-
- With Multiple Sclerosis
After a couple of years of battle with this frusterating disease, my dad is looking healthier than ever. He has lost 60 pounds of fat, while gaining muscle. Not to mention his hair and memory have returned.
FDA Declares Mercury Amalgam Fillings Safe for All
August 11, 2009 by RyanTuesday, August 11, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
http://www.naturalnews.com/026822_mercury_the_FDA_mercury_fillings.html
(NaturalNews) His mercury fillings were gray
And he chewed on them every day.
But the stuff reached his brain
And it drove him insane
Now he works for the FDA
- by Mike Adams
Any scientific credibility the FDA might have been clinging to in these last few years has now disintegrated with the agency’s recent announcement that after reviewing 200 scientific studies, it has concluded mercury fillings are safe for human health! This ruling, as you’ll read below, further demonstrates how the FDA is a rogue federal agency that respects no law and frequently operates in direct violation of the law.
Case in point: Last year Consumers for Dental Choice (www.ToxicTeeth.org) sued the FDA over the issue of mercury fillings. A court settlement required the FDA to remove from its website statements about mercury fillings being “safe” and, instead, to publish this statement: “Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses.”
That statement stayed on the FDA’s website for several months. But that page has now been removed from the FDA’s website (http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/P…), returning no results. The FDA also deleted a “question and answer” page from its website that discussed the health risk of mercury fillings.
Instead, the FDA now posts a press release stating that the levels of mercury “released by dental amalgam fillings are not high enough to cause harm in patients.” (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsr…)
Mercury fillings are indestructible, says the FDA!
What this so-called “scientific” conclusion really says is that mercury fillings don’t produce mercury vapor or mercury dust. But any dentist can tell you that drilling on mercury fillings produces mercury dust that’s immediately inhaled by the patient (and the dentist). This video from the IAOMT provides direct visual evidence that mercury fillings quite readily produce mercury vapor just by chewing on them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yln…
The FDA, however, insists mercury fillings are so safe that even infants and babies can have them installed in their mouths. Susan Runner is the head of dental devices at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, and she explained earlier this week that mercury fillings are safe for children under six years old because they have smaller mouths and breathe less air than adults, thereby “minimizing” any risks. (Huh?)
This kind of loopy logic has been extended to all groups — Pregnant women, infants, children and senior citizens — for which the FDA now insists mercury fillings are perfectly safe.
That’s why attorney Charlie Brown of Consumers for Dental Choice says, “FDA remains alone in the world in failing to protect children and pregnant women from mercury fillings. Since 1996, Canadian dentists have been told not to put mercury amalgam in children or pregnant women. Since 1998, British dentists have been told the same for pregnant women. Norway and Sweden have banned amalgam altogether. Regrettably, this rule should have meant the end of two-tiered dentistry: mercury for the poor and choice for the rest. Instead the FDA has failed to carry out its mission of protecting the public health.”
Paul Chek talks about Ab Function
August 4, 2009 by Ryan
FDA Issues Final Regulation on Dental Amalgam!
July 31, 2009 by RyanFDA NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: July 28, 2009
Media Inquiries: Peper Long, 301-796-4671, mary.long@fda.hhs.gov
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
FDA Issues Final Regulation on Dental Amalgam
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today issued a final regulation classifying dental amalgam and its component parts – elemental mercury and a powder alloy—used in dental fillings. While elemental mercury has been associated with adverse health effects at high exposures, the levels released by dental amalgam fillings are not high enough to cause harm in patients.
The regulation classifies dental amalgam into Class II (moderate risk). By classifying a device into Class II, the FDA can impose special controls (in addition to general controls such as good manufacturing practices that apply to all medical devices regardless of risk) to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
The special controls that the FDA is imposing on dental amalgam are contained in a guidance document that contains, among other things, recommendations on performance testing, device composition, and labeling statements.
Specifically, the FDA recommended that the product labeling include:
- A warning against the use of dental amalgam in patients with mercury allergy;
- A warning that dental professionals use adequate ventilation when handling dental amalgam;
- A statement discussing the scientific evidence on the benefits and risk of dental amalgam, including the risks of inhaled mercury vapor. The statement will help dentists and patients make informed decisions about the use of dental amalgam.
Dental amalgam is a “pre-amendment device,” which means that it was in use prior to May 28, 1976, when the FDA was given broad authority to regulate medical devices. That law required the FDA to issue regulations classifying pre-amendment devices according to their risk into class I, II, or III. Although the FDA previously had classified the two separate parts of amalgam – elemental mercury and the metal powder alloy – it had not issued a separate regulation classifying the combination of the two, dental amalgam. During this time, however, dental amalgam has been subject to all applicable provisions of the law.
Today’s regulation also reclassifies the mercury component of dental amalgam from Class I (low risk) to Class II (moderate risk).
Over the past six years, the FDA has taken several steps to assure that the classification of dental amalgam is supported by strong science.
In 2002, the agency issued a proposed rule to classify dental amalgam and identify any special controls necessary for its safe and effective use.
Due to a high number of comments on that rule, the agency held an advisory committee meeting in 2006, inviting dental and neurology experts to review existing scientific data on dental amalgam, especially with regard to its toxicity in pregnant women and children.
The agency drafted a review of recent and relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature on exposure to dental amalgam mercury. The advisory committee asked that the agency conduct an even deeper review of the scientific literature on this topic. In all, the agency considered some 200 scientific studies.
On April 28, 2008, the FDA reopened the comment period on the 2002 proposed classification in order to elicit the most up-to-date comments and information related to classification of dental amalgam. Today’s rule reflects the years of agency review on this topic.
FDA’s Web site on dental amalgam:
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DentalProducts/DentalAmalgam/default.htm
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm173992.htm
California Advances Identification of Fluoride as a Carcinogen
June 27, 2009 by RyanCalifornia EPA committee designates fluoride as a priority for review for public warnings about risk of cancer to consumers
News Release June 5, 2009
http://iaomt.org/news/archive.asp?intReleaseID=299
On May 29, 2009, over protests by lobbyists for the American Dental Association and the Personal Care Products Council, the Carcinogen Identification Committee of California EPA’s Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) named fluoride and its salts to its list of chemicals slated for highest-priority review as a cancer causing agent. The review will be a critical step toward possible inclusion of fluorides on a Prop 65 list of chemicals for which warnings for risks of cancer, birth defects, and reproductive toxicity are to be publicly posted.
Citing the passage of two pre-screenings that acknowledged the existence of animal and human evidence, as well as widespread exposure, this recommendation places fluoride and its salts on the list along with 37 other chemicals slated for a high priority Hazard Identification process. Evidence presented to the committee included a scientific review by Kathleen Theissen, PhD, which was funded by IAOMT.
This hazard identification process is similar to a risk assessment performed to establish a scientific point of safety for lifetime ingestion that is ordered by the Safe Drinking Water Act for chemicals in the water, with the exception that this process will evaluate fluorides from all exposures, and restricts the assessment to only the risks of cancer, rather than all adverse heath effects.
Proposition 65 was enacted by voters of California in 1986 to assure that the public is notified of the presence of substances known to the State of California to pose a risk of cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm in products or locations. Prop 65 warnings are commonly seen at gas stations and dry cleaning establishments warning of environmental exposures to the chemicals present, and bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), another fluoride compound, was also recommended for the highest priority review.
PFOAs are most commonly used to produce surfactants (in layman’s terms, non-stick and non-penetration), which are the basis of such products as Scotchgard (In 2000, maker 3M announced it is to be phased out of the market), Teflon (restricted in future production), and GoreTex.
Ranging from water and oil repellants, to stain resistant fabrics, to waxed paper, this chemical class is listed as used in aircraft production processes, electronic products, personal care products, and thought to be essential in the automotive, chemical, medical, packaging and building/construction industries. Dupont, the primary producer of PFOAs, opposed the recommendation for priority review.
Chemicals that received a lower priority ranking are not expected to receive a timely review.
A summary of the chemical prioritizations can be accessed at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/cic060509.html
Contact: Jeff Green
Citizens for Safe Drinking Water
(800) 728-3833 greenjeff@cox.net
www.Keepers-of-the-Well.org
