Earlier Barrett Operations : He Lies to anti-fluoride group to find out their strategies & bring them down

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
...

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:sZTjj.304504$Fc.66519@attbi_s21...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
...
Speaking of being misinformed. It was you who said there is no mercury
in amalgams.

Uh, no, it wasn't. But thanks for playing.

I never play when the subject is mercury amalgams.
And..YES it was you, know nothing Baratz.

This is very simple to solve. If it was me, you would have no problem
finding the post and posting it here.

You can't do that, however, because I didn't post it.

You know how I know I never posted about "mercury amalgams"? Because it's
not a topic I give a rat's ass about.

Skeptic wrote:

Because it's
not a topic I give a rat's ass about.



What do you do with the rest of the rat?

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news:vadkj.58$Ev6.38@trndny07...
Skeptic wrote:

Because it's
not a topic I give a rat's ass about.

What do you do with the rest of the rat?

all sorts of interesting things

anyone hungry?

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:e0ckj.305911$Fc.114299@attbi_s21...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
...

"Skeptic" wrote in message
news:sZTjj.304504$Fc.66519@attbi_s21...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
...
Speaking of being misinformed. It was you who said there is no mercury
in amalgams.

Uh, no, it wasn't. But thanks for playing.

I never play when the subject is mercury amalgams.
And..YES it was you, know nothing Baratz.

This is very simple to solve. If it was me, you would have no problem
finding the post and posting it here.

You can't do that, however, because I didn't post it.

You know how I know I never posted about "mercury amalgams"? Because it's
not a topic I give a rat's ass about.

Finally, statements made by Dr. Baratz concerning amalgams and chemistry
in
general are so pathetic that they almost defy sensible analysis. I WOULD
CHALLENGE THE FDA TO TRY TO GET THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRS OF CHEMISTRY AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY TO AGREE WITH DR.
BARATZ'S
COMMENTS REGARDING THE CHEMISTRY OF AMALGAMS AND MERCURY. However, knowing
this
is unlikely I will deal as best I can with Dr. Baratz's statements one at
a
time in order of presentation.

Page 6, line 27-28. Dr. Baratz has no published basis for making this
statement. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. How can Dr. Baratz
say
that a patient on a kidney dialysis program is not further injured by
additional mercury (a potent kidney toxicant) exposure from their
amalgams? I
don't think such a study has ever been undertaken. When exposing a person
to
years of a chronic level of toxic mercury it is the responsibility of the
pro-amalgam group to prove it does no harm, not vice-versa. Can Dr. Baratz
or
the FDA confirm that the 22,000-fold increased mercury levels in the
hearts of
inter-city young men who die of Idiopathic Dialated Cardiomyopthy did not
come
from dental amalgams?

{ Frustaci, A., Magnavita, N., Chimenti, C., Caldarulo,
M., Sabbioni, E., Pietra, R., Cellini. C., Possati, G. F. and Maseri, A.
Marked
Elevation of Myocardial Trace Elements in Idiopathic Dilated
Cardiomyopathy
Compared With Secondary Dysfunction. J. of the American College Cardiology
v33(6) 1578-1583, 1999,}

(This BLATANT LIE!!)

******There is no mercury in amalgam.*******

(Where are the scientific facts for the above statements??)

Page 6, lines 31-32. One grain of standard sucrose does not weigh near one
milligram. Therefore his visual aid is totally misleading and indicates
that he
has not, or does not, remember experiments where weighing small amounts
was
involved.

(Scientific facts for Baratz's statement??)

Page 6, lines 37-41. Sodium metal when added to water burns violently, but
it
does not explode when added to a glass of water. I have done this as a
demonstration so I know the results first-hand. No one would be killed or
even
injured unless they touched the burning metallic sodium. Yes, chlorine gas
is
toxic and is a man-made material (as is metallic sodium) that does not
exist
naturally. Dr. Baratz wants to claim that metallic sodium and chlorine gas
are
toxic but become non-toxic on conversion to a compound, sodium chloride,
and
therefore, mercury in an amalgam is not toxic because it is surrounded by
other
(toxic) metals that he feels produces something that is not mercury. This
is
banal.

Reactivity and biological compatibility is the essence of the amalgam
issue.
Human blood contains about 140 millimolar chloride anion and 124
millimolar
sodium cation. This ions are not toxic because they are not very reactive
with
biomolecules. These ions are used to perform many biological functions
necessary for life, including maintaining the ionic gradient and
electrical
potential across cell membranes. However, mercury is not found to serve
any
useful purpose in human tissues and is a well known inhibitor of many
enzymes,
including the enzyme that transports sodium across cell membranes. In
contrast
to sodium cation, mercury cation, produced from mercury vapor by a blood
enzyme, is very reactive and inhibits almost every biological pathway or
enzyme
driven function in man. To compare amalgam material to sodium chloride in
the
manner Dr. Baratz has chosen to reveals a total misunderstanding of
chemistry
and biochemistry of heavy metal toxicity.

Page 6 line 42 to page 7 line 2. Since all of the metal components of
amalgam
are basic metallic elements with no charge how can someone make the inept
statement that there is no mercury in amalgams. It is an "element" and the
fact
that elements cannot be broken down or changed is a basic tenant of
chemistry.
The metals in amalgams have no net charge and therefore form only metallic
bonds. Mercury is a liquid at room temperature and quite volatile because
it
forms weak metallic bonds with itself. This makes mercury unlike all other
metals. The metallic bonds formed between mercury and other metals in
amalgams
are stronger and a solid phase is produced---but the bonds between mercury
and,
say silver, are weaker than silver-silver metal bonds and therefore break
easier releasing elemental mercury vapor at a regular rate. This is why
you can
heat a gold ring covered with mercury and rapidly make it gold again and
why
dimes made silvery with mercury soon resort to their old form. The bottom
line
is that inclusion of mercury into an amalgam reduces its vapor pressure
but it
does not reduce it to the point that mercury cannot be significantly
emitted.

Dr. Baratz states that if you detect traces of mercury from amalgams it is
because that material has been decomposed by heat and friction. How does
he
explain the observations of the release of 43.5 micrograms mercury per cm2
surface area per day for two years straight in a test tube without
additional
heat and no friction? {Chew, C. L., Soh, G., Lee, A. S. and Yeoh, T. S.
Long-term Dissolution of Mercury from a Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam.
Clinical
Preventive Dentistry 13(3): 5-7, May-June (1991).} Bottom line is that it
is
quite easy to demonstrate mercury release from a dental amalgam. I suggest
the
FDA not believe either Dr. Baratz or myself but instead make 20-30
amalgams and
send them to the state universities in Florida and have them determine how
long
a single amalgam must be in a gallon of water before the water is
considered
unsafe to drink by OSHA or EPA standards. Then the FDA can then make a
decent
decision on the mercury release and toxicity of amalgams using data from
an
unbiased source.

Page 7, lines 10-13. Sodium chloride intake is necessary for life. Mercury
is
toxic to every type of cell. Dr. Baratz's comparison amalgams to sodium
chloride is ridiculous. Amino acids contain carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen
and
so does cyanide but the difference is how these molecules react in the
body---one is a food and the other a lethal toxin. Amalgams release
mercury and
other metal ions and solutions in which amalgams are soaked are cytotoxic!
{
Wataha, J. C., Nakajima, H., Hanks, C. T., and Okabe, T. Correlation of
Cytotoxicity with Element Release from Mercury and Gallium-based Dental
Alloys
in vitro. Dental Materials 10(5) 298-303, Sept. (1994)}

Page 7, lines 15-18. Yes, everything is toxic if an overdose is
obtained---that
is common sense. However, mercury has no food or biological function and
is
toxic at concentrations much lower than even most other toxicants. Low
levels
of mercury have been shown to inhibit the same enzymes/proteins that are
found
inhibited in Alzheimer's diseased brain. { Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley,
B.E.
Mercury-EDTA Complex Specifically Blocks Brain -Tubulin-GTP Interactions:
Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer"s Disease. pp98-105 in Status Quo
and
Perspective of Amalgam and Other Dental Materials (International Symposium
Proceedings ed. by L. T. Friberg and G. N. Schrauzer) Georg Thieme Verlag,
Stuttgart-New York (1995). Pendergrass, J. C., Haley, B.E., Vimy, M. J.,
Winfield, S.A. and Lorscheider, F.L. Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits
Binding
of GTP to Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarity to a Molecular Lesion in
Alzheimer's
Disease Brain. Neurotoxicology 18(2), 315-324 (1997). Pendergrass, J.C.
and
Haley, B.E. Inhibition of Brain Tubulin-Guanosine 5'-Triphosphate
Interactions
by Mercury: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer's Diseased Brain. In
Metal
Ions in Biological Systems V34, pp 461-478. Mercury and Its Effects on
Environment and Biology, Chapter 16. Edited by H. Sigel and A. Sigel.
Marcel
Dekker, Inc. 270 Madison Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10016 (1996)}

Later research with neurons in culture nanomolar (10-9M) levels of mercury
caused cell destruction and formation of three of the widely accepted
diagnostic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. { 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
-amyloid Secretion and Tau Phosphorylation in SHSY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells.
J.
Neurochemistry 74, 231-231, 2000. Leong, CCW, Syed, N.I., and Lorscheider,
F.L.
Retrograde Degeneration of Neurite Membrane Structural Integrity and
Formation
of Neruofibillary Tangles at Nerve Growth Cones Following In Vitro
Exposure to
Mercury. NeuroReports 12 (4):733-737, 2001.} Therefore, being
unnecessarily
exposed to continuous low doses of mercury for scores of years is an
unhealthy
situation. Does the FDA operate with the mantra of allowing itself to do
this
and eliminate any disagreement by posturing that no one has proven mercury
toxic when indeed this has been done over and over. Due to the overall
difficulty and complexity there is not one epidemiological study showing
any
major negative effects of mercury from amalgams, but there are none
showing it
to be safe either. With all of the data on animal cell culture studies
showing
mercury toxicity showing concern and eliminating all long-term exposures
to
mercury is justified.

Page 7 lines 15-34. This paragraph should convince everyone that Dr.
Baratz is
way off base. I had to replace all of the mercury thermometers in the
teaching
labs in our department of chemistry because of the OSHA/EPA restrictions
where
the spill of one thermometer could create a toxic in-building situation
and the
possible wash-out into the sewage stream caused an unacceptable
environmental
hazard. Dr. Baratz seems unaware of the long-term affects of mercury
accumulation. Sure, he could ingest liquid mercury a single time and walk
away
but how many industrial workers have been seriously injured by less severe
but
continuous mercury exposures? Also, if he did ingest liquid mercury then
he
could pay a severe price later on in his life but he doesn't seem to know
this.
Why does he think the government has outlawed the sale of mercury
thermometers
to the general public?

In this paragraph Dr. Baratz states that mercury is not absorbed from the
gut.
This is totally incorrect. Mercury vapor is rapidly absorbed into all
hydrophobic areas of the body. Where is the publication to support his
absurd
contention? He is further incorrect in his statement that the amount that
comes
off of an amalgam is equivalent to the amount you get every day by
breathing
air, drinking water and eating food. In a 1998 NIH study on 1,127 US
military
personnel it was shown that the blood/urine mercury levels were much
higher in
individuals with dental amalgams and the amount of mercury was correlated
with
the number of amalgams surfaces. The average amalgam bearer had 4.5 times
the
urine mercury level of individuals who were amalgam free. { Kingman, A.,
Albertini, T. and Brown, L.J. Mercury Concentrations in Urine and Whole
Blood
Associated with Amalgam Exposure in a US Military Population. J. of Dental
Research v77(3): 461-471, 1998.}

Dr. Baratz states that even the most ardent anti-amalgamist have virtually
the
same amount of mercury in their bodies as does the members of the Florida
Board
of Dentistry. That would be true only if all of them are free of amalgams.
In a
published report removing amalgam fillings dropped the level of mercury in
the
urine in the patients by about 5-fold at a subsequent date. { Begerow, J.,
Zander, D., Freier, I. And Dunemann, L. Long-term Mercury Excretion in
Urine
after Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health v66
(3),
209-212, 1994.}

Neither Dr. Baratz nor I have the right to make sweeping statements
without
providing the scientific literature on the subject that backs up our
statements. Under adjudication many of his statements, now on record, such
as
given on page 7 line 19, "So to say that dental amalgam has mercury in it
is
false. It has what used to be mercury." will provide a feast for the
opposing
lawyers. I am very surprised that Dr. Baratz has chosen to pass himself
off as
an amalgam expert with no publications in the area and this is compounded
by
what appears to be total ignorance of the relevant literature.

Page 8 lines 1 to 10. My comment is that the EPA and OSHA government units
don't think the amount of mercury released from amalgams is safe. If
indeed the
groups listed by Dr. Baratz say amalgams are safe (are amalgams listed on
the
Food and Drug Administration list of safe dental materials?) where are the
scientific studies that back their claims. Who represents the NIH and says
amalgams are safe? I challenge Dr. Baratz to find a single research
article
where experimental protocols are used that provide proof of safety of
dental
amalgams. It is easy to compose a "committee mainly pro-amalgam dentists"
and
have them proclaim amalgams safe, but have them show the relevant basic
research that proves this is another thing. Does he really have
publications
from the Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer's Associations that claim
amalgams
are safe? I would really like to see him produce these documents.

Page 8, line 30. Keeping or bringing science into the dental profession is
my
goal also. This means both Dr. Baratz and I have to back our statements
with
refereed scientific publications, not wild, unjustified claims or
opinions. I
would like to challenge Dr. Baratz to produce the research papers that
back his
many claims.

(Where are they ??)

(I don't think Baratz has EVER answered these questions from a Ph.D
chemist)

Like Peter B,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,he can't.

It is despicable all the lies told.

Jan
===


***Because rubber dams were not used when the fillings were placed, scrap
amalgam was free to enter the sheeps' mouth and be swallowed. ***

Review of Robert Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board by 2
distinguished Chemistry Professors and Researchers
************************************************** ****************************
snip from review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board by
Dr.
Ralph Dougherty, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Florida State
Univ.
850-644-5725

"I have qualified as an expert witness in chemistry and toxicology in both
federal and state courts. I have conducted extensive research in analytical
toxicology. I have more than 100 papers published in refereed journals."

"To allege that there is no mercury in mercury amalgam as Dr. Baratz has
done
in his sworn testimony before the Florida Dental Board is either a
reflection
of ignorence, or intent to deceive."
Sincerely,
Ralph Dougherty

Used to be on http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInforma...ztestimony.htm

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. ..
Finally, statements made by Dr. Baratz concerning amalgams and chemistry
in
general are so pathetic that they almost defy sensible analysis. I WOULD
CHALLENGE THE FDA TO TRY TO GET THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRS OF CHEMISTRY AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY TO AGREE WITH DR.
BARATZ'S
COMMENTS REGARDING THE CHEMISTRY OF AMALGAMS AND MERCURY. However, knowing
this
is unlikely I will deal as best I can with Dr. Baratz's statements one at
a
time in order of presentation.

Why do you insist on trying to debate a topic with me that I have never
commented on and have no interest in (mercury amalgams) and continue to
reference the name of a person I don't know (in real life or by internet
name)... this Baratz guy?

There are plenty of topics that you and I have disagreed on over the years,
why are you so focused on this one?

We could, instead, discuss something of relevance - like how the democrats
want to put forth an insurance plan that may kill what we have left of a
healthcare system in this country and bankrupt the country in the process
while the republicans continue to ignore the problem of the uninsured like
it's someone else's problem? That, at least, would worth discussing
(mercury is not, imo).

On Jan 19, 5:56*am, "Skeptic" wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote in message

. ..

Finally, statements made by Dr. Baratz concerning amalgams and chemistry
in
general are so pathetic that they almost defy sensible analysis. I WOULD
CHALLENGE THE FDA TO TRY TO GET THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRS OF CHEMISTRY AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY TO AGREE WITH DR.
BARATZ'S
COMMENTS REGARDING THE CHEMISTRY OF AMALGAMS AND MERCURY. However, knowing
this
is unlikely I will deal as best I can with Dr. Baratz's statements one at
a
time in order of presentation.

Why do you insist on trying to debate a topic with me that I have never
commented on and have no interest in (mercury amalgams) and continue to
reference the name of a person I don't know (in real life or by internet
name)... this Baratz guy?

There are plenty of topics that you and I have disagreed on over the years,
why are you so focused on this one?

We could, instead, discuss something of relevance - like how the democrats
want to put forth an insurance plan that may kill what we have left of a
healthcare system in this country and bankrupt the country in the process
while the republicans continue to ignore the problem of the uninsured like
it's someone else's problem? *That, at least, would worth discussing
(mercury is not, imo).

Skeptic (****bag bobbie baratz):

I still have the question: When your employment at Harbor Health Care
was
terminated, what was the name of the woman your supervisor was
talking
about you sexually harassing? I need that info for my files. I
need to contact her.

Curious in California...

Tim Bolen

wrote in message
...
On Jan 19, 5:56 am, "Skeptic" wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote in message

. ..

Finally, statements made by Dr. Baratz concerning amalgams and chemistry
in
general are so pathetic that they almost defy sensible analysis. I WOULD
CHALLENGE THE FDA TO TRY TO GET THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRS OF CHEMISTRY AT
THE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY TO AGREE WITH DR.
BARATZ'S
COMMENTS REGARDING THE CHEMISTRY OF AMALGAMS AND MERCURY. However,
knowing
this
is unlikely I will deal as best I can with Dr. Baratz's statements one
at
a
time in order of presentation.

Why do you insist on trying to debate a topic with me that I have never
commented on and have no interest in (mercury amalgams) and continue to
reference the name of a person I don't know (in real life or by internet
name)... this Baratz guy?

There are plenty of topics that you and I have disagreed on over the
years,
why are you so focused on this one?

We could, instead, discuss something of relevance - like how the democrats
want to put forth an insurance plan that may kill what we have left of a
healthcare system in this country and bankrupt the country in the process
while the republicans continue to ignore the problem of the uninsured like
it's someone else's problem? That, at least, would worth discussing
(mercury is not, imo).

Skeptic (****bag bobbie baratz):

I still have the question: When your employment at Harbor Health Care
was
terminated, what was the name of the woman your supervisor was
talking
about you sexually harassing? I need that info for my files. I
need to contact her.

Curious in California...

Tim Bolen

***
REPLY:

Tim, I haven't ever worked for or heard of "harbor health care".

Should I take your reply to mean you have no opinions regarding our nation's
healthcare system?

wrote:

Skeptic (****bag bobbie baratz):

One day I'm going to take a week off to research this weird
idiosyncrasy of alternuts and quack supporters to conflate people and
accuse people of being other people.

Cathy - Rosalind
Cathy - me
Cathy - my daughter
Will Ketcher - Mark
Will Ketcher - Myrl
Martin - any Martin in the world
Skeptic - Dr Baratz
TD Laing - Dr Baratz (Remember that one, Tim?)
Martin - me
Martin - Dr Moran

That's just a few off the top of my head. Is it something taught in a
course somewhere?

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch wrote:

wrote:


Skeptic (****bag bobbie baratz):


One day I'm going to take a week off to research this weird
idiosyncrasy of alternuts and quack supporters to conflate people and
accuse people of being other people.

Cathy - Rosalind
Cathy - me
Cathy - my daughter
Will Ketcher - Mark
Will Ketcher - Myrl
Martin - any Martin in the world
Skeptic - Dr Baratz
TD Laing - Dr Baratz (Remember that one, Tim?)
Martin - me
Martin - Dr Moran

That's just a few off the top of my head. Is it something taught in a
course somewhere?


In ASAD, Jan accused "Ann" as also posting as "Emma Anne". Ann and Emma
Anne are two long-time ASAD posters, and definitely *not* the same person.



Nancy
Unique, like everyone else

--
Proud member since 2007, WWWSC #1
Ann/Emma Anne #4

MothWrangler wrote:

Peter Bowditch wrote:

wrote:


Skeptic (****bag bobbie baratz):


One day I'm going to take a week off to research this weird
idiosyncrasy of alternuts and quack supporters to conflate people and
accuse people of being other people.

Cathy - Rosalind
Cathy - me
Cathy - my daughter
Will Ketcher - Mark
Will Ketcher - Myrl
Martin - any Martin in the world
Skeptic - Dr Baratz
TD Laing - Dr Baratz (Remember that one, Tim?)
Martin - me
Martin - Dr Moran

That's just a few off the top of my head. Is it something taught in a
course somewhere?


In ASAD, Jan accused "Ann" as also posting as "Emma Anne". Ann and Emma
Anne are two long-time ASAD posters, and definitely *not* the same person.

I remember that. Didn't everyone volunteer to be called Ann for a
while?

--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com