Cent4dent Blog

Charlie Brown, the lobbyist and attorney for Citizens for Dental Choice (a group that seeks to educate the public about the perils of placing silver/mercury fillings 4″ from the brain) is interviewed in this first of several articles that will be featured by Dr. Mercola this week. Watch and read by clicking here.
As a proud supporter of this organization, I have testified twice before the FDA, trying them to ban the use of mercury in American’s heads. Videos of those events are linked to on my website if you would like to watch them. Watch and read by clicking here.

An unscrupulous developer in Franklinville, NJ in 1998 was found to have converted the site of a former mercury thermometer factory into a day care, with 100 children there. There was never any remediation done, nor were the parents made aware of the toxicity of the building until their children began developing neurologic problems.

I was called in to counsel the parents of these children many years ago. I had suggested they try to get in touch with Erin Brocovitch for help, this was bigger than anything I knew how to handle. These poor kids didn’t fair too well. If I’m reading this correctly, each family got $10K. There were many stories about it on my blog a few years back, as I met with the parents, and saw the problems that their kids were having.

September 4-9
Dear Doctor:

Our friend Dr. Joe Mercola of the leading health website Mercola.com and I are declaring September 4-9 Mercury-Free Dentistry Week. Each day that week, Dr. Mercola will run an article in honor of mercury-free dentistry – and the people who have worked so hard to stop this toxin from contaminating our bodies, our planet, and our workplaces.

Scheduled topics include…

The “silver fillings” deception: How the American Dental Association has kept this primitive, polluting mercury product on the market – and how mercury-free dentists and consumer advocates have fought back.

Dental mercury pollution: How amalgam is polluting our air, land, and water – and how Consumers for Dental Choice, along with the rest of the World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry, is combating it at the world mercury treaty negotiations.

Amalgam’s health impact: How amalgam can damage health and what alternatives are available, featuring interviews with Chicago dentist Dave Simone (a valued member of Consumers for Dental Choice’s international team).

The battle against FDA: How FDA has protected amalgam, how we have challenged FDA to date, and how now – thanks to Consumers for Dental Choice’s international work – FDA is increasingly isolated from the rest of the U.S. government on the amalgam issue.

Calls to action: How you, your employees, and your patients can accelerate amalgam’s demise.
As many of you already know, Dr. Joe Mercola is the champion of health liberty. He disseminates important health information to the public via his popular website and widely circulated e-newsletter, he stands up for the right to make informed health decisions, and he works with Consumers for Dental Choice to advocate mercury-free dentistry for all…just like so many of you.

So we invite you and your patients to celebrate Mercury-Free Dentistry Week with us September
4-9. This celebration will be a wonderful opportunity to…

Learn the latest news from the battlefronts of the war against amalgam

Speak out for mercury-free dentistry by participating in our calls to action

Discuss mercury-free dentistry in the comments following each article

Enjoy Dave Kennedy’s famous film “Smoking Teeth” with updated commentary

Educate your patients about the importance of mercury-free dentistry by directing them to the articles on www.mercola.com or reposting the articles on your own website
Dr. Mercola and I look forward to celebrating Mercury-Free Dentistry Week with you!

Charlie

Charles G. Brown
National Counsel, Consumers for Dental Choice
President, World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry
26 August 2011

to learn more about Dr. Markus’ part in this battle read this.

Recently published in Girlfrienz Magazine on the toxicity of fluoride. Read it here>

The Mayor of Santa Ana, California, Miguel Pulido, has issued a courageous proclamation in support of mercury-free dentistry on behalf of the City Council. The Mayor salutes the work of Californians for Green Dentistry (a project of Consumers for Dental Choice), and “support[s] their mission to eliminate the use of mercury in dental practices.” He calls on all dentists in Santa Ana “voluntarily [to] cease the use of Dental Amalgam and switch to interchangeable, modern alternatives.”

This exciting proclamation, issued 2 August 2011, follows an earlier action by the neighboring city of Costa Mesa under Mayor Gary Monahan – a resolution that urged the elimination of dental mercury “immediately.” Mayor Monahan is a Republican and Mayor Pulido is a Democrat, a reflection of the bipartisan teamwork it takes to stand up to polluters.

Anita Vazquez Tibau and Marisa Russo are to be commended for their work on our Californians for Green Dentistry project, which is clearly succeeding in its mission to raise awareness about dental mercury pollution.

For further information check out the mercury issues page of our website, or the mercury publications on our blog.

I can tell you this: It doesn’t belong in the water supply. You can start by reading the Scientific American’s article linked on the Fluoride page of my website, and lots of info on my blog.

Just last week there was some interesting insight, which I have yet to post, but will share here. Read to the end, there’s links on how to subscribe to Aesthetics. Also this article is strongly refuted by one of our colleagues who sites extreme bias on the part of the researcher. The article in the Washington Post states:

Federal investigators and Harvard University officials are probing whether a Harvard professor buried research suggesting a link between fluoridated tap water and bone cancer in adolescent boys.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which funded Chester Douglass’s $1.3 million study, and the university are investigating why the Harvard School of Dental Medicine epidemiologist told federal officials he found no significant correlation between fluoridated water and osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer. Douglass, who serves as editor in chief for the industry-funded Colgate Oral Care Report, supervised research for a 2001 doctoral thesis that concluded boys exposed to fluoridated water at a young age were more likely to get the cancer. Read the whole article.

The controversy is another embarassment to our profession. Proper diet is the answer. There’s been no dramatic improvement to the DMF rates after 60 years of fluoridation in our country. There are also pockets of cancer, mostly in adolescent boys, because of the way Fl, the most electronegative ion bonds to testosterone. Where is testosterone at its highest? Adolescent boys. Fortunately, in my area, there was a guy who I considered a quack 30 years ago, who was successful in preventing fluoridation. I have taken up his mantle, but not as voiciferously.

Study finds no link between fluoride and osteosarcoma
By Kathy Kincade, Editor in Chief

July 28, 2011 — There is no significant association between bone fluoride levels and osteosarcoma risk, according to a new study in the Journal of Dental Research (July 28, 2011).

There has been ongoing controversy as to whether there is a link between bone fluoride levels and osteosarcoma. An inconclusive animal study conducted 20 years ago first raised the question of an association between fluoride and osteosarcoma. Since that time, other studies have examined the issue; however, this new study, using actual bone to measure fluoride levels in individuals with and without osteosarcoma, is considered by researchers to be the best science to date because a more accurate and reliable scientific method was used to measure exposure from all sources of fluoride, according to Raymond Gist, DDS, president of the ADA.

“This new study adds to an already strong base of scientific evidence that fluoride is safe and effective at preventing cavities,” Dr. Gist stated in a press release.

A team of researchers from Harvard University, the Medical College of Georgia and the National Cancer Institute analyzed hundreds of bone samples from nine hospitals over an eight-year period from patients with osteosarcoma and a control group to measure fluoride levels in the bone. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) approved the design of the study, which was led by Chester Douglass, DMD, PhD, of Harvard University, and funding for the research was provided by the NCI, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.

The study sample included incident cases of primary osteosarcoma and a control group of patients with newly diagnosed malignant bone tumors. Study participants were identified by physicians in the orthopedic departments from nine hospitals across the U.S. between 1993 and 2000. Specimens of tumor-adjacent bone and iliac crest bone were analyzed for fluoride content.

The researchers used logistic regression of the incident cases of osteosarcoma (n = 137) and tumor controls (n = 51) — adjusting for age, sex, and potential confounders of osteosarcoma — was used to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

They found no significant difference in bone fluoride levels between cases and controls. The odds ratio, adjusted for age, gender, and history of broken bones, was 1.33 (95% CI: 0.56-3.15).

“The controversy over whether there is an association between fluoride and risk for osteosarcoma has existed since an inconclusive animal study 20 years ago,” said Helen Whelton, vice president of the International Association for Dental Research, which publishes the Journal of Dental Research. “Numerous human descriptive and case-control studies have attempted to address the controversy, but this study of using actual bone fluoride concentrations as a direct indicator of fluoride exposure represents our best science to date and shows no association between fluoride in bone and osteosarcoma risk.”

Shelly Gehshan, director of the Pew Children’s Dental Campaign, agreed.

“I would say that this study can put peoples’ fears to rest because it shows no correlation between fluoride and osteosarcoma,” she told DrBicuspid.com. “In 2006, the National Research Council said that if fluoride might be linked to cancer, osteosarcoma would be the most plausible form of cancer. But now that’s been ruled out. We can now say that fluoride does not cause any kind of cancer.”

This was a very thorough and rigorous study done with three divisions of the National Institutes of Health, she added.

“Some people have asserted a link between fluoride and cancer, but prior to this there was not much of an evidence basis, and now we know for sure there isn’t one,” Gehshan said. “The Pew Children’s dental campaign focuses on policy change when there is a sound research basis, and community water fluoridation has a sound research basis. It improves health immeasurably and saves money, and it has been clear that this is a sound thing to do for a long time.”

SAN DIEGO, Aug. 10, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Alleging willful misrepresentation and deceptive business practices by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, attorneys for citizen/consumers from San Diego, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties filed a lawsuit in the public interest of millions of consumers in Southern California, citing that MWD of SoCal has made claims of safely and effectively treating and preventing dental disease in recipient consumers, while selecting and delivering a hydrofluosilicic acid drug through their water system that has never been approved for safety and effectiveness, nor in the expected dosages delivered by MWD through retail water districts, either topically, systemically through ingestion, or trans-dermal exposures through baths and showers.
In legal action which may impact the decision-making of water districts across the country employing the same practices, the lawsuit filed on August 9 in U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, addresses the Constitutional right of Plaintiffs to be free of bodily intrusion from a drug that has not been approved for MWD’s intent to alter the physical structure and bodily functions to make a person’s teeth more resistant to the demineralization process of tooth decay without their consent.
While some consumers may elect to purchase bottled water for drinking, virtually all consumers are captive to exposures from baths and showers, as simple filtration and most non-commercial methods do not remove the product, resulting in exposures to consumers similar to that of medications delivered by seasickness or nicotine patches.
“This case does not challenge the public policy of fluoridation,” states Kyle Nordrehaug, attorney for the Plaintiffs. “It does challenge MWD’s bait and switch tactics of orchestrating statements by them and their down-line distributors of water to individual consumers when MWD knew that the actual drug product that they deliver had never had a toxicological study performed on the health and behavioral effects of its continued use until 2010, much less approval for MWD’s perpetuation of absolute health claims.”
Despite early misrepresentations in the media, MWD of SoCal is not compelled to fluoridate its water by the State of California, and the costs of adding the unapproved drug are being borne by consumers in the form of rate hikes without water districts providing ratepayers clear notice of what the extra costs are for, or obtaining their consent.
The lawsuit’s filing clarifies that Congress has established that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is the only government entity with the authority to approve claims of safety and effectiveness for products intended to treat and prevent disease, and that not only has the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency never had that authority, but in 1988 abandoned authority for safety standards for all direct water additives, including fluoridation chemicals.
While the Plaintiffs do not seek an award for any physical harm, they do point to evidence concerning safety/harm and effectiveness that by law and for consumers’ protection requires that the product be thoroughly evaluated, and approval given, for any claims and MWD’s intended health impact, before exposing consumers without their consent.
Plaintiffs point to MWD’s misrepresentations and omission of any notice of contraindications, government recognition of susceptible populations, and scientific evidence of disproportionate harm to children, Latinos, and African Americans, from the particular harmful side effects from the hydrofluosilicic acid drug selected by MWD, above other forms of fluoride.
“This lawsuit pushes past the rhetoric and reliance on unaccountable endorsements or opinions that usually accompany this subject, and focuses on whether MWD of SoCal adds hydrofluosilicic acid to public drinking water in order to treat or prevent dental disease, and whether FDA regulates products intended to treat disease, or not,” said Jeff Green, National Director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and spokesperson for the Plaintiffs.
“In essence,” continued Green, “the Plaintiffs are saying, ‘Don’t tell us, or the media, or the court how safe it is. Go tell it to the FDA through the evaluation process and get approval for the claims for the specific product you deliver, and don’t administer it to us topically, systemically through our ingestion, or through our skin from our baths and showers, without our consent until you do.’”

Contacts:

Jeff Green, 
Plaintiff Spokesperson 

Citizens for Safe Drinking Water 
(800) 728-3833
greenjeff@cox.net keepers-of-the-Well.org

Kyle Nordrehaug, Attorney
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhomik
(858) 551-1223

Or visit the fluoridation pages of our website.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Dr. Steve Markus
The Centre for Dentistry at Haddon 856 546 0665

Johnson and Johnson reduces MDR of Tylenol

I listened to the story on ABC tonight (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/tylenol-lowers-dosage-curb-overdoses-liver-failure/story?id=14183485) related to hepatic failure as a consequence of acetaminophen overdose.

What struck me was the story of the woman who took Tylenol to relieve her migraine pain. The most misdiagnosed cause of headaches by physicians is masticatory muscle myospasm. Migraine is a significant pain-causing disease, but MD’s fail to look at the TMJ and muscular disharmony as its cause.

In fact, Dr. Markus is working with the curriculum planners at the new medical school at Cooper University/Rowan University, to insure that future physicians know what to look for in their patients’ teeth, and what questions to ask, to make sure that their diagnoses are complete.

“For 98% of all MD’s, the human body begins at the tonsils. Nobody looks at the teeth. In fact, the reason that our treatments of migraine pain utilizing the NTI appliance, and computer-aided bite adjustment is so successful is because patients who thought they had migraines really didn’t have migraines at all. What they had is muscle spasms in the muscles that guide the opening and closure of the jaws.

The temporomandibular joint is the most complex joint in the body. No other joint is bilateral (you can move one arm and not the other, but try moving your left jaw without your right); no other joint rotates and translates (that is, the joint is a moving, not a stationary joint); no other joint has a neuromuscular endpoint (it the teeth no not hit evenly on both sides, the muscles can never achieve comfort).

I encourage you to learn more by visiting the headache page of my website ( ) and welcome your phone inquiries for interviews.

The fact that there was even one person out there whose liver shut down because she was taking acetaminophen for “migraine” means there must be hundreds of thousands.

http://www.cent4dent.com/html/treatment/headache.html

The taking of Tylenol for these misdiagnoses is just the tip of the iceberg. I am happy to provide you with testimony from patients who after years of taking even more debilitating drugs, were made pain and drug-free by quieting the muscles down and balancing the bite. Many were taking psycho-addictive medication.

The medical profession needs to find dentists whom they can trust to render appropriate diagnoses and care to patients who need not suffer any longer, but for the daily appearance of drug company representatives, plying them with lunches and snacks in return for writing unnecessary prescriptions for unneeded medication.

This is so rampant in society, that Dr. Markus offers a money-back guarantee to most patients that he will make them better and get them off medication. With the proper diagnosis, over the past 12-15 years, there are fewer than a handful of patients who have requested refunds!

The public, and the medical profession need to be made more aware of this catch-all phrase “migraine” which is really not migraine at all, it is muscle spasm of the muscles that guide the closure of the jaws.

The Referral of a Lifetime – AppendixAs all members of our Business After Business South Jersey Group know, our next meeting will be a discussion of the first four pages of goal from the book, The Referral of a Lifetime. To make matters simpler for all, I have copied them here.

US Department of Labor files complaint against Niles Family Dentistry,
owner in Niles, Ohio, for violating OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Act

CLEVELAND – The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has filed a complaint in federal court against Niles Family
Dentistry and owner Dr. A. Scott Santucci for allegedly violating OSHA’s
Whistleblower Protection Act by creating a hostile work environment for two
employees and forcing them to resign. Santucci harassed the two employees
because he suspected them of reporting mercury spills at the dental
practice to OSHA on June 6, 2010. The spills occurred on June 2 and 4.

“Failing to protect workers from known hazardous substances such as mercury
is inexcusable,” said Michael Connors, OSHA’s regional administrator in
Chicago. “Taking retaliatory action against employees for reporting safety
concerns is a clear violation of the law.”

Santucci is alleged to have reduced working hours and created a hostile
work environment by repeatedly cursing and threatening a dental auxiliary
employee who had refused to work until the mercury spills were adequately
cleaned by qualified personnel. The employee worked at the dental practice
from August 2007 until she resigned on June 24, 2010, citing a hostile work
environment.

Santucci also is alleged to have reduced working hours and created a
hostile work environment by repeatedly cursing and threatening a second
worker after she refused to clean the spilled mercury. The second worker
was employed by the dental practice from April 2005 until she resigned on
June 21, 2010, also citing a hostile work environment.

The Labor Department is seeking reinstatement of both employees to their
positions; payment of lost wages and benefits, including interest and
punitive damages; and expunction of any mention of their protected activity
from their employment records. OSHA also is seeking to require the dental
office to post a notice to employees stating they it will not discriminate
against employees for engaging in protected activities such as OSHA
notification. The suit further seeks to enjoin Niles Family Dentistry and
Santucci from violating the Occupational and Safety Health Act in the
future.

OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of 21 statutes protecting
employees who report violations of various airline, commercial motor
carrier, consumer product, environmental, financial reform, food safety,
health care reform, nuclear, pipeline, public transportation agency,
railroad, maritime and securities laws. Under these laws enacted by
Congress, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who
raise various protected concerns or provide protected information to the
employer or to the government. Employees who believe that they have been
retaliated against for engaging in protected conduct may file a complaint
with the secretary of labor for an investigation by OSHA’s Whistleblower
Protection Program. Detailed information on employee whistleblower rights,
including fact sheets, is available online at http://www.whistleblowers.gov.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are
responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their
employees. OSHA’s role is to ensure these conditions for America’s working
men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training,
education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.