Talk:Dental amalgam controversy/Archive 1

message: It appears that ADA people are trying to remove the list of controversies from this article,
and replacing with with "ADA Science", which as we all know is just pure garbage.  I say to
the ADA deletion experts, go start your own ------- page called "ADA Science", otherwise
keep your fingers off the delete key, and leave the controversies as they are.  The title
of this article, after all, is DENTAL AMALGAM CONTROVERSY, or can't you read (like when the EPA sent you warnings to stop flushing mercry down the drain, and you couldn't read that either?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.59.238 (talk • contribs) .
*In case you missed it below, here's the message i've posted: I'm sorry you feel that way about me. Perhaps you should start a blog or a webpage about the ADA if you truly feel that strongly about it? Wikipedia is absolutely not the correct forum for viewpoint advocacy, however. The page will be protected from editing soon, which will prevent you from making further edits. - Jersyko·talk 15:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pleased that your tone is now more conciliatory in that you no loger appear to be accusing me or others of being ADA secret agents or other such garbage.  Actually, now that I've reread your comment, I see that you're actually making a threat, not being conciliatory.  Note that such an attempt (to create a new article to advocate your viewpoint) will result in (1) immediate deletion of the article and (2) your eventual banning from editing from Wikipedia.  I am absolutely willing to have a civilized discussion about this article, but devolution into personal attacks and inappropriate rhetoric will result in an immediate end to discussion from my vantage point.  Based on my limited knowledge of this subject, I agree with you that there is controversy here, and that not enough evidence exists for either side to make a conclusive case for or against amalgams.  However, any additions to the article must be verifiable and neutral point of view; i.e., we cannot simply throw out an argument and have the two sides duke it out over the text of the article as the article must conform to these two Wikipedia policies.  I agree that the article is far from perfect in its present form, and it definitely needs rewriting and expansion.  It certainly does not, however, deny the existence of controversy, just read the history of controversy section and the controversy becomes obvious (among other sections of the article).  As I have suggested before, if viewpoint advocation is your goal, please find another website or medium through which to express your view as such is inappropriate here.  Otherwise, I plan to post an invitation for any editors to help clean up this article soon, so hopefully it will change for the better in the near future. - Jersyko·talk 17:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism Warning

message: By the time you read this, Jersyko will again have removed the below section from the main article:
When dental amalgams are installed in the mouths of patients, mercury vapor leaches out of the fillings every time you chew or swallow hot liquids.  The amount of this leaching is dependant on these physical factors, dental fillings that are not compressed or heated do not leach mercury vapor nearly as much as those that are physically stimulated in some way.  A simple test of the amount of leaching is a measure of the mercury vapor in the mouth of a person with amalgam, after chewing gum for several minutes a person with 6 or more amalgams will have a level of mercury vapor in their mouths in excess of 50,000 parts per million.  This figure of 50,000 ppm is the occupational safety limit for mercury vapor exposure.  Since this level is exceeded spontaneously in the mouths of dental amalgam wearers frequently (6-7 times/day), the higher the number of amgalgams the greater the exposure.  This mercury vapor is then breathed in and out, the breathing out was detected by Tekran Corp in Canada in the late 1990's, at a tradeshow where Tekran noticed the room air mercury vapor concentrations doubled from 6 ppm to 12 ppm during coffee breaks.  Inside people's bodies, this mercury vapor is breathed in the lungs, goes into the bloodstream, and travels to the brain.  The levels in the blood never reach critical poisoning levels, however it is the Continuous Transfer of mercury ions into the brain and other body organs that is the issue.  Fish accumulate mercury in the same manner, so that even though the mercury in the oceans and lakes is in small concentrations, it reaches high concentrations in fish as they "breathe" in mercury-polluted water.  People accumulate mercury in the same way from dental fillings, blood tests don't show much but people become sick and when they remove their dental amalgams they get better, which is a kind of "anecdotal" proof.  If the science is so simple, then why is there a controversy and why do we still put amalgam in people?  Because not everyone gets sick, it depends on how many amalgams a person has and how much they chew or drink hot liquids.  Also, diet can affect poisoning as high selenium levels act to protect people from mercury poisoning.  Profit is another big issue, amalgam is the most profitable business, the material costs $1 and sells for $150 installed.  Initial screenings of the National Health and Nutritional Survey III from the Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta show that persons with 4 or more dental fillings have worse health outcomes, which confirms the exposure using the US Government's own health statistics.  The US Patent Office has also granted a patent for prevening mercury poisoning from dental amalgam using selenium toothpaste.  Opponents of amalgam poisoning claim that people who remove amalgams and get better only have "anecdotal" stories, which means observed but with no cause.  Observe how quickly this paragraph will be deleted from Wikipedia and end up in "discussion", and you can observe why people with dental amalgam who remove them and get better continue to be treated as hostile witnesses by the American Dental Assocation.
* Wasn't Jersyko.  I thought it was quite POV in what is already a controversial article.  I also felt it wasn't in the spirit of WP:NOR.  Nothing personal.  -- Samir ∙ TC   12:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalized Again

message: This article is a complete mess, and has in no way NPOV. It really needs some careful attention. The current first paragraph is more akin to a tabloid newspaper, rather than a learned encyclopaedia which is what Wikipedia aspires to. I will try an provide a rewrite at some point. I am a dentist, but I am also a patient of another dentist. I have used dental amalgam from several manufacturers, and also the alternatives, such as dental composites.  Bracing myself for flaming! I am sure that both sides in the argument would like to see a good, balanced and evidence-based wikipedia article rather than the current pile of crap that is there at the moment. Ashley Payne 09:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ashley, thanks for the cleanup.  This restored the page to a workable state, similar to what the page looked like in September 2005.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mess!

message: It's good to see the American Dental Association has joined this discussion.  Yes, you can    
  easily say that people with 4 cavities or more eat more sugar than those with less than 4 
  cavities.  However, that is another section of Wikipedia that is concerned about sugar and   
  diet.  This article is concerned about the risks of using dental amalgam, and the fact that 
  NHANES III clearly shows a link between higher levels of amalgam and poor health.  I welcome
  the scientists in the ADA to prove that this link is then really caused by high sugar intake,
  which appears as more than 4 dental amalgams!  I think the idea that "sugar causes poor health"
  is not scientific, again another ADA trait. Anyone in the American Sugar Assocation
  will defend that sugar, while a source of calories but zero nutrients, is not "poison" like
  the commentator below is making sugar out to be.  On this page, we are evaluating the risks 
  of mercury, not sugar, more specifically dental amalgam made out of 50% mercury by volume, 
  used inside people's mouths.  If this turns into a discussion about sugar, then the ADA wins 
  again!  But then again, the ADA has had over 150 years, and billions of dollars, to promote 
  its position.  Readers of this article, who think that sugar is a risk for ill health and 
  not amalgam, don't have to get their amalgams removed.  But they are informed thanks to   
  the ADA, it is now either sugar or amalgams, and of course we were provided plenty of   
  scientific evidence in the statement below that it is sugar that is the cause of poor diet.
  So a dentist can say to you, as you will read just below this, that the sugar you ate 
  yesterday is why your health is poor, amalgam has no risk at all for you, even though
  amalgam is made out of 50% mercury and sugar is made out of 0% mercury.  ADA logic wins again!
  As far as emotion goes, the day that the ADA starts to lose lawsuits and dentists start to
  feel like they are selling asbestos and not "safe" amalgam, because the lawyers will take 
  everything they have, then the dentists will feel the same "emotion" that many people who
  have removed amalgam "anecdotally" and gotten better feel.  The emotions felt cannot be
  printed on this page, which is why this article focuses solely on the scientific elements.
  By the way, a university in Rochester NY just completed a study using NHANES III linking
  second hand smoke levels to cavities in children's primary teeth.  It was reported worldwide.
  We could say that people that smoke don't eat well either, and so give their children more  
  sugar, in ADA logic that is why the children's cavities went up!  When real scientists want
  to take a real look at the risks of amalgam, using real tools such as NHANES III, and not
  personal opinions such as "sugar causes ill health" then we will make progress.  It is not an
  "opinion" that higher than 4 dental amalgams appears to be a huge risk for people, it is a 
  fact.  That sugar may be the reason for the ill health is a possibility, but get serious is
  that really what to believe when amalgam is 50% mercury!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The article claims that 4 dental amalgams are the safe limit ,before you are at risk of certain diseases,stating heart disease recovery as a factor affected by this limit. Did it occur to the writer of this, that patients with greater than 4 amalgams obviously have a higher rate of tooth decay,which is caused by greater sugar intake and is seen predominantly in patients with a poor diet. Hence you would expect these patients to  be linked with other illness and ,in the case of heart disease ,Poor diet is a major factor! You cannot claim a direct link with flawed coincidental evidence. It is misleading to call this a "smoking gun" ,the writer obviously has a biased opinion,and as with many people discussing this topic it is an emotional discussion and not a truly independent scientific one.
 November 15, 2005 - The neutrality and factual matters warnings are still on this article,    
  despite the inclusion of the MSDS from the manufacturer of amalgam clearly warning of side    
  effects.  Is there a moderator who can judge this?
How can the "neutrality" of an article entitled Dental Amalgam Controversy be disputed on Wikopedia?  This is like saying "military intelligence".  What an oxymoron!  This is an article about the risk and associated controversy of using dental amalgam, which contains 50% mercury by weight and mercury is the most toxic non-radioactive substance known to mankind. 
Also what "factual matters" are disputed?  The MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) from LD Caulk, the manufacturers of Dispersalloy dental amalgam, is included in the article.  It clearly states that inhalalation of mercury vapor causes erethism, which is also known as "poisoning".  Can you people read??????????? 
Based on this, I absolutely demand the removal of the dispute and fact warnings.  This is a freedom of speech issue, this article is about a controversy and the manufacturer of the product clearly has labeled the product as having dangerous side effects.  
   The word "science" itself is simply the Latin word for knowledge: scientia. Until the   
   1840's what we now call science was "natural philosophy," so that even Isaac Newton's    
   great book on motion and gravity, published in 1687, was The Mathematical Principles of 
   Natural Philosophy (Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis). Newton was, to himself 
   and his contemporaries, a "philosopher." Source:  Copyright (c) 1996, 1998 Kelley L. Ross, 
   Ph.D. All Rights Reserved.
   - Therefore, the comment stands and was accurate.  Dental amalgam predates what we call    
   science, which instead was called natural philosophy up until the 1840's.  Amalgam was    
   introduced just prior to this period.  This is an important distinction, as the use of
   amalgam cannot be considered "scientific" and so its use is grandfathered under the FDA code
   under "pre-existing devices", and it has never been tested for safety TO THIS DAY.
"The power of the dental lobby to exempt dental workers from mercury 'safety' guidelines is based on their long history of mercury amalgam use, which pre-dates the Civil War and science itself"
Wow, I didn't realize that science is so young!
    This section has been changed to a more factual statement, that in the 1860's Louis Pasteur 
    created the modern germ theory of disease, fully 40 years after the introduction of amalgam.
There also seems to be other things that rises my skeptic flag.  For example, it suggests that four fillings is a "safe" amount.  I was not aware that all fillings contain roughly the same amount of amalgam.
    All fillings contain the same amount of mercury, 50% by weight.  Any search of the Internet 
    for Dr. Mark Richardson's work or a download site for the NHANES III database is easily done
    with Google.  Dr. Richardson's paper proving 4 dental amalgams as a "safe level" is also
    available on the Internet.  Dr. Richardson did the paper while he was an employee of
    Health Canada, so in actual fact a government agency paid for this research.  The only
    people who will do NHANES III epidemiology studies are those who don't want the American
    Dental Association to come after them.  The big report a few years ago that second
    hand smoke caused more cavities in children's primary teeth was done at a university near
    Rochester, NY and reported worldwide.  The tool used for this analysis was NHANES III.  No
    one, and this is a fact, will stake their scientific job on doing a full NHANES III analysis
    of amalgam, so the one that was done was by a non-profit group.  This is the real problem.
This article seems to have a definite bias against amalgam.  I suspect that a lot of this article was inspired by an anti-amalgam site.  Perhaps its time for a NPOV header?
    None of the scientific information presented in this article is biased against amalgam.
    The information is all factual, otherwise it would be removed by the thousands of people
    who read this page.  The information shows a picture of "risk" in using amalgam, and how
    in some individuals there is a potential "recovery".  As an interesting note, most medical
    treatments are not recommended for pregnant women or children under 6.  Amalgam is considered
    a medical treatment, and the same applies.  Since it is a medical treatment, the "risk"
    controversy is what this article is discussing.
The title of this article should be renamed to "Dental Amalgam Risk Controversy".  I think everyone would be in agreement with this change.  Any comments?
--- 209.173.47.1 20:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: misc

message: I cannot find any sources to back up a California ban on dental amalgam effective 2006.  The Mercury in Dental Filling Disclosure and Prohibition Act is a federal act, that AFAIK was not passed into law.  If anyone can provide any references supporting these statements, please state so.  Otherwise, I will be removing/modifying those references.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I modified/removed the references. Thanks for pointing them out.  From what I can tell here, the bill that was mentioned was referred to a subcommittee, and it didn't make it out.  Yes, that was a federal law, not a California law.  California does now require dentists to give patients a fact sheet that discusses all the types of fillings, and it mentions mercury being toxic, but the brochure also goes out of its way to say that the FDA, WHO, and CDC all say amalgam fillings are safe. I would not call it an alarmist brochure. I don't know of any California ban. Tempshill 00:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info.  I've expanded this a bit (actually was working at the same time and had an edit conflict), including the text of the warnings.  I've added the ((cleanup)) tag since there are sections towards the bottom that need integration with the rest of the article.  It also needs to be checked for NPOV.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 01:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for investigating the issue of the 'disclosure' act and making these references more accurate and detailed. This is an excellent improvement in the piece now. I don't know how this act got misinterpreted in the first place in the sources. For my part, I have also returned to the article re:NPOV, having just re-read the section on NPOV to refresh my mind, as you brought it up. It's a good point. Part of the problem in this article was that different parts were contributed by different people, so I guess comments from both sides of the controversy still at times retain a colour of opinion, even if only subtly implied. A few parts may just need rewording, where appropriate, in the guise of "some feel. . . whereas others. . . " I have at any rate tried to start this process (I haven't by any means completed it!), and I began by seeking out phrases which seemed particularly loaded with opinion or unnecessary emphasis one way or the other, such as "the vast majority", "valid studies", "this argument however ignores", "too miniscule to matter", "by far the best", etc. (All of these, at any rate, have now been changed, but there are probably others still in there). By the way, the edit by "194.165.183.123" was me, it just looks like I unintentionally wasn't logged in when I submitted it. Simon K 02:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Minors can't get mercury fillings in Maine. Adults can still get them. 65.34.186.143 17:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  California ban?? 

message: The above-mentioned "TEST Foundation" link has now also been restored with the new correct website, since the web address had moved. Simon K 03:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken link 

message: I am writing a nutrition book that deals with heavy metal and chemical exposure.  One of the best explanations I have run into concerning this issue was written by Dr. Russell L. Blaylock in his book Health and Nutrition Secrets that can save your life, ISBN:0-929173-42-2.  As for NPOV, Dr. Blaylock is lacking in this department but his research is done impecably well.  He talks about both sides of the issue although he clearly is no fan of the ADA.  He does indepth research on the subject and some of his research could go a long way to the NPOV we are looking for.  I would be happy to contribute to this article if you all need help - let me know [bigbadserrao@hotmail.com].
Staypuftman 00:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Good source for this information

message: I have to wonder about the appropriateness of the tone of the first paragraph for an encyclopedic article (as opposed to a journalistic work, or an opinion piece):
 This article is about the risks associated with putting dental amalgam in your teeth,
 and the controversy this has generated, hence the title Dental Amalgam Controversy.
 All medical treatments have an element of risk involved. The American Dental Assocation,
 which is the assocation of dentists who sell dental amalgam to patients, say there is no
 risk while at the same time insisting members store any scrap amalgam left over in an
 airtight covered jar with glycerine on top. If there is no risk to using dental amalgam,
 why does it have to be stored in a covered jar in a dental office? Most dentists have a
 huge jar covered jar of scrap amalgam in their office. Why is it covered? More importantly,
 as a patient did you know it was covered? Knowing something like this is called "informed
 consent". In dentistry, this is not provided to patients. This is the nature of the
 controversy, which has been ongoing for over 150 years.
This was part of a series of edits by 70.49.210.50 on November 13, 2005. Hopefully another user with more knowledge on the subject than me will have a look at this. MCBastos 12:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriateness of first  paragraph? 

message: I don't get the feeling anyone is really in charge of this article - so I'm willing to take charge and start redoing it.  I have a substantial amount of research in regards to the health implications of dental amalgams - but I do not have much information about the history of the controversy.  Anybody want to help me?  Shoot me an email - 
Staypuftman 03:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's organize ourselves and fix this thing 

message: The American Dental Association, as can be seen in the first section above, has again vandalized this article.  This is what the ADA is like, when the Environmental Protection Agency began to sue dentists because of mercury in their office wastewater, they said "our professors told us mercury is OK".  They are the biggest bunch of mercury sellers in existence.  If you go to an ADA member, and have mercury put in your teeth, and then get sick, you have been warned about the controversy.  For most people, a trip to an ADA member is akin to a trip to getting a mercury lozenge.  Reader's Digest did an article about the total lack of ethics of ADA members, and anyone can go look it up.  Dentists are intestered only in getting rich, building the "million dollar practice", and anything that interrupts their greed, love of money, and desire for riches while screwing your health, must be targetted.  ADA stands for American Denial Association, and your health is their target.  Anyone who removes mercury from a product or process is a hero, and gets medals from the Environmental Protection Association.  What kind of person would put mercury into a human being, when all the scientists in the world are trying to take mercury out of everything (so it can't get into humans).  A total non-scientist, non-ethical profiteer who is a greedy, non-thinking human being who cares nothing for his fellow man, his or her brothers and sisters.  Your local in-denial ADA member, who has no laws restricting his/her behavior, no approval of the amalgam product he/she uses, and is free to make you as sick as he/she wants selling a product that costs them $1 and they install for $150.  The person who "edited" the article above is trying to protect his $149 PROFIT.  The word Profit comes from Proffer, to give.  What he gives you for $149 profit is a mercury implant.  At least with cigarettes you were told it was bad for you.  He/she is totally free to run rampant over the truth and your health.  I mean, WTF is the ADA anyway?  Is it a government agency?  It is an association, nothing more.  An association that sells MERCURY.  No one sells mercury, check the facts for yourself, production and sale of mercury has been severely declining for more than 50 years.  And they call themselves professionals?  Professional liars.  Do we have to say more????? -(unsigned comments by: user:65.92.43.70)
:(1) Proper disposal of amalgam is the prudent thing to do since it does have mercury. (2) Mercury in the amalgams are in a different state and in such low levels that it is considered to have no negative health effect, except in cases of allergies. (3) Amalgams are cheaper than tooth-colored filling (frequently composites). Thus, the suggesion to remove all amalgam fillings with composites actually makes more money for the dentist than placing and leaving amalgams. (4) Name-calling and labelling is neither very productive nor helpful in identifying what has been found in research. -Dozenist talk 14:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I've done some research and seen very little credible evidence from the pro-amalgam side.  If anyone has found any published medical studies not directly or indirectly funded by the ADA that show amalgams to be safe...please send it to me!
Additionally, due to the extreme controversy involved here - why dont we get 3 pro-amalgam, 3 anti-amalgam and maybe even 3 fence sitters to each write a little piece on why or why not they endorse this practice and publish them here?  Each person would have to be a dentist which could be verified independently or by wikipedia in some fashion.  
I am also going to try and move a lot of the information on this page which relates directly to the composition of amalgam over to the page which talks about different dental fillings.  I think it is the first step to fixing this article.
Thanks Staypuftman 04:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coincidentally, I've done some research since dentistry is the field I am in, and I have found very little credible evidence from the "anti-amalgam" side.  The basics is that research in peer-reviewed journals, whether funded by the ADA or not, has found no ill-effects in amalgam as used in dental fillings.  Nonetheless, despite that wealth of scientific research, controversy exists and will continue to exist.  Therefore, I see the need to have and continue to support this article, which is in dire need of clean up, coherence, and an NPOV approach to this topic. - Dozenist talk 05:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please post citations from non-ADA related that show no ill-effects from dental amalgam.  Im going to post what I have found in doing some research here.
Thanks Staypuftman 16:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Progress

message: Ladies and gentlement - I see tensions could not be any higher on this issue.  Everyone comes into a discussion with biases, myself included, but as researchers for this very important topic we need to be able to put them aside.  Let me say this yet again, I think we should let the science do the talking.  
Sounds like NHANES III would be a good source for us to use - I have run into this publication in other reserach that I am doing indepedent of this.  Can we come to an agreement on what this source is actually saying?  I dont think sugar and overall health problems should be brought into the specific equation here - we can reference them but lets stick to the studies that show the effects of mercury vapor.
Additionally, we need more sources!  Anybody working on that - post them here - especially any non ADA pro-amalgam sources, which to my knowledge still do not exist.
Thanks
Staypuftman 00:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NHANES III would for the reasons explained above be a problem in using as a reference.  What the "source is actually saying" needs interpretation, something we cannot do in the encyclopedia, because it is a survey.  There is no experimental design in the study to determine what is causing anything.  Additionally, overall health problems and sugar are intricately tied into NHANES III because those two things are seen as the primary influencing factors, rather than any mercury vapor--- at least, again, that is the interpretation by nearly the entire dental community and biochemical researchers.  Thankfully, letting the science do the talking is something we can both agree on.  There are plenty of more focused, better designed experiments, and even surveys, that can be used. - Dozenist talk 01:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't want to stick my nose into a place where it doesn't belong, but I did want to point out that rambling, conspirational posts like the one above lead me to believe, as someone who knows nothing about the controversy, that opponents have little credibility.  That's all. - Jersyko talk 16:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have already previously stated the possible and most likely interpretations of the results of the NHANES III, which do not point to amalgam causing health problems.  Although the information may be useful to collect a wide-range of data, the NHANES III has no control groups and there are no independent variables being tested.  Since correlation cannot be used to prove causation, no one can use the NHANES III to say definitively that amalgams caused health problems, and in the mean while I do not have the time to teach fundamentals of research design and to explain any further why surveys (either in a cross-section of the population or over time) is scientifically weaker than a classic experiment with independent/dependent variables, control groups, etc. - Dozenist talk 17:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Heated thrashing... 

message: Clearly random guy hates the ADA (why dont you sign your name??) and Dozenist is pro-ADA.  Why dont both of help me do something constructive?  ADAHATE - maybe you could post and help explain the findings in the NHANES III here.  Dozenist - would you like to supply me with pro-amalgam studies focused on mercury vapor release that show fillings do not release mercury vapor into the body?
I feel that a lot of people who might help us fix this article are reading all this garbage going back and forth and are being scared away (which may be both of your end goals, I dont know at this point).  My first instinct was to separate the knowledge of amalgams from the controversy, move it over to the dental fillings page and edit that information back out of the controversy page.  
I redid a large part of both articles in the process, posted them and they were immediately removed by Dozenist.  I have about reached my wits end with this process - Wikipedia appears to be much more about individual egos than professional research.  Both of you are doing this noble cause a great disservice and should be ashamed of yourselves.  I have done a substantial amount of valid research on the subject and would be willing to contribute to anyone else who dares to enter this hellhole.  Im done with this ridiculousness - someone else is welcome to carry this torch.  Good luck to whomever may come after me.
Staypuftman 23:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your attitude is astounding.  Be courteous to one another.  Stop being hostile.  There is no huge conspiracy going on here.  Also, the idea that I receive money in any way from the ADA is humorous and untrue.  Further, since it is you who is speaking against the current position of the scientific community, I really think it is inappropriate to call the vast majority of dentists, biochemists, physicians, and health researchers "anti-scientists" for acknowledging the safety of amalgams. - Dozenist talk 14:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I feel like Im in 5th grade 

message: "Controversial Dental Amalgam Capsule, Amalgam Alloy, and Dental Mercury Regulations", a proposal for updating this section.
Summary:  Without grandfathering the Dental Amalgam Capsule in 1976, Dental amalgam (the actual stuff that goes in teeth) would have been classified as a Class III device, and would have required 2000 hours of safety testing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section is one of the most complex, and controversial, in the long history of dental amalgam.  Dental amalgam did not undergo safety testing even when the Medical Device Amendments Act of 1976, which introduced the classification systems for Class I, Class II, and Class III Medical Devices, was passed into law.  The Dental Amalgam Capsule which is where amalgam is mixed when the seal breaks, was "grandfathered" in 1976, and retains this status today as the only legal place in a dental office where mercury and the alloy metals can be mixed.  "Dental Amalgam" as two words by themselves appears nowhere in the US Code titles, only the words Dental Mercury, Amalgam Alloy, and Dental Amalgam Capsule are in the US Code titles (and are shown below).  As a result, "Dental Amalgam" has never been tested for safety by the US Government, and never had to gain certification as a Class III Medical Device, which would have taken 2000 hours of safety testing.
First Source:  http://www.health.gov/environment/amalgam1/regulation.htm 
Federal regulation of dental amalgam and elemental mercury as an amalgam component resides with the Food and Drug Administration. Both products are regulated under the mandate of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 and the Safe Medical Devices Amendments of 1990. The basic framework of these device laws is a three-tiered regulatory scheme, which classifies devices on the basis of health risk and sets corresponding levels of regulatory controls.
Historically, FDA has regulated dental mercury and amalgam alloys separately (very controversial), with mercury treated as a class I device and the alloy as a class II device. (Medical devices are assigned to class I, II, or III, depending on the degree of regulatory control needed to assure the safety and effectiveness of the device, with class I requiring the least degree of regulatory control and class III the greatest. Mercury was placed in class I because, as an element, it could be regulated by establishing a standard of purity. The alloy was assigned to class II because of the potential safety and effectiveness risk that could result from variations in chemical formulation in terms of percent composition and types of materials.)
Second Source:  United States Code:  TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS, CHAPTER I--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, SUBCHAPTER H--MEDICAL DEVICES, PART 872 -- DENTAL DEVICES 
Subpart D--Prosthetic Devices Sec. 872.3700 Dental mercury.  
(a) Identification. Dental mercury is a device composed of mercury intended for use as a component of amalgam alloy in the restoration of a dental cavity or a broken tooth.
(b) Classification. Class I. 
Subpart D--Prosthetic Devices Sec. 872.3050 Amalgam alloy.  
(a) Identification. An amalgam alloy is a device that consists of a metallic substance intended to be mixed with mercury to form filling material for treatment of dental caries.
(b) Classification. Class II. 
Subpart D--Prosthetic Devices Sec. 872.3110 Dental amalgam capsule.  
(a) Identification. A dental amalgam capsule is a container device in which silver alloy is intended to be mixed with mercury to form dental amalgam.
(b) Classification. Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in 872.9. 
Note that device exemption is based on a clause in the Medical Devices Act of 1976, which allowed certain devices to be "grandfathered".  Without grandfathering the Dental Amalgam Capsule as a Class I Medical Device, Dental Amalgam (the stuff that goes in teeth) would have to have been classified as a Class III device because of its complex and controversial structure/materials, and would have required 2000 hours of safety testing.
Third Source:  http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/devadvice/3133.html
Class I/II Devices Exempt from 510(k) and class I Devices Exempt from GMPs
Devices exempt from 510(k) are:
-  preamendment devices not significantly changed or modified; or 
-  Class I/II devices specifically exempted by regulation. 
For purposes of 510(k) decision-making, the term "preamendment device" refers to devices legally marketed in the U.S. by a firm before May 28, 1976 and which have not been:
- significantly changed or modified since then; and 
- for which a regulation requiring a PMA application has not been published by FDA. 
Devices meeting this description are referred to as "grandfathered" and do not require a 510(k).
Next Reference:  http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpcd/315.cfm
Class I and Class II Exempt Devices 
PART 862 Clinical chemistry and clinical toxicology devices 
PART 864 Hematology and pathology devices 
PART 866 Immunology and microbiology devices 
PART 868 Anesthesiology devices 
PART 870 Cardiovascular devices 
PART 872 Dental devices 
PART 874 Ear, nose, and throat devices 
PART 876 Gastroenterology-urology devices 
PART 878 General and plastic surgery devices 
PART 880 General hospital and personal use devices 
PART 882 Neurological devices 
PART 884 Obstetrical and gynecological devices 
PART 886 Ophthalmic devices 
PART 888 Orthopedic devices 
PART 890 Physical medicine devices 
PART 892 Radiology devices 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, Dental Mercury, Amalgam Alloy, and the Amalgam Alloy Capsule are all separately classified as "prosthetic devices", and the Amalgam Alloy Capsule prosthetic device (which holds mercury and the alloys separately until mixed) has been "grandfathered".  The CAPSULE , which was grandfathered as a device which is allowed to hold the mercury and alloy metals in separate compartments until mixed in an "amalgamator" machine (which just shakes the capsule until the internal seal breaks and the mercury mixes with the metals) is how Dental Amalgam avoided being a Class III Medical Device which would need safety testing.
Because of these regulations, Dental Amalgam itself is not actually classified, and as a result has never had to undergo safety testing in the United States as a Class III Medical Device.
 
[citation needed] - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.59.238 (talk • contribs) .
*Can you cite a source for the information?  Thanks. - Jersyko·talk 23:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for Regulation Section

message: Because of the NPOV restrictions on Wikipedia, I was able to complete linking all the research threads left dangling about amalgam for over 150 years.  Thanks to the editors for your fair, balanced approach.  The issue centered around Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI), the mercury load in our environment (air, water, soil) has been rising for decades, and is considerably higher since 1859 when the ADA was first formed to promote safe amalgam use.  Combined with the increased installations of dental amalgam from widely available insurance coverage (composites are not covered in the USA as easily as amalgam) and overall better incomes, people simply have more amalgam in their teeth and it adds considerably to the TDI that also is higher because of the environment.  Once a person has 4 or more dental amalgams they are at greatly increased risk for poor health outcomes.  This is why many people's immune systems are not working properly, neither are their nervous systems, and the mechanism for contamination is just like in the case of fish where it is a chronic, low-dose exposure.  While there has been an increased effort to ban mercury from the environment, we still see people getting poisoned from eating fish.  Mercury in free form in the environment is still a major concern, and without banning dental amalgam the TDI will continue to be, well, intolerable and major illnesses of the immune and nervous systems (as confirmed by NHANES III) will continue to be linked to higher levels of dental amalgam (4 or greater in an individual).  Thank you once again for insisting on NPOV, it has made the difference in understanding all sides of this issue.
 ==Thank You 65.92.59.238 ==
I just wanted to say Thank You also to the person listed above for all of his/her hard work and dedication to promoting the truth on this very controversial and difficult subject.
Many thanks to the wiki editors for recognizing and helping to stop the vandalism, and most of all to user #65.92.59.238, for your tireless efforts in standing up for the truth on these issues as well exposing the many frustrating tactics of the amalgam supporters and their industry to keep the truth hidden. 
I am unfortunate enough to have 20 amalgam fillings and have been suffering from multiple unexplained health problems for many years, including Asperger's syndrome (a form of high functioning autism), severe migraines, hypothyroidism, frequent bouts of "brain fog" and loss of mental functioning, abdominal pain, extreme fatigue, depression and severe allergic symptoms. No matter what I do or the lifetime of drugs and various medical treatments I have been through, the problems have only gotten gradually worse, ultimately leading to permant disability. 
I only recently learned about the mercury connection from the Internet and the more I read on the subject (from many multiple sources), the more I was amazed at how all of these seemingly unrelated symptoms are all tied together as the classic symptoms of mercury toxicity. I am a natural skeptic, but the volume of information proves to me the connection is undeniable.
Yet the conventional medical profession refuses to listen or acknowledge people like me. 
Why? We need help. Why is it that whenever we do try to document our problems, we are brushed off and our stories are considered only "anecdotal"?
Thank you to those who took time to read about my experience. I actually came here today to submit the following info in response to the requests to cite sources.
I didn't see the link below listed (maybe I missed it... or perhaps it was there but deleted?)
http://www.vimy-dentistry.com/tttoc.htm
But Dr Vimy has one of the most informative and well researched articles and his article at this link provides a number of excellent sources and resources, both historical and contemporary.
Dr. Murray J. Vimy DMD Clinical Associate Professor Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary. Calgary, Canada is a leading expert on the subject of mercury toxicity, as well as Dr. Boyd Haley Ph.D., who is affiliated with the University of Kentucky and has also done extensive research on mercury and other metal toxicity, dental amalgams, Thimerosal in vaccines, autism, Alzheimer's disease, neurology in general and political issues relating to all of these subjects. I do not have any direct contact information for either of these gentlemen, but I am sure they could somehow be reached through IAOMT or similar organizations if one is resourceful. Hgcasualty 02:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank You