ThomasJoel2;55684 wrote: Amalgam fillings have already been banned in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.
This proves that Swedes, Norwegians and Danes have been made to fear amalgam fillings. It does not prove that amalgam fillings are bad.
ThomasJoel2;55684 wrote: http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/9702/mercury.htm
These snippets are not based on scientific knowledge. They reflect an opinion, a belief.
ThomasJoel2;55684 wrote: “Stubborn reluctance of dental associations to acknowledge the health risk of mercury toxicity from amalgam fillings may indeed have much in common with tobacco company tactics.”
No. Tobacco companies wanted to keep their profitable business of selling a product. This does not apply to dentists: if they would discover that amalgam fillings would be dangerous, they would still have a profitable business. The only difference would be that they would sell a different product: composite fillings instead of amalgam fillings. Their business and their profits would not be endangered at all.
Class-action lawsuits only stand a chance if a dentist knows he’s doing something bad, and keeps doint it without informing the patient. If amalgam fillings would be so dangerous, dentists would be strongly inclined to take immediate action. Applying a method that is widely considered safe at the time is a good thing to do, and cannot be punished. Applying a method that is known to be dangerous is punishable by law. So as soon as a method is found to be dangerous instead of safe, all dentists would feel a very strong urge to change their methods.
We’ve seen this in surgery, for example. Only 40 years ago, methods were used that were later found to have adverse effects. Yet no surgeon has ever had to appear in a class-action lawsuit. Why? Because 40 years ago, those methods were considered safe, so it was only logical to apply them. As soon as the adverse effects were discovered, surgical practices were adapted. Thus, surgeons always acted to the best of the available knowledge, and no surgeon ever had to appear in court because of some class action.
Dentists will of course have noted the difference between surgeons and tobacco companies. The difference between adapting one’s methods to new knowledge (surgeons) versus continuing something dangerous (tobacco companies). Dental business, like surgical business, would not be affected by changing the method, whereas tobacco companies would face a different fate.
Lots of reasons why dentists would rather behave like the surgeons and not like the tobacco companies.
ThomasJoel2;55684 wrote: Toxicity is passed on by mothers, generation to generation. There is a cumulative mechanism at play here.