Bill for Banning Amalgam Reintroduced

"Max C." wrote in message
oups.com...
Jan Drew wrote:
http://www.talkinternational.com

Bill for Banning Amalgam Reintroduced
A bill for banning amalgam dental fillings has been (re)introduced to the
house by Congresswoman Diane Watson. The bill is HR 4011.
Congresswoman Watson's staff has encouraged us to get behind the bill and
has asked the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology to
have
its members contact their local representatives.

We also strongly encourage the public to also do so. Please let them hear
your voice!

The problem I see with this is that there were a lot of dentists in
decades past that honestly didn't know there was anything wrong with
amalgam fillings. I recall having a discussion with my dentist years
ago about it and he assured me that they were totally safe. Years
later I brought up that topic again and he said (not remembering that
we had once talked about it) that he no longer uses amalgams because
their safety is questionable and he wanted to err on the side of
caution.

If it could be proven that a dentist has been using amalgams knowing
full well that they are unsafe, those dentists should be forced to
replace the fillings. I don't' feel that's the case for dentists who
had no idea. There was no intent to deceive, and so no reason for them
to suffer such a huge loss.

Just my opinion.
Max.

It IS their responsibility to KNOW!!
One who is honest does not remain blinded to the facts.

"Robert" wrote in message
. ..

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
...

"Alexander Vasserman DDS" wrote in message
oups.com...
This bill is a waste of time and money.

No, the bill is not a waste of time. In fact mercury amalgams should
have
never been
used. The first dentists to use them were call QUACKS. Then came the
LYING
ADA and
*organized medcine* seeing a way to make $$$$. NOT caring what the risks
were.

I think you are confused.

You think wrong.

http://www.wholisticresearch.com/inf....php3?artid=20



The pledge
was abandoned within five years! (Curious historical note No1. Quick silver
is
a common name for mercury, both here and in Germany, and the 'quick' in
German
is pronounced quack, thus amalgam-using dentists became known as quacks - a
term
which has come to mean an inept and fraudulent medic - perhaps
amalgam-using
dentists should still be called quacks).



The dentists and doctors I know say that dentists
who remove amalgams are QUACKS.

Robert

Not surprised. Thrown away folks, Robert.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
jill999999 wrote:
C.J. Thomas wrote:
Jan,

I also have a question for you. When are we going to see all the
research
demonstrating the negative side-effects of amalgam fillings on actual
people
who have had fillings in their mouths for the past 40-50 years? How
long
does it take for toxicity to present itself? Surely, people are going
to
start dropping like flies.

How many people with symtoms such as low body temperature(indicative of
thyroid malfunction),chronic encephalitis, depression,low white blood
cells(immunodeficiency),dizziness(hg displaces o2 on
hemoglobin),fatigue,twitches,-poor memory would think their symtoms are
caused by their fillings?

I am truly impressed with your medical knowledge. It astounds me.

I am truly NOT impressed with your insulting, nor anwering the question.

Did I forget to mention that hg cases the
brain damage associated with alzheimers disease.

You are in line for the next Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Prove that claim.

Get real. What she stated is proven.

Did I forget to mention that hg cases the
brain damage associated with alzheimers disease.

"Vernon" athere@athere wrote in message
m...

"jill999999" wrote in message
oups.com...

C.J. Thomas wrote:
Jan,

I also have a question for you. When are we going to see all the
research
demonstrating the negative side-effects of amalgam fillings on actual
people
who have had fillings in their mouths for the past 40-50 years? How
long
does it take for toxicity to present itself? Surely, people are going
to
start dropping like flies.

How many people with symtoms such as low body temperature(indicative of
thyroid malfunction),chronic encephalitis, depression,low white blood
cells(immunodeficiency),dizziness(hg displaces o2 on
hemoglobin),fatigue,twitches,-poor memory would think their symtoms are
caused by their fillings? Did I forget to mention that hg cases the
brain damage associated with alzheimers disease.


One of a group of causes for SOME people.
As I have stated before, it is enough that if it were new on the market,
it would be banned, sort of like leaded paint.

http://www.mercurypolicy.org


http://www.mercurypolicy.org/exposur..._state_leg.pdf

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
jill999999 wrote:
David Wright wrote:
In article ,
Mark Probert wrote:
Peter Bowditch wrote:

http://www.talkinternational.com

Bill for Banning Amalgam Reintroduced
A bill for banning amalgam dental fillings has been (re)introduced to
the
house by Congresswoman Diane Watson. The bill is HR 4011.
Congresswoman Watson's staff has encouraged us to get behind the bill
and
has asked the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
to have
its members contact their local representatives.

We also strongly encourage the public to also do so. Please let them
hear
your voice!
Excellent news for dentists. If amalgams are banned there will be tens
of billions of dollars going into dentists' pockets.
Good point. I understand that the alternatives to amalgams take longer
to use, and, do not last as long.
That's not quite true -- gold lasts longer. But it's a lot more
expensive.

Best solution: brush at least twice per day, use fluoridated
toothpaste, and floss. Dental sealants for the kids are also a good
idea. The cheapest filling is the one you never get. Too bad Gohde
wasn't able to follow this natural practice.

Gold should not cost more. The amount of gold in a medium sized filling
should only cost about $20.Also,hg cuuses periodontal prolems,lasts a
shorter time ,fractures teeth and poisons you.A tooth that is drilled
too often is will die sooner,leading to expensive root
canals,crown,implants etc.In Uganda and other African nations zero
percent of 21 yr olds have cavities.

How many of them have teeth? I know that a scientific type like you would
have no problems whatsoever finding scientific studies proving all those
claims.

There's no evidence that fluoride
prevents cavities.

Sure there is.

http://www.fluoridation.com/

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....dc4f49e?hl=en&

Fluoride Fallacy
By John Moffat
What you are about to read may shock, dismay and outrage. It may undermine
fundamental beliefs about government, society and democracy. Your mind may
even recoil in sheer disbelief. But rest assured, the facts are well
documented and can be easily verified.


These events have actually happened, are happening and will continue to
happen until enough people are aware enough and outraged enough to stop
them. This is the story of fluoride: a story of greed, duplicity, naivety,
money and power.


Fluoridation, the process whereby millions of people are 'medicated' whether
they like it or not, has an interesting history. The main part of the story
begins where the second world war ends. Straight after the cessation of
hostilities the US government sent, along with an entourage, the biochemist
Charles E Perkins, to take over the giant IG Farben works in Germany. This
was a chemical conglomerate without which Hitler would not have been able to
wage war.


I G Farben had links with the American aluminium producers, Alcoa, which
were maintained even during the war. Both concerns produced prodigious
amounts of fluoride as a waste product. A story sneered at by scientists on
both sides of the fluoridation debate but nevertheless refuses to die, has
it that during the war, a scheme was initiated by German scientists and
later adopted by the German General Staff to add sodium fluoride to the
drinking water in occupied countries.


It had allegedly been discovered by German scientists that repeated doses of
this chemical slightly damaged the hippocampus, an area of the human brain.
It appeared that people so affected displayed less aggression and
independence of action, leading to a docile, easily controllable population.
If this were true, Charles Perkins would no doubt have learnt of this
scheme. This episode is described by Dr Hans Moolenburgh in his book
Fluoride: The Freedom Flight. (1)


In this same book, Moolenburgh quotes an informant who claimed that the
Russians were fluoridating the drinking water of German POWs because "it
kept the Germans calm." Not surprised by this claim, Dr Moolenburgh pointed
out that: "25% of major tranquilisers are connected with fluoride." Also
cited by Dr Moolenburgh, it is perhaps for this same reason that the
Indonesians fluoridate the drinking water of the unruly Irian Jayans in
spite of the fact that no other part of Indonesia is fluoridated and the
inhabitants of Irian Jaya have always had perfect teeth!


But we digress. Back to the beginning where the story takes a decidedly
sinister turn. Enter one Oscar Ewing who was appointed Director of Social
Security in charge of the US Public Health Service followed quickly by his
committing the PHS to the promotion of fluoridation. By this time he was a
member of President Truman's cabinet. According to author Eustace Mullins,
in a book published by the US National Council for Medical Research: "Ewing
and his minions were also aware of Soviet studies showing that fluorides
were extremely important in introducing a docile, sheep-like obedience in
the general population."(2) It had also been well known for years that
cattle breeders valued the efficacy of large doses of fluorides when dealing
with the more intractable of their bulls. (Consumed by the bulls that is,
not by the cattlemen!)


Formerly, Ewing had been the legal counsel to Alcoa. This thickening of the
plot is best appreciated when it is noted that along with the production of
fertilizers, the aluminium industry is a major bi-producer of fluoride,
essentially a toxic waste. Even then, when the green movement was only the
gleam in the eyes of isolated fanatics, the deadliness of this waste was
well known.


As far back as the 1850s, it was recognised that when iron and copper
factories were spewing fluoride into the air, plants and animals, as well as
people were being poisoned. The major difficulties inherent in its disposal
had also been long known: only so much could be converted into rat poison
and pesticide. The remainder was accumulating in the environment (as it does
in the human body). It does not biodegrade. Industry was worried - not about
people or the environment, but about possible law suits and billions lost in
the cost of pollution-control.


It was in the 1930s that the evil genie first stirred in response to the
desperate dilemma of the industrialists. A tenuous connection was made
between water supplies containing traces of fluoride and lower rates of
tooth decay. See, fluoride was actually good for you. The genie's bottle was
rubbed even more vigorously in what must have been an ecstasy of triumph. In
a Pittsburgh industrial research lab, Alcoa-sponsored biochemist, Gerald J
Cox fluoridated some rats then noted that they had good teeth. Voila! - the
proof conclusive: fluoride promotes healthy teeth.(3)


In 1939, Cox went on to make the first public proposal that the US should
'altruistically' fluoridate its water supply. Cox, bear in mind, was still
working for a company still squirming beneath the Damocle's sword of
fluoride damage claims. His proposal, while aiming to administer only minute
doses of fluoride to each individual, would mean hundreds of thousands of
tons of fluoride added to the water supply annually. With Cox as front-man,
the aluminium smelting industry was quietly manoeuvering in the background.


The dam walls containing the deadly fluoride were beginning to crack as an
insidious stream of propaganda swept up more and more adherents. A US
chemical industry publication, Chemical Week, succinctly encapsulated the
spirit of corporate victory: "They are riding a trend urged upon them by the
US Public Health Service, the American Dental Association, various state and
local health bodies, and vocal women's clubs from coast to coast. It adds up
to a nice piece of business on all sides and many firms are cheering the PHS
and similar groups as they plump for increasing adoption of fluoridation."


In 1945, shortly after the war and Charles E Perkins' visit to Germany and
his assumed acquaintance with IG Farben's preoccupation with fluoride,
theory transformed into reality with the Grand Rapids Study which saw the
establishment of 'experimental' fluoridation plants in selected areas of the
US, one of which was the City of Grand Rapids. The experiment was to last
ten years but was cut short after five when the fluoridated areas were
showing no significant improvement in dental decay as measured against a
non-fluoridated city (the control in the experiment). Further comparison was
dispensed with when the control city was hastily fluoridated as well.


The power of myth, shonky science and delusion had driven an intellectual
band-wagon roughshod over genuine empiricism and cold, hard reasoning.
Fluoridation took the world by storm, that is, that part of the world where
American influence is most acute, where indeed America is seen as a shining
slice of heaven from whence all things great and good flow: a modern cargo
cult.


In fact, belying the seeming popularity of fluoridation is the paltry 4% of
the world that has actually embraced this 'godsend'. (4) The 96% not
fluoridated includes most of Europe. Denmark, for example, banned
fluoridation when, after extensive consultation, its National Agency for
Environmental Protection concluded that not enough was known about the long
term effects of low fluoride intakes on certain segments of its population:
people with impaired kidney function, for instance.


Fluoridation was rejected in Sweden which similarly baulked at leaping into
the unknown. After evidence had been presented that fluoridation caused
neuromuscular and gastrointestinal harm to some individuals, it was banned
in Holland. Chile, a country perhaps lacking the scientific sophistication
of the West, was an early entrant in the rush to fluoridation. It was
however abolished there when, in 1976, a professor Albert Schatz produced
evidence of higher infant mortality rates in the fluoridated areas.(5) Even
in Australia, Land of the Gullible, it has long been known that fluoride
consumption can cause a condition called dental fluorosis: an unsightly
mottling of the teeth, but predictably this is dismissed as an insignificant
cosmetic problem. This factor is not taken so lightly in


Poland however where researchers, using a new computerised x-ray procedure,
have shown that bone structure disturbances have also been found in boys
suffering supposedly innocuous fluorosis. In New Zealand, fluoridation was
adopted with gusto. One of its most ardent advocates was John Colquhoun, a
dentist, practising for many years and eventually becoming Principal Dental
Officer before being elected to a local government in Auckland.(6) Pouring
scorn on opponents of fluoridation, it was John Colquhoun who persuaded the
Mayor and a majority of fellow councillors to accept fluouridation of most
of Auckland's water supply. Several years later Colquhoun consolidated his
pro-fluoridation position by publishing a paper in the New Zealand Dental
Journal in which he trumpeted the success of fluoridation by claiming that
the incidence of tooth decay, particularly in low income areas, had declined
dramatically since the advent of fluoridation. This claim was accepted by
professional colleagues and found its way into the official history of the
New Zealand Dental Association. So convincing was his advocacy of
fluoridation that heavy weight bureaucrats based in the capital city of
Wellington approached Colquhoun with the proposition of making fluoridation
the subject of a world study tour beginning in 1980. This with a view to
Colquhoun becoming the public servants' expert, well-armed enough to lead a
campaign designed to break down resistance in the areas that had not yet
been fluoridated.


However, before this tour had begun, the worm of doubt had already begun to
gnaw, fed by evidence becoming available that the incidence of childhood
tooth decay was also declining in areas of New Zealand not fluoridated.
Optimism was adjusted accordingly. It was accepted that the wildly wishful
50 to 60 per cent improvement in dental health was not eventuating. Even so,
a "significant difference" was anticipated (or by now, more accurately,
hoped for).


Undaunted, Colquhoun proceeded with his world tour and on his return to New
Zealand, accepted an appointment as chairman of a national Fluoridation
Promotion Committee. Public 'education' would be his job description.


What Colquhoun didn't know however was that, during his absence from New
Zealand, the body of evidence was growing against the benefits of
fluoridation. It was becoming clear that the lessening of tooth decay was as
great in non-fluoridated areas of Greater Auckland if not better. When
Colquhoun demanded the statistics pertaining to the rest of New Zealand they
were sent with a warning against publication. Hardly surprising: they showed
that in most health districts the dental health of 12 to 13 year old
children living in non fluoridated areas was superior to that of their
counterparts in fluoridated areas. These results were eventually published.


In a paper entitled: Why I Changed My Mind About Fluoridation, (1997
University of Chicago Press) Colquhoun explained his earlier inability to
believe the writing on the wall: " I now realise that what my colleagues and
I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when
their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over
backwards to explain away the new evidence."


This new evidence continued to roll in from other parts of the world. Large
scale surveys took place in the US. In a study of 26,000 school children in
Tucson, Arizona, the result was chilling: "When we plotted the incidence of
tooth decay versus fluoride content in a child's neighbourhood drinking
water, a positive correlation was revealed. In other words, the more
fluoride a child drank, the more cavities appeared in the teeth", wrote
Professor Steelink, the instigator of the study.


Colquhoun, being a ethical man, was able to admit that he had been wrong. In
his conversion he was to display the same dynamic energy opposing
fluoridation as he had in being a proponent. His further studies, based on
sound scientific principles, showed that there was a strong correlation
between fluoridation and the increased incidence of hip fractures. He also
became convinced of a link between fluoridation and a form of bone cancer.
His has not been a lone voice in these startling and frightening
revelations. Here, at the risk of fuelling increased fear, is but the
briefest sampling of many such revelations. In corroboration of Colquhoun's
claim regarding fluoride and bone cancer, JK Mauer, et al in "Two-Year
Cacinogenicity Study of Sodium Fluoride in Rats", Journal of the National
Cancer Institute, Volume 82 also found that fluoride promotes bone cancer.


Bearing in mind that collagen is the glue that literally holds the body
together, it may be highly disturbing to be told that AK Susheela and Mohan
Jha in "Effects of Fluoride on Cortical and Cancellous Bone Composition,"
IRCS Medical Sciences: Library Compendium, Volume 9, found that fluoride
exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of
collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and
trachea.


Here in Australia, although a tiny but dedicated resistance movement is
afoot, it's still pretty much a case of "she'll be right mate." A mentality
hypnotised by the belief that, if it's from America it must be good, still
prevails. Evidently, we feel the same about China. Witness the fact that we
are buying fluoride from China to add to Melbourne's water supply at the
rate of $500 per tonne. (7) Think about that: we are paying the Chinese (who
do not fluoridate their own water supplies) for the pleasure of disposing of
their toxic waste by drinking it! Is that the distant sound of laughter all
the way to the bank? And we are a country obsessed about what the rest of
the world thinks of us!


But don't despair; avoiding fluoride is difficult but not impossible. Read
the fine print on tooth paste packets. Fluoride in toothpaste can be
absorbed through the membranes of the mouth (children, not being as orally
adept as adults, ingest it directly). And this is on top of what our masters
consider to be our recommended daily requirement. Also bear in mind that any
type of processed food containing water, be it fruit juice or canned peas,
also contains fluoride. Boiling doesn't remove fluoride; it fortifies it.
Distilled water is fluoride free.


But don't despair; a water filter will successfully remove fluoride from
drinking water - although some say that it should be a reverse osmosis
style. (8)


John Moffatt is a Sydney-based freelance writer with a keen interest in
fitness and health.


REFERENCES
1) Cited in article entitled "Fluorides and Population Behavior Modification
in Literature and Government", extracted from the World Wide Web. Fluoride:
The Freedom Flight by Dr Hans Moolenburgh, 1987 is no longer in print.


2) "Fluorides and Population Behavior Modification in Literature and
Government", originally posted on WWW 28/7/96. Sender: Steve Windgate.


3) "Fluoride: Industry's Toxic Coup", Earth Island Journal V13 No2 by Joel
Griffiths, medical writer and investigative reporter with New York Times
Magazine.


4) Press Release issued 21/10/96 by Glen Walker, chairperson of
Anti-Fluoride Association of Australia


5) "Fluoride - The Modern Day DDT" extracted from
www.intekom.com/tm_info/fluor2.htm


6) Joel Griffiths, op. cit.


7) Glen Walker, op. cit.


8) Glen Walker of Anti-Fluoride Association of Australia.




There is however,evidence that it causes bone and
tooth fractures, and increased incidence or bone cancer.

I know that a scientific type like you would have no problems whatsoever
finding scientific studies proving all those claims.

Toothpaste
coats your teeth and prevents natural remineralisation by saliva.

I see, so saliva contains calcium, etc. I know that a scientific type like
you would have no problems whatsoever finding scientific studies proving
that claim.

Try
chewing sugarless gum with xtlitol after meals instead of brushing with
toothpaste. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
jill999999 wrote:
There will probably be millions of dollars going into the pockets of
victims of mercury poisoning such as myself.

Those are pretty large pockets.

If you cause a car
accident,you have to pay damages.

True. I guess you learned that in law school.

Like Mark S Probert.

In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

92-02731

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT

183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747

November 9, 1992, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]

Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the
Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on
February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S.
Probert.

DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline
upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is
granted; and it is further,

HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings

Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to
cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance
Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred.

COUNSEL:

Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for
petitioner.

JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ.,
concur.

Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the
respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and
it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately,
the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken
from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's
rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned
attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent,
Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from
practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or
employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or
counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission
or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to
the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4)
from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and
counselor-at-law.

OPINIONBY: Per Curiam.

OPINION: [*282]

[**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29,
1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the
further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with
the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4,
1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and
prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent
and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee.

[**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon
the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The
petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The
motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992.
The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the
default motion.

The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
professional misconduct.

The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has
chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must
be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent
in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly,
the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately

Source:

NY UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, ATTORNEY REGIST. UNIT

Currency Status:

ARCHIVE RECORD

NAME & PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION

Name:

MARK PROBERT

Date Of Birth:

11/XX/1946

Gender:

MALE

Address:

1698 WEBSTER AVE

MERRICK, NY 11566

County:

NASSAU

Phone:

516-968-5572

EMPLOYER INFORMATION

Employer:

MARK S PROBERT ESQ

Organization:

PERSON

LICENSING INFORMATION

Licensing Agency:

NY STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION

License/Certification Type:

ATTORNEY

License Number:

1253889

Issue Date:

00/00/1978

License Status:

DISBARRED

License State:

NY

Dentists cant argue that they don't
know hg is toxic anymore than they can say they don't know that lead
and plutonium are toxic.Also,countless studies show the level of hg
exposure is way above EPA,WHO,USPS max. exposure levels.

Sure dentists can claim that.

"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Peter Bowditch" wrote:
"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Alexander Vasserman DDS" wrote in message
egroups.com...
This bill is a waste of time and money.

No, the bill is not a waste of time. In fact mercury amalgams should have
never been
used.

They never have been used. A "mercury amalgam" would be a liquid at
body temperature and would slosh out of a tooth when the toothholder
moved his or her head. You have been told this before, so why do you
keep repeating the idiotic use of the meaningless term "mercury
amalgam"?

235 listings with the words *mercury amalgam* on Medline.

So? There are 18 papers with the word "phlogiston". You do know what
phlogiston is, don't you?


Why do you keep lying?

How can I be lying by pointing out that continual use of a tautology
reveals ignorance once the tautology has been pointed out.


The first dentists to use them were call QUACKS.

Why, oh why do you keep repeating this lie when you have been given
comprehensive evidence that the word "quack" was in use hundreds of
years before amalgam was used to fill teeth?

I did not repeat any lie.

When something is not true and a person who knows it not to be true
says it, the technical term in English is "lie".


The first dentists to use them were call QUACKS.

Why? Please try to answer without mentioning any non-existent German
words.


snip repeated insanity

Restored:

Repetition of insanity doesn't make it sane.
--
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

"Jan Drew" wrote:


"C.J. Thomas" wrote in message
...
but you have no proof that it does actually cause this...it is very
speculative.

You have NO proof mercury amalgams are safe.
Nor one single study!

I am not allowed to put olive oil down my drain, not even extra virgin
oil. There is not one single scientific study showing olive oil to be
safe.

Please explain how it is safe in my mouth but not safe in the
environment.

Try as hard as you can to answer without mentioning diversion, because
there is no diverting going on here, just analogy.

snippety
--
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

"Jan Drew" wrote:

Peter is a PROVEN liar, Proven deceiver--and SPAMMER.

Proven by whom, Jan? Not by you.
--
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

"jill999999" wrote:

Gold should not cost more. The amount of gold in a medium sized filling
should only cost about $20.Also,hg cuuses periodontal prolems,lasts a
shorter time ,fractures teeth and poisons you.A tooth that is drilled
too often is will die sooner,leading to expensive root
canals,crown,implants etc.In Uganda and other African nations zero
percent of 21 yr olds have cavities. There's no evidence that fluoride
prevents cavities.There is however,evidence that it causes bone and
tooth fractures, and increased incidence or bone cancer. Toothpaste
coats your teeth and prevents natural remineralisation by saliva. Try
chewing sugarless gum with xtlitol after meals instead of brushing with
toothpaste.

Is this champion level loonity or what? Anti-amalgam, anti-fluoride,
anti-toothpaste. But, strangely, in favour of a very synthetic
chemical.

Let me guess - anti-vaccination too.
--
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