Re: link about Chet and the CA Dental Board


Bill wrote:
> ClintZ wrote:
>
> >Was Chet Y fired from his post?

> If by "post" you mean his Board position, the answer is no.
>
> As "chair" of the two-person committee, he completed his committee
> work. His proposal was not acceptable to the larger board, which then
> appointed a larger committee, with a new chair.

Well, it seems to me that if the committe objected to Chets
scientific statements on amalgam and wanted to promote a
different , more amalgam friendly version they would also
do the same thing. Why was the fact *** "unacceptable",
I would definitely like to see a copy of it.

>
> If he considers this a "firing," he has to remember that ALL such
> committees are merely temporary creations of the larger Board, and
ALL
> such committee members might considered themselves "fired" when the
> specific committee work is done.
>

He seems to imply that he was given no notice that his work
was "unacceptable". Also the implication is that an alternate
fact *** "suddenly" appeared with no scientific basis for
rejecting his ***.

> By that reasoning, we should consider ALL the members of the larger
> committee to have "fired" themselves too -- as the committee work was
> finished a year ago.

I don't really know what is typical or lawful when it comes
to state committes. Usually though congress does take the
recommendations of it's subcommittes. It doesn't reject say
the findings of a certain commitee on and appoint a new one
until the committe produces the desire result.

Key here is WHY the board rejected Chets ***. If it is
because they didn't "like" what was on it that is a political
not a scientific motive.

>
>
>
> >Was the dental board subsequently sued for illegally
> >taking over the fact *** committe?
>
> I don't know. Since the board has the full legal power to appoint
> committees, and to dismiss and reorganize its own creations
> (committees) as it sees fit, how can anyone claim that it "illegally
> took over" its own fully-owned committee?
>

On the link it implies that what the board did is illegal.
It said something about a quorum law.

> That would be nonsense. All temporary committees created by the Board
> are fully under the control of the Board anyway.
>
> Probably any lawsuit which is based solely upon a contention that a
> duly-appointed Board cannot reorganize its own committees is doomed
to
> failure. Is this "lawsuit" going anywhere? What can you tell me about
> its current disposition?
>

Just what I see on the link.

>
>
> >Did the CDA bring in an "expert" to testify for amalgam?
>
> As far as I could tell at the public meeting, quite a number of
groups
> brought in people to testify regarding the content of the DMFS. This
> included anti-amalgam groups.
>

Kind of odd to have members of a profession taking testimony
from their own professional organization in the form of expert
testimony and claiming no influence, especially, since that
organization probably is not legally bound to make it's board testimony
accurate and is giving it's opinion. I assume this supposedly
"separate" entity is also free to consult with lawyers before giving
its "testimony" on what the fact ***
should say and identify itself as the "offical organization
for dental professioinals". Can't the dentists on the board form thier
own committes and do their own scientific investigation? Having over
half the committee dental professionals isn't enough? Suppose the board
had NO dentists? I think Chet was also concerned that the "expert"
brought in by the CDA had no published papers and this kind of
testimony would be difficult to admit if the dentist on the board had
bring him in themselves.


>
>
>
> >Did this or previous dental boards take any illegal action to stop
> >distribution of a fact ***
>
>
> No.
>
> This board worked harder and faster than any other previous board to
> produce and allow the distribution of a new DMFS.

Well when was the first board fired. Now how long until
the new fact *** came out a couple years? How come
it takes years to publish a fact ***?
>
> (An important note -- the Board does NOT distribute the fact ***!
> Dentists have to print and pay for any fact sheets themselves,
without
> a penny's worth of help from anyone. This is just another expensive,
> unfunded mandate from big government.)

Unfunded Mandate. Spending a few dollars to warn a pregnant mother
that amalgam can expose her and her child to Hg is just
an expensive mandate from "Big government"


>
> Previous boards worked more slowly and found it impossible to
reconcile
> the positions of the different groups who fought endlessly over each
> proposed item of content in the first DMFS. No "illegal action" was
> taken as far as I remember. Is somebody claiming illegal action was
> taken? What action was that, and when?
>
>

The claim on TT.net is that the previous dental board had
not complied with law (prop 65) and had refused for many
year to publish a fact *** on amalgam that complied with
the law. Or it may have been that no fact *** at all
was published that listed amalgam.

>
> >and are many of the appointees holdovers
> >from the previous pro-amalgam law defying dental board.
>
>
> The previous dental board was NOT "law-defying" and was not
> "pro-amalgam." This statement alone casts grave doubt upon the
> credibility of the writer.

So the previous dental board had published a fact *** that
complied with the law in a timely manner? Why was the board
disbanded and why was it sued if it did nothing wrong?


>
> And there can be no "holdovers" as the former Gov. Gray Davis had
> terminated the entire dental board, at the behest of one noisy
> anti-amalgam legislator who was a member of the governor's political
> party.

Obviously I was not there. The link implies that Gov Davis
reappointed many of the same members, the only difference
being a few appointes such a Chet Yokoyama to appease this
legislator. Therefore, this "new" board would not be
a fresh "new", "neutral" and completely objective board as
you implied before. Especially since the same members would be
responsible for the current circumstances of the dental board.

Maybe this is incorrect but lets be clear, and not get
caught up with the term holdover. Where any of the same members
from the fired board on the new board?


> All the members of the NEW board were later appointed by Gov. Davis.
>

Where they the same members that had been on the last dental
board?

.