“Your first duty is to do no harm, and a patient cannot consent to be harmed�

[Guest guest]

“Your first duty is to do no harm, and a patient cannot consent to be harmed” Dr Terry J Lee was hauled before his professional body and disciplined in 1999 as he had for two decades refused to give his patients great lumps of mercury in their mouths. I do not know if the disciplinary action was warranted and that is not my argument but most if not all dentists put great lumps of mercury into their patients mouths and mercury vapour a noxious neurotoxin is emitted and absorbed into the body. Every dentist uses great lumps of mercury so it “can’t be harmful” to you. Alois Alzheimer had no idea why his patients who had an excessive number of gleaming lumps of a precious metal and were as MAD AS A HATTER but he did know they were truly as MAD AS A HATTER. Since this time more and more people have been getting great lumps of mercury in their mouths and not going as MAD AS A HATTER straight away so that the mercury must be really good for us. Dr Terry J Lee does not put lumps of gleaming mercury metal in his patients so he must be punished as it is clear MERCURY does not cause neurological harm even though it is the INNATE PROPERTY of this MOST TOXIC ELEMENT. Some of Dr Terry J Lee’s patients were happy to remain ANONYMOUS and receive great lumps of GOLD to testify against this MAD DENTIST who refuses to put MERCURY in great lumps into his patients. One person did come to him with EPILEPSY. Using his non MERCURY treatment the EPILEPSY disappeared. But you cannot have dentists going around “harming” their patients like this by refusing to put great lumps of mercury into their mouths. Case Proved. 42. That mercury is a toxic substance is not disputed by the parties. (13:24). Nor is it disputed that every dentist should take all reasonable precautions to avoid unnecessary exposure to mercury when treating with dental amalgams. (RE 109; A10; SE 17). Nor is it disputed that what is typically referred to as a silver amalgam (a filling) is an alloy, the content of which is approximately fifty per cent elemental liquid mercury. (3:13). The silver amalgam has been the most popular and effective restorative material in dentistry longer than the past 150 years. Billions of silver amalgams have been placed in patients' teeth in the United States of America alone. It is estimated and here found that in 1979 approximately 157 million silver amalgam restorations were put into patients teeth. Still, the use of these amalgams has declined in more recent years to numbers between 90 and 100 million annually; however, not because of their falling into ill repute, but because people have been having less cavities. Despite the excellent track record of silver amalgams, from time to time concerns have arisen as to their safety. As early as 1850 some dentists claimed that removing these fillings could miraculously cure chronic diseases in patients. Today, a comparatively small minority of dentists, including Respondent, do not use, and will remove, silver amalgams in the belief that the mercury therein contained poses serious threats to the patient's systemic health. (21:106; SE 15; RE 111; 118). And so the arguments by Boyd Haley and Fritz Lorscheider on the one part and Dr. Chakwan Siew on the other rumbled on. For example Haley and Lorscheider finding mercury in teeth ends up all over the body is described as “Coming from individuals who claimed to have performed serious research, this statement is astonishing.” The panel seem to contradict themselves when they say next “current scientific evidence does not show that exposure to mercury from amalgam restorations poses a serious health risk in human, except for exceedingly small number of allergic reactions. " The committee, in reaching these findings, were not unaware that dental amalgams do in fact release " minute amounts of elemental mercury, " And of course: Dr Siew reasons that the amount of mercury that is released from the amalgam " is so small, minuscule, that you it's not at the range of dose that's considered to be toxic. " Alzheimer patients have up to 6 times as much mercury in them as non Alzheimer patients but it can’t be dental mercury as this is “GOOD” mercury. I blame the fishes. Now their MERCURY is very BAD mercury. That’s why they have been swimming about so merrily until they were captured by the very BAD people who wanted to let the rest of us eat their TOXIC fish. 6 million fish will contain as much MERCURY as in just one mercury filled tooth. But dental “silver” isn’t the BAD mercury that the fish eat and love. It is “good” mercury in thumping GOOD amounts in our teeth. I blame the fish every time. After all they are very fishy creatures aren’t they. But who are the FISHY CREATURES? “Your first duty is to do no harm, and a patient cannot consent to be harmed” Addendum Not sure what Boyd Haley would make of this ten years on: But this is what he has to say about thimerosal STILL in vaccines Dr. Haley called anyone who would deliberately expose a child to toxins like thimerosal and render them incapable of having a full life a criminal. The IOM shares the same “concern” as the Dental Association: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) claims that thimerosal is no problem at all, and that research into its connection to autism should be set aside for " other promising avenues " of research. The title comes from the Dental association who ADMIT putting billions of MERCURY fillings into everyones teeth - remember today only 3 out of 4 people have AD if they EVER reach the age of 85. But as well as taking out your brians MERCURY can kill, as per Harry who had his MERCURY shot at 4.30pm and was pronounced dead at 10.30pm RIP HARRY.