Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Mercury Mmm Mmm Good: Part Deux

FDA concludes mercury in dental fillings not risky


It was something of an about-face for the Food and Drug Administration, which last year settled a lawsuit with anti-mercury activists by posting on its Web site a precaution saying questions remained about whether the small amount of mercury vapor the fillings can release were enough to harm the developing brains of fetuses or the very young.
Could heavy lobbying from industry and/or the American Dental Association play a role in this about face?

This follows hot on the heels of this stunning FDA: A-OK

FDA Stuns Scientists, Declares Mercury in Fish to be Safe for Infants, Children, Expectant Mothers!

This FDA decision on mercury in fish has alarmed EPA scientists who called it "scientifically flawed and inadequate," reports the Washington Post. Even better, the Environmental Working Group (www.EWG.org) issued a letter to the EPA, saying "It's a commentary on how low FDA has sunk as an agency. It was once a fierce protector of America's health, and now it's nothing more than a patsy for polluters"

Not to mention the mercury in the vaccinations, oh, I mean thimerosol

Thinking about the cumulative affects of all this, oh so good for you mercury?

6 comments:

  1. Well with the revolving door between policy setters at the FDA and mega-corps like Monsanto etc - is this really any surprise??

    I am embarking on some long needed dental work, during which time the few filling I have will be removed and replaced.

    The FDA and Hellth Canada are both jokes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. true, true, true

    sad isn't it?

    and we think they are here to help us, and keep us safe.

    Seems they are in place to keep the lawsuit potential down for business and certain medical associations

    ReplyDelete
  3. Morning, morning ,morning, Ooooo dental work, sounds yummy hope the dentist has a sharp chisel a steady hand and a keen eye.

    Penny, The history of the FDA is an interesting read ifn your interested let me know

    ReplyDelete
  4. According to my doctor whom I trust so far (he is a young, progressive guy who thinks like me - take the least amount of vaccinations possible), for children's vaccinations in Canada - no thimerosol for the last 6 years, actually. I will check up on this later, but it's a moot point at this moment - my kid will not get any more shots.

    We just had a long talk, as I cancelled my 7 month old daughter's shots and chatted privately with him. Very interesting conversation . . . he had very, very dim view of US rights in reference to forced inocculation.

    From the research I've done, there have actually been exactly 0 (zero) double blind studies on the positive effects of vaccinations . . . including the ones we take for granted as necessary like polio or hepatitis.

    As a pharmaceutical corporation, why take the chance on a negative result yo have to bury? Just pick out the positive results, so much easier . . .

    ReplyDelete
  5. hey slozo!

    zero double blind tests eh?

    burying the results of these tests is fairly common for big pharma, I recall a cholesterol drug, that the manufacturer had actually covered up the deadly results, i think that story is posted here on the blog.

    I will find it and relink it here,

    ReplyDelete
  6. hey slozo:

    there were two cholesterol drugs involved Zetia and Vytorin.

    here is the latest

    BC/BS alleges cholesterol drug makers hid unfavorable test results
    http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/220292-bcbs-alleges-cholesterol-drug-makers-hid-unfavorable-test-results

    MARSHALL - Insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield claims that the makers of two popular cholesterol-lowering drugs *failed to disclose unfavorable trial test* results in an effort to boost sales.

    Health Care Service Corp., operating through its division as Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas, Illinois, New Mexico and Oklahoma, filed suit against the makers of Zetia and Vytorin alleging the pharmaceutical companies violated the racketeering laws and deceptive trade acts in the marketing of the drugs.

    The insurer filed suit against Merck and Co. Inc., Schering-Plough Corp. and Merck/Shering-Plough Pharmaceuticals on July 24 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas.

    as insurance giants one can imagine the money paid out to cover these very expensive and very useless drugs.

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS &SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS