From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Mercury in dental fillings?
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:28:05 GMT

In article <BtIM32.EGx@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> I don't remember the title off hand, but what sticks in my mind 
rl> was that the publisher had printed a disclaimer at the front of 
rl> the volume stating that the views contained in the book were 
rl> solely the responsibility of the author.  Unfortunately, most 
rl> readers wouldn't have taken the time to comtemplate what such a 
rl> disclaimer might imply.  If they had believed the claims made by 
rl> the author, would they be guilty of some transgression, and hence 
rl> deserving of the treatment they might attain at the hands of an 
rl> anti-amalgamist?    Or would it be more appropriate to say that such
rl> people are simply the victims of misinformation?

From article <16215@pitt.UUCP>, by geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks):
gb> It's a philosophical question, really.  Are people merely passive,
gb> to be acted upon by evil forces (paradoxically, other people)?

I'm inclined to believe that the question I posed was political and 
scientific, as well as philosophical.  It seems to me that the victims
of such scams are merely ignorant of the facts, and not tainted by
some sort of spiritual "evil".

gb> Maybe the dentist himself is a victim of child abuse, poor schools,
gb> mental illness, etc.  Under this theory, no one is a free agent
gb> and no one is responsible for anything.  I think the only way to
gb> go is to try to accept responsibility for your own life and actions
gb> and not go around looking for someone to blame for everything bad
gb> that happens to you. (Of course, people are quick to claim credit
gb> for their successes, aren't they?)  I'm not denying fraud, but
gb> neither should we glorify being a sucker.  I've been defrauded
gb> myself, and I blame the crook, but I also blame myself for not
gb> being more careful.

Why should you blame yourself for someone else's ignorance or 
dishonesty?  

If your dentist had told you that amalgams cause MS, and you had 
reconfirmed this claim during a visit to your local library, would
you really be culpable?  The fact of the matter is that you'd be 
"guilty" of having misinformation, not having some sort of character 
flaw.

This goes for the dentists as well.  Dental schools, like many
medical schools, are basically authoritarian.  Rather than teaching
young dentists how to evaluate evidence and think critically, they
often teach dentists to merely believe whatever it is that the
man behind the podium has to say.  If/when they re-visit the school
years later for a CE course on amalgam "toxicity", can we blame
them personally if the man behind the podium presents a crock of 
believable lies?  

I don't doubt that quite a few of the malefactors who promote such
schemes are deliberately defrauding the public, but it seems to
me that our societal purpose would be better served if we stick
with the educational and scientific aspects of the problem and
set aside the character judgments which, after all, are harder to
prove.   

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ