Expert Panel:FDA claim of dental amalgam safety is unreasonable

[philb]

in a 13-7 vote, the panel said a large federal FDA
review of data fails to clearly and objectively present the current body of
knowledge on the subject.

In a second vote, also 13-7, the panelists said the report's conclusion that
amalgam fillings are safe is not reasonable, according to the AP.
The announcement came after FDA committee meetings held Wednesday and
Thursday --the first public hearings in more than a decade on the safety of these
fillings.
Several European and other countries, including Canada, Norway, Sweden,
Britain, Germany and Denmark, currently advise dentists against using mercury
fillings in pregnant women.

Half of the panel were dentists and half epidemeologists/scientists , neither group agreed that amalgam was safe.
The testimony of scientists and mercury damaged patients was overwhelming and impressive according to panel experts,
and changed many panelists mind on the subject. Video of the entire proceeding and the panelist statements is
awailable on line.

[philb]

1. Amalgam largest source of mercury exposure in most & causes adverse effect

Dental Amalgam is the largest source of mercury in most people with amalgam fillings
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html

Dental amalgam is the most common cause of many chronic immune and autoimmune and neurological conditions
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/indexa.html

and most who get amalgams replaced and do mercury detox improve significantly
www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/hgremove.html
(documentation on over 60,000 cases of recovery)

[trotsky]

2. Ah, philb. Been a while. Do you have a link to this?

I found this link via Google (http://12.31.13.58/healthnews/healthday/060907HD534807.htm) which has quite a few tidbits that you chose to selectively edit out, like:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel's decision is not a declaration that the widely used fillings are unsafe, the Associated Press reported late Thursday.

Zentz pointed, in particular, to two studies (the Children's Amalgam Trials) published in the April issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Those trials compared the use of amalgam to composite dental fillings in children.

The studies found no differences in IQ, memory, attention, kidney function or other measures between children with amalgam fillings and children with composite fillings.

Oh, and philb - could you please review your credentials for us, so we can establish how seriously to take your personal website that you reference for most everything?

[philb]

6. The only thing I left out was that the case presented was much stronger

than the AP story indicated. People who represent special interest often make silly statements they know aren't true,
and the media usually wants to present views from all sides,
but in this case all of the credible evidence is that amalgam clearly isn't safe.
There is no controversy that I'm aware of regarding that amalgam is the largest source of mercury in most
with amalgam. Millions of tests by medical labs confirm this, and medical studies and Gov't agencies are also
in agreement. The children's amalgam studies are bogus PR affairs, not real research, as was documented at the FDA
conference. As I noted the entire proceeding is available on line by video on a medical association web site (IAOMT)
If you really wish, I can point out the obvious problems with the children's amalgam studies, but those were also dealt with at the FDA conference- and found wanting as the vote shows.

You are wasting yours and others time. The science is overwhelming with thousands of peer-reviewed studies submitted to FDA
lots of scientists presenting studies and clinical experience, lots of people who were harmed by amalgam. But since you never look at the real science, I'll make the case again as I have before:

Millions of tests by medical labs have been done and the evidence is clear that amalgam is the largest source of mercury in most people, and also of the type that causes harm at the lowest levels of exposure:


Doctors Data Lab experience:of mercury levels in those with and without amalgam fillings:

"Evidence for the extent of exposure to mercury from dental amalgams is provided by the fact that fecal mercury levels are highly correlated with the number of amalgams in the mouth. It also clear that fecal mercury levels for people with dental amalgams are remarkably similar from day to day, and approximately ten times higher than in people who do not have mercury amalgams. "

http://www.doctorsdata.com/test_info.asp?id=9


Doctors Data Lab
reference (average) levels for those with and without amalgams
http://www.doctorsdata.com/repository.asp?id=1269


there are other medical labs with similar info

This has all been confirmed by Gov't agencies
WHO & U.S. DOH(ATSDR) & etc. (most modern countires have mostly banned or are phasing out mercury in fillings except those dominated by special interest money)


Credentials don't mean much, as you can buy someone with credentials to support what ever you want.
But I graduated at the top of my high school class and college class, received an award for best applied researcher,
have served on lots of state and federal scientific advisory panels, am an expert witness, listed in Whos Who in America, etc.
have lots of top scientists who would vouch for me, so I know enough to debate with anyone in the areas I do research in.
I know enough to be sure you can't find an expert who can prove me wrong on the things we are discussing. I have years of personal experience with the subject and interactions with scientists and doctors and patients throughout the period.

[trotsky]

9. Credentials mean a lot when you are the one making judgments

on research papers and incomplete findings. And that's exactly what you're doing - reading into results and making conclusions that are not supported by experts.

So I repeat my question: what are your credentials?

Hint: Being listed in Who's Who means absolutely NOTHING. Remember the link I posted last time you tried to impress with that factoid? The guy who completely made up a fictional person, submitted him to Who's Who, and got him listed?

[philb]

7. MELISA Lab experience with autoimmume conditions caused by amalgam

MELISA Lab experience with autoimmume conditions cauased by mercury and recoveries after amalgam replacement:

"MELISA® is a revolutionary medical test which can detect hypersensitivity to metals in dental restorations or bodily implants. MELISA® has allowed thousands of patients worldwide to see whether their chronic fatigue, or other autoimmune conditions, is caused by metal allergy.

MELISA® tests for allergy to metals such as mercury, nickel and titanium, and measures the severity of the reaction. Once it pinpoints the source of the reaction, the patient can avoid exposure or remove the metallic implant. This may involve replacing amalgam fillings with a white ceramic substitute. In many countries, a MELISA® test will release health insurance funds for this operation.

Samples for testing can be sent to specialist laboratories all over the world and the results are returned in a week. In tests, 76% of Chronic Fatigue Patients who tested positive and removed the offending metal reported sustained health improvement.

Mercury is also a common cause of metal allergy and the main exposure comes from amalgam fillings and fish. A recent study showed that 70% of patients with allergy to mercury and autoimmune disease, such as multiple sclerosis, will improve if they remove their amalgam fillings."

The results showed that the in vitro reactivity after the replacement of amalgam decreased significantly to inorganic mercury, silver, organic mercury and lead. Out of 35 patients, 71% showed improvement of health. The remaining patients exhibited either unchanged health or worsening of symptoms. Interestingly enough, their responses to mercury didn't decrease - which suggests that there exists a different source of exposure than amalgam. Patients with multiple sclerosis observed the highest rate of improvement while the lowest rate was noted in patients with eczema.

(all MS patients improved and 90% with Lupus- the ones that didn’t were documented to be due to nickel which wasn’t removed)

www.melisa.org


Documentation on over 60,000 people who have recovered from serious chronic conditions such as MS,Lupus, CFS, FM, RA, AD, etc.
after amalgam replacement, including thousands of cases documented by peer-reviewed medical studies:
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/hgremove.html

You should subscribe to the DAMS International Newsletter. A lot of those who've recovered from such chronic degenerative conditions describe their experience in the DAMS newsletters. www.amalgam.org
I personally have experience with thousands of such over the years, me being one of them.
And note I was formally diagnosed with "mercury poisoning" based on tests by a mainline MD, like most of the others.
And the source was found to be amalgam. I recovered from full disability after amalgam replacement- like thousands of others
that DAMS state coordinators have interacted with and documented. I've provided case histories and test results for hundreds
before in our discussions. But medical labs like doctors data lab and others have such info on their web sites.

[trotsky]

10. Bait and switch technique.

It is known that some people are allergic to mercury. You cannot make judgments on the rest of the population based on the allergic reactions of a few, but that is exactly what you and the "professionals" at MELISA try to do.

I repeat my question: what are YOUR credentials, philb?

[philb]

8. Children's amalgam studies unethical harmful experiment on children

to try to perpetuate a scam and for the benefit of special interest.

It is documented in the medical literature(and these studies) that installation of amalgam
results in high levels of mercury accumulating in the body including brain, heart, liver, kidneys, hormone glands
mouth, oral mucosa, etc. and that common serious harm occurs in many to all of these organs over time.

For a review of the children's amalgam studies by the DAMS Intl Research Director that includes documentation see:

http://www.flcv.com/hgchilds.html

There are similar reviews by University research scientists.

More documentation:
Adverse Health Effects from Accumulation of High Levels of Mercury from Dental Amalgam Fillings in the Gums, Oral Mucosa, and other parts of the body.

Peer-reviewed studies in the medical literature document that:
1. Mercury is one of the most toxic substances in existence and is known to bioaccumulate in the body of people and animals that have chronic exposure.
2. Mercury has a high vapor pressure at room or mouth temperature so that mercury in dental amalgam is continuously vaporized and released into the oral air and saliva and accumulates in the body to high levels.
3. High levels of mercury are released from dental fillings into the teeth, tooth roots, gums, jawbone, oral tissue, and blood vessels by galvanic currents due to dissimilar metals in amalgam and metal crowns.
4. For those with large amalgam fillings or metal crowns over amalgam, mercury and other dental metals accumulate in the gums at the base of the teeth and may be seen in the mirror as dark grey or blue “amalgam tattoos”.
5. Mouth bacteria convert mercury released by amalgam into the highly toxic methyl mercury form.
6. The high levels of mercury that accumulates in the mouth and other parts of the body of those with amalgam fillings commonly cause gum inflammation, metallic taste, tender teeth, mouth sores and pre-cancers, bad breath, bleeding gums, throat irritation, and serious autoimmune conditions such as oral lichen planus, stomatitis, eczema, multiple sclerosis(MS), lupus, thyroiditis,etc.,caused by proliferation of inflammatory cytokines.
7. Due to the high mercury exposure of those with amalgam fillings, high levels of mercury are excreted into sewers by those with amalgam, so that dental amalgam has been found by municipal sewer agencies to be the largest source of high levels of mercury found in sewers and released into water bodies.

Peer-reviewed medical study and medical lab documentation can be found at:
I. http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/olp.html
II. http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html
III. http://www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr2f.html

[trotsky]

11. Bogus charge, philb.

It's not that they took two groups of children, purposely filled half the group with amalgam, and the other half with composite. They went out and found children already who already had the work done.

Honestly, all you can do to "support" your position is personally attack those who disagree with you, completely abuse and misuse statistics, and make sweeping conclusions WHEN YOU PERSONALLY HAVE NO PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS TO DO SO.

The presence of your "advice" in this forum is a health danger.

[philb]

64. You didn't bother to read up on what they did. Your statement

of what they did is incorrect. Read the studies which are readily available on the web
I have a copy.

I provided total documentation that those who had amalgams placed will surely
have high levels of mercury accumulated in their major organs over time, and all
will have adverse effects. That is documented in the medical literature, peer-reviewed studies and clinical data from medical labs that I have supplied here. Anyone can confirm this by looking at the documentation. If anyone disagrees with some of the documentation,
explain why.

I personally think they deserve being prosecuted, as they implanted major amounts of the most toxic substance people commonly come in contact with in children,
and there is no chance that any of the children will not have significant accumulations of mercury, and adverse effects over time.


again: documentation of major exposure
www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr1.html

documentation of harm:
www.home.earthlink.net/~berniew1/damspr22.html
1. Adverse Health Effects from Accumulation of High Levels of Mercury from Dental Amalgam Fillings in the Gums, Oral Mucosa, and other parts of the body. The high levels of mercury that accumulates in the mouth and other parts of the body of those with amalgam fillings commonly cause gum inflammation, metallic taste, tender teeth, mouth sores and pre-cancers, bad breath, bleeding gums, throat irritation, and serious autoimmune conditions such as oral lichen planus, stomatitis, eczema, multiple sclerosis(MS), lupus, thyroiditis, etc., caused by proliferation of inflammatory cytokines.

[DemExpat]

3. My dentist has not used amalgam fillings for about 5 years now.

In 2 weeks I am having 3 of the old ones removed and replaced by composit and one inlay.

I also made a point with my children to not have amalgam fillings in their teeth - luckily (and good brushing) for them they have had almost no cavities in their 20 odd years.


DemEx

[DemExpat]

4. Recent article

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/September/06/local/stories/09local.htm

and link to article citied in OP.
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2006/09/07/mercury-fillings.html

DemEx

[Ayesha]

5. They need to ban this shit

My partner has a mouth full of mercury fillings and has fibromyalgia/CFS plus autoimmune-type problems that don't fit neatly into any specific diagnosis. My guess is that mercury fillings don't affect people with healthy immune systems, because they have a better ability to purge the toxins. However, if a person becomes immune-suppressed for some reason, the mercury could then build up and start poisoning them. This could also explain why some people with lots of fillings become ill and others don't, and why the data is so variable.

I don't see why they don't just ban these fillings, especially when safer and cosmetically superior materials exist. It's ridiculous to gamble with people's health like this, for no good reason. They also need to set up a fund to help low-income people with mercury fillings who are ill have them replaced. But even with that, the time and hassle involved makes such a prospect daunting for a person with chronic fatigue, pain, etc.

[Orrex]

12. You're proposing a ban based on minimal, if any, solid evidence

Your friend has amalgam fillings and your partner has fibromyalgia; therefore you conclude that your partner's fibromyalgia is caused by those amalgam fillings. That's the classic fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I'm sorry to hear of your partner's ailments; as you note, they don't fit neatly into any specific diagnosis, but therefore it would be irresponsible to conclude that they are caused by any one factor, especially when that supposed factor has not, in itself, been solidly demonstrated to cause any of the maladies widely attributed to it.

[trotsky]

13. The ADA says:

http://www.ada.org/public/media/releases/0609_release01.asp

The American Dental Association (ADA) welcomes the call by a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel for additional review of scientific studies on the safety of dental amalgam fillings.

“The more well-designed studies that are considered, the better the pool of evidence for making treatment recommendations to patients,” states American Dental Association Executive Director, James B. Bramson, D.D.S. “First and foremost, we want scientific evidence to lead the way when it comes to health care treatment.”

While other dental filling materials are also available, dental amalgam remains a valued option due to its strength, durability, affordability and the fact that it can be used below the gum line, which is difficult to keep dry. Dental amalgam can be placed in a wet environment and hardens quickly, which can be critical when working with patients such as children or people with disabilities, who might have difficulty sitting still during treatment.

The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence supports the safety and efficacy of dental amalgam, and it should continue to be made available to dentists and their patients, the ADA states.

...

According to the testimony, the ADA does not advocate for the use of one dental material over another, however it champions the principle that patients and their dentists should have access to the full range of safe and effective options for treating dental decay.

Yeah, sounds like a corrupt organization looking to hide the "truth" from us. :eyes:

philb, you always claim there is no expert who can prove you wrong. I claim there are hundreds of them in the ADA.

[Celebration]

14. slightly amused by all this

When the ADA says they "welcome the call" this is in fact after the call is made and it is a done deal. If they "welcomed" the call then surely they must have proactively *called* for more studies prior to the decision, right? In other words, I am sure the ADA in July and August of this year, and all of 2006 and before that, were advocating more scientific research in the area of amalgam safety. Is that correct? If not, I call bs on this self serving statement.

Again, I don't even *know* if the ADA called for more studies or not. I just suspect that this "welcome" may not be sincere. Can anyone find a statement from them proactively advocating additional studies on amalgam safety before this review?

If not, then why not be honest and say they didn't think more studies were needed and these people were wrong and that all the evidence to date says they are safe? As far as I can tell, all they have said in this area is that no studies have shown amalgam to be unsafe, and stop right there. They call for research into other dental materials, but I see no statement that says that they would welcome more studies on amalgam safety.

I could be wrong, but I have not seen such a statement.

[trotsky]

15. You don't know, but that sure doesn't stop you from speculating, does it?

Nope, assign just the nastiest and most evil of motives to those organizations who are most knowledgable in an area - so you can find a reason (that you created) not to trust them. Such a typical pattern.

The overwhelming evidence to date DOES say they're safe. But they welcome more studies if it means it will help silence the baseless fear-mongering that's going on.

[Celebration]

16. ahem

I looked at their old statements on their websites and found NOTHING where they called for more studies on the safety of amalgams. Can you find any such statement? It is possible, I suppose, BUT VERY HIGHLY UNLIKELY that they called for such studies. I was giving them the benefit of the tiny possibility that I missed something.

Again, I call COMPLETE BS for their "welcome" and I challenge anyone to find a statement calling for more amalgam studies by the ADA. They are just like all our bs corporate and government spin masters--it is "oh shit this is crap how can I spin this in the best light". Thus they put out the WELCOME. I don't know how additional studies on amalgams will come out. I don't even know if they are unsafe for most people. What I do know is that their statement is complete BS unless someone finds me a statement where they called for additional studies prior to this.

And, do YOU welcome more studies? Now? Prior to this?

BTW nobody is going to trust studies designed by the ADA. They should be designed by the critics of amalgams and carried out by neutral parties. That is the only thing that will "satisfy" the amalgam critics.

[trotsky]

17. Your standards for others are duly noted.

I don't see many calls by you for more studies on things you already think work.

Truthfully, when it comes to amalgam, it would be like calling for more studies on whether seatbelts save lives, or whether meth is a dangerous drug. That the ADA has not been screaming from the rooftops for more studies to verify its safety should HARDLY been seen as some sort of indictment against it - but that won't stop people like yourself from looking for reasons to bash organizations of professionals who DO care about their patients and want the best for them.

I personally welcome studies if it will stuff a sock in the fearmongers who continue to peddle their lies (oh, and shockingly, TREATMENTS $$$) and misinformation.

BTW nobody is going to trust studies designed by the ADA. They should be designed by the critics of amalgams and carried out by neutral parties. That is the only thing that will "satisfy" the amalgam critics.

So, where are the critics' suggestions for studies?

[Celebration]

20. Studies

Just wondering why you think this group is calling for more studies since you think the matter is so settled? Is it to placate critics only? Or do you think they would feel better having more scientific data available?

[trotsky]

22. I'm pretty sure it's a combination of answering the fearmongers...

but having limited resources to do so. Now you're trying to project motives on them again ("do you think they would feel better") when I think it's mainly a question of ADA experts acknowledging that more and more fearmongers are out there, making headway in some areas, and knowing the ADA position is strong enough that it can survive more scrutiny, so that hopefully fewer people will be scared away from a safe and effective dental treatment.

Again, I repeat my question, where are the study proposals by amalgam's critics?

[Celebration]

24. I don't know

Somebody should ask them, for sure.

[trotsky]

26. Somebody should ask whom?

The discredited Hal Huggins, who fathered the modern anti-amalgam movement so he could make lots of money "diagnosing" people and removing their fillings?

Failing that, which Internet site of self-proclaimed "experts" like philb should the ADA consult?

[Celebration]

30. suggestions

How about this group?

http://www.iaomt.org/

And here is someone on the panel that wants more studies--

"I have concerns not about what we know, but more about what we lack in knowledge," says panel consultant Michael Aschner, professor of pediatrics and pharmacology and a mercury expert at Vanderbilt University medical school in Nashville, Tenn."

He may have some suggestions on how to fill in the holes in knowledge.

[trotsky]

31. So you don't know if they have suggested studies, do you?

You just hunted for an anti-amalgam group that looked official, and pointed to them. Right?

All I can see from that link is that they want more studies, but no details on the studies they want. Same old same old from the anti-science gang.

[Celebration]

33. why would that be on a website?

Why would proposals for studies be on a website? The Vanderbilt person or others that voted against the FDA are probably quite familiar with where the research falls short, and over a series of weeks, and consultation come up with proposals for some studies. They would probably welcome the opportunity to have all their questions answered.

[trotsky]

35. Again, you make up things to support your chosen stance,

and refuse to even consider documented evidence from the other side.

Why would proposals for studies be on a website?

Read upthread on the demands you put on the ADA for how you wanted them to merely phrase something on THEIR website. But when the tables are turned, you get quite defensive about substantive material lacking on the websites you like.

When you can resolve this glaring double standard, perhaps we can get somewhere.

[Celebration]

37. there is a difference

The ADA was not in favor of the decision that came down from the committee, yet they chose to say that the welcomed more studies. It just simply isn't the truth. If they had said NOTHING about it, fine. But they chose to lie.

[trotsky]

41. Hilarious.

You think, from your chair in front of the computer, that you can tell the professionals at the ADA are lying.

I can't argue with your bias, I'm afraid. I'm guessing there is nothing the ADA could have said or not said that would have pleased you.

[Celebration]

43. mostly just thought

th "spin" was amusing. Typical. And this could be spun in such a way that the "lie" part does not technically fit. So I probably overstated it.

The main point though is that there was no such self serving spin with regard to studies in the other website (since nothing was said at all about them).

So, yes, your attempt at forced analogy doesn't fit.

[trotsky]

44. LOL

I do think you're trying to perfect the craft of turning a sow's ear into a silk purse. When YOUR preferred website lacks details or is silent on important matters, why, that's a GOOD thing, there's no "self-serving spin"! But heaven forbid the ADA doesn't word things exactly the way YOU think they should be worded, because if not, they're either covering something up or just outright lying.

Right?

[Celebration]

46. websites are websites

People put on them what they want. I think it is LOL that people can put out their favorite *spin* on things and people fall for it.

Really, really ridiculous think that design proposals for further research on dental amalgams should necessarily be on a website. It makes sense that pr type things are on websites. I am pointing out the spin in the pr of the ADA statement. Do you disagree? Do you think they welcome more research into amalgam safety? I think, had the committee agreed with the FDA, they would have actually welcomed that decision a lot more, don't you?

[trotsky]

47. Why not?

You have extremely high expectations for the websites you don't like, but appallingly low standards for the ones you do.

This isn't about websites anymore, if you hadn't already figured that one out. No, I don't agree with YOUR spin nor do I appreciate YOUR double standards.

[Celebration]

49. it's the SPIN

Do you or do you not feel that the ADA wanted the committee to decide the way they did?

I say they didn't. Their statement implied that they wanted it to turn out that way. It is SPIN.

I just LOL at that. It's like someone with a degree in Communications looked up words in a Thesaurus. Sign of the times is all. No double standard. No spin on the other website.

[trotsky]

55. I have no idea what the ADA "wanted."

And neither do you.

I'm tired of YOUR spin and YOUR double standards.

[Orrex]

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?

[Celebration]

19. studies on reiki and acupuncture

Let me understand this-- you want studies on the safety of reiki and the safety of acupuncture? Have there been questions about their being harmful?

Keep remembering "First Do No Harm."

Studies on safety are a lot more important that studies on efficacy, whether drugs, a material, an herb, a treatment. Obviously there are *not* enough studies on the safety of mercury. Otherwise why would the committee have voted to call for more studies? Surely not to smooth the feathers of the critics.

And NO it is not my contention that the ADA should advocate research to placate the critics. It was trotsky that brought that up. I just said if that was the goal then the critics better design them.

And if the ADA didn't think additional research into the safety of amalgams was needed, then why would they "welcome" additional research now? Why not a more truthful "well this isn't really necessary, but I guess we will have to go along with it"?

[Orrex]

21. What answer would satisfy you?

If the ADA doesn't call for further research, it's because they're covering up the obvious dangers of amalgam.

If the ADA does call for further research, then they're tacitly admitting that amalgam is dangerous.

And if the ADA didn't think additional research into the safety of amalgams was needed, then why would they "welcome" additional research now? Why not a more truthful "well this isn't really necessary, but I guess we will have to go along with it"?

Surely you recognize that such a statement would be taken as an explicit cover-up, don't you? When even the most clear and objective conclusion is articulated (e.g., that amalgam poses no demonstrable risk), anti-amalgamists cry conspiracy and demand an investigation. If the ADA issued a statement that actually sounded like it was discouraging further research, how do you think the conspiracists would respond?

[Celebration]

23. I just don't like spin

Why not just tell truthfully how they feel about the issue? Is that so hard?

How about this? "The overwhelming evidence to date is that amalgams are safe, and we have not called for additional studies on safety because we have not deemed them necessary. Now that this decision has come down, let us join together and finally address this issue in such a way that it will satisfy everyone." Something like that would be a lot more honest than the "welcome."

[Orrex]

27. A worthy suggestion, but...

"The overwhelming evidence to date is that amalgams are safe, and we have not called for additional studies on safety because we have not deemed them necessary. Now that this decision has come down, let us join together and finally address this issue in such a way that it will satisfy everyone."

The phrase "we have not deemed them necessary" would invariably be taken as a cover-up. And it's impossible to satisfy everyone, because the anti-amalgam crowd has Certainty on its side and is therefore immune to evidence. Even you, a reasonably rational person, are unable to separate the existing research from your perceptions of the underlying politics. How, then, could a full-blown conspiracist be convinced that amalgam is not a danger?

Something like that would be a lot more honest than the "welcome."

If we're just quibbling about the choice of a single word, we're not going to get anywhere.

[trotsky]

25. As a side note, there are indeed questions about those being harmful.

Acupuncture (http://www.thehealthpages.com/articles/ar-acupn.html):

As with any medical procedure, acupuncture is not risk-free, but problems are pretty uncommon. The biggest concern is infection. According to one study, improperly sterilized needles are used by about 35 percent of practitioners. To minimize your risk, insist on disposable surgical steel needles. Other potential problems include pain, drowsiness and a worsening of the disorder from incorrect diagnosis.

In addition, some isolated lung and bladder punctures, broken needles, and allergic reactions to needles made of materials other than surgical steel have been reported. Acupuncture may also stimulate production of hormones in pregnant women that help initiate labor and can be harmful to the fetus in early pregnancy. However, in the hands of a good acupuncturist, the risk of such complications is extremely low.

Sounds like a pretty low risk, but the risk is there for some serious problems. Certainly not any better than the low risk of most science-based treatments that are regularly bashed in this forum.

As far as reiki goes, well technically when practiced "correctly" there is no way a practitioner could directly cause harm. But the risk of indirect harm is significant, stemming primarily from the discontinuance of science-based treatment in favor of reiki. But reiki practitioners acknowledge concerns, too (http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/8513/34968/360056.html?d=dmtContent):

Some Reiki practitioners believe that Reiki should be used cautiously in individuals with psychiatric illnesses.

[Celebration]

28. threads and topics

I agree that acupuncture needles should be disposable. Any pain or drowsiness is transient--no threat. Sure strengthening the liver meridian when it needs weakening, for example, could be harmful. However, acupuncturists just do not misdiagnose stuff like that. They use diagnosis techniques such as the pulse, the color and texture of the tongue, etc., and the criteria are very clear.

Sure there are certain acupuncture points that should not be used on pregnant women. Is that a reason to outlaw it? Pregnant women aren't supposed to eat tuna either, or soak in hot tubs.

Not sure why you guys bring this stuff up under the wrong topic. In any case I actually agree that reiki could be harmful practiced the wrong way!! How about that for an admission. I haven't tried it, and I won't, but I even have a good idea how I could cause harm to someone using reiki, even from a distance. Quite an admission on my part. Do I think that this is being done? You betcha, but hopefully not a lot. And I cannot prove it. But I would think that studies into the possible harm of reiki would use practitioners that know how to do it correctly and whose intentions are for healing. In these cases it is never harmful.

The "indirect harm" thing just doesn't make sense to me. People aren't going to go to reiki practitioners instead of a doctor. They do totally different things. It would be like saying that dentists are harmful because people may not see a doctor--or podiatrists, or massage therapists, or whomever.

But thank you for the website, where I found out--

Scientists have studied Reiki for the following health problem:

Autonomic nervous system function
One randomized trial suggests Reiki may have an effect on autonomic nervous system functions, such as heart rate, blood pressure, or breathing activity. Large, well-designed studies are needed before conclusions can be drawn.
Depression and stress
There is evidence that Reiki can reduce symptoms of distress when compared with placebo. More information is needed before a conclusion can be drawn.
Pain
Patients in a preliminary ("phase II") trial of Reiki in combination with standard pain medications (with opioids) were reported to experience improved pain control. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.
Stroke recovery
In a randomized controlled trial, Reiki did not have any clinically useful effect on stroke recovery in patients receiving appropriate rehabilitation therapy. Selective positive effects on mood and energy were noted.

[trotsky]

29. This post made me cringe.

However, acupuncturists just do not misdiagnose stuff like that.

So acupuncturists, unlike every other human being on the planet, don't make mistakes? How do you expect to be taken seriously with such blanket, all-or-none statements?

They use diagnosis techniques such as the pulse, the color and texture of the tongue, etc., and the criteria are very clear.

Pulse can vary in an individual from one minute to the next. Color and texture of the tongue are inherently subjective measurements, dependent on the perception of the person doing the examination. These are supposed to be good examples of how acupuncture is never wrong? :rofl:

Sure there are certain acupuncture points that should not be used on pregnant women. Is that a reason to outlaw it?

Ah, one of your favorite tools - the red herring. No one said anything about outlawing acupuncture - why did you feel the need to mention that? It's just being pointed out to you that there are indeed risks, even with YOUR preferred procedures. The risks are certainly no less than most science-based procedures, but you raise alarm with science and never seem to question the "alternative" ones. I'm glad you acknowledge that everything has risks - the next step will be learning how to weigh risks vs. benefits.

Not sure why you guys bring this stuff up under the wrong topic.

Because we're taking examples that YOU believe in, and putting them to the same standards and tests that you are holding science-based medicine to. Putting the shoe on the other foot, and boy does it make you say some interesting things.

People aren't going to go to reiki practitioners instead of a doctor.

Complete and utter bunk. Of course they are. You are in no way able to make such a blanket statement. There are thousands of cases of individuals who went the "alternative" route first, with no attempt to contact a science-based provider, who suffered harm or death when they could have had their condition.

The danger comes in this "what's the harm?" thinking that you are promoting. Sure, it might not harm, and maybe Person A has a condition which gets better on its own, but because they had reiki, they make a logical fallacy and assume it helped them. They recommend it on a website to a friend, Person B, who has the same symptoms they did. Problem is, the condition isn't going to go away on its own with Person B. They go get reiki, the condition worsens, and maybe it's too late for science-based medicine to help them. Are you going to say that that kind of thing has NEVER happened? Please do, because I can begin throwing innumerable real-world cases to prove you wrong.

But I'm glad you enjoyed reading the conclusions that there is not enough evidence to suggest that reiki actually works in the way it is purported to.

[Celebration]

32. Where is the evidence

That people get reiki to the exclusion of going to doctors? I think that is an absurd assumption. It is true that someone going to a reiki practitioner may not go to the doctor, but they are independent decisions, not either/or. Let's see--will I go to the reiki practitioner or the doctor? People just don't think like that. Now sometimes people may go to a reiki practitioner over a psychologist. That is possible. It is really for deep relaxation and balancing. Sure that may help someone medically, but that is pretty much a no brainer--obviously deep relaxation can be of medical benefit. If people want and need to go to the doctor, they do. If they don't they don't.

Some may get reiki first, and then go to a doctor. Some may go to a doctor first and then get reiki. Some may do one or the other. Some people make correct decisions, and some incorrect. They are independent decisions. But the same could be said for massage therapy, for beginning a diet, for beginning an exercise program, etc. Beginning an exercise program with an athletic trainer when one has a certain medical condition could be harmful. That doesn't make exercise harmful and athletic trainers dangerous.

The criteria for acupuncture diagnoses are very clear. Sure they can make a mistake in how to treat someone, and it may not work, but making a "mistake" that would imbalance someone in the wrong direction would be virtually impossible for a trained acupuncturist (one that has passed the national boards). I suppose someone could be zoned out on crack or something and be that bad at it. Again, it would not be rare for a mistake to be made which would cause it to be ineffective. I will grant you that. But to injure someone? No, I don't buy it. And, in any case, given a crackhead acupuncturist, it would be easily reversible, unlike something like taking out the wrong kidney.

The pulse used isn't how fast it is, but qualities between the beats that do not change minute to minute. I am not trained to do this and cannot give you any more details.

[trotsky]

34. I think that's a very naïve way of looking at things.

You think it's absurd that someone might forego science-based treatment in favor of something unproven, like reiki?

I'm sorry but I think we're living on two different planets at this point. There are thousands of articles and papers detailing this very problem - choosing unproven, non-scientific therapies as opposed to science-based medicine. Here's just one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2103876&dopt=Abstract

Of course all I have to do to prove you wrong is provide just one case, so there you go.

And, in any case, given a crackhead acupuncturist, it would be easily reversible, unlike something like taking out the wrong kidney.

Except in the case of infection, or liver/organ damage, or a pregnant woman induced into labor, etc., etc., etc. You're still not getting it. People CAN die or have serious injury as a result of acupuncture, and it CAN happen to a non-crackhead practitioner making a mistake. Why do you get to make up things to minimize the risks of the treatments you like, but imagine the worst in treatments you DON'T like? And then expect to be taken seriously?

The pulse used isn't how fast it is, but qualities between the beats that do not change minute to minute. I am not trained to do this and cannot give you any more details.

Are you saying that acupuncture training can turn a human being into a perfectly-functioning EKG machine? That's amazing! And complete bunkum. Of course you can't give me any more details, because you're making this up.

[Celebration]

36. A Swedish "health" resort??

That is the evidence???

Can you give me a SINGLE case of someone with a serious injury as a result of acupuncture using disposable needles?

Of course reading between the pulses isn't an EKG machine. It has to do with diagnosing meridian imbalances.

http://www.yinyanghouse.com/chinesetheory/theory-pulse.html

Why does my acupuncturist check my pulse?

Pulse diagnosis is one of the more important diagnostic tools used in Chinese and Japanese acupuncture and herbal medicine. While tongue diagnosis provides valuable clinical information, the pulse can be used to gain a deep understanding of the patient on many levels. "Mastering" pulse diagnosis is difficult without the guidance of a skilled teacher. However, even at basic levels, the pulse provides the practitioner with immediate and specific information that can help clarify contradictory diagnostic information and symptomology.

Common Pulse Locations and Related Meridians

Left Wrist Right Wrist
Cun (inch) - 1st position HT / SI LU / LI
Guan (barr) - 2nd position LV / GB SP / ST
Chi (foot) - 3rd position KD / UB PC / TH

Once I got pulse diagnosis from the acupuncturist and he tried, but could not, hide his dismay. He regained his composure and went ahead with the treatment. However, from all indications this did not reverse the pulse diagnosis. By noon that day I was feeling pretty bad. I came down with a terrible case of the flu. It must have thrown the pulse diagnosis way, way off.

Getting a diagnosis from an acupuncturist that is 180 degrees different than what is needed is virtually impossible. It would be like going to a doctor with a broken toe and coming out with a diagnosis of tonsillitis.

[trotsky]

40. No, the paper was about health professionals who were surveyed.

In that one particular incident, 6 people who went to a "health" resort (i.e., "alternative" care facility) instead of a hospital for science-based care, died.

Your entire arguments seem to rest on mischaracterization, wild accusations, and red herrings.

By the way, your blurb on pulse checking doesn't explain anything. Without an objective way to determine whatever it is they're looking for in the pulse, people WILL make mistakes, and injury could happen.

By noon that day I was feeling pretty bad. I came down with a terrible case of the flu. It must have thrown the pulse diagnosis way, way off.

Why couldn't he tell you had the flu from your pulse "diagnosis"? Flu is apparently something that acupuncture is useless to treat - what other diseases or conditions are immune from acupuncture?

Getting a diagnosis from an acupuncturist that is 180 degrees different than what is needed is virtually impossible.

But it can happen. That's the point, and I'm glad you're on the verge of getting it.

[Ayesha]

38. I know of one person

who goes to support groups where I work, and her situation is really sad. She was diagnosed with breast cancer, early stage, at the age of 31. Somehow she was convinced that because she is young, she could fight it off without standard treatments, so she used only alternative medicine. I am not sure what exactly she did, but what she didn't do was surgery or chemo. She is now 32 and her cancer is advanced. She is doing chemo now, but she may well pay with her life because she didn't effectively treat the cancer early.

I am not against alternative medicine, but there is a time and place. It can be a great adjunct to traditional treatments, it can help address side effects, stress, pain, etc. And if standard medicine has no help to offer, it's sure worth a try. But I wouldn't gamble my life on it if there was a treatment available with statistics backing its effectiveness. Taking a safe, but only possibly effective herb for a minor headache is completely different from foregoing chemotherapy because you hope some random substance will cure you with no side effects.

[DemExpat]

39. I agree here...

I have used alternative medicine to my great benefit for health conditions which regular medicine had nothing more to offer after years of treatments.
But when I was diagnosed with the beginning stages of cervical cancer at age 31, I did some quick research on it but did not hesitate one day to decide to have surgery - and this surgery was extremely effective.

Very sad story of this young woman.


DemEx

[Celebration]

42. I agree

Early stage breast cancer should be treated medically. She made an incorrect decision not to go to a doctor. Surgery, in particular, should be done, and all the tests done on the tumor to see how agressive it is, and make further decisions from there. I can't imagine leaving a tumor in my body when it can easily be taken out.

However, when someone makes an incorrect decision not to go to an MD, I don't think that whatever modality that they use should be "blamed."

For instance, if she decided to use herbs, and did not decide to go to the doctor, is it the fault of the herbal treatments?

If she decided to use acupuncture, and did not decide to go to the doctor, is it the fault of acupuncture treatments?

If she decided to use reiki treatments, and did not decide to go to the doctor, is it the fault of reiki?

If she decided to pray at her church, and did not decide to go to the doctor, is it the fault of religion?

If she decided to go to a massage therapist, and did not decide to go to the doctor, is it the fault of massage?

If she decided to stay home and not leave her house, and did not decide to go to the doctor, is it a housing problem?

I am certain that people make incorrect decisions all the time about all this, and it is unfortunate. I just don't think particular modalilties are to "blame."

[trotsky]

45. What SHOULD be blamed

is the insistence of many people (who are invariably IN the "alternative" care system) that the entire science-based medical system is corrupt, wants to poison you, will kill you, yada yada yada. I don't think it should be surprising at all to find that the incessant bashing of health professionals by "alternative" sites results in people avoiding science-based care - and dying because of it.

[Celebration]

48. Doesn't fly

I have yet to find an acupuncture site or reiki site or massage site that says that people should forego going to doctors. Maybe there is one but I challenge you to find one.

People do find fault with the FDA and its close relationship with pharmaceutical companies, for instance. I happen to think it is an area of great concern. How does that translate into telling people not to go to doctors?

Your logic is analagous to the right wingers invoking "Why do you hate America?" when we find fault with the war in Iraq.

[Orrex]

50. Red herring

I have yet to find an acupuncture site or reiki site or massage site that says that people should forego going to doctors. Maybe there is one but I challenge you to find one.

I don't believe that anyone is claiming that Reiki or massage practitioners advise people not to go to doctors. For such practitioners to do so would be tantamount to offering medical advice and would likely subject them to penalties for, in essence, practicing medicine without a license.

Instead, the assertion is that proponents of Reiki et al frequently claim that "conventional" (i.e., actual) medicine can't treat this or that aspect of "the whole human being," or the like. Very often alternative practioners assert that conventional medicine "treats the disease" but doesn't "heal the person" or that "big pharma is more interested in profiting off of an illness than in curing it," or that "profit-hungry corporations and the AMA are suppressing the truth about traditional medicine." These are inflammatory accusations intended to undermine the real value of proven, empirical medicine, while puffing up a wide spectrum of ultimately worthless quack-treatments. For every alternative remedy that actually works, there are a brazillion that provide no benefit except to the parasite who profits from their sale.

And before we digress into a discussion of the First Amendment, of course people have the right to express their dislike of conventional medicine. But let's not pretend that, in making these claims, they bear no responsibility for steering people away from proven treatments in favor of unproven, feel-good snakeoil.

[Celebration]

51. I haven't gotten that......

I actually love many alternative modalities, and I do find suspect behaviour from pharmaceutical companies. I would also generally rather go to acupuncturists than doctors for minor symptoms of various types. But never ever have I taken from this mindset that cancer should not be surgically removed from the body. Depending on the circumstances, I might or might not opt for chemotherapy. I would not unquestioningly take the advice of medical doctors on all issues, because that has caused a lot of problems for my family in the past. *Some* of the claims by *some* alternative medicine promoters are probably over strident. But what else is new? We get overly strident people promoting all sorts of things. Everyone should know this.

I feel the main problem is gullible people. I have learned to stop swallowing ANYTHING hook line and sinker. Best to just follow the hook, nibble at the bait, make sure it is a real fish, bite only to the extent that you can shake off the hook later if need be.

None of that makes reiki, acupuncture, herbal treatments, etc. responsible for some who are overly influenced by a few very strident people. All these modalities are valuable in their own right. Most practitioners are responsible, and do not voice opinions on things they know nothing about--chemotherapy, etc. And actually, most people turn to such things AFTER regular medical treatments fail. That is what happened in my family. It was after I found them so effective that my mindset began to change. I feel pretty sure I am not going to get cancer anytime soon, but if I do, I promise that if possible I will have it surgically removed.

[Orrex]

52. Really?

Every time a proponent of "alternative" "medicine" tries to sell his product/service on the basis that it "balances chi" or "detoxifies the body" or "treats the whole person," he is implicitly asserting that conventional medicine doesn't pass muster in these regards. In effect, he's claiming that Alternative Remedy X is superior to conventional medicine, even if he doesn't come out and say "quit going to your doctor."

Kevin Trudeau and Hulda Clark are two of the leading offenders, hawking their products while claiming that "big medicine" doesn't want you to know about them. Even the vaunted Andrew Weil, in selling his alternative mindset, is working on the basis conventional medicine has failed in some nebulous capacity, so people should buy into whatever snakeoil he happens to be peddling at the time.

I have personally known three chiropractors in my life, all of whom spoke disparagingly (and in their professional capacity) about the evil AMA and its efforts to suppress the truth about subluxations and the value of chiropractic.

Even the whole idea that "at least Alternative Remedy X won't do any harm" is based on the assumption that conventional medicine will do harm, or at least that its effect will be unpleasant.

If you truly haven't encountered any alternative practitioners who disparage conventional medicine, then you should count yourself among the very few lucky ones.

[Celebration]

53. well

"Every time a proponent of "alternative" "medicine" tries to sell his product/service on the basis that it "balances chi" or "detoxifies the body" or "treats the whole person," he is implicitly asserting that conventional medicine doesn't pass muster in these regards."

Well, it doesn't. Most conventional doctors don't claim to do those things, so I don't see the problem with that. Just goes to show that they are different.

Chiropractors are a little defensive, probably because of their past treatment by the AMA. Things are changing, as a lot of medical schools have their students actually go on rounds with chiropractors, just so they become familiar with their approach.

[DemExpat]

54. The most disparaging remarks about other medical doctors

human or vet - and their conventional medicine treatments - have been from other medical doctors! I find this funny and ironic in relation to your accusation towards CAM therapies.:D

It is not incidental in my experience that when a procedure or treatment would not work well (or worse) and I would consult another doctor or vet, they would speak very negatively of the other doctor's diagnosis or choice of treatment.
I always thought to myself.....:wtf:

Never have my Homeopath, Acupuncturist or Chiropractor belittled medical doctors, and have always asked that I get a medical diagnosis first before alternative treatment.

I have personally known three chiropractors in my life, all of whom spoke disparagingly (and in their professional capacity) about the evil AMA and its efforts to suppress the truth about subluxations and the value of chiropractic.
If you look at history I am sure that you will see that as a professional body protecting its interests, the AMA and its forerunner have always marginalized and demonized CAM therapies. Its only been in the last decades since the 60s where "the people" - consumers - have learned to question often self-proclaimed "authority" (in many areas) that the more folk type medicine and treatments, and many others, have been able to make a grand come-back.

I feel very fortunate to have access to this diversity.

And finally, the Holistic, treat the whole person approach is not always - but often - seen in many CAM therapies, whereas often - not always - the medical approach is very mechanistic and reductionist. Especially in dealing with chronic problems that medical science has no answers for for some people, CAM are IMO superior, and have a right to express that distinction. The Medical world is superior in many other areas - like surgeries and lifesaving techniques, etc., and have a rightful claim to that as well. They are so different, they both have a right to their distinctions!

And once again, people's choices and opinions are verified by personal experiences. If long term medical treatment for certain conditions provided me and others in my family with little or no relief, or even worse side effects, while Homeopathy, for example, helped without any side effects, then that claim of CAM being less invasive and without harmful side effects is bonafide to us as well.

DemEx

[Orrex]

56. You're a bit off the mark, there

It is not incidental in my experience that when a procedure or treatment would not work well (or worse) and I would consult another doctor or vet, they would speak very negatively of the other doctor's diagnosis or choice of treatment.

But did those ill-speaking doctors criticize their fellow MD's because of questions about their diagnostic conclusions, or did they claim that a vast conspiracy of doctors was running round issuing false diagnoses in the hope of suppressing true diagnoses?

I suspect that it is the former, which is very different from what "alternative" "medicine" has to say about actual medicine. And, for the record, "complementary" "medicine" is "alternative" "medicine" with a more focus-group-friendly nametag. The only difference is how each is sold.

If you look at history I am sure that you will see that as a professional body protecting its interests, the AMA and its forerunner have always marginalized and demonized CAM therapies. Its only been in the last decades since the 60s where "the people" - consumers - have learned to question often self-proclaimed "authority" (in many areas) that the more folk type medicine and treatments, and many others, have been able to make a grand come-back.

The AMA as a whole doesn't marginalize chiropractors for political reasons; insofar as chiropractic is marginalized, it's because it's founded on the absurd philosophy of "subluxations" rather than upon empirically verifiable science. Those elements of chiropractic that have been proven to be beneficial are accepted by modern medicine. That's how it goes in science; if your claims (subluxations) can't be independently verified, then they can't be accepted. Politics and "consumer choice" don't enter into it, nor should they.

And finally, the Holistic, treat the whole person approach is not always - but often - seen in many CAM therapies, whereas often - not always - the medical approach is very mechanistic and reductionist.

That's the signature slogan of the whole "alternative" "medicine" industry, and it's generally nonsense. I grant that a highly specialized neuro-oncologist might not take the time to explain how a fiber-rich diet can improve colon health, but western medicine as a whole can hardly be said to ignore the body as a unit. Every GP I've consulted in my adult life has taken the time to discuss the importance of balanced diet, reduced stress, moderate exercise, and a healthy lifestyle. How is this mechanistic or reductionist?

If long term medical treatment for certain conditions provided me and others in my family with little or no relief, or even worse side effects, while Homeopathy, for example, helped without any side effects, then that claim of CAM being less invasive and without harmful side effects is bonafide to us as well.

What you're doing, of course, is placing the burden of poorly-informed choice upon the people least equipped to make that choice. A person in pain and suffering from a potential fatal ailment can hardly be expected to weigh the entire medical canon as evidence; at some point you have to trust the person who specializes in the field. Homeopathy (a philosophy whose most basic tenets are absurd, by the way) does not help in any verifable way (other than maybe "making the person feel a little bit better" which, while of some value, is not the be-all and end-all that homeopaths like to pretend), and it certainly does hurt when its subject chooses to forgo actual medicine in favor of homeopathic hocus pocus.

[DemExpat]

62. From my perspective not off the mark at all here.

which is very different from what "alternative" "medicine" has to say about actual medicine.

As I already stated, all CAM therapies and therapists which I use do NOT disparage the whole of modern medicine - guess that is what you are focussed on, and is IMO off the mark.


The term complementary suggests using alongside modern medicine, not as an alternative to, and is the manner in which I use it.


The AMA as a whole doesn't marginalize chiropractors for political reasons; insofar as chiropractic is marginalized, it's because it's founded on the absurd philosophy of "subluxations" rather than upon empirically verifiable science. Those elements of chiropractic that have been proven to be beneficial are accepted by modern medicine. That's how it goes in science; if your claims (subluxations) can't be independently verified, then they can't be accepted. Politics and "consumer choice" don't enter into it, nor should they.

Politics and consumer choice have much to say in health care provision and access, witness the far greater provision and integration of CAM into health care policies here in Europe. CAMs were politically marginalised in the West in the past when the powerful medical associations were setting up shop....fascinating reading IMO.



That's the signature slogan of the whole "alternative" "medicine" industry, and it's generally nonsense. I grant that a highly specialized neuro-oncologist might not take the time to explain how a fiber-rich diet can improve colon health, but western medicine as a whole can hardly be said to ignore the body as a unit. Every GP I've consulted in my adult life has taken the time to discuss the importance of balanced diet, reduced stress, moderate exercise, and a healthy lifestyle. How is this mechanistic or reductionist?

Experience from consulting various specialists for more serious health problems (not a GP) is that they are totally focussed on their specialism only - with total disregard to other possible and probable factors causing the illness/discomfort, as well as for side-effects. BTW - this is a pervasive complaint from people who do not ever use CAM therapies!


at some point you have to trust the person who specializes in the field.
I spent years doing this in the medical world. Now I am open to more approaches and discerning/judging of them all based on my experiences and learnings.
I believe that most people who turn to CAM for some conditions do so after finding little/no relief for an ill in the medical world.



Homeopathy (a philosophy whose most basic tenets are absurd, by the way) does not help in any verifable way (other than maybe "making the person feel a little bit better" which, while of some value, is not the be-all and end-all that homeopaths like to pretend),

We here in my family and circle of friends have been living for decades in a false state of well-being since discovering Homeopathy! Because some people say it is absurd and impossible!:D

and it certainly does hurt when its subject chooses to forgo actual medicine in favor of homeopathic hocus pocus.
Yes, I agree, in some cases it can be very dangerous to treat, for example, cervical cancer, which I had, with Homeopathy instead of surgery, which I chose.
But I also feel that I would not be here if I had not been open to Homeopathy's gifts after years of medical treatment impotencies with other health conditions.

It is up to CAM therapists to encourage medical diagnoses for life-threatening health problems, I agree with this as well, but that does not imply that CAMs are ineffective.

[trotsky]

57. Like Orrex said - another red herring.

You engage in behavior just like the Bushies - deny the exteme version of what someone is claiming, so that no one could possibly disagree with you. Just like the Bushies did with 9/11. Democrats had questions about what Bush knew and when, and the Bushies turn around and say, "Surely you can't say the president knew exactly what time the planes would hit and did NOTHING!"

That's exactly what you do. Someone suggests harm can come from your pet procedures. You respond with, "Is that a reason to outlaw it?" But no one suggested it be outlawed. Same thing here - it is noted that the constant bashing of the medical profession and science-based healthcare has probably led more than a few people to forego standard treatment for some "alternative" one. You respond with, "I challenge you to find (a site that says people should forego going to doctors)."

Although I can pretty much guarantee you I could find a discussion board on an "alternative" "medicine" site that has lots of people who DO say you should avoid doctors. Does that count? More importantly, do you think that could have an effect on a reader's decision-making process?

[Celebration]

58. What do you think you are doing?

Of course doctor bashing goes on. So does chiropractor bashing, acupuncture bashing, political bashing, Atkins diet bashing, movie bashing, book bashing, milk bashing, exercise bashing, fat bashing, thin bashing, male bashing, female bashing, television bashing, and you get the drift............Does any of this bashing have an effect on others? I don't really know. I suspect not for the vast majority of people. The thing is there just isn't anything we can do about bashing about anything. If people can talk, they can bash. Sometimes things deserve the bashing and sometimes not, and lots of times people disagree about what deserves bashing.

It's just fruitless to bash bashing--it is like beating your head against the wall. The ONLY possible way to stop people bashing is to restrict free speech. And none of us are in favor of that.

While I would say that I have probably bashed pharmaceutical companies here and absolutely love posting stories about Vioxx, and the FDA, I have never bashed doctors. On occasion, members of my family have been harmed by the treatments of a couple of doctors. However, it was certainly not purposeful, and fortunately it was able to be reversed. I like doctors and the vast majority of them seem to me to be very caring professionals. I prefer the treatment of acupuncturists for most things, but that is a personal choice based on my experience. I certainly go to doctors when I have the need. They do lots of things that acupuncturists can't do. You are trying to force me to be responsible for people that bash doctors. Why? I don't do it, and wouldn't.

[trotsky]

59. Once again, same tactic.

You are trying to force me to be responsible for people that bash doctors.

No I'm not, I'm pointing out that it happens. Initially you denied it, you denied that people would skip traditional medical care for an alternative treatment. Now you're back to denying the extreme position, which is much safer territory. So now that you've conceded your original points, looks like this discussion is over.

[Celebration]

60. what I denied

What I denied is that reiki practitioners and acupuncturists bash doctors. Of course there could be exceptions but I have not seen any. I have denied that reiki websites and acupuncture websites bash doctors. Again there could be exceptions but I haven't seen any. I have always said that there are overly strident people in almost every area. But NOBODY has bashed doctors here in DU, that I have seen. So, you are like, tilting at windmills or something. It just isn't a problem here, yet you keep bringing it up. Since you keep bringing it up with me it seems you would like to associate me with them. You are creating a conflict where none exists. You probably should find whatever websites bash doctors and then rail against them. Bashers are everywhere and I never denied that.

[trotsky]

61. I'm sorry you completely missed the point.

Maybe next time around you'll get it.

[philb]

63. ADA knows that amalgams are major mercury source and cause harm

They submitted documentation to the FDA that amalgams
are a major source of mercury exposure, and commonly cause harm.
Here are the science articles that they submitted documenting the common harm caused:
www.flcv.com/adaabsr.html
www.flcv.com/fdatally.html

In court they have admitted that their public message that amalgams are safe should not be
taken seriously, as they are not experts on the issue of health safety.

That statement in court has been posted here before