You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #18: Is the World Health Organization in league with the nefarious ADA? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-14-06 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Is the World Health Organization in league with the nefarious ADA?
http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=2091">Here's an excerpt from a recent article:
"Mercury exposure from dental amalgam is not believed by USPHS agencies and WHO (World Health Organization) to represent levels associated with adverse health effects in humans, including sensitive populations," said the FDA white paper on the literature review.

So that means that the FDA, the ADA, the USPHS, and the WHO are all conspiring to poison us via our teeth.

And here's an article in which the ADA outlines its agenda, including this bit:
Promote research on the health implications from exposure to dental materials such as dental amalgam, resins, latex and other chemicals in the dental workplace.
and
Develop protocols for evaluating technologies and systems designed to reduce amalgam waste and mercury in dental wastewater;


Through promoting these and other measures, I would say that the ADA does indeed welcome research in these areas. Granted, amalgam-related research is not listed in the 2005-2006 agenda, but neither is the use of whiskey as an anesthetic. Given the utter lack of convincing evidence that dental amalgam poses a demonstrable health risk, it is entirely appropriate that the ADA would suspend research into the health risks of dental amalgam. If evidence can be presented in support of anti-amalgamist claims, then research may be undertaken once again.

Is it your contention that the ADA should advocate research simply to soothe the anxieties of those who believe that amalgam is dangerous?

Proponents of "alternative" "medicine" often cite prohibitive expense as the reason why supporters of Reiki and acupuncture (to name just two) do not subject these practices to extensive double-blind study. Well, it would be expensive to study the wholly unproven deleterious effects of dental amalgam, too; why should the ADA be held to a standard that alternative medicine refuses to accept?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Health Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC