Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
FDA changing position on amalgam fillings?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 163272" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>The issue becomes complicated when legal and financial considerations come into it. There is a huge difference sometimes between what is scientifically proven, and what is legally risky. Some companies will take something off the market not because it has been proven to be a problem, but because the risk of lawsuit (even lawsuits which won't stand up) is too great and they don't want to risk the time and expense of fighting it all.</p><p></p><p>For example (Aussie example) - a certain Aussie doctor who I'd rather not name, who had made an international reputation decades earlier as one of the people who blew the whistle on the problems caused by thalidomide in pregnancy, claimed in about 1983-ish that a drug called Debendox (used for morning sickness) caused birth defects. He had been doing experiments on rabbits and his laboratory had shown an increase in birth defects in baby rabbits.</p><p></p><p>Because of his reputation and also his high profile in the media, this got wide coverage. Now, the normal response to this is for independent research to be carried out to check this; research often done by our own government testing laboratories. At the very least, the whistle-blower's notes and records are examined to double-check the results and see what other information may be there.</p><p>But in this case - this bloke was too important. Despite the drug company's insistence that they had done exhaustive testing which showed no problems, there was hysterical reactions. Because birth defects do happen anyway at a certain rate purely by chance, ANY parents of a baby born with defects whose mother had taken Debendox during pregnancy (as just about all mothers had at that time - I did, too) were liable to begin a lawsuit against the company. Although it would have been impossible to prove that the drug was responsible (at least impossible without independent research confirming the link) there was likely to be such a nuisance factor to the company that it just wasn't worth the hassle. They withdrew Debendox from the market. And the doctor declared a triumph for the power of public opinion in forcing drug companies to behave more responsibly.</p><p></p><p>A couple of years later, some of this doctor's laboratory workers finally managed to be heard; they claimed that the good doctor had ordered them to fudge results in the tests with the baby rabbits. A few more revelations later, a lot of mud thrown both at the doctor and then by the doctor back at his former laboratory workers, and the media (and government) finally did the digging they should have to begin with. And the doctor's claims just did not stack up. The drug was cleared. But it never went back on the market again - although it was undoubtedly safe, the drug company decided it was just too much trouble to pay for a PR campaign when they could put the money into something else, like pimple cream of whatever.</p><p></p><p>But this doctor was a good man - he had at least been able to see the dangers of thalidomide early enough to warn the world. Or had he?</p><p></p><p>I have read a book "____ - Behind the Myth" which follows this doctor's career from an allegedly more enlightened point of view has some unsettling claims on this issue also. I won't go into it now. Here is a link to a news story, to give you more specific information. <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s248519.htm" target="_blank">http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s248519.htm</a></p><p></p><p>What I'm trying to point out - what you see isn't always what you get, especially when it comes to why companies and sometimes governments take something off the market. And "independent research" isn't always independent, and it isn't always research.</p><p></p><p>With regard to amalgam fillings - the best advice I've seen on the topic says that it's perhaps foolish to spend a lot of money getting all your fillings removed and replaced with something non-mercury, because the process of removing it all risks releasing a lot more mercury than you would otherwise be exposed to. But if you replace fillings as needed with something more innocuous, not only is it likely to be safer (assuming amalgam is a problem anyway) but also less expensive. And certainly less hassle.</p><p></p><p>It's what I've been doing over the years.</p><p></p><p>All fillings can break, but in different ways. Also, teeth can break away and leave the filling behind. It all needs to be attended to. </p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 163272, member: 1991"] The issue becomes complicated when legal and financial considerations come into it. There is a huge difference sometimes between what is scientifically proven, and what is legally risky. Some companies will take something off the market not because it has been proven to be a problem, but because the risk of lawsuit (even lawsuits which won't stand up) is too great and they don't want to risk the time and expense of fighting it all. For example (Aussie example) - a certain Aussie doctor who I'd rather not name, who had made an international reputation decades earlier as one of the people who blew the whistle on the problems caused by thalidomide in pregnancy, claimed in about 1983-ish that a drug called Debendox (used for morning sickness) caused birth defects. He had been doing experiments on rabbits and his laboratory had shown an increase in birth defects in baby rabbits. Because of his reputation and also his high profile in the media, this got wide coverage. Now, the normal response to this is for independent research to be carried out to check this; research often done by our own government testing laboratories. At the very least, the whistle-blower's notes and records are examined to double-check the results and see what other information may be there. But in this case - this bloke was too important. Despite the drug company's insistence that they had done exhaustive testing which showed no problems, there was hysterical reactions. Because birth defects do happen anyway at a certain rate purely by chance, ANY parents of a baby born with defects whose mother had taken Debendox during pregnancy (as just about all mothers had at that time - I did, too) were liable to begin a lawsuit against the company. Although it would have been impossible to prove that the drug was responsible (at least impossible without independent research confirming the link) there was likely to be such a nuisance factor to the company that it just wasn't worth the hassle. They withdrew Debendox from the market. And the doctor declared a triumph for the power of public opinion in forcing drug companies to behave more responsibly. A couple of years later, some of this doctor's laboratory workers finally managed to be heard; they claimed that the good doctor had ordered them to fudge results in the tests with the baby rabbits. A few more revelations later, a lot of mud thrown both at the doctor and then by the doctor back at his former laboratory workers, and the media (and government) finally did the digging they should have to begin with. And the doctor's claims just did not stack up. The drug was cleared. But it never went back on the market again - although it was undoubtedly safe, the drug company decided it was just too much trouble to pay for a PR campaign when they could put the money into something else, like pimple cream of whatever. But this doctor was a good man - he had at least been able to see the dangers of thalidomide early enough to warn the world. Or had he? I have read a book "____ - Behind the Myth" which follows this doctor's career from an allegedly more enlightened point of view has some unsettling claims on this issue also. I won't go into it now. Here is a link to a news story, to give you more specific information. [url]http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s248519.htm[/url] What I'm trying to point out - what you see isn't always what you get, especially when it comes to why companies and sometimes governments take something off the market. And "independent research" isn't always independent, and it isn't always research. With regard to amalgam fillings - the best advice I've seen on the topic says that it's perhaps foolish to spend a lot of money getting all your fillings removed and replaced with something non-mercury, because the process of removing it all risks releasing a lot more mercury than you would otherwise be exposed to. But if you replace fillings as needed with something more innocuous, not only is it likely to be safer (assuming amalgam is a problem anyway) but also less expensive. And certainly less hassle. It's what I've been doing over the years. All fillings can break, but in different ways. Also, teeth can break away and leave the filling behind. It all needs to be attended to. Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
General Parenting
FDA changing position on amalgam fillings?
Top