This is an update from Dave Kennedy DDS on the CA Dental Board Meeting sent February 7 2004. At the end of his e-mail is a request to send comments to the CA Dental Board before February 13^th.

From: David Kennedy DDS

Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 16:13:46 -0800

Subject: Report on California's Dental Board meeting

Dear Friends,

Once again the Dental board of California has failed in their duty to provide the people of California a truthful Fact Sheet.

This story stretches back some 17 years when the voters of this state passed a "Toxic Notification Law, Prop 65".

Voters have become increasingly disgusted with their government’s willingness to cover-up toxic spills and work place hazards in order to protect industry at the expense of the people’s health. As a result, they passed overwhelmingly a law that requires large employers (10 or more employees) to disclose the presence of any toxic substance.

The whole nation has benefited. Because of this law many toxins have been removed from consumer products. Others now carry a warning. For example, benzene, a carcinogen, was formerly found in whiteout correcting fluid. When faced with the prospect of informing the user of the presence of a volatile aromatic carcinogen in this common office tool they decided that a not-toxic substitute would work just as well.

After twice losing two lawsuits over their compliance with the Prop 65 law the California Dental Association finally agreed to notify their members with 10 or more employees that they should post the following warning in their public viewing area of their office;

Notice to Patients, Proposition 65:

Warning on dental amalgams, used in many dental fillings, causes exposure to mercury, a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Root canal treatments and restorations including fillings, crowns and bridges, use chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has studied the situation and approved for use all dental restorative materials.

Consult your dentist to determine which materials are appropriate for your treatment.

The key to this agreement was the statement; Warning on dental amalgams, used in many dental fillings, causes exposure to mercury, a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.

The Dental Board (read CDA) does not want to give the public this simple truthful statement and let them decide the wisdom of silver amalgam time-release-mercury fillings. Despite the fact that the CDA signed the consent order, they now appear to be in contempt of court as they have sent the Dental Board a letter claiming that this is a false and misleading statement.

Where does this unscientific, unfounded, frightening statement come from you might ask? The warning comes from the California EPA as all Prop 65 warnings are required to do. Why were dentists required to post it? Because Shawn Khorrami Esq. and Consumers for Dental Choice had sued over compliance. In order to settle that lawsuit the court heard three days of expert testimony and the CDA was forced to admit that it was a truthful statement. Now they are trying to keep the smaller dental offices from telling the truth. I don’t think that this is a legitimate function of a professional trade association but they were there in great force. I spotted their lobbyist, a few of their members, their attorneys, and other staff. Too bad they were all too busy to attend the Congressional Hearing on Monday.

Some people ask why only dentists with over 10 employees have to comply. The Prop 65 law exempted Mom and Pop businesses as well as government agencies so that the proposition would pass and the cost of implementation would not be burdensome. Like one page of paper, one thumbtack and $0.005 worth of ink will break anybody’s budget.

Companies that are required to post the Prop 65 warnings have done so willingly with only moderate pushing. Most, if not all, now include the warning on all products sold regardless of the number of employees. Full disclosure is actually safer and more ethical that concealment and disinformation. When a box or mercury fillings arrive in the dental office the Prop 65 Warning is there for all to see. One would think that the ethical dentist would simply take a thumbtack and stick it up somewhere. They don’t.

I’ve got a funny story about that. One big dental office got the Prop 65 warning in the mail from CDA and the young dentist got a thumbtack and stuck it up. Three days later it disappeared. Where did it go? Who took it down? He asked his dental assistants if they had removed the warning? Nope. He asked the front office personnel? Nope. The Hygienists? Nope. Finally he ran into his dentist partner and asked if he had taken the sign down? "Yep, It made everyone ask all those questions. I just got tired of it so I took it down."

What does Prop 65 have to do with the Dental Materials Fact Sheet you ask? Everything. 12 years ago Dianne Watson wrote and the legislature passed SB933 that required the dental board to prepare a one-page fact sheet. The first time they tried, they forgot to use the word mercury.

California Department of Consumer Affairs felt that it was "Probably misleading". So the Board stuck it in the file cabinet and did nothing for 7 more years. Finally, Consumers for Dental Choice in 1999 sued them and they could find only one side of the two-sided fact sheet. Then the Board argued that the Watson law did not require them to give a fact sheet to dentists or patients. It only required them to write one. Also they argued they didn’t have enough money to do the job, nor were they experts in the medical risk assessment field.

So in 1999 the legislature gave them $30,000 more dollars in their budget to hire it done with a drop-dead-date of 6/01. They hired Alton Lacey, dentist and Dental Materials Professor from SF who wrote almost exactly what had been prepared before except now mercury appeared on one sentence. Everyone jumped on their case and they wiggled and turned. To make a long story short, they didn’t get it done. The legislature took decisive action and did away with that board and dismissed everyone including the Executive Director of the Dental Board. They passed an addition to SB933 that required the dentist to, not only give it to the patient, but the patient’s signature, acknowledging receipt, has to be retained in the patient’s chart.

The new board was appointed by the aptly named Gray Davis and began to wrestle with the problem of being truthful. Chet Yokoyama (mercury-free) and Ariane Trelet (mercury-packing) were appointed to a two-member committee to make the Fact Sheet user friendly. At about this time the CDA lost the lawsuit over Prop 65 and the CA Court required them to send out notices. This gave Chet the leverage to require the Prop 65 warning in the new fact sheet. In June of 2003, after extensive negotiations, Trelet and Yokoyama produced a fact sheet that, admittedly, was a compromise, but relatively truthful.

It was voted 7 to 1 by the board to replace the existing fact sheet. It underwent some "tweaking" to improve (lower) the reading level (8th grade) and was again voted 8 to 0 in November. Alan Kaye, the board president, promised to have it out by December 31st. He lied. Gray Davis was deposed by the new Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and with the new sheriff in town the criminals are at it again. I’ll bet this whole debacle was orchestrated by the ADA.

The board president changed from Alan Kaye to Newton Gordon. Newt has an ego a little bit bigger than most and is very dictatorial in his ruling of the board. If anyone disagrees with his command for any reason, they are strongly admonished as "discourteous unprofessional trouble makers". Open discussion is not going to happen while he is in charge. His goal is to get the opposition to shut up and go away so he can run the show his way. To that end, he appointed a whole new Fact Sheet Committee that consists of every dentist on the board plus one public member.

In January Ariane Trelet mysteriously produced all by herself a new fact sheet that appeared in brochure form with the ADA position on the safety of mercury as the only statement regarding amalgam. Under intense questioning she admitted that she had had some help in preparation of this fact sheet but declined to say who or what had helped her. It isn’t hard to guess.

At about this time the CDA sent a letter claiming that their expert says the Prop 65 warning is false and misleading. They may be in contempt of court for sending that letter but they have a whole staff of lawyers and the thousands of dues paying dentists to fight litigation so they aren’t worried.

They also sent the newly constituted Dental Material Fact Sheet Committee a packet of information alleging that it represented the review material that the NIH Amalgam Review Committee is using. They "forgot" to include the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology ‘s paper The Scientific Case Against Amalgam that is in the review material and appears on our web site. They merely included the web site reference in the back of the material while they sent the actual copies of the pro-mercury material and tabbed and marked what they wanted the addlebrained board members to read. http://www.iaomt.org/catSummary.cfm?catID=0. I took it upon myself to FedEx each member of the DMFS Committee the IAOMT’s position along with a Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas DVD.

I call this most recent Board action the cram down. Friday the Dental Board was getting ready to cram down the new fact sheet and just give the citizens official ADA propaganda and stop the health freedom movement before it destroys their favorite filling material. They don’t want to tell the truth. They don’t want all those pesky questions.

They met in Sacramento Thursday January the 29 for the first time. I stayed up until 2:30 AM preparing my statement and making DVD’s of Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas videos to pass out. Then I got up at 4:30 AM to fly North into a very foggy Sacramento Municipal. The fog was so thick you could hardly see the centerline on the runway. David Mercer (Mercury-free IAOMT) picked me up at the airport and we went together to the Committee meeting.

The Chairman of the Dental Materials Fact Sheet Committee, Dental School Professor Lawrence Hundley, sat right next to his good buddy, Dental School Professor Newton Gordon. They allowed only minimal discussion from anyone and then opened it up for the public comment. My presentation to the Fact Sheet Committee is below see (We’ve Won). He then announced that he had given a new committee of two people (Hundley & Benveniste) the Ariane (CDA) fact sheet and the previously voted on Yokoyama fact sheet to review and modify for the full board to vote on tomorrow.

Benveniste was an interesting choice since he had not attended any of the board hearings this last year. He knows nothing of the relevant science. When challenged by Chet he spouted his outstanding credentials as an expert in mercury toxicology i.e. that he too had packed amalgam some 28 years ago. In addition he was on the dental board many of the years when they had refused to complete the fact sheet. It was clear to all that the fix was in.

After I gave each member a copy of the Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas DVD, Benveniste said he didn’t have a DVD. Others said they had seen it already. That seems hard to believe considering some of the discussion I’ve heard from this group. Perhaps they were asleep while watching. Others feel that the dentists are so mercury poisoned they can’t remember anything new. It would be good to give this board a short quiz. I don’t think they can agree on the proven science.

The CDA began again with the argument of dose again and one of its members quoted Paracelsus. For those who don’t know, Paracelsus killed many of his syphilitic patients by immersing them in a vat of mercury chloride. His goal was to kill the STD infection syphilis. The most common result was the premature death of the patient. The US Public Health Service "Syphilis unto Death" experiments of the 70’s on Black men clearly demonstrated that many live on for years with syphilis as it gradually destroys their health and wastes their brains. It does not kill them quickly like Paracelsus’ treatments did. He was widely criticized by fellow physicians who objected to his methods. He responded with the classic claim that, "All things are Poison. Dose alone makes them so, Dosis solem venum facit. He killed so many of his patients that the orphans made up a nursery rhyme about his treatment that is still often heard today.

Rubby dub dub

Three men in a tub (of mercury)

Who do you think they be?

The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker

Turn them all out scott free. (I.e. they are going to die)

Dr. Kennedy’s comments to the Ca Dental Board DMFS 1/29/2003

We’ve won the mercury battle

We’ve won the mercury battle. All that remains is for the dentist to shut up. The strongest advocate I know of for implanting time-release mercury fillings in pregnant women and children is the American Dental Association and their component state societies. For over 150 years they have claimed that implanting mercury in people’s mouths is both safe and effective. They essentially lost the issue of effective in 1993 when the head of the National Institute for Dental Research, Harold Loe, announced that dental amalgam is not a suitable restorative material for the first filling in the life of a tooth, i.e. children. Today everyone agrees.

This month the CDA journal admitted that they’ve lost the battle as far as the science is concerned in that they acknowledged that many other countries do not accept their position as scientifically valid. In fact, this strangely convoluted article went further to acknowledge the restrictions that both amalgam manufacturers and our closest neighbor, Canada, have applied to amalgam. (The attached clipping is from the January 2003 Vol. 32 #1 California Dental Association Journal Cover Article titled Assessing ‘Real Science’: Poor Studies, Industry Ties Taking Toll by Janyce Hamilton

Talk about spin. Lets see what exactly is they are trying to say when they write, ‘in several other countries the U. S. science exonerating amalgam risks is deemed an insufficient contribution to the body of evidence’.

A) Several other countries haven’t agreed with the ADA’s spinning position i.e. that amalgam is safe and there is valid scientific evidence to prove this claim. In other words, mercury-leaking amalgams have not been proven safe by anything the ADA can produce according to a substantial number of countries that have extensively examined this issue.

a. Germany

b. France

c. Sweden

d. England

e. Norway

f. Austria

g. Spain

h. Japan

i. Canada

j. WHO

Just to name a few.

B) Health Canada – The equivalent of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – for example, recommends that amalgam not be placed or removed during pregnancy and that parents consider amalgam alternatives in children.

Canada is one of the least restrictive of the countries that have abandoned or restricted the use of mercury fillings. One can only speculate why the CDA chose to quote the Canadian decision and overlooked the Germany and Sweden prohibitions.

C) Next they correctly claim that manufacturers abroad have placed many restrictions on the use of amalgam. The truth is that some "manufacturers" are indeed placing warnings on their products. For example Dispersalloy’s directions for use state that:

The use of amalgam is contraindicated in

1) Expectant mothers

2) In children 6 and under

3) In proximal or occlusal contact to dissimilar metal restorations

4) In patients with severe renal deficiency

5) In patients with known allergies to amalgam

6) For retrograde or endodontic filling

7) As a filling material for cast crown

That just about includes everything and everyone the ADA says it can be used for except of course in old men like me who don’t have a known allergy to the ingredients.

D) The current position of the FDA is that the individual dentist is the manufacturer of amalgam. You don’t want to be the manufacturer of a toxic material. It is a very serious position to be in since the manufacturer is the most liable for both injury and toxic disposal.

E) And the deepest cut of all is they make fun of the Dental Materials Fact Sheet (DMFS) and called the voter passed initiative Prop 65 "unscientific" despite the fact that the exact nature of the substances to be noticed and the text of the warnings are determined entirely by the toxicologists at the California EPA. The DMFS has been required by law since 1992. ADA controlled dentistry’s efforts to thwart the will of the people has delayed the public receiving adequate informed consent for over 150 years. They still are not given the Prop 65 warning unless the dental clinic has 10 or more employees.

CDA was forced legally to sign off on the Prop 65 warning by Shawn Khorriami Esq. and the Dental Board of California after 12 years has yet to produce a Dental Materials Fact Sheet that is acceptable to the California Department of Consumer Affairs as required in 1992 by the Watson bill SB933.

We’ve Won. What more is there to acknowledge?

It will be many more years while the scientists figure out exactly how many children and adults have been injured but the fact remains that numerous others countries have held open discussions and determined for example that amalgams are the predominant source of human exposure to mercury (Environmental Health Criteria 118: Inorganic Mercury. World Health Organization, Geneva, 1991) and amalgam is an unsuitable restorative material for vulnerable women and children.

How did we get in this mess? Simple. Dentists cannot diagnose nor treat any of the diseases that mercury causes except gum disease of course. Since they can’t treat these diseases it is abundantly clear that they cannot diagnose the presence of these diseases yet, they do exactly that when the claim that there is no harm. A negative diagnosis like, "You don’t have mercury poisoning" cannot be made by a dentist. Dentists are only allowed to poison their patients. Once the patient becomes poisoned, the dentist must refer that patient to a real doctor for treatment.

Dental Schools are accredited by the ADA, a trade association. The ADA has no scientific standing. Is not a regulatory body of any government entity and the members have a fiduciary interest in the continued use of amalgam and avoiding liability. At one time the ADA held the patent on some amalgam formulas. Talk about conflict of interest.

Dental schools are really to blame in this debacle. They have shirked their responsibility to provide an accurate and balanced education and instead chose to simply spout ADA dogma and teach the student to pass the National Boards multiple-choice exams.

This Dental Board requires perspective dentists to mutilate a persons tooth and implant an amalgam in order to become licensed. No dental authority in the world still claims that amalgam is the first preference in a restorative material for a tooth that has a minimal carious lesion, exactly the kind of lesion required by this Dental Board for the licensure examination practical test. In doing so this board is violating the manufacturers warnings and placing these mercury-leaking fillings in the most vulnerable subsets of the population with no precautions whatsoever. In the process, everyone present is exposed to levels of mercury that are considered by Cal OSHA immediately hazardous to health. (MCL never to be exceeded 100 ppm)

What will it take to bring the dentists into compliance with the law?

We’ve won but the war is not over.

That was just Thursday. The whole Dental Board met Friday and the DMFS was on the agenda as the last item. In the afternoon, after we had waited more than half a day, Newt said that the board won’t be voting on the new fact sheet today, I think hoping we’d all go away. Late in the day, after Charlie Brown’s repeated urging, the "New and improved? Fact? Sheet" emerged. Thus everyone, including the other members of the board, had about 30 minutes to review the document. It didn’t take me two seconds to see that this Fact Sheet had been very cleverly orchestrated by those who knows very little about toxicology and chemistry or are very knowledgeable and also deceitful.

It waxes poetic about the dose of toxic agents being everywhere and how toxic reactions are thought to be rare ad nauseaum. Then it gets down to the nitty gritty on Dental Amalgam. Paragraph 2 of page two they wrote;

Dental amalgam fillings give off mercury vapor which can be absorbed by the body. The amount is thought to fall below safe limits set for exposure as established by the US Department of Health and Human Services (Toxicological Profile for Mercury, Update 1999).

Mercury, only when in its elemental form, is on the State of California’s Proposition 65* List. The alloy dental amalgam itself is not on this list.

Either the person writing this failed to comprehend good sentence structure or they may have packed too many mercury fillings. I recommend the following changes:

Mercury/Silver fillings, sometimes called silver amalgam, release elemental mercury vapor gas continuously throughout the live of the filling. The amount increases with any kind of stimulation such as chewing or brushing. Scientists at the Cal EPA Prop 65 division have determined that, Dental amalgams cause exposure to mercury, a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm. Since mercury vapor is rapidly absorbed from the lungs, your dose of mercury from mercury/silver fillings exceeds all other sources of mercury exposure including fish.

Newt adjourned the meeting at the end of public comment and suggested that those who objected could within two weeks submit their reports in writing to the Dental Board. He would review their comments, consider their sentiments and allow the board to decide on the fact sheet in March.

It is my belief that if Charlie and Anita and many from the legislature had not attended this board meeting we would already have the new and more deceptive fact sheet. They were aware of our presence even if the media wasn’t. If nothing else we stopped the fix but just wait until next time.

Not one reporter bothered to come. I can see why. Very boring punctuated by moments of blatant ignorance. What a way to spend two days. You go next time and write a report for me to chuckle over.

The opinions of your faithful reporter, Dave Kennedy

For a copy of the Fact Sheet contact the Dental Board of California www.dbc.ca.gov <http://www.dbc.ca.gov/>

Do it Today

Before February 13th Submit your comments to:

Dental Board of California
1432 Howe Avenue, Suite 85
Sacramento, CA 95825-3241

Telephone: (916) 263-2300
Fax: (916) 263-2140