Tag Archives: silver fillings

World Health Organization Urges Move Away from Dental Amalgam

There’s been plenty of good news lately on the effort to end the Age of Toxic Dentistry, such as the Malibu City Council’s resolution supporting the global phase-out of dental mercury, which was unanimously approved just last week.

Malibu now joins Costa Mesa and Santa Ana as California cities opposed to dental amalgam.

And now more good news: The World Health Organization has finally released its 2009 report on the “Future Use of Materials for Dental Restorations,” which likewise urges a global “phase down” of toxic mercury amalgam.

The report has been released in preparation for the third of five Intergovernmental Committee deliberations that are expected to lead to the adoption of a legally binding treaty on mercury by 2013.

Here’s more on the report from Charlie Brown of Consumers for Dental Choice – and how he’d like YOU to get involved on this issue:

In a clear sign that dentistry’s amalgam era is fading, the World Health Organization (WHO) just released its long-awaited report on dental amalgam. In Future Use of Materials for Dental Restoration, WHO urges “a switch in use of dental materials” away from amalgam.

“[F]or many reasons,” WHO explains, “restorative materials alternative to dental amalgam are desirable.” The report describes three of these reasons in detail:

  • WHO determines that amalgam releases a “significant amount of mercury”: WHO concludes that amalgam poses a serious environmental health problem because amalgam releases a “significant amount of mercury” into the environment, including the atmosphere, surface water, groundwater, and soil. WHO says “When released from dental amalgam use into the environment through these pathways, mercury is transported globally and deposited. Mercury releases may then enter the human food chain especially via fish consumption.”
  • WHO determines that amalgam raises “general health concerns”: While the report acknowledges that a few dental trade groups still believe amalgam is safe for all, the WHO report reaches a very different conclusion: “Amalgam has been associated with general health concerns.” The report observes, “According to the Norwegian Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit, the majority of cases of side-effects of dental filling materials are linked with dental amalgam.”
  • WHO determines that “materials alternative to dental amalgam are available”: WHO concludes that “Materials alternative to dental amalgam are available” – and cites many studies indicating that they are superior to amalgam. For example, WHO says “recent data suggest that RBCs [resin-based composites] perform equally well” as amalgam. And compomers have a higher survival rate, says WHO, citing a study finding that 95% of compomers and 92% of amalgams survive after 4 years. Perhaps more important than the survival of the filling, WHO asserts that “Adhesive resin materials allow for less tooth destruction and, as a result, a longer survival of the tooth itself.”

We have come a long way. Less than a year ago, dental trade groups were circulating an unedited and unreviewed draft of this report to government officials, implying that it was WHO’s final position. But the draft was riddled with factual errors and scientifically unsupported claims. Consumers for Dental Choice – working with non-governmental organizations, scientists, and environmentalists from around the globe – organized a letter-writing campaign to insist that the draft be immediately withdrawn, accurately rewritten, and properly reviewed.

And it worked! Now WHO has removed all claims of amalgam’s safety. Now WHO has committed itself to “work for reduction of mercury and the development of a healthy environment.” Now “WHO will facilitate the work for a switch in use of dental materials.”

Thank you to everybody who urged WHO to take this important step to protect future generations from dental mercury.

It’s time for the U.S. FDA to catch up with the world – and we need your help. FDA’s support for amalgam is radically inconsistent with WHO’s new position. Please contact Dr. Jeff Shuren, Director of the FDA Center for Devices, at

jeff.shuren@fda.hhs.gov
Fax: 301-847-8149 & 301-847-8109
Telephone: 301-796-5900
Mail: 10903 New Hampshire Ave., WO66-5431, Room 5442, Silver Spring MD 20993-0002

Here is a sample letter:

Dear Dr. Shuren:

In its recent report, the World Health Organization concludes that dental amalgam releases a “significant amount of mercury” and raises “general health concerns.” In light of these serious problems, WHO calls on health authorities like FDA to take action now: “Health authorities can play an active role in advocacy for use of dental materials alternative to amalgam…Directives can be set up for provision of dental care incorporating concerns for oral health and the environment.”

The WHO report says “Materials alternative to dental amalgam are available.” In particular, “Alternative restorative materials of sufficient quality are available for use in the deciduous [baby] dentition of children” – the population whose developing neurological systems are most susceptible to the neurotoxic effects of dental mercury according to FDA. So there is no excuse for subjecting children to the risks associated with dental mercury exposure.

FDA needs to stop amalgam use in children immediately and join WHO in working for a switch to the many mercury-free alternatives to amalgam.

Sincerely,
Your name

Thank you for working with us to protect everyone worldwide from mercury fillings!

Charlie
18 October 2011

Charles G. Brown
National Counsel, Consumers for Dental Choice
President, World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry
316 F St. NE, Suite 210, Washington DC 20002
Telephone: 202-544-6333
Fax: 202-544-6331

The full WHO report is available here (PDF).

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Mercury

30+ Years of Mercury-Free Dentistry

There’s a lot of high-quality, detailed and well-documented information out there about the health hazards of dental mercury. Many who contact my office about their dental needs are already quite familiar with it. In fact, their research is often what brought them to my office in the first place. Still, they have specific questions about me, my practice and what they can expect in terms of treatment.

So I created a FAQ to address the most common questions and concerns. Here’s an excerpt to round out Mercury-Free Dentistry Week:

  • How long have you been a mercury-free dentist?
    I have been a mercury-free dentist since the mid-1970s.
  • What qualifies you to diagnose and safely treat dental mercury poisoning?
    I have taken hundreds of hours of postgraduate training in order to learn the proper techniques of and science supporting this dental treatment. This study is in addition to my general qualifications as a dentist and related continuing education, which you can read about here.
  • How do you know if mercury amalgam fillings are causing a problem?
    I begin by gathering as much information as possible. The first visit involves a comprehensive, oral, head and neck examination, in which we fully chart your current dental, periodontal (gum) and oral conditions. We evaluate the state of your occlusion (bite), TM joint function and musculoskeletal condition, and perform galvanic, pulp vitality and allergy tests. We get further documentation of conditions via intra- and extra-oral photos, x-rays and diagnostic cast models. Unfortunately, there is still no single test that can prove without a doubt that dental mercury is causing a particular health problem. However, there are several tests that can help confirm diagnosis. These include hair analysis, fecal mercury analysis, blood chemistry, heavy metals urine challenge and electrodermal screening.
  • Which mercury-removal protocols do you follow?
    Standards of care for safe removal (PDF) have been established and are maintained by the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT).

     

     

    These standards help ensure that the mercury is removed safely and that the patient, dentist and staff are not exposed to the poisonous mercury vapor that is released during the process. My staff and I are trained in and have followed this protocol since its inception. Before that, we followed the widely-accepted Huggins Protocol, which continues to guide our work in this area, as well.

  • What will you replace the mercury fillings with?
    There are hundreds of different dental restoration materials and cements that can be combined in literally millions of ways. Our rule of thumb is to use the most practical and least toxic. We’ll look to what’s most compatible with your specific biochemistry and what’s most suited to the specific dental conditions we need to recreate in your mouth.
  • How do you know if a material is biocompatible?
    The suitability of materials can be accurately assessed via serum compatibility testing, electrodermal screening (EAV) or applied kinesiology. Of these, serum compatibility is the surest and most thorough, and we strongly recommend it for those with autoimmune disorders, multiple chemical sensitivities or other environmentally-aggravated illness. We prefer the serum testing provided by Clifford Consulting and Research, for which samples of your blood are specially prepared and mixed with hundreds of dental chemicals that are used in several thousand dental products. The antibodies produced provide an immunological record of offensive chemical families, and this information is cross-referenced with over 2000 dental products. With this info at hand, we can find the materials most suited to your unique biochemistry, double-checking their suitability via electrical testing and applied kinesiology, both of which we provide in our office. We want to be absolutely sure that we never replace one poison with another.
  • How fast can I expect to feel better after removing the mercury?
    While you may have read some accounts of people feeling physical relief within hours of having old mercury amalgams removed, it’s unrealistic to expect instant results. Nor is it possible to say how quickly you will experience relief. Results can never be predicted. Each affected person carries a different toxic burden. This alone varies the time it takes to rid the body of mercury completely. Some people may show improvement within months. Those with heavier toxic burdens or more compromised immune systems may need years to recover.
  • I feel fine. Should I have the mercury removed anyway?
    Eliminating any toxin from the body is an undeniable good. While there may not be an immediate effect, you pave the way for greater health, quality of life and longevity. Taking preventive measures is to be properly concerned with the long-term impact of the health choices you make today. Obviously, I recommend removing any potential source of illness or dysfunction. But it is not my role to make your choices for you. You must consider your own needs, desires, values and goals. You must consider the whole of your knowledge of your health and how to maintain good health. You must educate yourself about your options. It is my role to help you do this – and make the most informed choices possible.

Read the full version of the Mercury FAQ.

1 Comment

Filed under Biological Dentistry, Mercury

One Mercury Filling Is Too Many

Every so often, the Wealthy Dentist surveys dentists on their use of mercury amalgam. In their latest poll, 67% of dentists said they place amalgam fillings at least some of the time: 40% regularly, 27% “in only [sic] special circumstances.” This is quite a change from past results, in which 53% of dentists said they don’t place amalgam – though the difference may be due to there being no “sometimes” option in past polls, and that dentists decide if they want to participate or not. These are hardly scientific polls.

But research published earlier this year in JADA suggests that higher rates of use are more accurate. Amalgam is still more common than composite (tooth-colored filling material) and especially favored by younger dentists and those who work in large group practices:

Dentists who graduated in the past 5 years placed amalgam on 61% of the lesions they treated. One explanation may be that younger dentists are more likely to be in large group practices where they work on salary, rather than fee-for-service, said [study author] Dr. Sonia K. Makhija. The type of material might be dictated by managers of the group practice. In large group practices (4 dentists or more), 79% of the restorations were amalgam (P < .001). "It's quicker, it's easier and it's cheaper to use amalgam," Dr. Makhija said. [emphasis added]

And that, as they say, is the gist and sum of it.

However many are being placed, the simple fact of the matter is that one mercury filling is too many. We know now that there is no longer a place for mercury amalgam in dentistry. While the FDA has flip-flopped and currently holds that mercury fillings are safe, just this year, one of its own scientific panels said otherwise:

According to the panel, FDA’s amalgam risk assessments were not adequate to protect hypersensitive adults, children and unborn babies. Repeatedly, panel members expressed their concern about amalgam use in children. Pediatric neurologist Dr. Suresh Kotagal of the Mayo Clinic summed it up for the entire panel: “There is really no place for mercury in children.” Other panelists went on to explain that dental mercury is like lead. The panel urged FDA to quickly contraindicate amalgam for these vulnerable populations and insisted that FDA provide consumers with labeling containing clear warnings.

Dental amalgam is more than 50% mercury, a known neurotoxin. There is no safe level of exposure. It is considered “toxic waste” outside the mouth but somehow magically inert and harmless when packed into living human teeth.

Mercury fillings have been linked to neurological, autoimmune and cardiovascular disorders, as well as enigmatic chronic illnesses such as CFS, fibromyalgia and MCS. It is continually released from the fillings into the general circulation just under the normal pressures of chewing and swallowing. Indeed, up to 95% of the mercury may be “lost” over time. But it doesn’t just disappear. That which isn’t excreted turns up in other tissues, including the brain. And while videos such as “Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas” have brought a lot of attention to the reality of “outgassing,” this isn’t the only way mercury may enter the general circulation. Some research has shown that mercury may travel through the teeth themselves.

There are many nontoxic alternatives that are strong and durable, less prone to fail and certainly more aesthetic. Placing composite is also a less invasive procedure than placing amalgam, letting you retain more natural tooth structure. All things considered, there just is no good reason for a dentist to place mercury fillings.

 

 

So why do so many dentists keep using it? Here’s a sample of responses to that Wealthy Dentist poll:

  • “I don’t understand what the big hoopla is about banning it entirely. Health concerns? Unproven. Mercury in environment? Don’t blame the dentists.” [Fact: Dentistry is the largest source of wastewater mercury pollution.]
  • “The greatest posterior restoration ever!”
  • “They are the most technically forgiving, economical workable restorative still.”
  • “There is nothing wrong with amalgam restorations — they are efficient and cost effective for the patient!”
  • “They last much longer, less sensitivity and there is no credible evidence they have killed anyone. [A straw man. The issue is harm, for which there is certainly evidence. (PDF)] Remember composites contain Bis-Phenol and I still place many more composites, GI’s, then amalgams. [Fact: Not all composites contain BPA. All amalgams, however, do contain mercury.] Because of their proven longevity, it is unethical to not offer amalgam to your dental patients.” [Fact: This “longevity” claim is a canard. Many new generation restorative materials are reported to be as strong and durable as metal.]
  • “I still love amalgams. I am also tired of all the amalgam-bashing. I believe most of it is profit-driven. I had great gold and amalgams placed years ago in my mouth. No one ever notices.”[Fact: Placing different metals next to each other in the mouth can create galvanic currents, which can also contribute to illness.]

This coming week, September 4 – 9, Consumers for Dental Choice will be teaming up with Dr. Mercola to promote Mercury-Free Dentistry Week. Each day, 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.

I’ll be posting mercury-related content on my office’s Facebook page all week, as well. So be sure to connect with me there so you can stay up to date – not only on the mercury issue but all aspects of holistic, biological dental health and wellness.

Image by foshydog, via Flickr

Updated 9/9/11

3 Comments

Filed under Biological Dentistry, Dentistry, Mercury

The Ongoing Fight Against Dental Mercury Amalgam

Late last month, the Second Session of the World Mercury Treaty negotiations was held in Chiba, Japan. The World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry (WAMFD) – a coalition of consumer organizations from around the globe – was there to advocate for a provision to phase out mercury fillings. Charlie Brown, National Counsel of Consumers for Dental Choice and President of the WAMFD, recently sent this progress report:

  • Our meeting kicked off with the announcement that the World Health Organization has withdrawn the biased paper that the American Dental Association so heavily cited as “reinforc[ing] dental amalgam as a safe and effective restorative material.” The alleged WHO report had been passed off as the conclusions of the team of scientists, environmentalists, and dentists who met in November 2009 to discuss the future of amalgam. We exposed the paper as nothing more than a propaganda piece slapped together by a rogue dentist inside WHO who failed even to consult the other meeting participants before signing their names to his paper (needless to say they were furious; they did not remember ever declaring amalgam safe). Then, we organized the worldwide condemnation of this paper that led to its hurried retraction. You can learn how we accomplished this feat step-by-step by watching this video interview, courtesy of filmmaker Kelly Gallagher.
  • Because of our work, the first draft of the treaty lists amalgam as one of only five mercury products to be phased out. While the war is not won, we did succeed in keeping it on the list for now.
  • Thanks to the efforts of our regional vice presidents Dr. Naji Kodeih and Dominique Bally, both the Arab League and the African region announced that they support the phase-out of amalgam and the promotion of alternatives.
  • We gained a valuable new ally dedicated to ending dental mercury: Health Care Without Harm. We congratulate Health Care Without Harm for convincing the Mexico City Health Secretariat to deauthorize the purchase of amalgam in the city’s hospitals and obtaining a discussion paper from Argentina calling for a phase down of amalgam and use of alternatives.

Unfortunately, adds Charlie, “The delegates made no major decisions in this early round, not on amalgam, not on anything. Thus how amalgam will ultimately be addressed in this treaty will not be determined until the third negotiating session, to be held in an African city in October.”

Meanwhile, The Guardian reports that the “European commission is due to publish the findings of its review on dental amalgam fillings in March. In a preliminary report, published online in July, the company tasked with the study, Bio Intelligence Service, recommended phasing out mercury in dental care in Europe.”

Of course, it was just a few years ago when the EC’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) released its report (PDF) touting the safety of mercury fillings. “SCENIHR recognises that dental amalgam is an effective restorative material,” they wrote, “and may be considered the material of choice for some restorations….We conclude that dental health can be adequately ensured by both types of material [mercury amalgam and composite]. All the materials are considered safe to use and they are all associated with very low rates of local adverse effects with no evidence of systemic disease.”

That’s what they said. But their report was greatly flawed. Now, a paper by Dr. Joachim Mutter recently published in the Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology casts a very bright light on those flaws. The main problem? According to Dr. Mutter,

SCENIHR disregarded the toxicology of mercury and did not include most important scientific studies in their review. But the real scientific data show that:

(a) Dental amalgam is by far the main source of human total mercury body burden. This is proven by autopsy studies which found 2-12 times more mercury in body tissues of individuals with dental amalgam. Autopsy studies are the most valuable and most important studies for examining the amalgam-caused mercury body burden.

(b) These autopsy studies have shown consistently that many individuals with amalgam have toxic levels of mercury in their brains or kidneys.

(c) There is no correlation between mercury levels in blood or urine, and the levels in body tissues or the severity of clinical symptoms. SCENIHR only relied on levels in urine or blood.

(d) The half-life of mercury in the brain can last from several years to decades, thus mercury accumulates over time of amalgam exposure in body tissues to toxic levels. However, SCENIHR state that the half-life of mercury in the body is only “20-90 days”.

(e) Mercury vapor is about ten times more toxic than lead on human neurons and with synergistic toxicity to other metals.

(f) Most studies cited by SCENIHR which conclude that amalgam fillings are safe have severe methodical flaws.

Dr. Mutter’s paper provides an excellent overview of the research record on mercury in dental amalgam and its links to a variety of illnesses, including ALS, MS and Alzheimer’s. It’s a must-read for anyone concerned about the dangers of “silver” fillings and is freely accessible here.

Will critiques such as this, coupled with the new recommendation against mercury be enough to get the EC to ban mercury in dentistry? Stay tuned…

Cross-posted

2 Comments

Filed under Dentistry, Mercury

SoCal City Says No to Mercury Amalgam, Yes to Nontoxic Alternatives

Hooray for the Costa Mesa City Council for taking a stand against mercury fillings. May other cities here in California and beyond follow their lead.

Here’s the news from Charles Brown of Consumers for Dental Choice:

California City Says Stop Dental Amalgam Immediately

Costa Mesa, California has become the first city in the United States to call for an immediate end to dental amalgam, the controversial filling material that is 50% mercury. Voting 5-0 on 19 October 2010, the Costa Mesa City Council adopted the resolution (PDF) sponsored by Councilman Gary Monahan that (1) calls on federal and state agencies to eliminate amalgam, (2) asks dentists in Costa Mesa to cease using mercury and switch to non-toxic alternatives, and (3) requests that the other 33 cities in Orange County join Costa Mesa in opposing dental mercury. While as a resolution, it does not actually ban amalgam, it is an important step toward ending this health and environmental scourage.

“There are so many alternatives and I can’t understand why we’re putting this in our mouth,” explained Councilman Monahan. “[I]t’s incredibly dangerous to people getting them and to the environment.”

The watershed Monahan Resolution is the first success for Californians for Green Dentistry, a new project of Consumers for Dental Choice. Californians for Green Dentistry has a trio of dedicated leaders: Director Anita Vazquez Tibau spearheaded the strategy leading to this resolution along with dental hygienist Marisa Russo and naturopath Kristy Mills.

Since July, our hardworking California volunteers distributed handouts alerting the public to the problem of dental amalgam, gained the support of numerous local health professionals and businesses, and collected hundreds of signatures on petitions to city council. In response, the Costa Mesa City Council granted us the hearing to address dental mercury. At the city council hearing, our talented team – including dentists, health professionals, injured consumers, scientists, advocates, and even former Californian Dental Board member Dr. Chet Yokoyama – offered poignant testimony calling for a ban on dental mercury.

Our story is told by video that can be viewed by clicking here, and dentist Dr. Jim Rota’s compelling testimony can be viewed in full by clicking here. We also made the front page of the local news, which can be read online.

It’s time to take this primitive and polluting mercury product off the market, and we can start in the trend-setting state of California! If you are a Californian and want to join the Californians for Green Dentistry team in the fight against dental mercury, please write Anita and me at announcements@toxicteeth.org. Let us know your name, home county, and home city.

No matter where you are from, please thank Costa Mesa Councilman Gary Monahan for standing up to protect our communities, and especially our children, from dental mercury. He can be reached by email at gmonahan@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us.

Congratulations Costa Mesa, California!

– Charlie

Charles G. Brown, National Counsel
Consumers for Dental Choice
316 F St. NE, Suite 210
Washington, DC 20002
202-544-6333

 

Bookmark and Share

Comments Off on SoCal City Says No to Mercury Amalgam, Yes to Nontoxic Alternatives

Filed under Dentistry, Mercury

Are “Silver” Mercury Amalgam Fillings Really More Durable than “White” Composite Fillings?

Over the years, pro-mercury dentists have made some claims so often that they’ve practically become cliches – things like, “Mercury amalgam has been safely used for over 150 years,” and “Amalgam fillings are better because they last longer than composite (tooth-colored) fillings.”

We know from research, as well as clinical experience, that amalgam has in fact caused many a problem in the long term for people who, for whatever reason, are poor excretors of mercury. The metal, continually released as vapor from the fillings, makes its way into bodily tissues, including the brain. As it accumulates, the individual develops symptoms that may manifest as CFS, MCS, fibromyalgia or an autoimmune disorder, to name a few of the most common chronic illnesses that have been linked to mercury. In my office, I see people every day who are either in need of healing because of the effects of dental mercury or who are healing now that we’ve safely removed the fillings and replaced them with biocompatible materials.

But what about the idea that amalgams last longer and are therefore better, more economical? They certainly make economic sense for the dentist, as 1) they’re more fully paid for by insurance and 2) they’re less technique-sensitive, requiring less skill and time to place, meaning the dentist can fit more patients into his or her work day.

Back in the early days of composites, it was, in fact, true that amalgam lasted longer – not that this was necessarily a good thing for the health of the whole body. But are new generation materials any better?

A Dutch study recently published in the Journal of Dental Research sheds some light on the issue, looking at the durability of fillings over a span of 12 years. Nearly 2000 large, class-II restorations were evaluated. (Class II restorations are those on the proximal sides of molars and premolars – that is, toward the sides of the teeth that touch each other.) While amalgam showed better survival on three-surface restorations in patients at a higher than average risk of caries (cavities), overall, composite fared better. Moreover, a smaller percentage of composites than amalgams failed: just 15% of composites versus 25% of amalgams.

If similar or better results are reproduced by other researchers, we wonder how much longer the claim of better durability will last – and what claim could take its place to justify the continued practice of putting poison in people’s mouths.

Read more about some of the restoration materials we most often use in my Glendale, CA dental practice

 

Bookmark and Share

Comments Off on Are “Silver” Mercury Amalgam Fillings Really More Durable than “White” Composite Fillings?

Filed under Dentistry, Mercury

Tell the FDA What You Think of Mercury

Earlier this week, we got a reminder from Charlie Brown of Consumers for Dental Choice that the online commenting period is open for FDA’s December hearings on mercury amalgam. More info – along with some fascinating history about opposition to mercury in medicine – is below in Charlie’s letter.

Civil War Surgeon General Was Court-Martialed for Ordering End to Mercury

Sometimes we must all pause and ask: Why do the pro-mercury dentists resist change so vociferously? Why do these protectors of a primitive, polluting product put quick-and-easy profits ahead of patient health, the environment, and worker safety? It’s tempting to say such resistance is unprecedented.

Not so.

Last week, I toured the National Museum of Civil War Medicine in Frederick, Maryland. While at the museum, I bought its book about Civil War medicine: Death in the Breeze by Bonnie Brice Dorwart, M.D. Mercury’s use was so prevalent, and even then so controversial, that the author devotes two chapters just to mercury – prescribed by physicians in that era to treat soldiers for dysentery, typhoid, malaria, pneumonia and syphilis.

Some physicians opposed pushing mercury onto unsuspecting patients. In fact, an early hero of the mercury-free movement was none other than the Surgeon General of the United States himself, William A. Hammond. Realizing that mercury should have no role in medicine, Hammond courageously issued General Order #6 on May 4, 1863, banning its use by Army physicians. But by issuing an order to protect soldiers from dying from mercury toxicity, Hammond signed his own political death warrant. Immediately, the medical establishment started calling for his ouster. The American Medical Association assigned delegates from every state to work against Order #6. On August 18, 1864, the AMA’s smear campaign succeeded: Surgeon General Hammond was court-martialed and cashiered out.

The American Medical Association defeated Hammond, but could not defeat the truth. More dissident physicians sprung up to oppose mercury, including the renowned Boston poet-physician Oliver Wendell Holmes (the father of the famous judge). Surgeon General Hammond was ultimately vindicated. Today, the Civil War use of mercury as a tonic is ridiculed. In the prologue to Dr. Dorwart’s 2009 book, Dr. H. Ralph Schumacher Jr., Professor of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, states: “Many therapies such as purging and mercury may have hastened death.” Then he adds, prophetically: “What will our successors think of our efforts 150 years from now?”

Future generations not only will condemn the American Dental Association for implanting a neurotoxin into the human body, but no doubt they will resent cleaning up after the irresponsible dentists who polluted our planet with mercury. However, like Surgeon General Hammond, we now have the opportunity to stand up publicly against mercury abusers. Then it was the medical establishment; today it is the dental establishment.

In preparation for the hearings on dental amalgam to be held in December, FDA is accepting public comments online. Speak out for mercury-free dentistry by clicking here to submit a comment. Tell FDA about:

  • Your injuries caused by amalgam,
  • Your children’s exposure to mercury,
  • How your mercury fillings were implanted without your informed consent,
  • How bad dental mercury is for the environment,
  • How deceptive FDA’s dental amalgam website is, or
  • Any other concerns relating to mercury fillings.

You might want to tell FDA, too, that the American Medical Association did all that it could to protect mercury in the 19th century, endangering countless lives. Now the ADA is doing all it can to protect mercury in the 21st century. Will FDA stand up to the American Dental Association like Surgeon General Hammond stood up to the American Medical Association, or will FDA continue to defend mercury implanted in children’s teeth?

Charles G. Brown
National Counsel, Consumers for Dental Choice
President, World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry
17 August 2010

To learn more about the public comment process, see the FDA info page on comments.

Bookmark and Share

Comments Off on Tell the FDA What You Think of Mercury

Filed under Dentistry, Mercury