Breaking News

Please freely disseminate with copyright intact

UnInformed Consent - First in a series of investigations

Wednesday April 26, 2006 12:00AM

 

NIH funded studies say known neurotoxin safe to implant in children?  Experts speak out.

 

 

UNINFORMED CONSENT, SEATTLE, WA -– Last week the media blitz of the century dropped an egg in a skillet of deaf ears that toasted any waning credibility the National Institutes of Health may have had lingering in its bag of breakfast pabulum.  

 

The all sizzle – no steak marketing campaign is now suffering the worse kind of public relations nightmare.  The investment of tens of millions to clear themselves of wrong doing has only drawn front page attention to their failing ethics, lack of public trust and misuse of funding dollars. 

 

Now their use of both American and Portuguese children as subjects in the testing of a well known neurotoxin is coming under an explosion of fire all over the nation.

 

The promotion started out last week with front page headlines all over the world from the Chicago Sun-Times “Mercury dental fillings safe for kids, two studies say” to the UK - Medical News Today -  Mercury Fillings Are Completely Safe Say Two New Studies  to The Seattle Times – “ Smile when you say mercury. 

 

Some articles contain scientifically absurd statements and flat out fiction that one click of a mouse would demonstrate a succinct lack of grasp on the topic. 

 

With some exceptions, many of the articles appear to be a verbatim regurgitation of press releases mass marketed.   The sources are from the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA), the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

 

Who is the Journal of the American Dental Association? 

They are the trade journal for the largest dental trade association in the nation, the American Dental Association (ADA).

 

Who is the National Institutes of Health (NIH)? 

They are “the primary Federal agency for conducting and supporting medical research.”  This agency includes 27 Institutes and Centers.

The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) is one of their institutes and is the funding source for these two studies. The NIH is a component of a web of health agencies under the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

 

Who is the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)?

They are “the United States government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves.”

 

Both the JADA and NIH articles tout the results of the two, nearly identical seven-year NIH funded studies that were done on 508 children in Lisbon, Portugal and 534 children in Framingham, MA for 11 millions dollars each by the NIDCR through the NIH under HHS.

 

The article labels these studies as “independent” suggesting that they are free from conflicts of interest.  However it is no secret the NIDCR acts as a spokesmen for the ADA.  In the outright flow of money exchanged between all the above agencies “independent” is a description that just simply is not possible.

 

The cry of independence is only the beginning of dubious claims that fly in the face of recent years of US Congressional and Senate  investigations into conflicts of interests within governmental health agencies such as the ADA, JADA, NIDCR, NIH, CDC (Centers for Disease Control) the IOM (Institutes of Medicine), HHS and the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) - claims that US health agencies are dismally  failing to defend.  A flow chart on the HHS website shows a large part of how these agencies are interconnected.  

 

Keeping one’s eye on where the incestuous ball of money bounces is task only for the hardy.  One thing is certain.  The boundaries between these agencies, certain universities and their Independent Review Boards (IRBs endorse medical studies), corporate interests, and many others have become more and more ambiguous.

 

Testimonies from two authors of one of these studies, Timothy A. DeRouen DDS, PhD and Michael D. Martin, DMD, PhD, are featured in the documentary Mercury, A Slow Death which contains the first video footage of mercury vaporizing from an 50 year-old amalgam filling.  The film documents history, debate and studies surrounding the safety of mercury in amalgam fillings. 

 

If one were to entertain any notion that mercury in any form were safe, that notion would completely vanish in the first 30 seconds of watching live footage of a 50 year-old mercury filling still off gassing mercury in the introductory moments of the film.

 

As far as the studies themselves, the lack of attention to data and misdirection contained in these studies is spectacularly nonsensical.  There were fantastic leaps from absurd scientific assumptions to suggestions that it were fact.  For example:

 

A.      DeRouen states, “Dental amalgam emits small amounts of mercury vapor.”

 

This is not science.  This is not fact.  This is pure adjective from perspectives intent of minimizing obvious danger through implication rather than objective verity.

 

B.     The well known toxic levels of exposure to mercury has been completely ignored nor has it been compared to established poison standards.

 

Why would this be left out?  It would be an important component of any bonafide study on a neurotoxin such as mercury.

 

C.     The study’s primary platform testing for mercury exposure was through urine testing for mercury in collection done annually.

 

How can one quantify how much actual excrement of mercury takes place with 364 days in-between collections?

 

D.     It is well known; published and verified that over 90% of the mercury humans are able to eliminate is excreted in feces not urine.

 

Since this is well known why didn’t they chose to spend millions of dollars to collect feces instead of urine?

 

E.     It is equally well-known that mercury levels in urine are not a reliable reflection of mercury exposure levels but reflect only what the body is able to excrete in urine at the time of collection.

 

This would beg the question - why did they use urine?

 

F.      After two years the level of mercury excreted in urine from the amalgamated children gradually decreases to match those of the children with composite fillings.

 

Since it is a scientific fact that mercury fillings do not stop off gassing mercury vapor in seven years much less 50 years, this would tend to demonstrate that these exposed children have begun to have deteriorating kidney function to excrete mercury in urine thus their systems are becoming less effective and harmed by this exposure.  Is there a no cost lifetime medical follow-up for the future health problems for these children test subjects?

 

The scientific smoke and mirrors aside – the fact these “expert“authors masquerading as medical doctors managed to bilk $22 million dollars and pull off this heist of taxpayer dollars instead of doing something useful for mankind pales in comparison to the most incredible violation of public trust of all – placing a well known neurotoxin in our babies as human test subjects.  This action literally soars over every boundary of moral integrity known to man. 

 

If this were a terrorist attack, a million dollar embezzlement or even armed robbery, people would go to jail.  Some would hang.  What punishment would fit this crime?

 

By Christy Diemond, Exec. Producer

UnInformed Consent

Many thanks to Dr. Boyd Haley PhD, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry

University of Kentucky - who contributed to this story.

 

Media and for more in depth information on the continuing story contact:

UnInformed Consent – The Right to Know…

425 487 2358 -  info@uninformedconsent.org – or visit: www.uninformedconsent.org

 

Copyright © 2006 UnInformed Consent. All rights reserved. Republication and redissemination of these

contents are expressly prohibited without UnInformed Consent prior written consent.