“Healing Autism: No Finer a Cause on the Planet”

August 3, 2001 Search www.feat.org/search/news.asp Dental Board Delays Accord On Mercury Fillings The panel wants to acknowledge the views of those with safety concerns.

[Tide turning on amalgams, or just appeasement? By Peter Woodall in

the Sacramento Bee.]

http://www.sacbee.com/news/news/local04.html

Oakland—The Dental Board of California on Friday delayed acceptance again of the report of its own independent consultant stating there is no research evidence that pregnant women or children are at risk from exposure to dental fillings containing mercury.

Responding to criticism by anti-mercury activists at a hearing, the dental board instead proposed adding language to its mandated “Dental Materials Fact Sheet” stating that a diversity of scientific opinion exists as to the safety of mercury amalgam fillings.

The vote culminated three hours of emotional testimony from people who say mercury dental fillings can cause a bewildering array of symptoms, from memory loss to kidney damage.

The fact sheet, which is intended to encourage discussion between dentists and patients about dental-materials options, was returned to the consultant, Dr. Armando Valdez, for the addition, but without further elaboration.

Charles G. Young, attorney for Consumers for Dental Choice, a national anti-mercury organization, said his group was clearly delighted with the proposed addition to the fact sheet.

“This was clearly a cover-up,” he said of the proposed wording of the report that was rejected. “They had major conflicts, and they recognized it.” he said.

Controversy has surrounded preparation of the dental fact sheet since the Legislature mandated its publication in 1993.

The Department of Consumer Affairs criticized the dental board’s first version because it minimized the scientific controversy surrounding the risks associated with mercury fillings.

In 1999, the board granted a Consumers for Dental Choice petition to revise the fact sheet. Then the revised version, completed in May 2001, was rejected and sent back for further revision.

Department of Consumer Affairs Director Kathleen Hamilton criticized the subsequent draft in a letter to the board because, she wrote, it didn’t do a good enough job describing the possible harmful effects of the various materials.

The fact sheet was revised once more, only to be rejected again by the board Friday.

Both the anti-mercury activists and the California Dental Association claimed scientific high ground in the debate.

“For over a hundred years, mercury has been used in the general public as a very safe, cost effective, durable material,” said Judith Babcock, director of dental affairs for the California Dental Association.

“We believe sound medical research shows no correlation between risk to patients and the use of mercury amalgam, except for patients who are susceptible to mercury as an allergic reaction,” she said. “You have to remove the anecdotal and the subjective and look at the science.”

But Stephen Rivers, spokesman for Consumers for Dental Choice, said, “150 years ago we used to saw legs off; we don’t do that anymore.

“Mercury is a toxic chemical when it goes into people’s mouths,” he said. “It is hazardous waste once it is removed. But somehow, magically, it is okay when it’s in your mouth.”

Livermore dentist S. Ward Eccles, who testified at the hearing, stopped using mercury amalgam fillings in 1980.

“I read some of the medical research, and I just couldn’t keep doing it,” he said.

Eccles said he has seen marked improvement in numerous patients after he removed their mercury amalgam fillings.

“It’s very subjective,” he said, “but people get their lives back.”

The dental board also recommended changing the term “amalgam fillings”

to “mercury fillings” in the fact sheet.

Anti-mercury activists have long said that the American Dental Association’s practice of calling fillings containing about 50 percent mercury and about 25 percent silver, “silver” or “amalgam” fillings, is misleading.

The revised dental fact sheet will be considered by the dental board at its next meeting in November.

* * *

Lenny Schafer, Editor Catherine Johnson PhD Ron Sleith Kay Stammers

Editor@feat.org Edward Decelie CALENDAR: Michelle Guppy events@feat.org

Unsubscribe: FEATNews-signoff-request@LIST.FEAT.ORG

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.