If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
FDA admits Mercury in dentistry MIGHT indeed be HARMFUL
Clinton wrote: PeterB wrote: I could care less how people make a living, Markey. The issue is whether a product or medical procedure puts the public at undue risk. Forensic studies have linked mercury exposure to increased secretion of amyloid protein and hyper-phosphorylation of a protein referred to as Tau (1), which means mercury amalgam may be an undue risk for a small percentage of people. There is even a more basic problem. All amalgams look the same but they are not of the same quality. A poorly constructed amalgam can "come apart" over time giving off much more Hg. Some also interact galvanically with nearby amalgams, or other dental metals which greatly increases the Hg release. Finally bacteria on the surface of amalgam can and do methylate the Hg in some cases. A poorly constructed amalgam is actually porous and can be invaded by bacteria which can undergo electrochemical reactions with the amalgam. Methyl Hg is more more toxic Right, and that exposure may be linked to neurological diseases. I can't think of any reason to continue using mercury in dentistry, since other materials are available. PeterB |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
FDA admits Mercury in dentistry MIGHT indeed be HARMFUL
"Ilena Rose" wrote in message ... I fully believe that there is a subset of human beings who react very strongly to the mercury in fillings ... On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:08:45 -0600, Ilena Rose wrote: Note from Ilena Rosenthal: Another one of the Healthfrauds theories falling apart. Quackwatch has been behind the propaganda disseminated on the internet for years regarding this. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060907/...dental_mercury By ANDREW BRIDGES, Associated Press Writer 48 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Government health advisers rejected a federal report that concluded dental fillings used by millions of patients are safe, saying further study of the mercury-laden amalgam is needed. ADVERTISEMENT A joint panel of Food and Drug Administration advisers did not declare the so-called "silver fillings" unsafe. But in a 13-7 vote Thursday, the advisers said the federal report didn't objectively and clearly present the current state of knowledge about the fillings. In a second 13-7 vote, the panelists said the report's conclusions about safety weren't reasonable, given the quantity and quality of information currently available. The FDA had asked the panel of outside advisers to weigh the report, a review of 34 recent research studies. The report had found "no significant new information" that would change the FDA's earlier determination that mercury-based fillings don't harm patients, except in rare cases where they have allergic reactions. But panelists said remaining uncertainties about the risk of so-called silver fillings demanded further study. In particular, research is needed on the effect of mercury-laden fillings on children and the fetuses of pregnant women with fillings. "There are too many things we don't know, too many things that were excluded," said Michael Aschner, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Vanderbilt University and a panel consultant. He cast two "no" votes. Panelists also said more study was needed on whether mercury fillings give off more vapors when they're being placed or removed. Dr. Ralph Sacco, of Columbia University, said consumers shouldn't panic and that there was no need to have their amalgam fillings removed. The votes were a "start" to sparking greater dialogue and awareness of the issue, said consumer activist Sara Moore-Hines, 57. "If we don't want it in our fish, we don't want it in our thermometers, what is it doing in our heads?" said Moore-Hines, a Pennsylvania counselor. She and other activists had pressed the panel to recommend the FDA ban mercury fillings. "Do the right, decent, honorable and God-loving thing: There needs to be an immediate embargo on mercury fillings for everyone, or at least pregnant women and children, because they are our future," said Michael Burke, who blamed mercury fillings for the early onset Alzheimer's disease diagnosed in his wife, Phyllis, in 2004. Dr. Michael Fleming, a Durham, N.C., dentist and the consumer representative on the panel, asked the FDA to consider restricting the use of amalgam in children younger than 6 and in pregnant women. The activists - dozens attended the two-day meeting - met his proposal with applause. "We are going to take the recommendations, your comments, and we will start evaluating the next steps, with the white paper and this whole issue of dental amalgam," Dr. Norris Alderson, the FDA's associate commissioner for science, told the panel. Amalgam fillings by weight are about 50 percent mercury, joined with silver, copper and tin. Dentists have used amalgam to fill cavities - and have argued about their safety - since the 1800s. Today, tens of millions of Americans receive mercury fillings each year. Amalgam use has begun to taper off, though, with many doctors switching to resin composite fillings that blend better with the natural coloring of teeth. With amalgam fillings, mercury vapor is released when patients chew and when they brush their teeth. Significant levels of mercury exposure can cause permanent damage to the brain and kidneys. Fetuses and children are especially sensitive. Scientists have found that mercury levels in the blood, urine and body tissues rise in conjunction with mercury fillings. However, even among people with numerous fillings, exposure levels are well below those known to be harmful, the FDA report said http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...87c1bc3daaf4e4 Subject: Jan Drew Was Chairwoman of the Panel Posted by: Joel344 Posted only to smd. Sep 7 2006 9:12 pm Health advisers reject mercury reportANDREW BRIDGES Associated Press Which was AFTER you posted (on smd) at: Sep 7 2006 5:08 pm Some things never change. Maybe Joel is working on loosing another account?? Listen up Joel Eichen! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
FDA admits Mercury in dentistry MIGHT indeed be HARMFUL
"Mark Probert" wrote in message ... Robert wrote: "PeterB" wrote in message oups.com... Ilena Rose wrote: Note from Ilena Rosenthal: Another one of the Healthfrauds theories falling apart. Quackwatch has been behind the propaganda disseminated on the internet for years regarding this. And there went Mark's UDP again!! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060907/...dental_mercury By ANDREW BRIDGES, Associated Press Writer 48 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Government health advisers rejected a federal report that concluded dental fillings used by millions of patients are safe, saying further study of the mercury-laden amalgam is needed. ADVERTISEMENT A joint panel of Food and Drug Administration advisers did not declare the so-called "silver fillings" unsafe. But in a 13-7 vote Thursday, the advisers said the federal report didn't objectively and clearly present the current state of knowledge about the fillings. In a second 13-7 vote, the panelists said the report's conclusions about safety weren't reasonable, given the quantity and quality of information currently available. The FDA had asked the panel of outside advisers to weigh the report, a review of 34 recent research studies. The report had found "no significant new information" that would change the FDA's earlier determination that mercury-based fillings don't harm patients, except in rare cases where they have allergic reactions. But panelists said remaining uncertainties about the risk of so-called silver fillings demanded further study. In particular, research is needed on the effect of mercury-laden fillings on children and the fetuses of pregnant women with fillings. "There are too many things we don't know, too many things that were excluded," said Michael Aschner, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Vanderbilt University and a panel consultant. He cast two "no" votes. Panelists also said more study was needed on whether mercury fillings give off more vapors when they're being placed or removed. Dr. Ralph Sacco, of Columbia University, said consumers shouldn't panic and that there was no need to have their amalgam fillings removed. The votes were a "start" to sparking greater dialogue and awareness of the issue, said consumer activist Sara Moore-Hines, 57. "If we don't want it in our fish, we don't want it in our thermometers, what is it doing in our heads?" said Moore-Hines, a Pennsylvania counselor. She and other activists had pressed the panel to recommend the FDA ban mercury fillings. "Do the right, decent, honorable and God-loving thing: There needs to be an immediate embargo on mercury fillings for everyone, or at least pregnant women and children, because they are our future," said Michael Burke, who blamed mercury fillings for the early onset Alzheimer's disease diagnosed in his wife, Phyllis, in 2004. Dr. Michael Fleming, a Durham, N.C., dentist and the consumer representative on the panel, asked the FDA to consider restricting the use of amalgam in children younger than 6 and in pregnant women. The activists - dozens attended the two-day meeting - met his proposal with applause. "We are going to take the recommendations, your comments, and we will start evaluating the next steps, with the white paper and this whole issue of dental amalgam," Dr. Norris Alderson, the FDA's associate commissioner for science, told the panel. Amalgam fillings by weight are about 50 percent mercury, joined with silver, copper and tin. Dentists have used amalgam to fill cavities - and have argued about their safety - since the 1800s. Today, tens of millions of Americans receive mercury fillings each year. Amalgam use has begun to taper off, though, with many doctors switching to resin composite fillings that blend better with the natural coloring of teeth. With amalgam fillings, mercury vapor is released when patients chew and when they brush their teeth. Significant levels of mercury exposure can cause permanent damage to the brain and kidneys. Fetuses and children are especially sensitive. Scientists have found that mercury levels in the blood, urine and body tissues rise in conjunction with mercury fillings. However, even among people with numerous fillings, exposure levels are well below those known to be harmful, the FDA report said I missed this earlier, Illena, thanks for posting. If this were encapsulated tobacco, the practice would have stopped long ago. Just another example of industry dragging its feet while enlisting the support of its lackey bureacrats. PeterB If thousands if not millions of us have had amalgams for many years, where all the sick and dying people? A recent study says if you have 7 fillings, your body can handle 460 times more Mercury than you absorb every day from the fillings. There are many more serious things about your body to worry about. Petey is worried about it because people make money placing amalgams into teeth. If they did it for free, I suspect that the issue would be over. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
FDA admits Mercury in dentistry MIGHT indeed be HARMFUL
In article om,
PeterB wrote: Clinton wrote: PeterB wrote: I could care less how people make a living, Markey. The issue is whether a product or medical procedure puts the public at undue risk. Forensic studies have linked mercury exposure to increased secretion of amyloid protein and hyper-phosphorylation of a protein referred to as Tau (1), which means mercury amalgam may be an undue risk for a small percentage of people. There is even a more basic problem. All amalgams look the same but they are not of the same quality. A poorly constructed amalgam can "come apart" over time giving off much more Hg. Some also interact galvanically with nearby amalgams, or other dental metals which greatly increases the Hg release. Finally bacteria on the surface of amalgam can and do methylate the Hg in some cases. A poorly constructed amalgam is actually porous and can be invaded by bacteria which can undergo electrochemical reactions with the amalgam. Methyl Hg is more more toxic Right, and that exposure may be linked to neurological diseases. I can't think of any reason to continue using mercury in dentistry, since other materials are available. I can. Some people are allergic to the other materials, and amalgam is cheap and durable. Shucks, I have two amalgam fillings. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. I used to think that spammers should be hanged, but I've changed my mind. They should be tortured first. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
FDA admits Mercury in dentistry MIGHT indeed be HARMFUL
"PeterB" wrote in message ps.com... Mark Probert wrote: Robert wrote: "PeterB" wrote in message oups.com... Ilena Rose wrote: Note from Ilena Rosenthal: Another one of the Healthfrauds theories falling apart. Quackwatch has been behind the propaganda disseminated on the internet for years regarding this. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060907/...dental_mercury By ANDREW BRIDGES, Associated Press Writer 48 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Government health advisers rejected a federal report that concluded dental fillings used by millions of patients are safe, saying further study of the mercury-laden amalgam is needed. ADVERTISEMENT A joint panel of Food and Drug Administration advisers did not declare the so-called "silver fillings" unsafe. But in a 13-7 vote Thursday, the advisers said the federal report didn't objectively and clearly present the current state of knowledge about the fillings. In a second 13-7 vote, the panelists said the report's conclusions about safety weren't reasonable, given the quantity and quality of information currently available. The FDA had asked the panel of outside advisers to weigh the report, a review of 34 recent research studies. The report had found "no significant new information" that would change the FDA's earlier determination that mercury-based fillings don't harm patients, except in rare cases where they have allergic reactions. But panelists said remaining uncertainties about the risk of so-called silver fillings demanded further study. In particular, research is needed on the effect of mercury-laden fillings on children and the fetuses of pregnant women with fillings. "There are too many things we don't know, too many things that were excluded," said Michael Aschner, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Vanderbilt University and a panel consultant. He cast two "no" votes. Panelists also said more study was needed on whether mercury fillings give off more vapors when they're being placed or removed. Dr. Ralph Sacco, of Columbia University, said consumers shouldn't panic and that there was no need to have their amalgam fillings removed. The votes were a "start" to sparking greater dialogue and awareness of the issue, said consumer activist Sara Moore-Hines, 57. "If we don't want it in our fish, we don't want it in our thermometers, what is it doing in our heads?" said Moore-Hines, a Pennsylvania counselor. She and other activists had pressed the panel to recommend the FDA ban mercury fillings. "Do the right, decent, honorable and God-loving thing: There needs to be an immediate embargo on mercury fillings for everyone, or at least pregnant women and children, because they are our future," said Michael Burke, who blamed mercury fillings for the early onset Alzheimer's disease diagnosed in his wife, Phyllis, in 2004. Dr. Michael Fleming, a Durham, N.C., dentist and the consumer representative on the panel, asked the FDA to consider restricting the use of amalgam in children younger than 6 and in pregnant women. The activists - dozens attended the two-day meeting - met his proposal with applause. "We are going to take the recommendations, your comments, and we will start evaluating the next steps, with the white paper and this whole issue of dental amalgam," Dr. Norris Alderson, the FDA's associate commissioner for science, told the panel. Amalgam fillings by weight are about 50 percent mercury, joined with silver, copper and tin. Dentists have used amalgam to fill cavities - and have argued about their safety - since the 1800s. Today, tens of millions of Americans receive mercury fillings each year. Amalgam use has begun to taper off, though, with many doctors switching to resin composite fillings that blend better with the natural coloring of teeth. With amalgam fillings, mercury vapor is released when patients chew and when they brush their teeth. Significant levels of mercury exposure can cause permanent damage to the brain and kidneys. Fetuses and children are especially sensitive. Scientists have found that mercury levels in the blood, urine and body tissues rise in conjunction with mercury fillings. However, even among people with numerous fillings, exposure levels are well below those known to be harmful, the FDA report said I missed this earlier, Illena, thanks for posting. If this were encapsulated tobacco, the practice would have stopped long ago. Just another example of industry dragging its feet while enlisting the support of its lackey bureacrats. PeterB If thousands if not millions of us have had amalgams for many years, where all the sick and dying people? A recent study says if you have 7 fillings, your body can handle 460 times more Mercury than you absorb every day from the fillings. There are many more serious things about your body to worry about. Petey is worried about it because people make money placing amalgams into teeth. If they did it for free, I suspect that the issue would be over. I could care less how people make a living, Markey. The issue is whether a product or medical procedure puts the public at undue risk. Forensic studies have linked mercury exposure to increased secretion of amyloid protein and hyper-phosphorylation of a protein referred to as Tau (1), which means mercury amalgam may be an undue risk for a small percentage of people. Since you can't know which group you will fall into before the fact, by the time you do find out, it will be too late. At a minimum, regulatory oversight should require disclosure that mercury in amalgam has not been proven safe beyond question. The BDHF says that "if amalgam were to be presented as a new material today, it would not be approved by any food and drug administration, on the precautionary principle." PeterB (1) Olivieri, G., Brack, Ch., Muller-Spahn, F., Stahelin, H.B., Herrmann, M., Renard, P; Brockhaus, M. and Hock, C. Mercury Induces Cell Cytotoxicity and Oxidative Stress and Increases b-amyloid Secretion and Tau Phosphorylation in SHSY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells. J. Neurochemistry 74, 231-231, 2000. http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:...&cd=6&ie=UTF-8 http://tinyurl.com/pzk53 See Page 3. Better yet--read it all. Jan |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
FDA admits Mercury in dentistry MIGHT indeed be HARMFUL
David Wright wrote: In article om, PeterB wrote: Clinton wrote: PeterB wrote: I could care less how people make a living, Markey. The issue is whether a product or medical procedure puts the public at undue risk. Forensic studies have linked mercury exposure to increased secretion of amyloid protein and hyper-phosphorylation of a protein referred to as Tau (1), which means mercury amalgam may be an undue risk for a small percentage of people. There is even a more basic problem. All amalgams look the same but they are not of the same quality. A poorly constructed amalgam can "come apart" over time giving off much more Hg. Some also interact galvanically with nearby amalgams, or other dental metals which greatly increases the Hg release. Finally bacteria on the surface of amalgam can and do methylate the Hg in some cases. A poorly constructed amalgam is actually porous and can be invaded by bacteria which can undergo electrochemical reactions with the amalgam. Methyl Hg is more more toxic Right, and that exposure may be linked to neurological diseases. I can't think of any reason to continue using mercury in dentistry, since other materials are available. I can. Some people are allergic to the other materials, and amalgam is cheap and durable. Shucks, I have two amalgam fillings. Ok, let's ask everyone who knows they are allergic to the other materials to choose something with mercury in it, in case the risk of alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, or early death is more appealing to them. [ref. Bates MN, Fawcett J, Garrett N, Cutress T, Kjellstrom T. The beneficial effect of amalgam replacement on health in patients with autoimmunity. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2004 Jun;25(3):211-8. PMID 15349088.] PeterB |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
FDA admits Mercury in dentistry MIGHT indeed be HARMFUL
In article .com,
PeterB wrote: David Wright wrote: In article om, PeterB wrote: Clinton wrote: PeterB wrote: I could care less how people make a living, Markey. The issue is whether a product or medical procedure puts the public at undue risk. Forensic studies have linked mercury exposure to increased secretion of amyloid protein and hyper-phosphorylation of a protein referred to as Tau (1), which means mercury amalgam may be an undue risk for a small percentage of people. There is even a more basic problem. All amalgams look the same but they are not of the same quality. A poorly constructed amalgam can "come apart" over time giving off much more Hg. Some also interact galvanically with nearby amalgams, or other dental metals which greatly increases the Hg release. Finally bacteria on the surface of amalgam can and do methylate the Hg in some cases. A poorly constructed amalgam is actually porous and can be invaded by bacteria which can undergo electrochemical reactions with the amalgam. Methyl Hg is more more toxic Right, and that exposure may be linked to neurological diseases. I can't think of any reason to continue using mercury in dentistry, since other materials are available. I can. Some people are allergic to the other materials, and amalgam is cheap and durable. Shucks, I have two amalgam fillings. Ok, let's ask everyone who knows they are allergic to the other materials to choose something with mercury in it, in case the risk of alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, or early death is more appealing to them. [ref. Bates MN, Fawcett J, Garrett N, Cutress T, Kjellstrom T. The beneficial effect of amalgam replacement on health in patients with autoimmunity. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2004 Jun;25(3):211-8. PMID 15349088.] Not that the risk is anything to worry about. If it were, I would have gotten some other material for my own fillings. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. I used to think that spammers should be hanged, but I've changed my mind. They should be tortured first. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
FDA admits Mercury in dentistry MIGHT indeed be HARMFUL
David Wright wrote: In article .com, PeterB wrote: David Wright wrote: In article om, PeterB wrote: Clinton wrote: PeterB wrote: I could care less how people make a living, Markey. The issue is whether a product or medical procedure puts the public at undue risk. Forensic studies have linked mercury exposure to increased secretion of amyloid protein and hyper-phosphorylation of a protein referred to as Tau (1), which means mercury amalgam may be an undue risk for a small percentage of people. There is even a more basic problem. All amalgams look the same but they are not of the same quality. A poorly constructed amalgam can "come apart" over time giving off much more Hg. Some also interact galvanically with nearby amalgams, or other dental metals which greatly increases the Hg release. Finally bacteria on the surface of amalgam can and do methylate the Hg in some cases. A poorly constructed amalgam is actually porous and can be invaded by bacteria which can undergo electrochemical reactions with the amalgam. Methyl Hg is more more toxic Right, and that exposure may be linked to neurological diseases. I can't think of any reason to continue using mercury in dentistry, since other materials are available. I can. Some people are allergic to the other materials, and amalgam is cheap and durable. Shucks, I have two amalgam fillings. Ok, let's ask everyone who knows they are allergic to the other materials to choose something with mercury in it, in case the risk of alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, or early death is more appealing to them. [ref. Bates MN, Fawcett J, Garrett N, Cutress T, Kjellstrom T. The beneficial effect of amalgam replacement on health in patients with autoimmunity. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2004 Jun;25(3):211-8. PMID 15349088.] Not that the risk is anything to worry about. If it were, I would have gotten some other material for my own fillings. If you were a pregnant female, would you choose mercury amalgam? PeterB |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
FDA admits Mercury in dentistry MIGHT indeed be HARMFUL
In article .com,
wrote: David Wright wrote: In article .com, PeterB wrote: David Wright wrote: In article om, PeterB wrote: Clinton wrote: PeterB wrote: I could care less how people make a living, Markey. The issue is whether a product or medical procedure puts the public at undue risk. Forensic studies have linked mercury exposure to increased secretion of amyloid protein and hyper-phosphorylation of a protein referred to as Tau (1), which means mercury amalgam may be an undue risk for a small percentage of people. There is even a more basic problem. All amalgams look the same but they are not of the same quality. A poorly constructed amalgam can "come apart" over time giving off much more Hg. Some also interact galvanically with nearby amalgams, or other dental metals which greatly increases the Hg release. Finally bacteria on the surface of amalgam can and do methylate the Hg in some cases. A poorly constructed amalgam is actually porous and can be invaded by bacteria which can undergo electrochemical reactions with the amalgam. Methyl Hg is more more toxic Right, and that exposure may be linked to neurological diseases. I can't think of any reason to continue using mercury in dentistry, since other materials are available. I can. Some people are allergic to the other materials, and amalgam is cheap and durable. Shucks, I have two amalgam fillings. Ok, let's ask everyone who knows they are allergic to the other materials to choose something with mercury in it, in case the risk of alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, or early death is more appealing to them. [ref. Bates MN, Fawcett J, Garrett N, Cutress T, Kjellstrom T. The beneficial effect of amalgam replacement on health in patients with autoimmunity. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2004 Jun;25(3):211-8. PMID 15349088.] Not that the risk is anything to worry about. If it were, I would have gotten some other material for my own fillings. If you were a pregnant female, would you choose mercury amalgam? There's no such thing as mercury amalgam. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. I used to think that spammers should be hanged, but I've changed my mind. They should be tortured first. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
FDA admits Mercury in dentistry MIGHT indeed be HARMFUL
"David Wright" wrote in message ... In article .com, wrote: David Wright wrote: In article .com, PeterB wrote: David Wright wrote: In article om, PeterB wrote: Clinton wrote: PeterB wrote: I could care less how people make a living, Markey. The issue is whether a product or medical procedure puts the public at undue risk. Forensic studies have linked mercury exposure to increased secretion of amyloid protein and hyper-phosphorylation of a protein referred to as Tau (1), which means mercury amalgam may be an undue risk for a small percentage of people. There is even a more basic problem. All amalgams look the same but they are not of the same quality. A poorly constructed amalgam can "come apart" over time giving off much more Hg. Some also interact galvanically with nearby amalgams, or other dental metals which greatly increases the Hg release. Finally bacteria on the surface of amalgam can and do methylate the Hg in some cases. A poorly constructed amalgam is actually porous and can be invaded by bacteria which can undergo electrochemical reactions with the amalgam. Methyl Hg is more more toxic Right, and that exposure may be linked to neurological diseases. I can't think of any reason to continue using mercury in dentistry, since other materials are available. I can. Some people are allergic to the other materials, and amalgam is cheap and durable. Shucks, I have two amalgam fillings. Ok, let's ask everyone who knows they are allergic to the other materials to choose something with mercury in it, in case the risk of alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, or early death is more appealing to them. [ref. Bates MN, Fawcett J, Garrett N, Cutress T, Kjellstrom T. The beneficial effect of amalgam replacement on health in patients with autoimmunity. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2004 Jun;25(3):211-8. PMID 15349088.] Not that the risk is anything to worry about. If it were, I would have gotten some other material for my own fillings. If you were a pregnant female, would you choose mercury amalgam? There's no such thing as mercury amalgam. Wronger that Wright. 235 on Medline *mercury amalgam* Some on Pub med, also. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. I used to think that spammers should be hanged, but I've changed my mind. They should be tortured first. Like Rich Shewmaker and Peter Bowditch. Spammers. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bill for Banning Amalgam Reintroduced | Jan Drew | Kids Health | 425 | January 25th 07 05:34 AM |
Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD | john | Kids Health | 164 | July 28th 06 02:59 PM |
MERCK'S GARDASIL VACCINE NOT PROVEN SAFE FOR LITTLE GIRLS | Bryan Heit | Kids Health | 12 | July 7th 06 12:18 PM |
Combination vaccines safe for children | Mark Probert | Kids Health | 50 | August 19th 05 06:43 PM |
THE REAL SCIENTIFIC TRUTH OF AMALGAM | LadyLollipop | Kids Health | 48 | April 3rd 05 11:18 AM |