(No subject)

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----From: "Clinton Zimmerman" <clint@...><AMALGAM@...>Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 6:42 PMSubject: [AMALGAM] Report - Burton Hearings> +++++ Mercury Poisoning from Dental Amalgam <AMALGAM@...>++++++>> Hi,>> I just got back from the amalgam hearings in Washington and thought I'd> make a quick summary if you don't mind.>> There was good news and bad news. Bad news, congressional turnout was very> low in fact only Norton Burton Gilmer and three guest dentist> congressman showed. Good news, the questioning by , Burton and> Gilmer was spectacular and put the ADA and FDA on the extreme defensive.> Burton was furious with the FDA on the amalgam issue, yes, he gets it, and> put the ADA and FDA to shame. At the conclusion of the hearings> Burton left little doubt that he would hold more hearings on the amalgam> issue and give the the issue his close attention throught the year. > and Burton also made it clear that they expect the FDA to begin at the> least some kind of formal testing of lone amalgams outside the mouth for> vapor release and Burton hinted that he may ask the FDA to convene a> special scientific panel for more full investigation of amalgam effects> which could possibly include Boyd Haley.>> On the first panel Mackert, materials specialist was a key witness for the> ADA and lied with abandon. He repeatedly asserted that amalgams do not> release large amount of mercury, stated for example that coffe does not> increase mercury release and stated that studies had been done onthousands> of people showing the safety of amalgam. However, he wasn't fooling> anybody. As he testimony continued he began to elicit audible chucklesfrom> the room and Burton skeptically crossexamined his statements and finally> under cross/cross examination Boyd Haley flatley stated that when it came> to levels of mercury release from amalgam Mackert was lying.>> On the second panel Fiegel was the representative from FDA devices and> defended amalgams to the hilt stating that he believed amalgams would be> approved if subjected to that process today from scratch. When asked> why the EPA had found amalgams to be unsafe by Burton he compared mercury> with radiation from the T.V. or discarded needles in terms of classifation> for potential but not necessary danger. A visibly reddening Burton then> said, "Come' on man. Are you comparing T.V. radiation to mercury?" and> subjected Fiegel to a litnay of embarrassing questions the FDA answers> to which were mind numbing. For example Fiegel stated that amalgams could> not be tested many times because the formulation was proprietary and the> devices division does not "do" testing. Burton was perceptive and was able> to ask simple piercing questions which showed how ludicrousnouss Fiegels> position was and the room joined in sometimes showing their approval.>> Finally near the conclusion of the hearings lit into Fiegel calling> the FDA,s postion a violation of public trust and stating that if hedidn't> know what to do about amalgams then she would add an amendment to herbill> to tell him what to do. 's questioning was heartfelt, she wasvisibly> disturbed by Fiegels lack of concern about mercury and its affects on> children and adults and her questioning was too the point, lucid and left> one with any empty feeling in the pit of the stomach when the FDA's> response left no doubt about their lack of concern for the health of the> public.>> Boyd Haleys testimony was good but brief and limited to the neurological> affects of mercury and biocchemical synergistic affects. Other panelists> gave strong antiamalgam testimony and let it be known that other countries> were moving to restrict amalgam and that the US was out of step with> current research.>> Overall I would give the hearing an A+.>> cz- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Don't miss out - get your free sample copy of The Holistic Dental DigestPLUS = information you're not likely to get elsewhere -- by replying withyour PO Box or street address.