the reasons the work was done .

Sometimes changing materials is almost like a placebo affect and buys time for them to get better. >> so by admitting it’s only a placebo, you’re accomplishing what? Deluding the patient who is in a mercury storm that its awbetta? In the interest of fair play, I can state that most holistic MD’s look to mercury and other heavy metals first. Is that out of convenience, or because the medical profession fails to comprehend and understand it?

** Dentistry used to be a profession practiced by graduates of medical schools who specialized in oral problems, then amalgam came along, and the nation saw the birth of the precursor of the current ADA.

Yes she saw all the regular doctors first and had many test at which they found nothing. Then they tested for mercury poisoning and found that she was “poisoned” with mercury.

Gary S Kodish DDS

301 SE 16th St

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316

www.kodish.com

954-462-5252

——————————————————————————–

From: Jay Nelson [mailto:cosmeticdentist@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 8:47 AM
To: gkodish@gkodish.algxmail.com
Cc: Rick Coker; acesthetics@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ACEsthetics] My nightmare case

Has she had a “conventional” medical work up?

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Gary Kodish wrote:

I thought I did get it all out, but he says the holistic dentist says she may have some in her jaw since I did a rct on # 14 and that I may have “pumped” it down the canals and inot her jaw.

I feel for the guy because his wife is ill and all he wants to know is why and how to fix it as you and I would do.

Gary S Kodish DDS

301 SE 16th St

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316

www.kodish.com

954-462-5252

——————————————————————————–

From: Rick Coker [mailto:riccoker@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 8:23 AM
To: Gary Kodish

Cc: acesthetics@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ACEsthetics] My nightmare case

Oh, well, if he researched it on the INTERNET, then he wins! Pretty much guaranteed to be correct information there.

The truth is, she might have a mercury allergy or concern, but you don't know what was going on beforehand with her, and she is going to need her teeth, no matter what, right? Did you get all of the alloy out for her? I have started just removing all of the old amalgam when I restore teeth, just to get that issue handled. Easy to do that and a quick buildup with a flowable or dual cure- sometimes I use Breeze for that!

She might have some real issues, but you didn't do anything wrong.

rick

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Gary Kodish wrote:

Her husband claims she did not have a problem until I prepped her upper teeth.

As an aside he thinks the whole dental an medical community is missing things. He is not an irrational guy as he is an engineer and very educated. He has been doing a lot of research on the internet about this and now sends his wife to holistic clinics where everyone there has this problem, so he feels it is very wide spread and that we as medical doctors are not up on this problem.

Gary S Kodish DDS

301 SE 16th St

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316

www.kodish.com

954-462-5252

——————————————————————————–

From: Rick Coker [mailto:riccoker@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 8:05 AM

To: gkodish@gkodish.algxmail.com
Cc: acesthetics@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ACEsthetics] My nightmare case

Well, since you don’t have a pre-op mercury level to show, you really have no idea of what her mercury levels were BEFORE your prep visit, do you?

It is unfortunate, but those folks are kind of lost here, and what she feels isn’t necessarily what is happening.

Rick

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Gary wrote:

I need some opinions on what I should do. Last month I posted a situation with a patient about a full mouth rehab I was doing. Below is the post:

“I have a patient who had a reduced VD with a cl 2 occ. She wanted to improve her smile so she opted for FMR. I did a wax up and prepped her upper teeth and overlaid her lover teeth with luxamtemp. Through the past few weeks I have been adjusting her bite and even made her upper temps over again. In the last couple of weeks she is claiming that she feels something leaching out of her teeth and going down her throat. She claims to feel a tightness starting in her palate and then feels her throat is closing up. I examined her yesterday and did not see any redness around her gums and blisters on her lips which I thought I would see if she was allergic to the luxatemp. She wants me to remove the upper provisonals and the lower bonded splint because she feels she is being poisoned. I am not sure what I should do at this point. By the way I told her to take some Benadryl if it was an allergy but she claims it makes her heart race and doesn’t want to take it. Any suggestions on how I should handle this?”

I had several good suggestions on how to proceed from the group and even had her see an endo and perio Doc down here.

Long story short is I had a discussion with her husband this morning about her. She has gone to several holistic doctors and they have determined that she has metal poisoning from the prepping of her teeth. She had blood tests which show a high amount of mercury in her system and she needs to undergo chealation treatment. He says his wife is very sick and may take months for her to recover. Needless to say he is upset that his wife is sick. He thinks I should have done something to prevent it and would like what ever money back they have paid towards they case.

Is there something I could have done to prevent this, should I give all the money or subtract my expenses?

I am not sure how I could have known or prevented this from happening.

Gary

It is really strange these days, it seems like over half of the continuing education I have taken lately has more to do with a person’s general health, than just their teeth. And that isn’t a bad thing!
This past weekend our Academy of Comprehensive Esthetics group had its annual meeting in Scottsdale, AZ. (Why we go to a great resort and stay indoors for three days is beyond me!) The topic of this meeting was The Relationship between Periodontal Disease and Systemic Disease, and the evidence is really getting scary.
There are three points I want you to remember, and this will be on the test!
1. Many of the disease causing bacteria and viruses we see and suffer from, have to have a way to get into your body. If your gums are leaking (bleedy), then that means there is a wound there, and it is easy for these bugs to get into your bloodstream. The main thing is to eliminate “leaky gums” so that pathological organisms can’t get there!

2. Many chronic systemic diseases that we thought we knew the causes for, now are thought to be the result of bacteria or viruses. One speaker suggested that today, probably 20% of cancers were generally attributed to viral attack, but he thought in five years that would probably be 50%. Just think, half of all cancers caused by viruses! One of great concern today is the HPV, or human papilloma virus, which is the cause of much cervical cancer, and many oral cancers today in young people. But research is also showing us relationships between oral infections and heart disease, diabetes, and stroke incidence!

3. Today, we can test your mouth earlier with a painless bacterial DNA test to see which bacteria are there, and also what the relative bacterial load is there for that species. That will tell the dentist what antibiotic to use and what treatment regimen would be most likely to work.

Dentistry has been really guilty of ignoring this disease, and often not treating it until actual bone damage had occurred. Today, we are focusing on full time health, prevention of early disease, and the systemic health that occurs when someone is infection free.

If you have any question about this, please don’t hesitate to call and ask for our help. 903-581-1777.

Here is what to look for with periodontal health:
1. Gums that bleed – anytime. Just like the skin on your hand, your gums shouldn’t bleed when you brush or floss. Ever.
2. Persistant bad breath. It is an infection, and you know how that can smell!
3. A bad taste in your mouth- also the result of an infection.
4. Loose teeth are a bad sign, that means that bone has been lost and it is awfully difficult to get it back, if it is possible at all.

For more information, visit here.

President Obama and his top health officials are engaging in a major public relations effort to divert attention away from whether its swine flu vaccine is effective and safe by focusing attention on whether there is enough of it to go around. And the media is cooperating fully.

Increasing numbers of scientists and doctors are issuing harsh criticisms of the government’s plan to vaccinate virtually the entire U.S. population with a poorly tested vaccine that is not only ineffective against swine flu, but could cripple and even kill many more people than it helps.

Read the Full Article: click

Brought to you in the interest of providing both sides of the story by Dr. Markus.

H1N1 vaccine 0.25ml age 3-9 0.5 ml is adult dose

Eleven children in Ontario, Canada were given a double dose of the H1N1 vaccine in what appears to be an error. This isn’t the first issue with the rollout of the H1N1 vaccine in Ontario, but it certainly very concerning, especially to parents.

Ted Hedrich, who lives with his wife and daughter in Brampton, Ontario, spoke to the press about the double dose of H1N1 vaccine his three-and-one-half year old daughter received last Monday at the Indell Lane clinic.

Hedrich is questioning why the nurse who gave his daughter and ten other children double the recommended dose of the H1N1 flu vaccine is still giving out the swine flu shot.

Health officials have recommended young children only get half the adult dose initially. That recommended dose of the H1N1 vaccine is 0.25 ml for children and then another 0.25 ml several weeks later. Hedrich said his daughter was given 0.5 ml.

Peel Public Health contacted Hedrich on Thursday, three days after his daughter had the double dose of the H1N1 vaccine. He was told the nurse now has been retrained on the proper procedure.

A second Peel Public Health supervisor called Hedrich on Friday to express sympathy and ask how his daughter was doing, but didn’t give him a formal apology, according to Hedrich.

Ted Hedrich took his daughter Selena to their family physician on Friday and was told to take his daughter for X-rays because she had a “slight rasp” in her chest. Hedrich mentioned that she hasn’t felt well since getting the vaccine.

“Do not take for granted that just because somebody says they are a nurse or whatever, they’re going to give you a shot, you ask about their qualifications and then you demand to see that the shot is the proper dose,” Hedrich stated.

Dr. Kathleen Dooling, Peel Region’s associate medical officer of health, said in a statement that there are no significant ill effects found for children at the higher dosage level. Peel Region is investigating how the error occurred and taking steps to ensure it is not repeated, she said.

Meanwhile, Ted Hedrich said he has sent emails to people he knows, advising them to be cautious when getting a needle, and check the dose themselves. He remains worried about what long-term effect the double dose of H1N1 vaccine could have on his daughter. He said he has consulted with his lawyer, but would not elaborate on whether he is considering any legal action.

Cheryl Phillips