Re: Mercury-Free Bandwagon Gathers Pace

In article <1125098273.139236.181810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
clintonz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> billkatz wrote:
> > Huh?
> >
> > October issue of the NEJM [NEJM, 349(19):1731-1737, Oct 2003]. The
> > article is entitled "The Toxicology of Mercury - Current Exposures
> > and Clinical Manifestations."
> >
> > (Pages 1732-1733), "Patients who have questions about the potential
> > relation between mercury and degenerative diseases can be assured that
> > the available evidence shows no connection."
>
>
> I said that the NEJM had reported "finally" that amalgam was the
> largest exposure of elemental Hg in the population, probably in that
> article, though it could be a different recent one.
>
> Yes that (probably)same article was pretty brutally criticized for then
> concluding that exposure to Hg was really no big deal afterall.
> did you read the entire article to see if what i said was true or
> just take irrelevent snippet to deflect my main point?
>
> It was basically a defensive, biased "summary of the literature", not
> a research piece, by pro-Hg (and nearly senile) 60's throwback
> toxicologist and dental industry gun Clarkson IIRC.
>
> You might think it illogical that Clarkson or the NEJM could admit
> that amalgam was the largest source of elemental Hg (do they have any
> choice?) then turn around and say but look "no problem". A lot of other
> people felt that way too! On the other hand what are the dentists and
> doctors supposed to do, publish an article which says, look we've been
> exposing people to high levels of Hg and endangering their health all
> these years?

So are you Pro NEJM?
.