We have won our ten-year battle to get the Food and Drug Administration to comply with the law and set a date to classify mercury amalgam.
On Monday, we settled our lawsuit, Moms Against Mercury et al. v. Von Eschenbach, Commissioner, et al. FDA will finish classifying within one year of the close of the public comment period on its amalgam policy, that is, by July 28, 2009.
There‚Äôs more good news. During a several hour negotiation session, FDA agreed to change its website on amalgam — dramatically. Gone, gone, gone are all of FDA‚Äôs claims that no science exists that amalgam is unsafe, or that other countries have acted for environmental reasons only, or that the 2006 Scientific Panel vote affirmed amalgam‚Äôs safety. Instead — see http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html — the FDA has moved to a neutral course, while recognizing the serious health concerns posed by amalgam in particular for children and unborn children, for pregnant women, for those with mercury immuno-sensitivity or high mercury body burdens. FDA now states, for example:
“Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetus.”
“Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner.”
Perfect? No. A 180-degree reversal from FDA’s 30-year policy of protecting mercury fillings? Absolutely.
To change FDA policy, we tried petitions, Congressional hearings, state fact sheet laws, Scientific Advisory Committee hearings, and letters galore — to no avail. So in the great American tradition, we sued. The case came to a head this spring. On April 22, working with Johann Wehrle and Gwen Smith, I filed a motion for an injunction before Judge Ellen Huvelle. Three sets of briefs later, the government and I presented our oral arguments on May 16. In a crucial ruling, Judge Huvelle ruled that our 11 plaintiffs — the diverse group listed below — have standing. She said FDA should classify, and invited the two sides to mediate. On May 30, before Magistrate Judge John Facciola, Bob Reeves (who flew in from Lexington KY ) and I hammered out an agreement with FDA officials and lawyers.
The impact of the re-writing of its position on amalgam can hardly be understated. FDA’s website will no longer be cited by the American Dental Association in public hearings. FDA shows awareness of the key issues involved. As it prepares to classify amalgam, FDA has moved to a position of neutrality. Indeed, having repeatedly raised the question of amalgam’s risk to children, young women, and the immuno-sensitive persons in its website, I find it inconceivable that FDA will not in some way protect them in its upcoming rule.
Charlie Brown
3 June 2008
PS 1: Our talented (and pro bono publico) legal team includes Consumers for Dental Choice president Sandy Duffy, Bob Reeves, Johann Wehrle, Sandra Keech, Mike McClory , and Gwen Smith; Larry Pilot served as legal advisor on the FDCA.
PS 2: Great appreciation to our gutsy plaintiffs, a team of four nonprofit groups, two public officials, three dental professionals, and two consumer victims: Moms Against Mercury (Amy Carson and Angela Medlin), Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice (Dr. Mark Mitchell), Oregonians for Life (Mary Starrett), mercury expert Michael Bender (in his capacity as Commissioner of a Vermont advisory board on mercury), Arizona Senator Karen Johnson, Dr. Andy Landerman, Dr. Corrie Crowe, dental assistant Karen Palmer , consumer advocates Linda Brocato and Anita Vazquez Tibau, and (of course) Consumers for Dental Choice.
Charles G. Brown, National Counsel
Consumers for Dental Choice
316 F St., N.E., Suite 210, Washington , DC 20002
Ph. 202.544-6333; fax 202.544-6331
charlie@toxicteeth.org, www.toxicteeth.org
Tags: fda, fillings autism link, mercury, mercury autism link, mercury fillings
I was interviewed today by First Magazine regarding this issue of mercury in dental amalgams. After the reporter played phone tag with us for almost a week, we finally got the interview done and after 45 minutes, told me this was shocking information and “almost too overwhelming”. The NC Medical Board had the absurdity to ask my nurse practioner if she found it strange that almost all our patients have heavy metals when we check them. The question is, how many people have dental amalgams? How many people have had vaccines? In other words, how many people have had this poison (mercury) injected or implanted into their bodies??? Yet, we get all worked up about eating fish that may contain mercury, which obviously is also NOT good.
Congratulations to Amy Carson (Moms Against Mercury) who is a good friend and who went with me to the US Congress when I testified, on an outstandingly well done job in going after the FDA. It was her efforts along with a number of other organizations and individuals, that landed this victory for truth. It has also caused another source of frustration for the “mental midgets” who still try to promote dental amalgams as being safe…which probably is the single greatest source of mercury burden in the maternal metal load in the 1 out of 6 women of child bearing age (see the NHANES study, released by the CDC in 2003).
This is big news for Amy!
Dr. Butttar – I have a question- I am fairly new to learning about the mercury in dental fillings, and have a good number of fillings myself. If I were to need another cavity filled in the future, is there a safe alternative available?
Yes Josh, there are a number of options. But first, you MUST get the mercury fillings out and make sure you have a doctor close by that can do the post dental work IV treatment with DMPS to prevent the mobilized mercury from being absorbed into your system. There is a listing of doctors that know this protocol which I have been teaching for over 8 years, at http://www.CentersForAdvancedMedicine.com
As far as your question in concerened, there are polymers, resins, porcelin as well as gold inlays that can be used as viable options for fillings. Go to http://www.IAOMT.org to find a good dentist who is a “mercury free” dentist who can give you these and other options. But do yourself a favor, and make sure you get the existing amalgams out.
More info is also available at http://www.TheMedicalSeries.com under the DVD entitled “Heavy Metal Toxicity, The Hidden Killer”. Of course, I’m biased since these are our DVD’s.
Why are mercury fillings so common? Is it a cheaper solution or easier solution for the dentists to work with?