Mercury Dental Fillings: What the FDA and the ADA are not Telling You

This just in from The Konformist. This caught my interest because of the connection between mercury and Alzheimer’s, which I was not aware of. My aunt suffers deeply from Alzheimer’s and hence I do as well, being as I am her caregiver...

http://www.naturalnews.com/029001_dental_fillings_mercury.html

Mercury Dental Fillings: What the FDA and the ADA are not Telling You
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Aaron Turpen, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) Many in the natural health and wellness community were elated when, in 2008, the FDA reluctantly declared mercury-based fillings (usually called “amalgams” or “silver”) to have neurotoxic effects on children. Then the Food and Drug Administration reversed itself a year later, when it declared that mercury fillings were A-OK. The FDA’s opinion doesn’t change the science behind mercury fillings and their link to debilitating diseases like autism and Alzheimer’s.

In 2009, several petitioners asked the FDA to reconsider their stance on mercury fillings, reversing their stance back to their original assessment of toxicity. Signing petitioners included Moms Against Mercury and several individuals holding various positions in the medical and health care industry as well as private citizens, all through the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT).

They cite the FDA`s use of an “ill-defined and unsubstantiated estimate of absorbed mercury exposure from dental amalgam of 1 to 5 [micrograms]/day that supposedly relates to the presence of between 7 and 10 amalgam fillings.” The petition shows that the FDA’s conclusions from that report were wrong and that further conclusions taken from another World Health Organization (WHO) report were also mis-represented in the FDA’s findings.

It is well-documented that amalgam fillings give off mercury vapors, even after decades of service as a cavity filling. A video of mercury vapor being given off of an extracted tooth when it is submitted to water at about the same heat level of a cup of coffee or tea shows that mercury fillings are toxic for a very long time.

In fact, many dentists, while they understand the dangers of an amalgam spill in their office, are unaware that they and their staff are exposed to mercury vapors and potential poisoning every time they handle both the fillings they’re putting into teeth and the mouths of patients who already have them. The extraction and disposal of existing mercury fillings has been linked to at least one patient who developed Parkinson’s Disease and became wheelchair bound.

Another study involving 9 velvet monkeys was conducted in Denmark. In that study, three of the monkeys were given amalgam fillings, three were given amalgam bone implants, and three were left untouched as controls. A year later, tissues in the monkeys showed that the fillings deposited mercury in several organs, including the spinal ganglia, adrenal, liver, pituitary, kidneys, and more. The monkeys in the control group had only trace amounts of mercury in their bodies.

Mercury has been linked to several neurological disorders including Alzheimer’s, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s Disease, and others. Other studies have been done into the links between mercury and other heavy metals and their reactive properties with one another.

In future articles here on NaturalNews, this citizen journalist will be exploring those other mercury-metal links and sources such as Thimerosal, fish, dentistry, and more.

Next Up: Killer Food, Legal, Encouraged

Just what is with this Obama guy? Is he Bush III? I mean, really, read this...

***

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html

Jeffrey Smith
July 23, 2009
You're Appointing Who? Please Obama, Say It's Not So!

The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.

Here's the back story.

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply -- the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods -- secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried "serious health hazards," and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.

But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn't going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies

When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to "different risks" than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them -- companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled -- from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.

In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world's top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation

In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies "systematically overlook the side effects" and significantly underestimate "the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others."

The Fox Guarding the Chickens

If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's vice president and chief lobbyist.

This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America's food safety czar. What have we done?

The Milk Man Cometh

While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90's, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) -- injected into cows to increase milk supply.

The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk -- unless it was organic and therefore untreated.

Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA's approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.

Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.

Taylor's disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto's own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor's white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.

Will Monsanto's Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?

As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such. Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania -- Dennis Wolff. As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn't afford to create separate packaging for just one state.

Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff's madness. But Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor's FDA disclaimer on the package.

President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!

Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania's governor is supporting Wolff's appointment is to get him out of the state -- after he "screwed up so badly" with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.

Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus

Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania's lead by requiring Taylor's FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size. This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio. Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland's office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.

Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration.

To hear what America is saying about GMOs and to add your voice, go to our new non-GMO Facebook Group.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.

Follow Jeffrey Smith on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyMSmith

***

Soylent Red?

The world continues to get creepier and creepier, with regard and respect for life falling ever deeper into the abyss of forgotten values. With FDA fast-tracking this new and potentially disastrously dangerous ruling, I'd bet that the health of the people will suffer. Perhaps it's more opportunity for them to 'thin the herd,' but I'd be more apt to think it's to do with profits, like everything else.

One example of pure greed reigning over the welfare of customers is the recent decision by McDonalds, renowned purveyors of obesity and early death, to eschew the output of domestic farmers in favor of cheap, unregulated foreign beef, injected with lots of drugs and raised on feed containing the remains of their unfortunate brothers and sisters. Is your stomach turning yet?

Ewww. Be careful out there.

======================================

Cloned Meat Decision Sparks Consumer Campaign
Caitlin G. Johnson
OneWorld US - view original
Thu., Jan. 24, 2008


NEW YORK, Jan 24 (OneWorld) - A broad coalition is urging consumers and grocery stores to refuse burgers, milk, and other products from cloned animals, following a U.S. government decision to lift a ban on the controversial foods.

Earlier this month, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) capped years of debate by lifting the ban on selling meat and dairy products from cloned cattle, swine, and goats. (There was not enough information to reach a conclusion on sheep, according to the FDA.)

Within hours, a petition hit cyberspace warning that "Genetically speaking, you meat eaters could be eating burgers from the same cow for years."

The petition will urge grocery stores to refuse to stock food from cloned animals. Signatures will be delivered to grocery stores, the U.S. Congress, and the FDA.

The campaign is sponsored by the advocacy group Friends of the Earth and a coalition of corporations, nonprofits, and politicians including Ben & Jerry's, the Consumer Federation of America, Union of Concerned Scientists, the Center for Food Safety, Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), and Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT).

The coalition says the FDA studies are inadequate to determine the safety of cloned meat because the sample size is too small -- there are only about 600 cloned animals in the United States, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture -- and because clones' offspring are not included in the assessment.

"The concern is that the majority of clones die either before or directly after birth. It took 227 tries to get Dolly. This indicates they're genetically abnormal," says Gillian Madill, genetic technologies campaigner for Friends of the Earth. "If we eat them, what are the consequences for our health? What about cancers and late-onset degenerative disease?"

"The FDA looked at short-term consequences, and even then, the evaluation is very limited and narrow in scope," Madill told OneWorld.

The FDA documents acknowledge that cloned livestock exhibit higher rates of prenatal death, large infant syndrome, and other "adverse outcomes."

These defects have given rise to concerns about animal welfare, too. The Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit advocacy organization, has called cloning "the most brutal livestock breeding technology" in use.

The group also questions the safety of food from clones. In March 2007, it released a report critical of the FDA's risk assessment, calling for longer-term, peer-reviewed studies.

"At the very least, we need to demand that Congress require labeling of this unproven, untested new food."
- Jaydee Hanson, Center for Food Safety

"The FDA hasn't done its job," says Jaydee Hanson, policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety. "You couldn't even get a new animal drug approved with research as weak as the FDA used. We need to stop, have the FDA go back and do this right."

The nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), however, is satisfied with the ruling, citing a "growing international consensus" and data supporting the safety of food from cloned animals.

"We're comfortable telling the public that they should not worry about this from a safety point of view," says Gregory Jaffe, director of the CSPI biotechnology project. "First, only healthy animals that reach maturity will enter into the food supply, and the offspring of clones don't have any of the animal health concerns that clones have. DNA is not passed to us when we eat milk or meat from animals."

Although CSPI does not take a stand on the ethical issues, Jaffe says the animal welfare concerns are worth examining. "Clearly there are issues for the surrogate mothers and for the clones themselves," he notes.

Not Likely to Hit Stores Soon

Because cloning is an expensive technology, it is more likely to be used for breeding stock than direct food production -- which means the offspring of cloned animals are more likely than clones themselves to show up in the food supply.

Producers are wading into the market slowly, in the wake of recent opinion polls indicating that a majority of the public is uncomfortable with food from cloned animals.

Major cattle and meat industry groups have expressed support for the ruling. "[Cloning] allows ranchers to duplicate their best breeding animals to quickly improve their herd," says Mary Geiger, a member of the communications team of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. "Clones are conventionally born, there is no genetic modification -- essentially, they are twins."

Jeremy Russell, communications director for the National Meat Association, a nonprofit trade association, notes that cloned meat is not likely to be hitting the shelves of local supermarkets anytime soon. "I have heard some companies are rightly concerned that they don't want to upset their customer base, so they're choosing not to use any cloning technology. I am sure other companies will experiment," he says.

To address consumer fears, the National Meat Association says it is pushing for an industry-wide animal management system to track cloned animals and their offspring.

At the same time that the FDA announced its ruling, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued a statement supporting the assessment but requesting that U.S. farmers keep cloned meat off the market "during this transition time."

"The fact that the USDA can't back the decision of the FDA -- one says it's ready for market, one says it's not -- signifies some sort of scientific miss there," says Madill from Friends of the Earth.

"We need to focus more on promoting small, local farms who use naturally grown crops and livestock instead of finding technological answers to save big agriculture and slaughterhouses," she says.

But if cloned foods do become more commonly available in U.S. grocery stores, the next battle will likely be over labeling.

"At the very least, we need to demand that Congress require labeling of this unproven, untested new food," says Hanson of the Center for Food Safety, who believes consumers have the right to be fully informed about what they're purchasing and eating.

As for policing the meat departments of stores who take the no-clone pledge, the campaign members are counting on consumer pressure to keep grocers -- and farmers -- honest.