Fraudelant 2003 study showing no harm from amalgams
nightlight
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html
which found no harmful effects appears to have been
designed not to find any such effects.
Basically what they did is to perform a series
of mental performance tests on people
with various numbers of amalgams.
They did find direct linear correlation in blood
and urine levels of mercury metabolites with
number of amalgams (or surfaces). Clearly the
amalgams do cause mercury absorption and show
linear dose/response relation.
Regarding the mental tests, they cheated
by "stratifying" the subjects into categories such
as educational level, professional status,
socioeconomic status and numerous other "confounders"
(using unspecified adjustment). Then they compared
mental performance of subjects with and without
amalgams _within each subset_. The problem with
this approach is that after you adjust for all
"confounders" you get subset which by definition will
be have level of mental performance corresponding
to the parameters held fixed for the subgroup
(e.g. professional level, socioeconomic
status...).
For example if amalgams (which were all placed in
teen years) have caused drop in IQ of 30 points,
a person who might have been IQ=130 would become
IQ=100 and achieve professional status of people
with IQ=100. Hence someone who might have been a
scientist (with IQ 130), may have turned out, due
to amalgams, an average person and would be compared
to that subgroup. Similarly a person with pre-amalgam
IQ 160, who might have been Nobel laureate, would only
become an average scientist corresponding to IQ 130
and would be compared to those.
Hence, by fixing great many "confounding variables"
within each group, the authors had in effect fixed
the equivalent of the mental performance within that
subgroup. Comparing subjects within each subgroup will
then by definition measure that same fixed level of
performance corresponding to that subgroup. The whole
experiment was in effect a worthless tautology with
guaranteed outcome. It was completely insensitive to
the effect of mercury on shifting persons from one
"stratum" to another.
To give analogy, consider we wish to measure effect
of childhood starvation on height of adults. We pick
1000 adults, divide them into subgroups based on weight
and height. Then _within_ each subgroup we compare how
the remaining small height variations correlate with
the data on childhood starvation. Obviously, if we're
looking within the 6 ft +/- 10% subgroup, we won't find
out how tall a 6 ft person with history of starvation
would have been had he not been starving in childhood.
The entire study was obviously rigged -- it was
devised to be entirely insensitive to the question
of amalgam effects on mental performance. The fact
that they had to cheat using such cheap statistical
sleight of hand means that the amalgams do cause
harm and any genuine study would show it.
Steven Bornfeld
I don't generally comment on amalgam threads, but I agree that the
process of "correcting" for "confounding variables" is a process fraught
with peril. In this context I have little confidence relating
periodontal disease with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular incidents
which have been "corrected" for smoking and other confounding variables.
I don't agree that this necessarily was done to achieve the desired
effect, but obviously I can't know.
Mental performance tests are pretty dicey in any case. Studying
obvious parameters related to neurologic damage (neuromuscular markers
such as reaction time, tremor etc.) would be easier to measure and less
prone to manipulation.
Steve
Clinton
nightlight wrote:
> A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams
> http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html
> which found no harmful effects appears to have been
> designed not to find any such effects.
>
> Basically what they did is to perform a series
> of mental performance tests on people
> with various numbers of amalgams.
>
Good point, believe it or not the ADA brought up this worthless study
repeatedly at the FDA hearings as well as another 'amalgam counting'
study criticized on this NG and full of errors.
If you like you can send your comment to the FDA before Nov.
Send an email to FDADo...@oc.fda.gov. In the subject line type
"Docket Number - 2006N-0352". Send a copy to Mary Ann Newell at
bulle...@aol.com (to insure inclusion in the docket). The expert
committe
will review your comments.
Jan
Thanks Clinton.
I just received this from Marie Flowers.
Send an email to FDADo...@oc.fda.gov. In the subject line type
"Docket Number - 2006N-0352". Send a copy to Mary Ann Newell at
bulle...@aol.com or Freya Koss at fre...@aol.com so we can make sure
that your comments get recorded to the Docket. Deadline is Nov 9, 2006.
Jan
Jan
Excuse me, I forgot to post this additional info.
The joint panel concluded with personal recommendations by the
members. These include that FDA should :
· Consider informed consent for patients receiving amalgam
· Consider labeling changes restricting its use in pregnant woman and
children
· Revisit the white paper to include a broader search, include data
from other countries, and provide the rationale for study exclusion
· Study the pharmacokinetics of mercury
· Consider the relevancy of the "precautionary principle."
· Not make any rash decisions by having the pubic remove their
amalgams because it appears that this problem may affect only a small
segment of the population.
HOW TO POST TO THE FDA DOCKET
Send an email to FDADo...@oc.fda.gov. In the subject line type
"Docket Number - 2006N-0352". Send a copy to Mary Ann Newell at
bulle...@aol.com or Freya Koss at fre...@aol.com so we can make sure
that your comments get recorded to the Docket. Deadline is Nov 9, 2006.
If you don't post a story, the Advisory Panel will think there are just
a few people poisoned from dental fillings instead of a possible 25%
rate in the general population.
Marie Flowers
Dental Amalgam Mercury Syndrome- DAMS
www.MercuryPoisoned.com
For an in-depth report of what happened at recent FDA hearings look at
the top of my website. www.MercuryPoisoned.com
The Advisory Panel to the FDA REJECTED the FDA's Safety Report on
Dental Amalgam, and suggest labeling changes so that children and
pregnant women should not have mercury dental fillings. The Advisory
Panel also said that people should be informed before a dentist places
mercury dental fillings.
Jan
Peter Moran
"Jan" <jdrew...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1160418964.7...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Clinton wrote:
>> nightlight wrote:
>> > A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams
>> > http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html
>> > which found no harmful effects appears to have been
>> > designed not to find any such effects.
>> >
>> > Basically what they did is to perform a series
>> > of mental performance tests on people
>> > with various numbers of amalgams.
>> >
>>
>> Good point, believe it or not the ADA brought up this worthless study
>> repeatedly at the FDA hearings as well as another 'amalgam counting'
>> study criticized on this NG and full of errors.
This is "talking the talk" -- mere mimicry of science-speak, as various
kinds of activist are wont to do these days.
What we need here is a clearer exposition of just why counting peoples
amalgam surfaces (and presumably including a group with none) and
correlating that with neurological performance is a "worthless" approach.
We know that the number of amalgam surfaces correlates with mercury
exposure. How else might one investigate whether subtle mercury poisoning
may sometimes be occurring in patients with amalgam fillings?
Peter Moran
nightlight
>>>nightlight wrote:
>>>
>>>>A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams
>>>>http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html
>>>>which found no harmful effects appears to have been
>>>>designed not to find any such effects.
>>>>
>>>>Basically what they did is to perform a series
>>>>of mental performance tests on people
>>>>with various numbers of amalgams.
>>>>
>>>
> This is "talking the talk" -- mere mimicry of science-speak, as various
> kinds of activist are wont to do these days.
>
> What we need here is a clearer exposition of just why counting peoples
> amalgam surfaces (and presumably including a group with none) and
> correlating that with neurological performance is a "worthless" approach.
> We know that the number of amalgam surfaces correlates with mercury
> exposure. How else might one investigate whether subtle mercury poisoning
> may sometimes be occurring in patients with amalgam fillings?
>
The problem isn't that they counted amalgams. The problem is their
"stratification" which basically fixes subgroups based on their
present status (various confounding variables which amount to
an equivalent of mental performance). There is no reason why
within a subgroup of, say, janitors or equivalent non-professionals,
a janitor with 10 amalgams would be any dumber than another
janitor with no amalgams. Comparing performance of two janitors
doesn't tell you how well the janitor with 10 amalgams might
have done had he not had these amalgams i.e. how did amalgams
affect his development and resulting mental performance, energy
and drive to achieve. Had he not been inhaling mercury vapors
since childhood he might have been a doctor or a scientist.
By stratifying the data based on variables which amount to a
indirect measure of mental performance they have fixed, within
some narrow band of arbitrary fluctuations, what performace they
will find by measuring it directly.
The ADA friendly "researchers" have obviously rigged the
"study" to find no significant effect of amalgams by
looking through a contrived pinhole defining their subgroups.
The fact that they didn't find any more subtle way of rigging
indicates that there wasn't any but clumsy and transparent
sleight of hand they tried. The real implication is that just
about anything else one might have done would have shown the
negative impact of amalgams.
Clinton
nightlight wrote:
> Peter Moran wrote:
>
>
> The problem isn't that they counted amalgams.
I understand what you are saying but to address the above and Peter
Moran's
comments, counting amalgams is a problem. Why? Galvansim, crevice
corrsion, and poor condensation of amalgam makes some amalgams give
off much higher levels of Hg than others. Since Hg exposure isn't
measured
directly, those with the highest level aren't counted.
For example, let's say 1 in 100 amalgams is poorly made or undergoes an
unusal amount of galvanic activity, and gives off high levels of Hg. Or
that this amalgam undergoes what manufacturer refer to as
"electrochemical reactions" on the surface which may allow bactria to
methylize the Hg released in a corrosion reaction. On average that
amalgam will be in the mouth with an individual with an average number
of fillings. that means that amalgam counting, by ignoring galvanic
activity, poor condensation anc
surface electrochemical reactions in "rare" cases actually counts the
most
adverse effects as evidence of amalgam safety
nightlight
I think that epidemiological method, unless very carefully designed
for this specific purpose and carried over long time, is not very
sensitive in detecting long term subtle and far away effects of
chronic, low dose mercury poisoning. Direct experiments on primates
(or even lower animals which live long enough for low dose mercury
toxicity to manifest itself), where the animals with and without
amalgams are observed and tested over many years, would work better.
Human and animal bodies are marvelous biochemical systems which can
compensate and work around lots of damage. Of course, each
compensatory process would have a cost downstream, hence one would
need to follow fairly long chains of causes and effects to tally the
total cost to the organism. Since the compensatory systems are used
for variety of repair & detox tasks unrelated to mercury damage,
epidemiology & bulk statistics are much too coarse grained to
accurately attribute the blame for the final harmful effects to
a single far away cause.
Additional complication for direct and indirect studies is that people
with different genetic profiles are affected differently by amalgams.
For example, the effect on brain depends on the actual concentration
of Hg in the brain, which for any given exposure level depends on
genetics of biochemical detox, such as ApoE2,3,4 alelles. People with
ApoE4 alelle from both parents, which is more common in northern
Europeans, would detox most poorly and would have the highest Hg
concentrations in the brain, while people with ApoE2 from both parents
would have the lowest Hg concentration (ApoE3 alelle, most common
among southern Europans, falls in between on detox scale). Further
series of subtle genetic dependencies enter at the repair and damage
compensation/workaround phases.
The bottom line, though, is that mercury in low doses, such as those
which can be produced by amalgams, is a demonstrable toxin to neurons,
as well as to variety of other cells & larger systems in the human and
animal bodies. The only variation among individuals is the pattern and
degree of damage, but everyone is damaged by them. Hence, the amalgams
are at best a Russian roulette using gun with perhaps 5-10 percent of
chambers loaded -- if you're lucky you will avoid the most serious
consequences, such as MS, Alzheimers, Parkinson disease etc.
Amalgams should therefore not only be banished from dental practice,
but existent amalgams should be carefully removed and people already
damaged should be compensated, all at public expense (since we are all
responsible for the government we elect, hence for the bureaucracies
they create). At least some "health" bureaucrats, "scientists" (such
as the lead authors of this and similar fraudelant studies), CEOs,
"educators" and "experts", from public and private sector, who
deliberately deceived the public, dental students and dentists should
be pursued through courts and punished as criminals.
trelbr...@sympatico.ca
sensitivity, they are weaker=more breakdown, increased chance of RCT
leads to more money. SO...why do you think there is a great
conspiracy to keep amalgam ? ? ? ?
Have you ever researched what's in a composite ("white")
filling..hmmmmm???
nightlight
> I'll do composites any and all days of the week-more money, more
> sensitivity, they are weaker=more breakdown, increased chance of RCT
> leads to more money. SO...why do you think there is a great
> conspiracy to keep amalgam ? ? ? ?
Have you heard of tobacco industry conspiracy to hide harm and
addictiveness of tobacco? Mercury is far more toxic and harmful
to humans than even most direct tobacco smoke. For example, while
it is practically impossible to induce lung cancers in lab animals
by having them breathe smoke, even when inhaling equivalents of
hundreds of cigarettes per day, it is very easy to demonstrate
harm from mercury in very small amounts to virtually any lifeform,
from single cell to human organisms.
The dental industry has no choice but to stick tightly to its
"silver" story, otherwise it would face the mother of all class
action lawsuits. As long as they stick unwaveringly to their
`"silver" fillings are safe and effective' mantra, they get paid
both ways, to put in the mercury into mouths of their patients,
then even more to remove it safely for those who ask years later
when the damage is manifest, even when the mercury filling is
dentally perfectly fine. The alternative is simply unthinkable
for dental industry.
While it may surprise those who still believe that TV commercials
are all truth and whole truth, most people eventually learn,
usually by age of seven or so, that it's not all they see on TV
is true and that money has a way to make people lie (and much more),
let alone remain silent.
Note that, as with many other toxins, there are, of course,
genetic differences in efficiency of mercury elimination. For
example, the three Apolipoprotein alleles, ApoE2,3,4 affect
how efficiently the mercury is excreted from the brain, which
in turn determines the rate of mental deterioration (such as onset
of senility) due to mercury exposure from amalgams. People with
ApoE2 allele from both parents eliminate mercury from brain
the most efficiently, while those with double ApoE4 the least
efficiently (ApE3 falls in between). It happens that ApoE4
frequency is highest in northern Europe (hence they're more
affected by mercury from amalgams) and it drops in favor of
ApoE3 which is most prevalent in southern Europe (hence
the Mediteranian population is less affected). The IQ of
European populations has precisely the opposite gradient,
it drops from north to south. Hence, among Europeans, the
populations whose brains are damaged more by mercury also
have higher IQ. Hence an IQ drop of ApoE4 population due
to mercury exposure from amalgams would simply bring it
down toward IQ of ApoE2,E3 populations (which is less
affected) i.e. it would merely reduce European IQ
gradient, bunching everyone toward the middle.
Interestingly, the highly promoted (by ADA, EPA and other
parties responsible for amalgam use) amalgam 2006 study
was done in Portugal, which is among Europeans the population
the least sensitive to mercury toxicity to brain (due to
larger admixture of African genotype than other European
populations). Further, the study observed kids (mostly
with ApoE3/E2 alleles) only for few years while the
effects on brain, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's
take a bit longer to develop and any honest study would
not look for such effects in children. Clearly, the study
was optimized (in many ways) to find no harmful effects.
See also additional critique of this study at:
"Unmasking The Unscientific JAMA 2006 CHILDRENS AMALGAM STUDY"
http://www.bioprobe.com/ReadNews.asp?article=95
Of course, the fact that dental industry has to use such
means to "prove" that "silver" fillings are not harmful
only proves that they know better.
> Have you ever researched what's in a composite ("white")
> filling..hmmmmm???
There is no one "white" filling. Porcelain fillings (as inlays)
are probably the least problematic. Even though they do have
aluminum, it is not present in porcelain as alloy or amalgam
(which is a weak non-chemical mixture of components) but
in a form of an orders of magnitude stronger chemical bond.
trelbr...@sympatico.ca
money!!! All of your scientific regurgitation on genetics I would
never contest, who could?? You are absolutely right-Hg is a
neurotoxin-but the risk at the concentration in amalgam is worth the
benefits derived in dentistry. Radiation causes cancer-but the risk of
it for radiography, detecting structural failures in airplane turbines,
and for cancer treatment is WORTH the BENEFIT. Capish the analogy?
Placing Hg fillings for the future 'financial gain' of removing them
later on is ludicrous, we'll get a better return on 'white' fillings
again. The notion that dentistry must 'hide' the real truth about
silver fillings because of a looming class-action lawsuit does not hold
water, otherwise we'd all be in the courts, eagerly smacking our lips
and gleefully rubbing our hands together for a piece of the pie from
the class action lawsuit against PCB's in transformers, plasticizers in
kid's toys, food bags, chlorine in paper products, DEET in bug spay,
selenium in photocopiers, mercury in catalytic converters and so on.
It will never happen, and dentistry is not worried that it will. At
this time of recent, double-blind, peer-reviewed, independent science,
the benefits still outweigh the risks, and this is what the courts will
look at. When dentistry bans Hg-laden amalgam and the likes of
yourselves are throwing your hats in the air and whooping a cheer of
victory-I'll be right there beside, you-cheering for my increased
income, placing my bis-phenyl laden 'white fillings' and cementing my
porcelain inlays with resin (ie: carcinogen-containing) luting cements.
trelbr...@sympatico.ca
Cheerios!!! You are kidding.....please don't tell me you composed
your previous reply with a Marlboro in your hand!!!!!
nightlight
> Radiation causes cancer-but the risk of
> it for radiography, detecting structural failures in airplane turbines,
> and for cancer treatment is WORTH the BENEFIT. Capish the analogy?
It is always a matter of risk/benefit ratio. That's why the dental
industry is working so hard to misrepresent the risks (with no
means considered too low, as their latest study illustrates; cf.
the critique at the link posted). Consider how cheap is their
mindless insistence on calling it euphemistically "silver" filling,
even though half of it is mercury while silver is only 20-30 percent.
While the benefits might have outweighed risks as far as science
knew in 19th century, especially considering the average lifespans
of that time, that has long ceased to be so. At various points
since then the dental and amalgam industries have crossed from
ignorant and negligent into unethical and finally into domain
of criminal behavior in the last couple decades. There are only
so many lawyers to go around. Give it some time, though, until
the packs of lawyers are done with the junk food industry.
> PS: "Hg far more toxic than cigarette smoke??? I almost
> spit out my Cheerios!!! You are kidding.....please don't
> tell me you composed your previous reply with a Marlboro
> in your hand!!!!!
After offering no specifics or substance of any sort in
defense of the phony JAMA 2006 study, you proceeded to
demonstrate further facets of your ignorance about relative
toxicities of tobacco smoke and mercury. Well, thanks
for being so helpful.
I suppose one should not expect any better from our
modern day Mad Hatters, the folks inhaling mercury dust
and vapors every day for much of their lives. FYI, unlike
nicotine, which is, in doses obtained from smoking, a beneficial
neuro-stimulant and among others, protective against Alzheimer's
and Parkinson's (cf. http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm ),
the mercury effects on brain are precisely the opposite (in the usual
ranges of respective exposures).
trelbr...@sympatico.ca
nightlight wrote:
> trelbr...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> > Radiation causes cancer-but the risk of
> > it for radiography, detecting structural failures in airplane turbines,
> > and for cancer treatment is WORTH the BENEFIT. Capish the analogy?
>
> It is always a matter of risk/benefit ratio. That's why the dental
> industry is working so hard to misrepresent the risks (with no
> means considered too low, as their latest study illustrates; cf.
> the critique at the link posted).
Consider how cheap is their
> mindless insistence on calling it euphemistically "silver" filling,
> even though half of it is mercury while silver is only 20-30 percent.
>
It was not the dentists or the industry that EVER called them "silver
fillings, it was the public in response to what they look like. It
makes an easy descriptor for the public.
> While the benefits might have outweighed risks as far as science
> knew in 19th century, especially considering the average lifespans
> of that time, that has long ceased to be so. At various points
> since then the dental and amalgam industries have crossed from
> ignorant and negligent into unethical and finally into domain
> of criminal behavior in the last couple decades. There are only
> so many lawyers to go around. Give it some time, though, until
> the packs of lawyers are done with the junk food industry.
>
> > PS: "Hg far more toxic than cigarette smoke??? I almost
> > spit out my Cheerios!!! You are kidding.....please don't
> > tell me you composed your previous reply with a Marlboro
> > in your hand!!!!!
>
> After offering no specifics or substance of any sort in
> defense of the phony JAMA 2006 study, you proceeded to
> demonstrate further facets of your ignorance about relative
> toxicities of tobacco smoke and mercury. Well, thanks
> for being so helpful.
>
Call me ignorant-I have no problem with that; I will not even try to
refute your interpretation of the evidence because I don't have the
time to read all of the peer-reviewed journals that you obviously do.
I do know what comes from peer reviewed journals up my alley. "Phony
JAMA study"; your paranoid opinion. "They're all in on it. right??"
> I suppose one should not expect any better from our
> modern day Mad Hatters, the folks inhaling mercury dust
> and vapors every day for much of their lives. FYI, unlike
> nicotine, which is, in doses obtained from smoking, a beneficial
> neuro-stimulant and among others, protective against Alzheimer's
> and Parkinson's (cf. http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm ),
> the mercury effects on brain are precisely the opposite (in the usual
> ranges of respective exposures).
...and I knew it...you ARE a smoker! (probably a lawyer, too). Go
ahead and justify your pathetic habit to yourself! I find it always
amusing to talk to the hooked smoker who cannot kick their habit,
therefore they justify it's need.
Anyway, I don't think you'll find any dentist that wouldn't admit that
Hg is not good for you, it comes down to -does it's use justify the
risk?? And so far the answer is yes. I notice you didn't comment on
the components of white fillings or the cements required to bond your
porcelain inlays/onlays. Tha answer????
DON'T GET CAVITIES !!!!!!!!!!
Tony Bad
<trelbr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1160659054....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> ...and I knew it...you ARE a smoker! (probably a lawyer, too). Go
> ahead and justify your pathetic habit to yourself! I find it always
> amusing to talk to the hooked smoker who cannot kick their habit,
> therefore they justify it's need.
> Anyway, I don't think you'll find any dentist that wouldn't admit that
> Hg is not good for you, it comes down to -does it's use justify the
> risk?? And so far the answer is yes. I notice you didn't comment on
> the components of white fillings or the cements required to bond your
> porcelain inlays/onlays. Tha answer????
>
> DON'T GET CAVITIES !!!!!!!!!!
>
One of my patients who consistently banged the amalgam drum was also a
smoker. I didn't understand why he was so worried about something of, at
best, debatable risk, yet engaged in something with a clear and obvious
risk. Didn't make sense to me.
T
nightlight
> One of my patients who consistently banged the amalgam drum was also a
> smoker. I didn't understand why he was so worried about something of, at
> best, debatable risk, yet engaged in something with a clear and obvious
> risk. Didn't make sense to me.
>
It's not your fault. It is hard to make sense of half-truths,
junk science and propaganda.
Tobacco is protective against the toxic effects of mercury
on brain, such as those found in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's
diseases. Smokers at any age have less than half the rates of
these diseases than non-smokers. The smokers who quit double
after few years their odds for getting these diseases, nearly
catching up to never-smokers. Further, the brains of Alzheimer's
patients show significant excess of mercury. In test tube the
mercury in similar or lower concentration than those commonly
found in brains of people with amalgams and who carry single
or double ApoE4 allele, produces the same tangles on neurons
as those characteristic of Alzheimer's disease (mercury is the
only known substance so far that produces such effect on neurons).
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/091602/80027dd5.pdf
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm
Note also that almost all longevity record holders, such as
those above 110 and still mentally sharp, are life long smokers.
Here are some links and summaries of little publicized studies
and facts on smoking and anti-smoking:
"The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking"
http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
"In defense of Smokers" (online book)
http://www.lcolby.com/
Some studies on therapeutic effects of smoking:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm
http://www.data-yard.net/10/nicoplus.htm
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/life.htm
http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm
http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/nicotine.htm
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041
Of course, there is a statistical _correlation_ between smoking
and poor health (as well as with variety of other problems). Much
of it, perhaps all, is the result of strong social pressures against
smoking which have reshaped the population of smokers in recent
decades, turning smoking into a mere passive marker of various
negative traits statistically associated with that highly skewed
sample (e.g. risk takers, low socioeconomic status, unhealthy &
stressful job environment,... ). As demonstrated in the studies
cited & described at the first link above, large controlled
experiments spanning decades, in which subjects are randomly
assigned to either smoking cessation or to no intervention group,
showed no gain, and even increase in some diseases, for the
smoking cessation group. Similarly, the studies examining health
problems of smokers and non-smokers in otherwise fairly
homogeneous groups, such as lung cancers among asbestos workers,
have found that lung cancers were much more prevalent among
the non-smoking workers. Curiosly, among smokers in general, the
lung cancers are also significantly more prevalent among those
who do _not_ inhale the smoke than those who do inhale.
------ quoting from ----------------------------
"The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking"
http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
------------------------------------------------
By the end of the century general opinion had changed. The Royal College
of Physicians of London promoted smoking for its benefits to health and
advised which brands were best. Smoking was compulsory in schools. An
Eton schoolboy later recalled that "he was never whipped so much in his
life as he was one morning for not smoking". As recently as 1942 Price’s
textbook of medicine recommended smoking to relieve asthma.
These strong opinions for and against smoking were not supported by much
evidence either way until 1950 when Richard Doll and Bradford Hill
showed that smokers seemed more likely to develop lung cancer. A
campaign was begun to limit smoking. But Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the
greatest statistician of the 20th century, had noticed a bizarre anomaly
in their results. Doll and Hill had asked their subjects if they
inhaled. Fisher showed that men who inhaled were significantly less
likely to develop lung cancer than non-inhalers. As Fisher said, "even
equality would be a fair knock-out for the theory that smoke in the lung
causes cancer."
Doll and Hill decided to follow their preliminary work with a much
larger and protracted study. British doctors were asked to take part as
subjects. 40.000 volunteered and 20,000 refused. The relative health of
smokers, nonsmokers and particularly ex-smokers would be compared over
the course of future years. In this trial smokers would no longer be
asked whether they inhaled, in spite of the earlier result. Fisher
commented: "I suppose the subject of inhaling had become distasteful to
the research workers, and they just wanted to hear as little about
inhaling as possible". And: "Should not these workers have let the world
know not only that they had discovered the cause of lung cancer
(cigarettes) but also that they had discovered the means of its
prevention (inhaling cigarette smoke)? How had the MRC [Medical Research
Council] the heart to withhold this information from the thousands who
would otherwise die of lung cancer?"
Five year’s later, in 1964, Doll and Hill responded to this damning
criticism. They did not explain why they had withdrawn the question
about inhaling. Instead they complained that Fisher had not examined
their more recent results but they agreed their results were mystifying.
Fisher had died 2 years earlier and could not reply.
This refusal to consider conflicting evidence is the negation of the
scientific method. It has been the hallmark of fifty years of
antismoking propaganda and what with good reason may well be described
as one of the greatest scandals in 500 years of modern science.
-------- end quote
These anti-tobacco social pressures and the resulting mass
hysteria being whipped up in recent decades are not accidental.
Hundreds of billions are being transferred every year from the
pockets of smokers to the pockets of those creating and financing
all the "grass roots "antismoking organizations and buying the
junk science and politicians in the support of their extortion
racket. For example, of $60 per carton of cigarettes in my state
(MA), $15 goes to the Big Tobacco, tobacco farmers and all the
sales and marketing. The remaining $45 goes to the Big Anti-tobacco.
Some links with more details on the money trail are here:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/08/its-time-for-full-scale-congressional.html
http://www.forces.org/writers/kjono/pdf/tobacco_control_and_fda_regulation.pdf
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>
> It's not your fault. It is hard to make sense of half-truths,
> junk science and propaganda.
>
I do not ordinarily respond to the flat earth society--please forgive
me. But my father, who was a heavy smoker for over 30 years and who
just last week endured a lung lobectomy for adenoca, this is just a bit
much for me right now.
As someone who has seen some of the many, many people killed by tobacco
(and first-hand seen the effects of tobacco in the mouth), I think you
can take your no-doubt-Altria-endorsed bullshit and stick it up your
propagandistic arse.
BTW folks, on a mostly unrelated note, I rented the following movie
last weekend--recommended.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
nightlight
> ... you can take your no-doubt-Altria-endorsed bullshit and stick it
> up your propagandistic arse.
> ...
> Steve
Thanks Steve for the informative post. I am sure the readers
here can hardly wait for the next installment of your wit.
trelbr...@sympatico.ca
Sorry to hear of your dad, I have experienced thisx2 with my folks. I
find this fellow curiously interesting to see how he dedicates
(apparently all) of his time to his pet project "Death to
Amalgam-Slinging Dentists", yet defends the so-obvious smoking.
Notice how he refutes the "half-truths and lies" with no-truths and
bullshit? He is an interesting oddity for sure. We must not taunt
him, however, as he has been expanding his mind with Nico-vitamins ala
Marlboros!!!
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> Steve,
>
> Sorry to hear of your dad, I have experienced thisx2 with my folks. I
> find this fellow curiously interesting to see how he dedicates
> (apparently all) of his time to his pet project "Death to
> Amalgam-Slinging Dentists", yet defends the so-obvious smoking.
> Notice how he refutes the "half-truths and lies" with no-truths and
> bullshit? He is an interesting oddity for sure. We must not taunt
> him, however, as he has been expanding his mind with Nico-vitamins ala
> Marlboros!!!
> nightlight wrote:
I've been here a while, Doc--since about 2000. I've seen 'em come, and
I've seen 'em go. I also have considerable tolerance for other people's
views--even patently (to me) ridiculous ones, so long as they cannot
hurt the people I care about. I also have a healthy respect for the
fungibility of the "conventional wisdom". But I hadn't heard anyone
referring to tobacco as a tonic in a long time (I know doctors endorsed
Camels back in the '40s), and it was just a little too raw for me.
Thanks for the kind words about my dad. Just found out this morning
his nodes and pleura are clean, so we're optimistic.
Thanks,
Mark Probert
>>
>> It's not your fault. It is hard to make sense of half-truths,
>> junk science and propaganda.
>>
>
>
> I do not ordinarily respond to the flat earth society--please
> forgive me. But my father, who was a heavy smoker for over 30 years and
> who just last week endured a lung lobectomy for adenoca, this is just a
> bit much for me right now.
I wish your dad well.
Steven Bornfeld
Mark Probert wrote:
>
> I wish your dad well.
Thanks, Mark!
Steve
David Wright
nightlight <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
>Further, the brains of Alzheimer's
>patients show significant excess of mercury.
Oh, sure they do. Let's see some references.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher
nightlight
>
>>Further, the brains of Alzheimer's
>>patients show significant excess of mercury.
>
>
> Oh, sure they do. Let's see some references.
>
Apparently you haven't checked the links provided. Right
after the sentence that followed the one you quoted
there is a link to a page titled:
"Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels
and Alzheimer's Disease"
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm
See also the second link posted there:
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/091602/80027dd5.pdf
for further biochemical parallelism between the physiological
signatures of Alzheimer's (e.g. neuronal tangles) and the
indistinguishable low concentration mercury effects on neurons.
Note also that the strong protective effects of tobacco
smoke against Alzheimer's which have been known for
decades as a well established epidemiological fact
(so much so that nicotine patches were recommended for
Alzheimer's patients), in light of the above relation
of Alzheimer's and Hg accumulation in the brains, also
have a direct biochemical explanation: several components
in the tobacco smoke stimulate both the production capacity
and the baseline levels of glutathione (and various other
antioxidants), all as a side-effect of the need to
remove tobacco smoke metabolites. Since glutathione is
also the chief mercury eliminator in humans (via
liver-bile-fecal pathway which is responsible for 90%
of human mercury elimination), at any exposure level the smokers
end up having much stronger excretion of Hg than non-smokers
and thus suffer far less from its effects on brain and immune
system (e.g. smokers also have lower rates of various
autoimmune diseases than non-smokers, see the other links posted,
especially the page: http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm ).
At the other end of the glutathione spectrum are autistic
children who tend to have genetically very low glutathione
production, which in turn increases the mercury (such as
that from thimerosal used until recently in all childhood
vaccines, also in fungicides, maternal amalgams & cosmetics
esp. skin whiteners, fish,...) accumulation in their brains.
The rise of autism in recent decades, which closely followed
in time and space the massive proliferation of the thimerosal
laden childhood vaccines, is paralleled by the simultaneous
rise in the auto-immune diseases in vaccinated children
(e.g. allergies, asthma), which at least in part can be
attributed to the side-effects of mercury toxicity. True to
its role as a paid agent of the Big Pharma (which not only
makes big bucks from the vaccines but even more from the
treatment of the damage they do to children), and similarly
to its position in the ongoing dental amalgam battle, the FDA
acted as a fox guarding the hen house by fighting tooth and nail
the requests from scientists to ban thimerosal from children
vaccines (and is still fighting its removal from others, such
as flu vaccines, also given to children). As result of the
shameful FDA and CDC delaying actions, the thimerosal was
banned in pet vaccines years before it was banned in children
vaccines. Hopefully some day we will see at least few of these
corrupt bureaucrats and their Big Pharma puppeteers go to prison
for the needless damage to hundreds of thousands of children.
trelbr...@sympatico.ca
..."Hopefully some day we will see ALL of these corrupt beurocrats and
their big tobacco-producing puppeteers AND the mindless, spineless
smokers go to prison for the needless damage of thousands of children
due to second-hand smoke. "
trelbr...@sympatico.ca
Just because it sits on a website or on the rack next to the National
Enquirer does not put it in the same league as JAMA or JADA!! But then
again, I know know it's like trying to convince him the sky is blue.
anyway, puff away......we like it when you do that. Place a bag over
your head while you do it, so you don't lose any of those
mind-expanding nico-vitamins.
Mark Probert
> David Wright wrote:
> >
> >>Further, the brains of Alzheimer's
> >>patients show significant excess of mercury.
> >
> >
> > Oh, sure they do. Let's see some references.
> >
>
>
> Apparently you haven't checked the links provided. Right
> after the sentence that followed the one you quoted
> there is a link to a page titled:
>
> "Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels
> and Alzheimer's Disease"
> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm
>
> See also the second link posted there:
>
> http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/091602/80027dd5.pdf
I see your two Boyd Haley's and request real proof.
Tony Bad
"nightlight" <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote in message
news:XdOdnbohuNc0E7PY...@rcn.net...
> Tony Bad wrote:
>
> > One of my patients who consistently banged the amalgam drum was also a
> > smoker. I didn't understand why he was so worried about something of, at
> > best, debatable risk, yet engaged in something with a clear and obvious
> > risk. Didn't make sense to me.
> >
>
> It's not your fault. It is hard to make sense of half-truths,
> junk science and propaganda.
Oh, I think I am making sense of it allright. The info you posted cleared it
up quite nicely.
T
nightlight
The first link lists no Haley's papers. The second link
is Haley's summary of literature and his research on the
topic (also on thimerosal).
nightlight
>>>
>>>"Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels
>>>and Alzheimer's Disease"
>>>http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm
>>>
>>>See also the second link posted there:
>>>
>>>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/091602/80027dd5.pdf
> PS: Had a good laugh looking at NL's sources "published literature",
> Just because it sits on a website or on the rack next to the National
> Enquirer does not put it in the same league as JAMA or JADA!! But then
> again, I know know it's like trying to convince him the sky is blue.
> anyway, puff away......we like it when you do that. Place a bag over
> your head while you do it, so you don't lose any of those
> mind-expanding nico-vitamins.
>
It seems that by the time you came back from checking links
to type in your "reply" you forgot what was on the page you
just visited. Breathing mercury vapors and dust all
your life can do that to your short term memory, ADA's
mantras notwithstanding.
I gave two links in the post you replied to. The first link is
a page of references & abstracts on relation between brain
concentration of mercury and Alzheimer's. That list starts and
ends with JADA papers. The second link is B. Haley's summary
of the research on that topic, which includes a brief critique
of the first JADA paper (the one which didn't find, because
it clearly didn't want to find, relation between mercury from
amalgams and Alzheimer's).
In any case, other than knee-jerk barking at the messenger,
you have no specific critique, or anything of any substance
at all, to say on the papers and studies mentioned. Just so
you don't get depressed, the responses of other dentists here
are even less pertinent. Altogether, the collective vapidity
of the responses here demonstrates quite well what breathing
elemental mercury vapors and dust for few years can do to
human brains.
trelbr...@sympatico.ca
Alzheimer's and Hg?? Then they will ban amalgam, we carry on with
composite, porcelain , wood and so forth, and life goes on. There is
very little "money" in 'mercury fillings, both for the dentist and the
dental industry. I (my opinion) do not think the threat of a lawsuit
is the force behind the 'conspiracy'. And why would all the
independent research (and I mean legitimate studies....I'm assuming
you're smart enough to know what that entails) 'protect' amalgam?
DOn't tell me their getting paid too. My theory....they are not
protecting amalgam, the evidence is inconclusive, therefore the risk is
worth the benefit.
nightlight
> My question is.....WHY would they NOT want to find a link between
> Alzheimer's and Hg??
That's a transparent attempt to sidetrack the debate. The
motivation of ADA officials is entirely irrelevant for the
scientific question of Hg role in Alzheimer's disease. There is
a body of scientific literature, as indicated at the link given,
establishing this role. Your attempt to divert the debate
into psychoanalysis of motives of ADA officials and lawyers
is an acknowledgment that you have no answer to the scientific
facts already established.
> Then they will ban amalgam, we carry on with
> composite, porcelain , wood and so forth, and life goes on. There is
> very little "money" in 'mercury fillings, both for the dentist and the
> dental industry. I (my opinion) do not think the threat of a lawsuit
> is the force behind the 'conspiracy'.
You may wish to examine tobacco industry lawsuits to see why
ADA might not wish its internal documents, emails, meeting
notes, insider testimonies under oath,... brought up into
open. These kinds of materials would likely show their damage
control efforts over decades, ranging from unethical to illegal,
to keep the public in dark on hazards of mercury amalgams.
> And why would all the
> independent research (and I mean legitimate studies....I'm assuming
> you're smart enough to know what that entails) 'protect' amalgam?
> DOn't tell me their getting paid too. My theory....they are not
> protecting amalgam, the evidence is inconclusive, therefore the risk is
> worth the benefit.
There is plenty of legitimate research showing harmfulness of amalgams.
I provided some links to papers related to Alzheimer's. Just because
ADA approved researchers don't wish to measure directly the amounts
Hg vapors released by amalgams (which many others have done
and published in peer reviewed papers) or pursue the effects
of these levels of exposure (which again, many others have done),
that doesn't mean the evidence is "inconclusive". Other countries,
especially those in which ApoE4 allele (see earlier posts in this
thread) is more prevalent, such as northern Europeans, have taken
strong measures to eliminate mercury in dental restorations. The
ADA position (supported also by FDA/CDC staffers) you and other
dentists here are parroting has already been judged as "unreasonable"
by the recent (oct 2006) scientific panel reviewing the research
on amalgam safety:
Transcripts from the FDA hearings:
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/cdrh06.html#dentalproductspanel
Informal summaries & links to references:
http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/FDA%20hearings/advisory_panel_rejects_amalgam_safety.html
Haley's critique:
http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/research/haley_review_of_phony_science_concerning_amalgam_safety.html
Other reactions:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&q=FDA+amalgam+hearings+unreasonable&sa=N&tab=nw
Mark Probert
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> nightlight wrote:
>>
>>> David Wright wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Further, the brains of Alzheimer's
>>> >>patients show significant excess of mercury.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Oh, sure they do. Let's see some references.
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently you haven't checked the links provided. Right
>>> after the sentence that followed the one you quoted
>>> there is a link to a page titled:
>>>
>>> "Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels
>>> and Alzheimer's Disease"
>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm
>>>
>>> See also the second link posted there:
>>>
>>> http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/091602/80027dd5.pdf
>>
>>
>> I see your two Boyd Haley's and request real proof.
>
> The first link lists no Haley's papers.
Who do you think owns Altcorp?
nightlight
> nightlight wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels
>>>> and Alzheimer's Disease"
>>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm
>>>>
>>>> See also the second link posted there:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/091602/80027dd5.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I see your two Boyd Haley's and request real proof.
>>
>>
>> The first link lists no Haley's papers.
>
>
> Who do you think owns Altcorp?
If that's your best shot at the scientific references listed
then the scientific argument is settled. Apparently, having
nothing to say on the scientific aspects of neuro-toxicity of
mercury from amalgams, you are now trying to debate the
amalgam intrigue and psychology. Sorry, I will leave that
subject to dentists.
Peter Bowditch
>The second link is B. Haley's summary
>of the research on that topic
Bwahahahahah!!!
Boyd Haley!! Old 50% Boyd!
Now there's a great authority on stuff.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
nightlight
> nightlight <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The second link is B. Haley's summary
>>of the research on that topic
>
>
> Bwahahahahah!!!
>
> Boyd Haley!! Old 50% Boyd!
>
> Now there's a great authority on stuff.
It seems you clicked the wrong link. Your newsgroup is here:
Rich
> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>> nightlight <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The second link is B. Haley's summary
>>>of the research on that topic
>>
>>
>> Bwahahahahah!!!
>>
>> Boyd Haley!! Old 50% Boyd!
>>
>> Now there's a great authority on stuff.
>
> It seems you clicked the wrong link. Your newsgroup is here:
So how long have you had fecalencephalopathy?
--
--Rich
Recommended websites:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/
Jan Drew
"Peter Bow-itch"
> nightlight <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
"nightlight" <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote in message
news:JaWdnfuIVs7URrLY...@rcn.net...
Jan Drew
"Tony Bad" <spamsp...@bakedbeans.spam> wrote in message
news:TiOXg.1020$os2...@newsfe09.lga...
"nightlight" <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote in message
A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html
which found no harmful effects appears to have been
designed not to find any such effects.
Basically what they did is to perform a series
of mental performance tests on people
with various numbers of amalgams.
They did find direct linear correlation in blood
and urine levels of mercury metabolites with
number of amalgams (or surfaces). Clearly the
amalgams do cause mercury absorption and show
linear dose/response relation.
Regarding the mental tests, they cheated
by "stratifying" the subjects into categories such
as educational level, professional status,
socioeconomic status and numerous other "confounders"
(using unspecified adjustment). Then they compared
mental performance of subjects with and without
amalgams _within each subset_. The problem with
this approach is that after you adjust for all
"confounders" you get subset which by definition will
be have level of mental performance corresponding
to the parameters held fixed for the subgroup
(e.g. professional level, socioeconomic
status...).
For example if amalgams (which were all placed in
teen years) have caused drop in IQ of 30 points,
a person who might have been IQ=130 would become
IQ=100 and achieve professional status of people
with IQ=100. Hence someone who might have been a
scientist (with IQ 130), may have turned out, due
to amalgams, an average person and would be compared
to that subgroup. Similarly a person with pre-amalgam
IQ 160, who might have been Nobel laureate, would only
become an average scientist corresponding to IQ 130
and would be compared to those.
Hence, by fixing great many "confounding variables"
within each group, the authors had in effect fixed
the equivalent of the mental performance within that
subgroup. Comparing subjects within each subgroup will
then by definition measure that same fixed level of
performance corresponding to that subgroup. The whole
experiment was in effect a worthless tautology with
guaranteed outcome. It was completely insensitive to
the effect of mercury on shifting persons from one
"stratum" to another.
To give analogy, consider we wish to measure effect
of childhood starvation on height of adults. We pick
1000 adults, divide them into subgroups based on weight
and height. Then _within_ each subgroup we compare how
the remaining small height variations correlate with
the data on childhood starvation. Obviously, if we're
looking within the 6 ft +/- 10% subgroup, we won't find
out how tall a 6 ft person with history of starvation
would have been had he not been starving in childhood.
The entire study was obviously rigged -- it was
devised to be entirely insensitive to the question
of amalgam effects on mental performance. The fact
that they had to cheat using such cheap statistical
sleight of hand means that the amalgams do cause
harm and any genuine study would show it.
Jan Drew
LOL! You must learn about the many LIES on Peter Bow-itch's website.
Jan Drew
"Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gwYXg.6612$8C4....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
> "nightlight" <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote in message
> news:74SdnYY198sV1a3Y...@rcn.net...
>> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>> nightlight <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The second link is B. Haley's summary
>>>>of the research on that topic
>>>
>>>
>>> Bwahahahahah!!!
>>>
>>> Boyd Haley!! Old 50% Boyd!
>>>
>>> Now there's a great authority on stuff.
>>
>> It seems you clicked the wrong link. Your newsgroup is here:
>
> So how long have you had fecalencephalopathy?
00000000000000--such a big word.
*I don't give a damn if Peter lies to you, this newsgroup, his mother or the
pope*.
> --
>
>
> --Rich
>
> Recommended websites:
>
Three dead Children
[snip spam]
NO medical training
QUACK QUACK
*Alternative therapy" is a marketing term that should not be permitted.*
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/98news/alternat.htm
Schools Opening Up to Alternative Medicine
*While a few of those so accredited are naive physicians, most are
nonmedical persons who only play
at being doctor and use this certification as an umbrella for a host of
unproven New Age hokum treatments. Unfortunately, a few HMOs, hospitals, and
even medical schools are succumbing to the bait and exposing patients to
such bogus treatments when they need real medical care*
The National Council Against Health Fraud has concluded:
a.. Acupuncture is an unproven modality of treatment
That clearly is a LIE!!!!!
http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/42/12/1508
{spin spam}
Peter Bowditch
Which site is that, Jan? If you are going to refer to sites owned by
people who don't post here you should always provide the URL.
Jan Drew
"Peter Bow-itch"
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"nightlight" <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote in message
>>news:74SdnYY198sV1a3Y...@rcn.net...
>>> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>> nightlight <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The second link is B. Haley's summary
>>>>>of the research on that topic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bwahahahahah!!!
>>>>
>>>> Boyd Haley!! Old 50% Boyd!
>>>>
>>>> Now there's a great authority on stuff.
>>>
>>> It seems you clicked the wrong link. Your newsgroup is here:
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.clueless/
>>
>>LOL! You must learn about the many LIES on Peter Bow-itch's website.
>>
>>
>
> Which site is that, Jan?
Posted @ 2:09 am
Three dead Children
[snip spam]
NO medical training
QUACK QUACK
http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/42/12/1508
{spin spam}
> --
> Peter Bow-itch
Peter Bowditch
>
>"Peter Bow-itch"
>> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"nightlight" <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote in message
>>>news:74SdnYY198sV1a3Y...@rcn.net...
>>>> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>>> nightlight <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The second link is B. Haley's summary
>>>>>>of the research on that topic
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bwahahahahah!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Boyd Haley!! Old 50% Boyd!
>>>>>
>>>>> Now there's a great authority on stuff.
>>>>
>>>> It seems you clicked the wrong link. Your newsgroup is here:
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.clueless/
>>>
>>>LOL! You must learn about the many LIES on Peter Bow-itch's website.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which site is that, Jan?
>
>Posted @ 2:09 am
>
>
>http://www.ratbagsLIES
That's not a working URL. Please try to answer the question.
>
>Three dead Children
>
>http://tinyurl.com/9hkaj
That's Google's web site. It doesn't seem to belong to Peter Bow-itch,
whoever he is.
Another Google site. What are you trying to demonstrate here? When are
we going to be pointed to a site owned by this Peter Bow-itch?
An excellent site owned by a non-profit organisation, but still not
Peter Bow-itch's site.
>
>[snip spam]
>
> NO medical training
What does this mean, Jan? Are you referring to yourself?
>
>> http://www.quackwatch.org/
That site seems to belong to a retired psychiatrist named Dr Stephen
Barrett. Is Peter Bow-itch an alias Dr Barrett uses? If not, why is
Quackwatch being mentioned.
>
>QUACK QUACK
>
>*Alternative therapy" is a marketing term that should not be permitted.*
Fair comment. Where does it appear on the site owned by this
mysterious Peter Bow-itch?
>
>
>http://www.napa.ufl.edu/98news/alternat.htm
>Schools Opening Up to Alternative Medicine
>
>
>*While a few of those so accredited are naive physicians, most are
>nonmedical persons who only play
>at being doctor and use this certification as an umbrella for a host of
>unproven New Age hokum treatments. Unfortunately, a few HMOs, hospitals, and
>even medical schools are succumbing to the bait and exposing patients to
>such bogus treatments when they need real medical care*
Good stuff. I might put it up on my web site. Do I have to ask Peter
Bow-itch for permission (assuming that it came from his site) or can I
just claim permission in the same way that someone here once claimed
to have permission to publish "Stupid Skeptic Tricks"?
>The National Council Against Health Fraud has concluded:
>
> a.. Acupuncture is an unproven modality of treatment
>
>That clearly is a LIE!!!!!
Is it a lie that NCAHF has concluded this? Please try to use English
as she is spoke.
Peter Bow-itch owns PubMed?
Do you know that there are 18 papers indexed by PubMed that can be
found by using the search term "phlogiston"? Does this make phlogiston
real?
I'd be scared to take a leak if I thought that someone was going to
stick needles into me, but I don't see what this has to do with either
amalgams or the apocryphal Peter Bow-itch
>
>http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/42/12/1508
Does this mysterious Peter Bow-itch own the journal Rheumatology? He
doesn't seem to be any of the authors of this paper, and it doesn't
seem to have much to do with amalgams or the idiocy of Boyd Haley.
Does this Peter Bow-itch get migraines? Do these migraines come from
amalgams? What has this article to do with anything?
>
>{spin spam}
Are you having flashbacks to your LSD experiences, Jan?
>
>
>> --
>> Peter Bow-itch
There's that name again. But where is his web site with all the lies?
Mark Probert
Does Boyd Haley post there? I thought he was licking his wounds when he
was recently barred from testifying as an expert.
Mark Probert
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> nightlight wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels
>>>>> and Alzheimer's Disease"
>>>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> See also the second link posted there:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/091602/80027dd5.pdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see your two Boyd Haley's and request real proof.
>>>
>>>
>>> The first link lists no Haley's papers.
>>
>>
>> Who do you think owns Altcorp?
>
>
> If that's your best shot at the scientific references listed
> then the scientific argument is settled.
No, I thought, incorrectly it seems, that you knew that Boyd Haley has
been totally discredited and his testimony was barred by a court since
he is not an expert. I also thought, incorrectly again, that you knew
that Boyd Haley has demonstrated that he bullshits about chemistry when
he claims that thimerosal is 49.?% mercury, as if that is supposed to
mean something.
Apparently, having
> nothing to say on the scientific aspects of neuro-toxicity of
> mercury from amalgams, you are now trying to debate the
> amalgam intrigue and psychology. Sorry, I will leave that
> subject to dentists.
It has been dealt with a hundred, if not a thousands times before. Do
dredge it up from Google Groups archives.
Yawn.
nightlight
>
> No, I thought, incorrectly it seems, that you knew that Boyd Haley has
> been totally discredited and his testimony was barred by a court since
> he is not an expert.
That's a red herring.
I don't care about the intrigues and politicking from EPA/ADA
staffers and lawyers. Haley is university professor of chemistry.
If you're a rule maker for the FDA hearings who defines the
term "expert-FDA-2003" for the purpose of testifying in the
FDA 2003 hearings, it is trivial to make them exclude Haley,
e.g. by requiring that "expert-FDA-2003" must be a medical
doctor (in addition to any other conditions). That has nothing
to do with the scientific validity of Haley's peer reviewed
papers or the related experiments.
The scientific work is falsified only by other scientific work,
not by bureaucratic intrigues and legalistic gimmicks in courts.
You don't seem to differentiate these two very distinct realms
and keep trying to steer debate into political/bureaucratic
realm since your case has been lost for decades in the
scientific realm.
Further, the list of references on mercury & Alzheimer's I gave
you has no Haley's papers. So your remark is doubly pointless.
"Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels and
Alzheimer's Disease"
http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm
If you have anything of substance to say in the scientific
realm, give it a shot.
> I also thought, incorrectly again, that you knew
> that Boyd Haley has demonstrated that he bullshits about chemistry when
> he claims that thimerosal is 49.?% mercury, as if that is supposed to
> mean something.
He is right. If you receive 50 mcg of thimerosal, you have then
received ~25 mcg of mercury, which is the figure relevant when
comparing mercury exposure to various safety limits. The safe
exposure limits specify maximum _weight_ of Hg e.g. as 0.1
micrograms of Hg per kg of person's weight, and not as the count
of Hg atoms.
Why don't you explain what is wrong with the 50% figure used to
estimate mercury exposure from a given quantity of thimerosal?
>> Apparently, having
>> nothing to say on the scientific aspects of neuro-toxicity of
>> mercury from amalgams, you are now trying to debate the
>> amalgam intrigue and psychology. Sorry, I will leave that
>> subject to dentists.
>
>
> It has been dealt with a hundred, if not a thousands times before. Do
> dredge it up from Google Groups archives.
The only paper debated and debunked, as found by google searches,
is the first one on the list, the JADA paper (rejected multiple
times by the reputable peer review journals and finally published
in JADA, the non-peer-review trade journal of mercury-peddling
ADA itself) which failed to find correlation between Alzheimer's
and mercury levels in brains of patients (because it was designed
not find it, among others by cherry picking the control group
among subjects with high recent Hg exposure).
If you have links where any of the remaining peer reviewed
studies showing elevated levels of Hg in the brains of Alzheimer's
patients, have been refuted _scientifically_, you are welcome
to provide such links. Otherwise we can consider the scientific
debate concluded.
David Wright
nightlight <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
>David Wright wrote:
> >
> >>Further, the brains of Alzheimer's
> >>patients show significant excess of mercury.
> >
> >
> > Oh, sure they do. Let's see some references.
>
>Apparently you haven't checked the links provided. Right
>after the sentence that followed the one you quoted
>there is a link to a page titled:
>
>"Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels
>and Alzheimer's Disease"
>http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm
>
>See also the second link posted there:
>
>http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/091602/80027dd5.pdf
Boyd Haley's credibility went to zero long ago. Sorry.
As for your first reference, it's from Haley's company and it's
totally one-sided. There are numerous other studies showing things
like no correlation of mercury levels to number of fillings, and no
correlation of mercury levels to Alzheimer's. Some of the other
evidence is suggestive, but it's hardly definitive.
nightlight
>
> Boyd Haley's credibility went to zero long ago. Sorry.
What _specific_ published paper of Haley was found
fraudelant or at least falsified _scientifically_?
Just because some mercury peddlers with vested financial interests
have declared Haley_credibility=0 it doesn't mean it is so.
Hence pick one of his published papers or studies and show
specifically what was _scientifically_ falsified. Which of
his published papers had to be retracted due to fraud or
errors demonstrated _scientifically_ by others? Note that
the collective braying of some mutual back-patting society
doesn't constitute a _scientific_ falsification.
If you can't provide such scientific falsification, you claims
about Haley's credibility have themselves zero credibility.
> As for your first reference, it's from Haley's company and it's
> totally one-sided. There are numerous other studies showing things
> like no correlation of mercury levels to number of fillings, and no
> correlation of mercury levels to Alzheimer's.
The list of papers you provided has _zero_ papers, which is
_infinitely_ many times shorter list than the list you criticize
as insufficient. Your transparent attempts to divert debate
from scientific realm into the realm of politics, gossip and
intrigue, psychoanalysis of web host motives... indicates you are
aware that your position was defeated in the scientific realm.
> Some of the other
> evidence is suggestive, but it's hardly definitive.
If you have ten people looking for Waldo in a picture and
one finds it while nine don't, does that prove that the
presence of Waldo in the picture is "hardly definitive"?
Especially if the nine who didn't find Waldo have vested
interests in Waldo not being found? There are millions of
ways not to find something you don't wish to find.
Does it matter at all for the question whether Waldo
was in the picture, whether the person who found Waldo
has vested interest in the positive answer? Of course, not.
If dozens of studies have found elevated mercury levels in
brains of Alzheimer's patients, then you can falsify _these_
findings only by looking for mercury in the same type of
samples and locations, not by looking somewhere else
(different kind of sample, as the phony JADA 1999 study
did, by stacking the control group with subjects who had
_recent_ mercury exposure, which had the effect of blurring
the statistical significance of the correlation) and showing
that you don't see it there.
In other words, to declare the positive findings "not definitive"
you have to reproduce the very same experiments and show that the
original authors have made a mistake and that their measurements
cannot be replicated and are thus erroneous. Showing that you
can't find it by doing something different and looking somewhere
else doesn't affect, let alone represent a scientific falsification,
of the original positive findings. Those findings are _definitive
scientific facts_ unless they can be scientifically falsified.
It is also completely irrelevant for the _scientific_
questions, who and for what reason is providing or web-hosting
the list of such studies with positive findings. To claim
they are scientifically falsified you need to point to
_specific_ scientific studies (at equal level of peer
review) which are explicitly replicating the original
experiments and showing that the original results are
not reproducible i.e. the original authors have made
a mistake.
All you and other mouthful-of-mercury-causes-no-harm
posters here have done so far is to try diverting debate into
the realm of gossip, intrigue, politics, psychoanalysis of
motives of web hosts,... In short, pathetic.
Jan Drew
"Peter Bow-itch" Harassing again.
> "Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"nightlight" <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote in message
>>news:74SdnYY198sV1a3Y...@rcn.net...
>>> Peter Bowditch wrote:
>>>> nightlight <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The second link is B. Haley's summary
>>>>>of the research on that topic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bwahahahahah!!!
>>>>
>>>> Boyd Haley!! Old 50% Boyd!
>>>>
>>>> Now there's a great authority on stuff.
>>>
>>> It seems you clicked the wrong link. Your newsgroup is here:
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.clueless/
>>
>>LOL! You must learn about the many LIES on Peter Bow-itch's website.
>>
>>
>
> Which site is that, Jan? If you are going to refer to sites owned by
> people who don't post here you should always provide the URL.
> --
> Peter Bow-itch
Posted today. Now--are you done making a fool of yourself?
Jan Drew
"Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:NU6Yg.107$5h6.9@trndny04...
In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a
Suspended Attorney, Respondent.
Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.
92-02731
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT
183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747
November 9, 1992, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]
Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the
Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on
February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S.
Probert.
DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline
upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is
granted; and it is further,
HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings
Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to
cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance
Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred.
COUNSEL:
Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for
petitioner.
JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ.,
concur.
Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the
respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and
it is further,
Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately,
the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken
from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's
rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned
attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,
Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent,
Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from
practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or
employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or
counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission
or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to
the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4)
from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and
counselor-at-law.
OPINIONBY: Per Curiam.
OPINION: [*282]
[**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29,
1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the
further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with
the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4,
1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and
prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent
and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee.
[**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon
the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The
petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The
motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992.
The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the
default motion.
The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate
with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of
professional misconduct.
The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has
chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must
be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent
in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly,
the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately
Source:
NY UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, ATTORNEY REGIST. UNIT
Currency Status:
ARCHIVE RECORD
NAME & PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION
Name:
MARK PROBERT
Date Of Birth:
11/XX/1946
Gender:
MALE
Address:
1698 WEBSTER AVE
MERRICK, NY 11566
County:
NASSAU
Phone:
EMPLOYER INFORMATION
Employer:
MARK S PROBERT ESQ
Organization:
PERSON
LICENSING INFORMATION
Licensing Agency:
NY STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION
License/Certification Type:
ATTORNEY
License Number:
1253889
Issue Date:
00/00/1978
License Status:
DISBARRED
License State:
NY
Tells you birthday.............
From: Mark Probert - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 11 2001 4:17 pm
Email: Mark Probert <markpr...@my-deja.com>
Groups: k12.chat.teacher
Noah has had one since 11/26/96 (my birthday).
Jan Drew
amalgams.
Quack Barrett had it on his website, Peter e-mailed him and VERT shortly
after, he changed it.
There are 235 on Medline which states mercury amalgams.
The *gang members* are here to do nothing other than try and protect the
lies of the AMA and ADA,
and harass.
Peter Bowditch
You posted, in response to a polite request to show us the web site
full of lies belonging to a "peter Bow-itch":
a) An unworkable URL that lead nowhere.
b) Two links to Google Groups (which is not a site owned by this Peter
Bow-itch, whoever he is).
c) A link to the excellent site belonging to the Australian Council
Against Health Fraud.
d) A link to Quackwatch
e) Some links to PubMed.
So for you to say that the link to this Peter Bow-itch's web site was
posted earlier today is a LIE.
Peter Bowditch
>Both David and Peter Bowditch say there is no such things as mercury
>amalgams.
A perfectly correct statement, because the term "mercury amalgam" is a
tautology. Anyone who continues to use the expression after being told
that it is wrong is either a fool or uneducatable.
>Quack Barrett had it on his website, Peter e-mailed him and VERT shortly
>after, he changed it.
Correct. I pointed out an error to Dr Barrett and, like anybody should
do when they are shown to be in error, he corrected the error.
>
>There are 235 on Medline which states mercury amalgams.
There are 18 references in Pubmed to phlogiston. "Mercury amalgams"
are just as real as phlogiston.
What Jan can't seem to see is that using an incorrect expression just
makes the case against silver amalgam less powerful, as others can see
that accuracy doesn't matter to the person using the incorrect
expression.
I am quite prepared to look at any evidence for harm caused by silver
amalgam dental fillings, but as a "mercury amalgam" would be a liquid
at body temperature it would be totally unsuitable for restoration
work.
Unless you are talking to the fool who said that mercury has a melting
point of 39 deg C, but that's another story -
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/history/2005/03march.htm#12mercury
Rich
"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:SOhYg.14912$6S3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> Both David and Peter Bowditch say there is no such things as mercury
> amalgams.
> Quack Barrett had it on his website, Peter e-mailed him and VERT shortly
> after, he changed it.
>
> There are 235 on Medline which states mercury amalgams.
Medline citations found by searching "phrenology," 146.
Medline citations found by searching "phlogiston," 18.
Medline citations found by searching "fairy dust," 3.
Medline citations found by searching "funny bone," 6.
Showing up in a Medline search does not lend a word or phrase scientific
validity or grammatical correctness.
>
> The *gang members* are here to do nothing other than try and protect the
> lies of the AMA and ADA,
> and harass.
Says the mha queen of harassment who is here only to protect the lies of
EVERY altie quack, no matter how fraudulent.
Now, it's time for another Remedial English lesson.
"Both David and Peter Bowditch say there is no such things as mercury
amalgams."
"There is" is incorrect. The verb "is" is singular, and does not match its
subject, "things." The sentence should read:
"Both David and Peter Bowditch say there are no such things as mercury
amalgams." OR "Both David and Peter Bowditch say there is no such thing as
mercury amalgam." Either would be correct.
"Quack Barrett had it on his website, Peter e-mailed him and VERT shortly
after, he changed it."
This is a run-on sentence. It could be broken up into separate sentences
expressing the two different ideas.
The first sentence would thus be:
"Quack Barrett had it on his website." Now that is grammatically correct,
but its meaning is unclear. Better is:
"Quack Barrett had the term 'mercury amalgam' on his website." (Note that I
used single quotes around the phrase because it is internal to the whole
sentence that I have in double quotes. If you were posting this sentence as
in the original, double quotes would be correct.)
The second sentence that's left is "Peter e-mailed him and VERY shortly
after, he changed it." (We will, of course, forgive the typo, even though
you emphasized it with caps.) The use of the word "after" is incorrect here.
The adverb "after" wants a subject, i.e., after what? Better would be:
"Peter e-mailed him and VERY shortly thereafter, he changed it."
So now we have:
Quack Barrett had the term "mercury amalgam" on his website. Peter e-mailed
him and VERY shortly thereafter, he changed it.
Now that we have the grammar corrected, let's look at style. I really
appreciate your TRYING to compose a compound sentence, so let's see if we
can recombine our two sentences without creating the dread run-on. How
about:
After Peter e-mailed Quack Barrett about the use of the term "mercury
amalgam" on Quackwatch, it was quickly removed from the site.
The only thing left is to correct the term "Quack" Barrett.
From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: quack
Function: noun
Etymology: short for quacksalver
1 : CHARLATAN 2
2 : a pretender to medical skill
Now, you may believe that Dr. Barrett is a charlatan and/or a pretender to
medical skill, but this definition is of a noun, not a term of address. The
adjective form of the word is defined:
Main Entry: quack
Function: adjective
: of, relating to, or used by quacks <quack cancer cures
That does not allow its use as a title or term of address, either, nor do
any of the other definitions. So that usage is your own (or, more probably
Ilena's) and has no foundation or grammatical correctness.
Remedial English lesson continued:
"There are 235 on Medline which states mercury amalgams."
This is a very ugly sentence. First, "235," as used here, is an adjective
and requires a subject, as does the sentence as a whole. This use of an
adjective as the subject of a sentence or clause is a grammatical error you
make often, Jan. You should stive to understand the concept to improve your
writing. Next, we have "which states," again a disagreement in number of the
subject of the sentence (if there were one) and its verb. So first, let's
correct those two errors:
There are 235 abstracts on Medline which state mercury amalgams.
But this is still a mess. Abstracts (or whatever you want to say there are
235 of) don't "state" "mercury amalgams." (The term "mercury amalgams"
should be in quotes in your sentence too, since you are discussing the term,
not the amalgams themselves.)
So:
There are 235 abstracts on Medline which include the term "mercury
amalgams."
Now the grammar is correct, but the content is not. You don't know how many
Medline abstracts contain the term "mercury amalgams." You only know how
many were found when you plugged the term into Medline's search engine. So
to reflect that fact:
A search of Medline for "mercury amalgams" produces 235 citations.
Finally:
The *gang members* are here to do nothing other than try and protect the
lies of the AMA and ADA, and harass.
The grammatically-correct use of the asterisk in English is to refer to a
footnote. I understand that its use for emphasis is not your invention, and
that it stems from the lack of the ability to use the correct emphatic, the
underline, in the text format common to newsgroups. I personally prefer the
use of caps for emphasis, but I won't chastise you for the asterisks in this
sentence. On the other hand, it's not clear why the term "gang members"
needs any emphasis at all. As for the sentence itself, you left out two
"to's." It should read:
The gang members are here to do nothing other than to try and protect the
lies of the AMA and ADA, and to harass.
That leaves the construct "try and" as the final grammatical error. You mean
try "to" protect. Thus:
The gang members are here to do nothing other than to try to protect the
lies of the AMA and ADA, and to harass.
Now it's grammatically correct, even though it is, by your own standards, a
LIE! (Of course most of us would consider it an opinion, and thus NOT a lie,
but you refuse to accept that concept.)
--
--Rich
Recommended websites:
cathyb
That was fun to read, as it must have been to compose. One teensy
little niggle though:
"There are 235 abstracts on Medline which include the term 'mercury
amalgams.'" should technically be "There are 235 abstracts on Medline
that include the term 'mercury amalgams.'"
Although that's a distinction more honoured in the breach than the
observance these days, to the extent that a publisher once told me not
to bother about it; granted, the writer of that particular paper had
much more to worry about:)
Cathy
> --
>
>
> --Rich
>
> Recommended websites:
>
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> http://www.acahf.org.au
> http://www.quackwatch.org/
> http://www.skeptic.com/
> http://www.csicop.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> begin 666 pixt.gif
> K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! $```$`+ `````!``$```("3 $`.P``
> `
> end
Rich
"cathyb" <cathyb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1160889784.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Good catch. I knew that, but I missed it. I stand corrected.
:o) Rich
nightlight
>
> Both David and Peter Bowditch say there is no such things as mercury
> amalgams.
> Quack Barrett had it on his website, Peter e-mailed him and VERT shortly
> after, he changed it.
If there is any rewarding aspect of the time squandered here
"debating" the mouthful-of-mercury-is-safe wolfpacks, it would
be watching them make publicly fools of themselves by responding
to every specific argument or scientific fact in vapid mantras,
postures of authority, mutual back-patting and other swarm
mannerisms, without a concrete thought or pertinent fact behind.
Having been so helpful in exposing their "intellects", they
deserve now to be left alone in their little sandbox, to have
some healing time all on their own, so they can reassure each
other and lick their wounds.
Clinton
nightlight wrote:
> Jan Drew wrote:
>
> Having been so helpful in exposing their "intellects", they
> deserve now to be left alone in their little sandbox, to have
> some healing time all on their own, so they can reassure each
> other and lick their wounds.
Obviously the defense of mercury by certain groups, including dentists
would be comical if it were not so sad.
However, dentists and quackwatch don't work in a vacum. Society itself,
including educated professionals such as engineers, scientists,
doctors,
lawyers etc not to mention the federal governemen allow the use of Hg
in dentistry.
Do you think the society which allows dentistry to use Hg is more or
less
to blame, especially since it appears many pro-mercury types just don't
have the scientific acumen to understand what they are saying.
Mark Probert
> Mark Probert wrote:
>>
>> No, I thought, incorrectly it seems, that you knew that Boyd Haley has
>> been totally discredited and his testimony was barred by a court since
>> he is not an expert.
>
> That's a red herring.
No, that is the truth.
> I don't care about the intrigues and politicking from EPA/ADA
> staffers and lawyers. Haley is university professor of chemistry.
> If you're a rule maker for the FDA hearings who defines the
> term "expert-FDA-2003" for the purpose of testifying in the
> FDA 2003 hearings, it is trivial to make them exclude Haley,
> e.g. by requiring that "expert-FDA-2003" must be a medical
> doctor (in addition to any other conditions). That has nothing
> to do with the scientific validity of Haley's peer reviewed
> papers or the related experiments.
You should brush up a tad. Haley was not permitted to testify as he did
not measure up under the Daubert rule. Learn it.
> The scientific work is falsified only by other scientific work,
> not by bureaucratic intrigues and legalistic gimmicks in courts.
> You don't seem to differentiate these two very distinct realms
> and keep trying to steer debate into political/bureaucratic
> realm since your case has been lost for decades in the
> scientific realm.
Your imagination is running wild. I did not mention the FDA, etc. It was
the USDOJ that successfully opposed Haley being admitted as an expert
under the Daubert rule.
> Further, the list of references on mercury & Alzheimer's I gave
> you has no Haley's papers. So your remark is doubly pointless.
>
> "Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels and
> Alzheimer's Disease"
> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm
Haley owns Altcorp.
> If you have anything of substance to say in the scientific
> realm, give it a shot.
See above.
>> I also thought, incorrectly again, that you knew that Boyd Haley has
>> demonstrated that he bullshits about chemistry when he claims that
>> thimerosal is 49.?% mercury, as if that is supposed to mean something.
>
> He is right. If you receive 50 mcg of thimerosal, you have then
> received ~25 mcg of mercury, which is the figure relevant when
> comparing mercury exposure to various safety limits. The safe
> exposure limits specify maximum _weight_ of Hg e.g. as 0.1
> micrograms of Hg per kg of person's weight, and not as the count
> of Hg atoms.
No, he is incorrect, since the percentage of the molecular weight of one
atom of the molecule is irrelevant to its chemical properties, and, the
mercury in thimerosal never becomes elemental mercury. Locate your high
school chemistry notes and look it up.
> Why don't you explain what is wrong with the 50% figure used to
> estimate mercury exposure from a given quantity of thimerosal?
See above. Further, the toxicity of E-Hg is far different that that of
MeHg or elemental Hg.
David Wright
And your "intellect" was telling us that smoking is good for us
because it protects us from Alzheimer's Disease. Except it probably
doesn't:
Neurology. 1999 Apr 22;52(7):1408-12.
Comment in:
Neurology. 2000 Feb 8;54(3):777-8.
The influence of smoking on the risk of Alzheimer's disease.
* Merchant C, Tang MX, Albert S, Manly J, Stern Y, Mayeux R.
Gertrude H. Sergievsky Center, Department of Neurology, College of
Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032,
USA.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between cigarette
smoking and Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a prospective
community-based study in northern Manhattan. BACKGROUND: Results
from previous case-control studies suggest that there is a
protective effect of smoking on AD. However, the recent prospective
Rotterdam Study found that there was an increased risk of AD for
smokers, particularly those without an apolipoprotein E
(APOE)-epsilon4 allele. METHODS: The authors examined data from a
community-based longitudinal study of local elders residing in
northern Manhattan to determine whether tobacco use increases or
decreases the risk of AD. Information regarding the frequency of
tobacco use was obtained in structured interviews at the baseline
assessment. Standardized clinical assessments were subsequently
completed on each subject at annual visits during which incident
cases of AD were identified. RESULTS: The relative risk (RR) of AD
among former smokers was 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5 to 1.1). The RR among
current smokers was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.2 to 3.0). Smokers without an
APOE-epsilon 4 allele had the highest risk of AD (RR = 2.1; 95% CI,
2.1 to 3.7) compared with those with an APOE-epsilon 4 allele (RR =
1.4; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.3). CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent
with the observation that smoking increases the risk of
AD. However, we found that among previous smokers who quit smoking,
there may be a slight reduction in the risk of AD.
PMID: 10227626 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
and
Int J Epidemiol. 1999 Feb;28(1):77-81.Click here to read Links
The effects of wine and tobacco consumption on cognitive
performance in the elderly: a longitudinal study of relative risk.
* Leibovici D, Ritchie K, Ledesert B, Touchon J.
INSERM CJF 97-02, Epidemiology of Neurodegenerative Pathologies of
the CNS, CRLC Val D'Aurelle, Montpellier, France.
BACKGROUND: Evidence relating to the potentially protective effect
of smoking and alcohol consumption in relation to senescent
cognitive decline and Alzheimer's disease is inconclusive. METHODS:
The relationship between wine and tobacco consumption and cognitive
change was assessed within a longitudinal study of normal elderly
people showing recent instability in cognitive functioning using an
extensive battery of cognitive tests. RESULTS: While moderate wine
consumption was found to be associated with a fourfold diminishing
of the risk of Alzheimer's disease (OR = 0.26), as found in other
studies, this effect was found to disappear when
institutionalization was taken into account. Wine consumption was
associated with an increased risk of decline over time in attention
and in secondary memory. No protective effect for Alzheimer's
disease was found for smoking, although smoking was associated with
a decreased risk for decline over time in attentional and
visuospatial functioning. No clear combined effect of smoking and
drinking was found, even though smoking was found to increase the
risk of decline in language performance when adjusted on wine
consumption. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to suggest that wine
and tobacco consumption may protect against Alzheimer's disease.
PMID: 10195668 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
David Wright
Thanks for the condescention, Clinton. Much appreciated by all, I'm
sure, as you look down from your Olympian heights of knowledge and
intellect.
Jan Drew
> nightlight wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>> nightlight wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels
>>>>>> and Alzheimer's Disease"
>>>>>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See also the second link posted there:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/091602/80027dd5.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I see your two Boyd Haley's and request real proof.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The first link lists no Haley's papers.
>>>
>>>
>>> Who do you think owns Altcorp?
Yes, WHOM?
>>
>>
>> If that's your best shot at the scientific references listed
>> then the scientific argument is settled.
>
> No, I thought, incorrectly it seems, that you knew that Boyd Haley has
> been totally discredited and his testimony was barred by a court since he
> is not an expert. I also thought, incorrectly again, that you knew that
> Boyd Haley has demonstrated that he bullshits about chemistry when he
> claims that thimerosal is 49.?% mercury, as if that is supposed to mean
> something.
ZZzz.
Mark keeps harping on this, while NOT repsonsing at all. When he was
disabarred.
He also believes his buddy's LIE.
Dr. Haley wrote:
Ethylmercury is extremely neurotoxic, killing neurons at 10-25 nanomolar
levels. For your information the vaccine is 125,000 nanomolar in thimerosal
and injecting one vaccine (12.5 micrograms) into one 4-6lbs infant would
represent a very toxic exposure. Furhter, unlike many elements (N,O,C, etc.)
Hg has no known usefulness in biological systems, being toxic to them all.
Also, all occurring forms of Hg (methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal
dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+, etc.) have been reported to be extremely
toxic.
Here is what Peter Said:
A professor of chemistry deliberately talks about two different chemical
compounds (ethylmercury and methylmercury) as if they are interchangeable
and have identical properties.
That is a LIE.
Dr Haley said NO such thing.
He said:
(methylmercury, ethylmercury, thimerosal dental amalgams, Hg vapor, Hg2+,
etc.) have been reported to be extremely toxic.
He is absolutely correct.
Ethylmercury has also been shown, like methylmercury, to accumulate in the
brain and causes tissue damage methylmercury, to accumulate in the brain and
causes tissue damage
Like methylmercury, ethylmercury is toxic to the brain and crosses the
blood-brain barrier. (9) "Higher-dose exposure to ethylmercury from
Thimerosal results in toxicity comparable to that observed after high-dose
exposure to methylmercury."
>
> Apparently, having
>> nothing to say on the scientific aspects of neuro-toxicity of
>> mercury from amalgams, you are now trying to debate the
>> amalgam intrigue and psychology. Sorry, I will leave that
>> subject to dentists.
>
> It has been dealt with a hundred, if not a thousands times before. Do
> dredge it up from Google Groups archives.
>
> Yawn.
>
Another famous word of Mark's.
Jan Drew
"David Wright" <wri...@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:lFtYg.14208$vJ2....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <1160911541.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> Clinton <clin...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>
>>nightlight wrote:
>>> Jan Drew wrote:
>>>
>>> Having been so helpful in exposing their "intellects", they
>>> deserve now to be left alone in their little sandbox, to have
>>> some healing time all on their own, so they can reassure each
>>> other and lick their wounds.
>>
>>Obviously the defense of mercury by certain groups, including dentists
>>would be comical if it were not so sad.
>>
>>However, dentists and quackwatch don't work in a vacum. Society itself,
>>including educated professionals such as engineers, scientists,
>>doctors,
>>lawyers etc not to mention the federal governemen allow the use of Hg
>>in dentistry.
>>
>>Do you think the society which allows dentistry to use Hg is more or
>>less
>>to blame, especially since it appears many pro-mercury types just don't
>>have the scientific acumen to understand what they are saying.
>
> Thanks for the condescention, Clinton. Much appreciated by all, I'm
> sure, as you look down from your Olympian heights of knowledge and
> intellect.
Oh, dear. David has just described himself.
Jan Drew
Subject: Crematoria major source of mercury emissions due to amalgam; Gov't
action in UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4160895.stm
BBC News World Edition Jan 10, 2005
Crematoria warned over mercury: Crematoria contribute 16% of the UK's
mercury emissions
Strict rules for crematoria to limit mercury pollution caused when tooth
fillings are vaporised have been announced by ministers.
The industry has been told mercury filtering equipment must be fitted at
crematoria by 2012 to halve emissions.
Exposure to the metal is linked to damage to the brain, nervous system and
fertility with crematoria responsible for 16% of the UK's mercury pollution.
But the industry said it was an over-reaction and would lead to price rises.
The filters are quite large and some crematoria are in small buildings that
are listed so it may not be possible to install them."
He also said the equipment, which costs ££250,000, would be too expensive
for some of the 650 crematoria in the UK.
However, he allayed fears crematoria would be forced to close - originally
it was thought one in four would not be able to cope once the new rules came
into place.
Emissions
He said the industry was setting up a "trading scheme" which would allow
crematoria without filters too buy credits off ones that do have them.
As the equipment reduces mercury emissions by up to 99% and the rules
stipulate emissions must be halved, crematoria with the equipment will be
able to make up the shortfall for crematoria without the filters.
And the National Association of Funeral Directors (NAFD) estimated it would
add upto ££100 to the price of cremation, which currently cost between ££250
to ££350.
Alan Slater, chief executive of the NAFD, said: "What concerns us is that
bereaved families will have to bear the cost of this.
"Crematorium managers will pass the costs on but it is funeral directors who
will have to address the issue with relatives."
However, the government defended the new rules, saying that unless action
was taken mercury emissions would rise by two-thirds by 2020.
The government is committed to reducing mercury pollution under the UN Heavy
Metals Protocol.
Restrictions on other industries have already helped reduce mercury
emissions from 31.6 tonnes in 1990 to eight tonnes in 2002.
And Environment Minister Larry Whitty said: "By 2020, crematoria will be by
far the biggest single contributor to mercury emissions in this country.
"Something must be done. Our decision - on which we consulted widely -
strikes a balance between the concerns about cost to crematoria and the need
to control emissions of a substance which can damage human health and the
environment."
http://www.jg-shelton.co.uk/id14.html
http://www.toxicteeth.org/pressRoom_pastPress.cfm
>
>
>
> -- David Wright ::
nightlight
> nightlight wrote:
>
>
>
> No, that is the truth.
"Red herring" may be true or false. You seem to imagine
that "misleading" is a synonim for "false":
-------------------------------------------------------
Red herring:
...
2. something intended to divert attention from the real
problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.
-------------------------------------------------------
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=red+herring&x=0&y=0
>> I don't care about the intrigues and politicking from EPA/ADA
>> staffers and lawyers. Haley is university professor of chemistry.
>> If you're a rule maker for the FDA hearings who defines the
>> term "expert-FDA-2003" for the purpose of testifying in the
>> FDA 2003 hearings, it is trivial to make them exclude Haley,
>> e.g. by requiring that "expert-FDA-2003" must be a medical
>> doctor (in addition to any other conditions). That has nothing
>> to do with the scientific validity of Haley's peer reviewed
>> papers or the related experiments.
>
>
> You should brush up a tad. Haley was not permitted to testify as he did
> not measure up under the Daubert rule. Learn it.
That has nothing to do with scientific research and findings
by others (the list I gave you).
>> The scientific work is falsified only by other scientific work,
>> not by bureaucratic intrigues and legalistic gimmicks in courts.
>> You don't seem to differentiate these two very distinct realms
>> and keep trying to steer debate into political/bureaucratic
>> realm since your case has been lost for decades in the
>> scientific realm.
>
>
> Your imagination is running wild. I did not mention the FDA, etc. It was
> the USDOJ that successfully opposed Haley being admitted as an expert
> under the Daubert rule.
You obviously wish to debate the amalgam issue in any other realm,
but the realm of science.
>> Further, the list of references on mercury & Alzheimer's I gave
>> you has no Haley's papers. So your remark is doubly pointless.
>>
>> "Published Studies on Elevated Brain Mercury Levels and
>> Alzheimer's Disease"
>> http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm
>
>
> Haley owns Altcorp.
Again, you are diverting debate into the realm of analysis of
motives of web hosts, not the realm of science. Who owns the
web site that listed the references to published, peer
reviewed scientific studies done by other scientists is
entirely irrelevant in the realm of science. What is
relevant are the studies themselves.
>> If you have anything of substance to say in the scientific
>> realm, give it a shot.
>
>
> See above.
There was no substance above. Just few of your lame attempts to
debate intrigue, courts, gossip, psychology of web host motives,...
and everything else but the scientific facts of mercury toxicity.
>> He is right. If you receive 50 mcg of thimerosal, you have then
>> received ~25 mcg of mercury, which is the figure relevant when
>> comparing mercury exposure to various safety limits. The safe
>> exposure limits specify maximum _weight_ of Hg e.g. as 0.1
>> micrograms of Hg per kg of person's weight, and not as the count
>> of Hg atoms.
>
>
> No, he is incorrect, since the percentage of the molecular weight of one
> atom of the molecule is irrelevant to its chemical properties, and, the
> mercury in thimerosal never becomes elemental mercury. Locate your high
> school chemistry notes and look it up.
You're answering the wrong question. The 50% figure refers to weight of
mercury within given weight of thimerosal, which is what you need
to know to compare the mercury exposure (organic, inorganic or
elemental) to the corresponding (organic, inorganic, elemental)
published safety limits. Both the amounts of thimerosal in vaccines
and the safety limits are given in units of weight of Hg (such as
micrograms). There is no unit or figure that specifies how many
"chemical properties" are safe, as you seem to imagine. Hence,
your answer is a complete non sequitur.
>> Why don't you explain what is wrong with the 50% figure used to
>> estimate mercury exposure from a given quantity of thimerosal?
>
>
> See above. Further, the toxicity of E-Hg is far different that that of
> MeHg or elemental Hg.
There are different mercury safety limits for different mercury
compounds. For example, there are limits (e.g. in micrograms of Hg
per kg of person's weight) for Hg exposure from fish, which would be
the exposure mostly from the organic mercury compounds.
nightlight
More recent studies about effects of smoking show that smoking
correlates positively with just about any disease. These correlations
are the result of intense social pressures directed against smoking
which have resulted in a statistically highly skewed samples for
smokers. Thus a sample of present-day smokers will have statistically
lower socioeconomic status, lower education, lower intelligence,
poorer nutrition, more hazardous and stressful job, poorer dental health
(e.g. more amalgams), more work exposure to toxins,... than non-smokers,
(those who quit under present pressures would fall in between).
Many of these same negative factors which are correlated
with smoking are also positively correlated with Alzheimer's.
Hence, for any single or a two factor studies, such as the two
you cited, the smoking is simply a statistical marker for the
entire the array of negative factors known to be correlated
with Alzheimer's. Only a multifactor study which compares
subjects with all other factors for Alzheimer's same, except
for smoking, would detect a protective effects of smoking
for Alzheimer's (and similarly Parkinson's and schizophrenia).
Before the present era of intense anti-smoking social engineering
(which started in earnest in late 1970s), the samples of smokers
were much less skewed and the strong negative correlation
between smoking and Alzheimer's was transparent even in the
single factor studies (which is even hinted in the abstract
of the first paper you cited).
As the closest proxy for the genuine multifactor studies
related to smoking among the studies of recent couple
decades, one would have to read studies looking at smoking
within family, such as siblings or preferably twins. Indeed,
there are such studies on this same topic, Alzheimer's and
smoking, such as:
-------------------------
van Duijn CM, Havekes LM, Van Broeckhoven C, de Knijff P, Hofman A.
"Apolipoprotein E genotype and association between smoking and early
onset Alzheimer's disease"
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Erasmus University Medical
School, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
OBJECTIVE--To investigate the hypothesis that differential survival
between smokers and non-smokers leading to a decrease in the frequency
of the e4 allele of the apolipoprotein E gene may explain the inverse
relation between smoking history and early onset Alzheimer's disease.
DESIGN--A population based case-control study. SETTING--The four
northern provinces of the Netherlands and metropolitan Rotterdam.
SUBJECTS--175 patients with early onset Alzheimer's disease and two
independent control groups of 159 and 457 subjects. MAIN OUTCOME
MEASURES--Frequencies of the apolipoprotein e4 allele and relative risk
of early onset Alzheimer's disease. RESULTS--The inverse association
between smoking history and early onset Alzheimer's disease could not be
explained by a decrease in the frequency of the apolipoprotein e4
allele. Among carriers of this allele with a family history of dementia
subjects with a history of smoking had a strongly reduced risk of early
onset Alzheimer's disease (odds ratio 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.01
to 0.87)). CONCLUSIONS--The results suggest that the inverse relation
between smoking history and early onset Alzheimer's disease cannot be
explained by an increased mortality in carriers of the apolipoprotein e4
allele who smoke. The association is strongly modified by the presence
of the apolipoprotein e4 allele as well as by a family history of dementia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=7703749&query_hl=18&itool=pubmed_docsum
-----------------------------------------------
Hence, when genetic and other cofactors are more similar
among the subjects being compared, such as those within
family as opposed to general population, the protective
effects of smoking are more than clear: the smoking
reduced odds ratio for Alzheimer's tenfold!
The key mechanism for this drastic protective effect
of smoking is the stimulation of glutathione production
in smokers, which is also the primary vehicle for mercury
elimination (and its relation to ApoE4 allele and mercury
toxicity to brain) was sketched in the two earlier posts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.dentistry/msg/c6e84f975e24c648
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.dentistry/msg/8062a2e3acad3f0d
As explained above, the strongest protective effect of smoking
occurs for carriers of double ApoE4 allele, and the weakest for
double ApoE2 carriers (the order for all 6 ApoE sub types is:
STRONGEST E4/4, E4/3, E4/2, E3/3, E3/2, E2/2 WEAKEST). A
separate protective mechanism of smoking is via stimulation
of nicotine receptors.
Note that the first study you cited used ApoE4 allele as the
second factor analyzed (in addition to smoking), while the
second study didn't control for ApoE4. In full agreement
with the described protective mechanism of smoking, the first
study shows that the combination of all other cofactors for
Alzheimer's which are more prevalent among smokers, overrides
the protective effects of smoking, but less so for the ApoE4
carriers (for whom the protective mechanism is the strongest),
than for non-ApoE4 (RR=1.4 vs RR=2.1). Interestingly, in case
of "former smokers", which would have reduced Alzheimer's
cofactors (e.g. better educated, higher socioeconomic status,
better nutrition,... than smokers, but not as much as
non-smokers), the protective effects of smoking come trough
more clearly even in a single factor analysis: the "former
smoker" RR=0.7 i.e. former smokers, despite the baggage of
the residual cofactors, still have lower risk than the baseline.
Another way that the recent single/two-factors studies will
show protective effect of smoking is if they consider
dose/response relation among former smokers i.e. the pack
years. For example, a 2006 paper, which also controlled for
ApoE allele polymorphism, shows strong dose/response relation
i.e. among former smokers, the more pack years of smoking,
the lower incidence of AD:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aggarwal NT, Bienias JL, Bennett DA, Wilson RS, Morris MC,
Schneider JA, Shah RC, Evans DA
"The relation of cigarette smoking to incident Alzheimer's
disease in a biracial urban community population"
Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center, Rush University Medical Center, Armour
Academic Center, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. nag...@ush.edu
The relationship between smoking status and incident Alzheimer's disease
(AD) was investigated in a random stratified sample of a biracial
community in Chicago. Analyses are based on 1,064 persons (of 1,134
evaluated) who had data on smoking status, disease incidence, and key
covariates such as apolipoprotein allele status. During a mean of about
4 years of follow-up, 170 persons met criteria for incident AD. Current
smoking was associated with increased risk of incident AD (OR = 3.4, 95%
CI = 1.4-8.0) compared to persons who never smoked. There was no
apparent increase in risk of AD for former smokers compared to persons
who never smoked (OR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.5-1.7). Apolipoprotein E allele
status modified this association in that former smokers with a upsilon4
allele were less likely to develop AD (p = 0.04) than those who never
smoked. Former smokers also appeared to have a reduced risk of
developing AD as their pack-years of smoking increased (p = 0.02)such
that the odds of developing AD increased by 50% for every 10 years of
smoking cessation (OR = 1.3, CI = 0.9-1.7). The results suggest that
older people who currently smoke are more likely to develop AD compared
to those who never smoked; the relation between those who used to smoke
but quit and the risk of AD is complex and requires further research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16493200&query_hl=22&itool=pubmed_docsum
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, if you compare apples and apples i.e. subjects with all
other cofactors for Alzheimer's matching, smoking is strongly
(e.g. risk drops by 10 times even for very coarsely matched
cofactors) protective against Alzheimer's (also Parkinson's,
schizophrenia, various autoimmune diseases, asthma,... etc),
as it always was.
It was, of course, much easer to see that using only _simple_ one
or two factor studies few decades ago, before the years of
intense anti-smoking social engineering had skewed the sampling
of smokers. But, as indicated above, even the present-day
highly skewed samples analyzed only via one/two factor studies,
still show the protective effect. An individual, who by definition
has all cofactors fixed, changing one cofactor, say from smoking
to non-smoking, will significantly increase his odds for Alzheimer's,
and the sooner they do it (i.e. after having fewer pack years), the
greater the increase of the risk (by 50% for losing each 10 pack
years). And of course, if an individual changes status from
non-smoker to smoker, with all other co-factors in his life
unchanged (same work, same diet,..., genetics is by definition
fixed), his risk of Alzheimer's will drop significantly, and
more so the sooner he starts smoking.
Rich
>
>>>> Who do you think owns Altcorp?
>
> Yes, WHOM?
No, "who," not "whom" is correct. "Who" is the subject of the verb "owns" in
this sentence, not its object. If the sentence were, "Altcorp is owned by
whom," then "whom" would be an object (of the preposition "by"), and would,
of course, be the correct term.
Just trying to help.
Remedial English, Jan.
Mark Probert
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> nightlight wrote:
>>
>>> That's a red herring.
>>
>>
>> No, that is the truth.
>
> "Red herring" may be true or false. You seem to imagine
> that "misleading" is a synonim for "false":
There was no misleading. I was pointing out that your so-called expert,
Boyd Haley, is not accepted as an expert. Sorry you cannot handle that.
If I had mentioned that he is a despicable human being for calling ASD
"Mad Child Disease", then you might have a gripe.
Jan Drew
trelbr...@sympatico.ca
What makes antiamalgamists tick? James R. Berry, associate publisher of
the American Dental Association's newspaper, has characterized them
this way:
We know that some few of them are sincere, though confused by the
Scientific Method. They read nonsense and accept it. Others have
clearer vision and no excuses. They see plainly enough, and what they
see is opportunity, which comes in green. When the universal quest for
health collides with greed, the collision is loud and dangerous. People
get hurt by those they expect, at minimum, to do no harm.
The anti-amalgamists-with their mercury meters . . . would be comical
figures if they weren't so insidious. They prey on easy targets: the
desperately ill grasping for hope against a dark alternative [19].
nightlight
> What makes antiamalgamists tick? James R. Berry, associate publisher of
> the American Dental Association's newspaper, has characterized them
> this way:
>
> We know that some few of them are sincere, though confused by the
> Scientific Method. They read nonsense and accept it. Others have
> clearer vision and no excuses. They see plainly enough, and what they
> see is opportunity, which comes in green. When the universal quest for
> health collides with greed, the collision is loud and dangerous. People
> get hurt by those they expect, at minimum, to do no harm.
>
> The anti-amalgamists-with their mercury meters . . . would be comical
> figures if they weren't so insidious. They prey on easy targets: the
> desperately ill grasping for hope against a dark alternative [19].
>
In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a
defense mechanism in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one’s
own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection
reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious
impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. ...
Clinton
nightlight wrote:
> trelbr...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> >
>
>
> In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a
> defense mechanism in which one attributes ("projects") to others, one's
> own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection
> reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious
> impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them. ...
>
Good point. But how to get the message across to dentists that Hg does
leave amalgam in large quantities. Perhaps you could employ the
"commonsense" approach. Just as people refused to believe that the
Earth revolved around the Sun, before the invention of the telescope,
perhaps pro-amalgmists would be convinced if they rented a Jermone Hg
meter.
By the way what is you interest in this issue? Concerned citizen or
scientist,
amalgam victim, random poster?
Tony Bad
"Clinton" <clin...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:1161085008.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Earth revolved around the Sun, before the invention of the telescope,
> perhaps pro-amalgmists would be convinced if they rented a Jermone Hg
> meter.
>
Using this kind of meter in any medical or dental care or diagnosis is
absurd. It is the equivalent of using a truck scale to weigh a child and
making a diagnosis based on such data. It is the wrong tool for the
job...unless the job is a con job.
T
Mark Probert
reasoned article and I would like to read the footnotes.
Mark Probert
True. The anti-amalgamistas I have encountered project their problems
onto others.
Clinton
The Jerome meter? I'm afraid not. The Jerome meter is designed
to measure very low levels of Hg vapor up to industrial levels of
exposure.
It can easily measure the amount of Hg coming off an amalgam. It is the
equivalent of an accurate chem lab balance and a "truck scale" in one.
trelbr...@sympatico.ca
matter what you throw back at them, they don't hear it. "My evidence
is good....yours is bad". Do you people actually work for a living,
or do you just tap away, copying and pasting your plagarized opinions,
correcting grammar, and saying "I'm right. no I'm right.......what a
joke.
Jan Drew wrote:
> "Tony Bad" <spamsp...@bakedbeans.spam> wrote in message
> news:TiOXg.1020$os2...@newsfe09.lga...
> >
> > "nightlight" <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote in message
> > news:XdOdnbohuNc0E7PY...@rcn.net...
> >> Tony Bad wrote:
> >>
> >> > One of my patients who consistently banged the amalgam drum was also a
> >> > smoker. I didn't understand why he was so worried about something of,
> >> > at
> >> > best, debatable risk, yet engaged in something with a clear and obvious
> >> > risk. Didn't make sense to me.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It's not your fault. It is hard to make sense of half-truths,
> >> junk science and propaganda.
> >
> > Oh, I think I am making sense of it allright. The info you posted cleared
> > it
> > up quite nicely.
> >
> > T
> >
> I agree. Indeed nightlight did EXACTLY that.
>
> "nightlight" <nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote in message
> news:JaWdnfuIVs7URrLY...@rcn.net...
> > trelbr...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> >> My question is.....WHY would they NOT want to find a link between
> >> Alzheimer's and Hg??
> >
> > That's a transparent attempt to sidetrack the debate. The
> > motivation of ADA officials is entirely irrelevant for the
> > scientific question of Hg role in Alzheimer's disease. There is
> > a body of scientific literature, as indicated at the link given,
> > establishing this role. Your attempt to divert the debate
> > into psychoanalysis of motives of ADA officials and lawyers
> > is an acknowledgment that you have no answer to the scientific
> > facts already established.
> >
> >> Then they will ban amalgam, we carry on with
> >> composite, porcelain , wood and so forth, and life goes on. There is
> >> very little "money" in 'mercury fillings, both for the dentist and the
> >> dental industry. I (my opinion) do not think the threat of a lawsuit
> >> is the force behind the 'conspiracy'.
> >
> > You may wish to examine tobacco industry lawsuits to see why
> > ADA might not wish its internal documents, emails, meeting
> > notes, insider testimonies under oath,... brought up into
> > open. These kinds of materials would likely show their damage
> > control efforts over decades, ranging from unethical to illegal,
> > to keep the public in dark on hazards of mercury amalgams.
> >
> >> And why would all the
> >> independent research (and I mean legitimate studies....I'm assuming
> >> you're smart enough to know what that entails) 'protect' amalgam?
> >> DOn't tell me their getting paid too. My theory....they are not
> >> protecting amalgam, the evidence is inconclusive, therefore the risk is
> >> worth the benefit.
> >
> > There is plenty of legitimate research showing harmfulness of amalgams.
> > I provided some links to papers related to Alzheimer's. Just because
> > ADA approved researchers don't wish to measure directly the amounts
> > Hg vapors released by amalgams (which many others have done
> > and published in peer reviewed papers) or pursue the effects
> > of these levels of exposure (which again, many others have done),
> > that doesn't mean the evidence is "inconclusive". Other countries,
> > especially those in which ApoE4 allele (see earlier posts in this
> > thread) is more prevalent, such as northern Europeans, have taken
> > strong measures to eliminate mercury in dental restorations. The
> > ADA position (supported also by FDA/CDC staffers) you and other
> > dentists here are parroting has already been judged as "unreasonable"
> > by the recent (oct 2006) scientific panel reviewing the research
> > on amalgam safety:
> >
> > Transcripts from the FDA hearings:
> > http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/cdrh06.html#dentalproductspanel
> >
> > Informal summaries & links to references:
> > http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/FDA%20hearings/advisory_panel_rejects_amalgam_safety.html
> >
> > Haley's critique:
> > http://www.mercurypoisoned.com/research/haley_review_of_phony_science_concerning_amalgam_safety.html
> >
> > Other reactions:
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&q=FDA+amalgam+hearings+unreasonable&sa=N&tab=nw
>
> A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams
> http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html
> which found no harmful effects appears to have been
> designed not to find any such effects.
>
> Basically what they did is to perform a series
> of mental performance tests on people
> with various numbers of amalgams.
>
>
> They did find direct linear correlation in blood
> and urine levels of mercury metabolites with
> number of amalgams (or surfaces). Clearly the
> amalgams do cause mercury absorption and show
> linear dose/response relation.
>
>
> Regarding the mental tests, they cheated
> by "stratifying" the subjects into categories such
> as educational level, professional status,
> socioeconomic status and numerous other "confounders"
> (using unspecified adjustment). Then they compared
> mental performance of subjects with and without
> amalgams _within each subset_. The problem with
> this approach is that after you adjust for all
> "confounders" you get subset which by definition will
> be have level of mental performance corresponding
> to the parameters held fixed for the subgroup
> (e.g. professional level, socioeconomic
> status...).
>
>
> For example if amalgams (which were all placed in
> teen years) have caused drop in IQ of 30 points,
> a person who might have been IQ=130 would become
> IQ=100 and achieve professional status of people
> with IQ=100. Hence someone who might have been a
> scientist (with IQ 130), may have turned out, due
> to amalgams, an average person and would be compared
> to that subgroup. Similarly a person with pre-amalgam
> IQ 160, who might have been Nobel laureate, would only
> become an average scientist corresponding to IQ 130
> and would be compared to those.
>
>
> Hence, by fixing great many "confounding variables"
> within each group, the authors had in effect fixed
> the equivalent of the mental performance within that
> subgroup. Comparing subjects within each subgroup will
> then by definition measure that same fixed level of
> performance corresponding to that subgroup. The whole
> experiment was in effect a worthless tautology with
> guaranteed outcome. It was completely insensitive to
> the effect of mercury on shifting persons from one
> "stratum" to another.
>
>
> To give analogy, consider we wish to measure effect
> of childhood starvation on height of adults. We pick
> 1000 adults, divide them into subgroups based on weight
> and height. Then _within_ each subgroup we compare how
> the remaining small height variations correlate with
> the data on childhood starvation. Obviously, if we're
> looking within the 6 ft +/- 10% subgroup, we won't find
> out how tall a 6 ft person with history of starvation
> would have been had he not been starving in childhood.
>
>
> The entire study was obviously rigged -- it was
> devised to be entirely insensitive to the question
> of amalgam effects on mental performance. The fact
> that they had to cheat using such cheap statistical
> sleight of hand means that the amalgams do cause
> harm and any genuine study would show it.
nightlight
> It's like listening to a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses...it doesn't
> matter what you throw back at them, they don't hear it. "My evidence
> is good....yours is bad".
You are projecting again. That kind of drowning the
opposition with shouting and smear is exactly
what the mouthfoul-of-mercury-is-safe crowd is doing.
Just check back in this thread, e.g. attacking the list
of peer reviewed studies based on the fact that web
host on whose site the list was posted, is owned by
a chemistry professor who was not allowed to be a
medical expert witness on some subject, in some
trial. It doesn't get cheaper or more ridiculous
than that.
In contrast, I told you precisely what was wrong with
the study which started this thread, how it cheated,
or similarly for the couple studies cited later from
your side.
Coleah
<trelbr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1161179182.1...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> It's like listening to a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses...it doesn't
> matter what you throw back at them, they don't hear it. "My evidence
> is good....yours is bad". Do you people actually work for a living,
> or do you just tap away, copying and pasting your plagarized opinions,
> correcting grammar, and saying "I'm right. no I'm right.......what a
> joke.
Thank you for sharing the 'reflection' of the posting pool! 'Jehovah's
Witnesses' is a new visual tag I'd not heard before, but you get the picture
clearly. Visit and read here at your own risk....strictly for entertainment
value <g>. (And yes....I AM right about that!)
trelbr...@sympatico.ca
studies that 'support' amalgam, they are trying to disprove your
science. I don't see a winner; it is not a convincing debate, nor is
it entertaining to read-it's frustrating
Hey, stop avoiding the question, do you do this for a living, or do
actually find time to do a little work?? I'm curious to know how you
and some of the others on this thread find the time to partake in this
to this degreee.
trelbr...@sympatico.ca
unyieldingly firm in their beliefs; I lived with one for 3 years.
Clinton
Coleah wrote:
> <trelbr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:1161179182.1...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > It's like listening to a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses...it doesn't
> > matter what you throw back at them, they don't hear it. "My evidence
> > is good....yours is bad". Do you people actually work for a living,
> > or do you just tap away, copying and pasting your plagarized opinions,
> > correcting grammar, and saying "I'm right. no I'm right.......what a
> > joke.
>
Interesting you seem to find the time to post while you accuse others
of having nothing to do, but hypocrisy never stopped a dentist.
I like this list because it shows what jerks dentists really are. The
ADA
get's up in front of congress and is all like, GEE we are just so
concerned
about the patient and all types of informed consent. then you get on
this list and when they don't use their real names, it's screw the
patients we posion with amalgam screw the hygenists we posion with
amalgam, screw the science, screw everything but our paycheck and our
big fat-mouthed peaprained anonymous dental selves.
> >
Coleah
<trelbr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1161183384.7...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Coleah
Since you replied to my post (and deleted what "I" had written,
but left what the previous poster wrote), I will comment. You
appear to be sour-pussed and anti-dentist in general.
trelbr...@sympatico.ca
PS: Actually I'm posting in between patients and...I'll say it again,
I'll do 'white' fillings any day of the week-more $$, more breakage,
more root canals. Why would we 'protect' amalgam? I ALSO
repeat....have you ever asked what's in a WHITE filling?? Anunymous,
eh?? Let's have coffee...
Clinton
trelbr...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> Clinton : Ouch....
> PS: Actually I'm posting in between patients and...I'll say it again,
> I'll do 'white' fillings any day of the week-more $$, more breakage,
> more root canals. Why would we 'protect' amalgam? I ALSO
> repeat....have you ever asked what's in a WHITE filling??
I was posioned by an amalgam in the 80's , 90's way before they had
white fillings. I'll agree that white fillings haven't been proven
safe.
I'll also concede two points:
1) Dentists don't place amalgams in a vacum, it's not like society
isn't
aware of the use of Hg by dentists and approving of it. In fact in
such
an environment (in the past) if the dentist's who used mercury gave
it
up they would be replaced by other dentists who used it.
2) Dentists do willingly breathe in the vapors themselves, especially
when they drill out old fillings. Does that mean they don't
understand
the danger of Hg for them and their patients...? I guess that is
up to
the reader to decide.
Tony Bad
"Clinton" <clin...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:1161185236.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> ADA
> get's up in front of congress and is all like, GEE we are just so
> concerned
> about the patient and all types of informed consent. then you get on
> this list and when they don't use their real names, it's screw the
> patients we posion with amalgam screw the hygenists we posion with
> amalgam, screw the science, screw everything but our paycheck and our
> big fat-mouthed peaprained anonymous dental selves.
>
> > >
>
Why would I use my real name? To promote further contact with the likes of
you?
Give me the upside.
T
Clinton
Also, now that you've no doubt discoverd how accurate a jerome meter
is,
you can rent them from Arizona insturments. I think 175-per day
including
shipping. What you do is put a straw in the meter, and during the
"detection
period" move the end of the straw directly over a filling. Then have
the patient chew gum, repeat, and compare the readings. I hear
employee's
at a certain meter company get bored and have gum chewing contests
to see who can get the highest Hg reading...
Coleah
This Clinton dude could solve his problem easily.....quit going to dentists
altogether. Live 'natural' and then pull your own teeth as they rot out of
your mouth. No poisoning to worry about and nothing to bitch & whine about
either.
Clinton
You mean the likes of a 12 year old kid who get's poisoned by his
dentist
because the ADA can't spend 2 cents on a piece of paper to warn a kid
that he's going to be poisoned over the next decade. That kind of
person? Like
I said , you want to run your- mouth to attack the people you poision,
the
upside is, you...show you have a spine. No one is really anonyoums on
these
server's anyway.
But hey, I understand.. you breathe the stuff yourself and "SOCIETY"
made
you do it, it's always nobody's fault but the people who get posioned.
They are
trash because they had the "nerve" to get poisoned.
And what about the dental assistants whose lives you (the ADA) ruins.
You
anyonomous dentists trying to avoid the "likes" of them to?, or just
running
from your own "hypocratic" shadows?
Clinton
Coleah wrote:
> This Clinton dude could solve his problem easily.....quit going to dentists
> altogether. Live 'natural' and then pull your own teeth as they rot out of
> your mouth. No poisoning to worry about and nothing to bitch & whine about
> either.
Let's see who do you work for Barret? Why don't you shove your (edited)
anomyous little (edited) down the (edited).
Why should I have to pull my teeth out because some lying dentist
posions me? Get a Jerome Meter and take some measurements
you ignorant (edited)- kissing (edited for content).
Oh and ...sometime you could use your real name to.
Ok, I can see the IQ level on this list hasn't changed but I guess for
the
quackwatch lacky's the kissup factor will either remain the same,
and/or
increase. Toodalooo
trelbr...@sympatico.ca
'1)White fillings (silicate-based) were around in the 80's, 90's and
the 70's.
2) Thank you for conceding that white fillings may also pose some
health hazards
3) ADA/CDA, & dentists knew and still know there is Hg in amalgam, and
I for one will say sure there must be some risk in it being there, but
we still work on the premise that current research does not indicate
the risks outweigh the benefits of it's use.
4) man., Coleah gets you riled up!!
Coleah
<trelbr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1161194284....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Clinton,
>
> '1)White fillings (silicate-based) were around in the 80's, 90's and
> the 70's.
> 2) Thank you for conceding that white fillings may also pose some
> health hazards
> 3) ADA/CDA, & dentists knew and still know there is Hg in amalgam, and
> I for one will say sure there must be some risk in it being there, but
> we still work on the premise that current research does not indicate
> the risks outweigh the benefits of it's use.
> 4) man., Coleah gets you riled up!!
(#4: Logic and balance does that to fanatics <g>)
Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> Clinton,
>
> '1)White fillings (silicate-based) were around in the 80's, 90's and
> the 70's.
Composite I believe has been around since the mid 1960s, when Johnson
and Johnson came out with Adaptic, which IIRC was the first filled
bis-GMA filling. Before that acrylics were used (you think composite
shrinks? You shudda seen this crap!) and silicates have been around
forever--at least since the 1950s. I know Buonocore did his first
studies with acid etching/bonding in the 1950s--not sure what resin he
used. The first light-cured composites I remember were actually
UV-cured resins--I think it was the Nuva system--it was already in use
in the early-mid '70s--my dental school years).
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Jan Drew
<trelbr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1161188478.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Clinton : Ouch....
> PS: Actually I'm posting in between patients and...I'll say it again,
> I'll do 'white' fillings any day of the week-more $$, more breakage,
> more root canals. Why would we 'protect' amalgam? I ALSO
> repeat....have you ever asked what's in a WHITE filling?? Anunymous,
> eh?? Let's have coffee...
You watch the Sopranos, too, while you are working?
I suggest you go back to alt.tv.sopranos.
~~~~~~~~~~
A few of your posts.
"I gotta go try and take a shit"
- pretty much sums up what I shoulda done rather than watch that
episode. That was the epitomy of anticlimactic. I woulda been
mildly pleased if Tony had shoved an icepick into the eye of that
little fat fuck who was guarding Phil's hospital room.
I'm no fuckin' writer, but....
Finally, some much-needed action, but how can they play those two
diammetrically-opposed storylines (vito vs. carmella) at the same
time??? It was like taking speed, then downers, then speed, then
downers.... FAWK!!!!!!! Anyway, I loved when Sil jumped on his
back...
~~~~~~
In the words of the Blessed Mary................Holy Shit
~~~~~~~
I love how some of these threads erupt into a room-clearing brawl!!!
"Oh yeah?.,....well...yer fuckin' GAY !!!! Ha HAAAAAAAAAAH
Ah shit, I'm just sitting here drinking a nice Barolo, reading this
thread.. then i read " ......"you're probably a queer"....I can just
see the other guy, backing away from his computer, hands on his head,
breathing heavy....thinking "Shit...he thinks I'm QUEER!!
Maybe.........I AM!!!!! DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm goin' to the
fuckin' bar now, dress up like Vito and slap some ass! WooHoooooo!!!!
(Time for another Barolo...fuckin' shinebox crowd)
Jan Drew
"Coleah" <col...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:12jcot4...@corp.supernews.com...
How would you feel if others' said that to you--when you were ill?
Coleah
"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:sKyZg.21010$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
Jan Drew
> How refreshing! trelbr...@sympatico.ca has a sense of humor <g>!
Your <g> won't save you, non-practicing Christian.
One can have a sense of humor without being vile.
Sad that you approve of it. Some Christian example.