Fraudelant 2003 study showing no harm from amalgams

Discussion in 'Dental Archive' started by nightlight, Oct 8, 2006.

  1. nightlight

    nightlight Guest

    A recent (2003) study of effects of dental amalgams
    http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5879/5879.html
    which found no harmful effects appears to have been
    designed not to find any such effects.

    Basically what they did is to perform a series
    of mental performance tests on people
    with various numbers of amalgams.

    They did find direct linear correlation in blood
    and urine levels of mercury metabolites with
    number of amalgams (or surfaces). Clearly the
    amalgams do cause mercury absorption and show
    linear dose/response relation.

    Regarding the mental tests, they cheated
    by "stratifying" the subjects into categories such
    as educational level, professional status,
    socioeconomic status and numerous other "confounders"
    (using unspecified adjustment). Then they compared
    mental performance of subjects with and without
    amalgams _within each subset_. The problem with
    this approach is that after you adjust for all
    "confounders" you get subset which by definition will
    be have level of mental performance corresponding
    to the parameters held fixed for the subgroup
    (e.g. professional level, socioeconomic
    status...).

    For example if amalgams (which were all placed in
    teen years) have caused drop in IQ of 30 points,
    a person who might have been IQ=130 would become
    IQ=100 and achieve professional status of people
    with IQ=100. Hence someone who might have been a
    scientist (with IQ 130), may have turned out, due
    to amalgams, an average person and would be compared
    to that subgroup. Similarly a person with pre-amalgam
    IQ 160, who might have been Nobel laureate, would only
    become an average scientist corresponding to IQ 130
    and would be compared to those.

    Hence, by fixing great many "confounding variables"
    within each group, the authors had in effect fixed
    the equivalent of the mental performance within that
    subgroup. Comparing subjects within each subgroup will
    then by definition measure that same fixed level of
    performance corresponding to that subgroup. The whole
    experiment was in effect a worthless tautology with
    guaranteed outcome. It was completely insensitive to
    the effect of mercury on shifting persons from one
    "stratum" to another.

    To give analogy, consider we wish to measure effect
    of childhood starvation on height of adults. We pick
    1000 adults, divide them into subgroups based on weight
    and height. Then _within_ each subgroup we compare how
    the remaining small height variations correlate with
    the data on childhood starvation. Obviously, if we're
    looking within the 6 ft +/- 10% subgroup, we won't find
    out how tall a 6 ft person with history of starvation
    would have been had he not been starving in childhood.

    The entire study was obviously rigged -- it was
    devised to be entirely insensitive to the question
    of amalgam effects on mental performance. The fact
    that they had to cheat using such cheap statistical
    sleight of hand means that the amalgams do cause
    harm and any genuine study would show it.
     
    nightlight, Oct 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. nightlight

    Clinton Guest

    nightlight wrote:
    Good point, believe it or not the ADA brought up this worthless study
    repeatedly at the FDA hearings as well as another 'amalgam counting'
    study criticized on this NG and full of errors.

    If you like you can send your comment to the FDA before Nov.

    Send an email to . In the subject line type
    "Docket Number - 2006N-0352". Send a copy to Mary Ann Newell at
    (to insure inclusion in the docket). The expert
    committe
    will review your comments.
     
    Clinton, Oct 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. nightlight

    Jan Guest

    Clinton wrote:
    Thanks Clinton.

    I just received this from Marie Flowers.

    Send an email to . In the subject line type
    "Docket Number - 2006N-0352". Send a copy to Mary Ann Newell at
    or Freya Koss at so we can make sure
    that your comments get recorded to the Docket. Deadline is Nov 9, 2006.

    Jan
     
    Jan, Oct 9, 2006
    #3
  4. nightlight

    Jan Guest

    Jan wrote:
    Excuse me, I forgot to post this additional info.


    The joint panel concluded with personal recommendations by the
    members. These include that FDA should :
    · Consider informed consent for patients receiving amalgam
    · Consider labeling changes restricting its use in pregnant woman and
    children
    · Revisit the white paper to include a broader search, include data
    from other countries, and provide the rationale for study exclusion
    · Study the pharmacokinetics of mercury
    · Consider the relevancy of the "precautionary principle."
    · Not make any rash decisions by having the pubic remove their
    amalgams because it appears that this problem may affect only a small
    segment of the population.

    HOW TO POST TO THE FDA DOCKET

    Send an email to . In the subject line type
    "Docket Number - 2006N-0352". Send a copy to Mary Ann Newell at
    or Freya Koss at so we can make sure
    that your comments get recorded to the Docket. Deadline is Nov 9, 2006.

    If you don't post a story, the Advisory Panel will think there are just
    a few people poisoned from dental fillings instead of a possible 25%
    rate in the general population.


    Marie Flowers
    Dental Amalgam Mercury Syndrome- DAMS
    www.MercuryPoisoned.com

    For an in-depth report of what happened at recent FDA hearings look at
    the top of my website. www.MercuryPoisoned.com


    The Advisory Panel to the FDA REJECTED the FDA's Safety Report on
    Dental Amalgam, and suggest labeling changes so that children and
    pregnant women should not have mercury dental fillings. The Advisory
    Panel also said that people should be informed before a dentist places
    mercury dental fillings.

    Jan
     
    Jan, Oct 9, 2006
    #4
  5. nightlight

    Peter Moran Guest

    This is "talking the talk" -- mere mimicry of science-speak, as various
    kinds of activist are wont to do these days.

    What we need here is a clearer exposition of just why counting peoples
    amalgam surfaces (and presumably including a group with none) and
    correlating that with neurological performance is a "worthless" approach.
    We know that the number of amalgam surfaces correlates with mercury
    exposure. How else might one investigate whether subtle mercury poisoning
    may sometimes be occurring in patients with amalgam fillings?

    Peter Moran
     
    Peter Moran, Oct 9, 2006
    #5
  6. nightlight

    nightlight Guest

    Peter Moran wrote:
    The problem isn't that they counted amalgams. The problem is their
    "stratification" which basically fixes subgroups based on their
    present status (various confounding variables which amount to
    an equivalent of mental performance). There is no reason why
    within a subgroup of, say, janitors or equivalent non-professionals,
    a janitor with 10 amalgams would be any dumber than another
    janitor with no amalgams. Comparing performance of two janitors
    doesn't tell you how well the janitor with 10 amalgams might
    have done had he not had these amalgams i.e. how did amalgams
    affect his development and resulting mental performance, energy
    and drive to achieve. Had he not been inhaling mercury vapors
    since childhood he might have been a doctor or a scientist.

    By stratifying the data based on variables which amount to a
    indirect measure of mental performance they have fixed, within
    some narrow band of arbitrary fluctuations, what performace they
    will find by measuring it directly.

    The ADA friendly "researchers" have obviously rigged the
    "study" to find no significant effect of amalgams by
    looking through a contrived pinhole defining their subgroups.
    The fact that they didn't find any more subtle way of rigging
    indicates that there wasn't any but clumsy and transparent
    sleight of hand they tried. The real implication is that just
    about anything else one might have done would have shown the
    negative impact of amalgams.
     
    nightlight, Oct 9, 2006
    #6
  7. nightlight

    Clinton Guest

    nightlight wrote:
    I understand what you are saying but to address the above and Peter
    Moran's
    comments, counting amalgams is a problem. Why? Galvansim, crevice
    corrsion, and poor condensation of amalgam makes some amalgams give
    off much higher levels of Hg than others. Since Hg exposure isn't
    measured
    directly, those with the highest level aren't counted.

    For example, let's say 1 in 100 amalgams is poorly made or undergoes an
    unusal amount of galvanic activity, and gives off high levels of Hg. Or
    that this amalgam undergoes what manufacturer refer to as
    "electrochemical reactions" on the surface which may allow bactria to
    methylize the Hg released in a corrosion reaction. On average that
    amalgam will be in the mouth with an individual with an average number
    of fillings. that means that amalgam counting, by ignoring galvanic
    activity, poor condensation anc
    surface electrochemical reactions in "rare" cases actually counts the
    most
    adverse effects as evidence of amalgam safety
     
    Clinton, Oct 10, 2006
    #7
  8. nightlight

    nightlight Guest

    Clinton wrote:
    I think that epidemiological method, unless very carefully designed
    for this specific purpose and carried over long time, is not very
    sensitive in detecting long term subtle and far away effects of
    chronic, low dose mercury poisoning. Direct experiments on primates
    (or even lower animals which live long enough for low dose mercury
    toxicity to manifest itself), where the animals with and without
    amalgams are observed and tested over many years, would work better.
    Human and animal bodies are marvelous biochemical systems which can
    compensate and work around lots of damage. Of course, each
    compensatory process would have a cost downstream, hence one would
    need to follow fairly long chains of causes and effects to tally the
    total cost to the organism. Since the compensatory systems are used
    for variety of repair & detox tasks unrelated to mercury damage,
    epidemiology & bulk statistics are much too coarse grained to
    accurately attribute the blame for the final harmful effects to
    a single far away cause.

    Additional complication for direct and indirect studies is that people
    with different genetic profiles are affected differently by amalgams.
    For example, the effect on brain depends on the actual concentration
    of Hg in the brain, which for any given exposure level depends on
    genetics of biochemical detox, such as ApoE2,3,4 alelles. People with
    ApoE4 alelle from both parents, which is more common in northern
    Europeans, would detox most poorly and would have the highest Hg
    concentrations in the brain, while people with ApoE2 from both parents
    would have the lowest Hg concentration (ApoE3 alelle, most common
    among southern Europans, falls in between on detox scale). Further
    series of subtle genetic dependencies enter at the repair and damage
    compensation/workaround phases.

    The bottom line, though, is that mercury in low doses, such as those
    which can be produced by amalgams, is a demonstrable toxin to neurons,
    as well as to variety of other cells & larger systems in the human and
    animal bodies. The only variation among individuals is the pattern and
    degree of damage, but everyone is damaged by them. Hence, the amalgams
    are at best a Russian roulette using gun with perhaps 5-10 percent of
    chambers loaded -- if you're lucky you will avoid the most serious
    consequences, such as MS, Alzheimers, Parkinson disease etc.

    Amalgams should therefore not only be banished from dental practice,
    but existent amalgams should be carefully removed and people already
    damaged should be compensated, all at public expense (since we are all
    responsible for the government we elect, hence for the bureaucracies
    they create). At least some "health" bureaucrats, "scientists" (such
    as the lead authors of this and similar fraudelant studies), CEOs,
    "educators" and "experts", from public and private sector, who
    deliberately deceived the public, dental students and dentists should
    be pursued through courts and punished as criminals.
     
    nightlight, Oct 10, 2006
    #8
  9. nightlight

    trelbrierley Guest

    I'll do composites any and all days of the week-more money, more
    sensitivity, they are weaker=more breakdown, increased chance of RCT
    leads to more money. SO...why do you think there is a great
    conspiracy to keep amalgam ? ? ? ?
    Have you ever researched what's in a composite ("white")
    filling..hmmmmm???




    nightlight wrote:
     
    trelbrierley, Oct 12, 2006
    #9
  10. nightlight

    nightlight Guest

    wrote:
    Have you heard of tobacco industry conspiracy to hide harm and
    addictiveness of tobacco? Mercury is far more toxic and harmful
    to humans than even most direct tobacco smoke. For example, while
    it is practically impossible to induce lung cancers in lab animals
    by having them breathe smoke, even when inhaling equivalents of
    hundreds of cigarettes per day, it is very easy to demonstrate
    harm from mercury in very small amounts to virtually any lifeform,
    from single cell to human organisms.


    The dental industry has no choice but to stick tightly to its
    "silver" story, otherwise it would face the mother of all class
    action lawsuits. As long as they stick unwaveringly to their
    `"silver" fillings are safe and effective' mantra, they get paid
    both ways, to put in the mercury into mouths of their patients,
    then even more to remove it safely for those who ask years later
    when the damage is manifest, even when the mercury filling is
    dentally perfectly fine. The alternative is simply unthinkable
    for dental industry.

    While it may surprise those who still believe that TV commercials
    are all truth and whole truth, most people eventually learn,
    usually by age of seven or so, that it's not all they see on TV
    is true and that money has a way to make people lie (and much more),
    let alone remain silent.

    Note that, as with many other toxins, there are, of course,
    genetic differences in efficiency of mercury elimination. For
    example, the three Apolipoprotein alleles, ApoE2,3,4 affect
    how efficiently the mercury is excreted from the brain, which
    in turn determines the rate of mental deterioration (such as onset
    of senility) due to mercury exposure from amalgams. People with
    ApoE2 allele from both parents eliminate mercury from brain
    the most efficiently, while those with double ApoE4 the least
    efficiently (ApE3 falls in between). It happens that ApoE4
    frequency is highest in northern Europe (hence they're more
    affected by mercury from amalgams) and it drops in favor of
    ApoE3 which is most prevalent in southern Europe (hence
    the Mediteranian population is less affected). The IQ of
    European populations has precisely the opposite gradient,
    it drops from north to south. Hence, among Europeans, the
    populations whose brains are damaged more by mercury also
    have higher IQ. Hence an IQ drop of ApoE4 population due
    to mercury exposure from amalgams would simply bring it
    down toward IQ of ApoE2,E3 populations (which is less
    affected) i.e. it would merely reduce European IQ
    gradient, bunching everyone toward the middle.

    Interestingly, the highly promoted (by ADA, EPA and other
    parties responsible for amalgam use) amalgam 2006 study
    was done in Portugal, which is among Europeans the population
    the least sensitive to mercury toxicity to brain (due to
    larger admixture of African genotype than other European
    populations). Further, the study observed kids (mostly
    with ApoE3/E2 alleles) only for few years while the
    effects on brain, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's
    take a bit longer to develop and any honest study would
    not look for such effects in children. Clearly, the study
    was optimized (in many ways) to find no harmful effects.
    See also additional critique of this study at:

    "Unmasking The Unscientific JAMA 2006 CHILDRENS AMALGAM STUDY"
    http://www.bioprobe.com/ReadNews.asp?article=95

    Of course, the fact that dental industry has to use such
    means to "prove" that "silver" fillings are not harmful
    only proves that they know better.
    There is no one "white" filling. Porcelain fillings (as inlays)
    are probably the least problematic. Even though they do have
    aluminum, it is not present in porcelain as alloy or amalgam
    (which is a weak non-chemical mixture of components) but
    in a form of an orders of magnitude stronger chemical bond.
     
    nightlight, Oct 12, 2006
    #10
  11. nightlight

    trelbrierley Guest

    Again, I'll do porcelain fillings as much as you want me to; even MORE
    money!!! All of your scientific regurgitation on genetics I would
    never contest, who could?? You are absolutely right-Hg is a
    neurotoxin-but the risk at the concentration in amalgam is worth the
    benefits derived in dentistry. Radiation causes cancer-but the risk of
    it for radiography, detecting structural failures in airplane turbines,
    and for cancer treatment is WORTH the BENEFIT. Capish the analogy?
    Placing Hg fillings for the future 'financial gain' of removing them
    later on is ludicrous, we'll get a better return on 'white' fillings
    again. The notion that dentistry must 'hide' the real truth about
    silver fillings because of a looming class-action lawsuit does not hold
    water, otherwise we'd all be in the courts, eagerly smacking our lips
    and gleefully rubbing our hands together for a piece of the pie from
    the class action lawsuit against PCB's in transformers, plasticizers in
    kid's toys, food bags, chlorine in paper products, DEET in bug spay,
    selenium in photocopiers, mercury in catalytic converters and so on.
    It will never happen, and dentistry is not worried that it will. At
    this time of recent, double-blind, peer-reviewed, independent science,
    the benefits still outweigh the risks, and this is what the courts will
    look at. When dentistry bans Hg-laden amalgam and the likes of
    yourselves are throwing your hats in the air and whooping a cheer of
    victory-I'll be right there beside, you-cheering for my increased
    income, placing my bis-phenyl laden 'white fillings' and cementing my
    porcelain inlays with resin (ie: carcinogen-containing) luting cements.


    nightlight wrote:
     
    trelbrierley, Oct 12, 2006
    #11
  12. nightlight

    trelbrierley Guest

    PS: "Hg far more toxic than cigarette smoke??? I almost spit out my
    Cheerios!!! You are kidding.....please don't tell me you composed
    your previous reply with a Marlboro in your hand!!!!!
    wrote:
     
    trelbrierley, Oct 12, 2006
    #12
  13. nightlight

    nightlight Guest

    wrote:
    It is always a matter of risk/benefit ratio. That's why the dental
    industry is working so hard to misrepresent the risks (with no
    means considered too low, as their latest study illustrates; cf.
    the critique at the link posted). Consider how cheap is their
    mindless insistence on calling it euphemistically "silver" filling,
    even though half of it is mercury while silver is only 20-30 percent.

    While the benefits might have outweighed risks as far as science
    knew in 19th century, especially considering the average lifespans
    of that time, that has long ceased to be so. At various points
    since then the dental and amalgam industries have crossed from
    ignorant and negligent into unethical and finally into domain
    of criminal behavior in the last couple decades. There are only
    so many lawyers to go around. Give it some time, though, until
    the packs of lawyers are done with the junk food industry.
    After offering no specifics or substance of any sort in
    defense of the phony JAMA 2006 study, you proceeded to
    demonstrate further facets of your ignorance about relative
    toxicities of tobacco smoke and mercury. Well, thanks
    for being so helpful.

    I suppose one should not expect any better from our
    modern day Mad Hatters, the folks inhaling mercury dust
    and vapors every day for much of their lives. FYI, unlike
    nicotine, which is, in doses obtained from smoking, a beneficial
    neuro-stimulant and among others, protective against Alzheimer's
    and Parkinson's (cf. http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm ),
    the mercury effects on brain are precisely the opposite (in the usual
    ranges of respective exposures).
     
    nightlight, Oct 12, 2006
    #13
  14. nightlight

    trelbrierley Guest

    nightlight wrote:


    Consider how cheap is their
    It was not the dentists or the industry that EVER called them "silver
    fillings, it was the public in response to what they look like. It
    makes an easy descriptor for the public.

    Call me ignorant-I have no problem with that; I will not even try to
    refute your interpretation of the evidence because I don't have the
    time to read all of the peer-reviewed journals that you obviously do.
    I do know what comes from peer reviewed journals up my alley. "Phony
    JAMA study"; your paranoid opinion. "They're all in on it. right??"
    ....and I knew it...you ARE a smoker! (probably a lawyer, too). Go
    ahead and justify your pathetic habit to yourself! I find it always
    amusing to talk to the hooked smoker who cannot kick their habit,
    therefore they justify it's need.
    Anyway, I don't think you'll find any dentist that wouldn't admit that
    Hg is not good for you, it comes down to -does it's use justify the
    risk?? And so far the answer is yes. I notice you didn't comment on
    the components of white fillings or the cements required to bond your
    porcelain inlays/onlays. Tha answer????

    DON'T GET CAVITIES !!!!!!!!!!
     
    trelbrierley, Oct 12, 2006
    #14
  15. nightlight

    Tony Bad Guest

    One of my patients who consistently banged the amalgam drum was also a
    smoker. I didn't understand why he was so worried about something of, at
    best, debatable risk, yet engaged in something with a clear and obvious
    risk. Didn't make sense to me.

    T
     
    Tony Bad, Oct 12, 2006
    #15
  16. nightlight

    nightlight Guest

    Tony Bad wrote:
    It's not your fault. It is hard to make sense of half-truths,
    junk science and propaganda.

    Tobacco is protective against the toxic effects of mercury
    on brain, such as those found in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's
    diseases. Smokers at any age have less than half the rates of
    these diseases than non-smokers. The smokers who quit double
    after few years their odds for getting these diseases, nearly
    catching up to never-smokers. Further, the brains of Alzheimer's
    patients show significant excess of mercury. In test tube the
    mercury in similar or lower concentration than those commonly
    found in brains of people with amalgams and who carry single
    or double ApoE4 allele, produces the same tangles on neurons
    as those characteristic of Alzheimer's disease (mercury is the
    only known substance so far that produces such effect on neurons).

    http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/091602/80027dd5.pdf
    http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/alzheimers.htm

    Note also that almost all longevity record holders, such as
    those above 110 and still mentally sharp, are life long smokers.
    Here are some links and summaries of little publicized studies
    and facts on smoking and anti-smoking:

    "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking"
    http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

    "In defense of Smokers" (online book)
    http://www.lcolby.com/

    Some studies on therapeutic effects of smoking:

    http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm
    http://www.data-yard.net/10/nicoplus.htm
    http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/life.htm
    http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm
    http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/nicotine.htm
    http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041

    Of course, there is a statistical _correlation_ between smoking
    and poor health (as well as with variety of other problems). Much
    of it, perhaps all, is the result of strong social pressures against
    smoking which have reshaped the population of smokers in recent
    decades, turning smoking into a mere passive marker of various
    negative traits statistically associated with that highly skewed
    sample (e.g. risk takers, low socioeconomic status, unhealthy &
    stressful job environment,... ). As demonstrated in the studies
    cited & described at the first link above, large controlled
    experiments spanning decades, in which subjects are randomly
    assigned to either smoking cessation or to no intervention group,
    showed no gain, and even increase in some diseases, for the
    smoking cessation group. Similarly, the studies examining health
    problems of smokers and non-smokers in otherwise fairly
    homogeneous groups, such as lung cancers among asbestos workers,
    have found that lung cancers were much more prevalent among
    the non-smoking workers. Curiosly, among smokers in general, the
    lung cancers are also significantly more prevalent among those
    who do _not_ inhale the smoke than those who do inhale.

    ------ quoting from ----------------------------

    "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking"
    http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
    ------------------------------------------------

    By the end of the century general opinion had changed. The Royal College
    of Physicians of London promoted smoking for its benefits to health and
    advised which brands were best. Smoking was compulsory in schools. An
    Eton schoolboy later recalled that "he was never whipped so much in his
    life as he was one morning for not smoking". As recently as 1942 Price’s
    textbook of medicine recommended smoking to relieve asthma.

    These strong opinions for and against smoking were not supported by much
    evidence either way until 1950 when Richard Doll and Bradford Hill
    showed that smokers seemed more likely to develop lung cancer. A
    campaign was begun to limit smoking. But Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the
    greatest statistician of the 20th century, had noticed a bizarre anomaly
    in their results. Doll and Hill had asked their subjects if they
    inhaled. Fisher showed that men who inhaled were significantly less
    likely to develop lung cancer than non-inhalers. As Fisher said, "even
    equality would be a fair knock-out for the theory that smoke in the lung
    causes cancer."

    Doll and Hill decided to follow their preliminary work with a much
    larger and protracted study. British doctors were asked to take part as
    subjects. 40.000 volunteered and 20,000 refused. The relative health of
    smokers, nonsmokers and particularly ex-smokers would be compared over
    the course of future years. In this trial smokers would no longer be
    asked whether they inhaled, in spite of the earlier result. Fisher
    commented: "I suppose the subject of inhaling had become distasteful to
    the research workers, and they just wanted to hear as little about
    inhaling as possible". And: "Should not these workers have let the world
    know not only that they had discovered the cause of lung cancer
    (cigarettes) but also that they had discovered the means of its
    prevention (inhaling cigarette smoke)? How had the MRC [Medical Research
    Council] the heart to withhold this information from the thousands who
    would otherwise die of lung cancer?"

    Five year’s later, in 1964, Doll and Hill responded to this damning
    criticism. They did not explain why they had withdrawn the question
    about inhaling. Instead they complained that Fisher had not examined
    their more recent results but they agreed their results were mystifying.
    Fisher had died 2 years earlier and could not reply.

    This refusal to consider conflicting evidence is the negation of the
    scientific method. It has been the hallmark of fifty years of
    antismoking propaganda and what with good reason may well be described
    as one of the greatest scandals in 500 years of modern science.

    -------- end quote


    These anti-tobacco social pressures and the resulting mass
    hysteria being whipped up in recent decades are not accidental.
    Hundreds of billions are being transferred every year from the
    pockets of smokers to the pockets of those creating and financing
    all the "grass roots "antismoking organizations and buying the
    junk science and politicians in the support of their extortion
    racket. For example, of $60 per carton of cigarettes in my state
    (MA), $15 goes to the Big Tobacco, tobacco farmers and all the
    sales and marketing. The remaining $45 goes to the Big Anti-tobacco.
    Some links with more details on the money trail are here:

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/08/its-time-for-full-scale-congressional.html
    http://www.forces.org/writers/kjono/pdf/tobacco_control_and_fda_regulation.pdf
     
    nightlight, Oct 12, 2006
    #16
  17. nightlight wrote:

    I do not ordinarily respond to the flat earth society--please forgive
    me. But my father, who was a heavy smoker for over 30 years and who
    just last week endured a lung lobectomy for adenoca, this is just a bit
    much for me right now.
    As someone who has seen some of the many, many people killed by tobacco
    (and first-hand seen the effects of tobacco in the mouth), I think you
    can take your no-doubt-Altria-endorsed bullshit and stick it up your
    propagandistic arse.
    BTW folks, on a mostly unrelated note, I rented the following movie
    last weekend--recommended.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/

    Steve
     
    Mark & Steven Bornfeld, Oct 12, 2006
    #17
  18. nightlight

    nightlight Guest

    Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote:


    Thanks Steve for the informative post. I am sure the readers
    here can hardly wait for the next installment of your wit.
     
    nightlight, Oct 12, 2006
    #18
  19. nightlight

    trelbrierley Guest

    Steve,

    Sorry to hear of your dad, I have experienced thisx2 with my folks. I
    find this fellow curiously interesting to see how he dedicates
    (apparently all) of his time to his pet project "Death to
    Amalgam-Slinging Dentists", yet defends the so-obvious smoking.
    Notice how he refutes the "half-truths and lies" with no-truths and
    bullshit? He is an interesting oddity for sure. We must not taunt
    him, however, as he has been expanding his mind with Nico-vitamins ala
    Marlboros!!!
    nightlight wrote:
     
    trelbrierley, Oct 12, 2006
    #19
  20. wrote:

    I've been here a while, Doc--since about 2000. I've seen 'em come, and
    I've seen 'em go. I also have considerable tolerance for other people's
    views--even patently (to me) ridiculous ones, so long as they cannot
    hurt the people I care about. I also have a healthy respect for the
    fungibility of the "conventional wisdom". But I hadn't heard anyone
    referring to tobacco as a tonic in a long time (I know doctors endorsed
    Camels back in the '40s), and it was just a little too raw for me.
    Thanks for the kind words about my dad. Just found out this morning
    his nodes and pleura are clean, so we're optimistic.

    Thanks,
    Steve
     
    Mark & Steven Bornfeld, Oct 12, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.