Dentistry - Amalgam can be googled

Author

Amalgam can be googled

2005-02-09, 3:09 pm

From google.com:

Results 40,500 for amalgam + toxicity.
Results 25 for amalgam + safety +shure

????

"Is it safe? from:
Maraton man"
Dustin Hofman, remember?

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS

2005-02-09, 3:09 pm

silverblue001@hotmail.com

2005-02-09, 3:09 pm

oN wrote:
> From google.com:
>
> Results 40,500 for amalgam + toxicity.
> Results 25 for amalgam + safety +shure
>
> ????
>
> "Is it safe? from:
> Maraton man"
> Dustin Hofman, remember?

Riiiiight. What's your point?

Maybe if you tried spelling "sure" correctly ...

Just remember that random websites on the internet aren't necessarily
reliable sources of information. Try some *peer reviewed* journals.
It's always good to question what you read. In the case of a
scientific study: who were the experimenters? What were the methods
used? What are the possible confounding factors? No study is perfect.
After you've done all of that, THEN you can formulate an opinion ...but
if you've already made up your mind, there's no point in doing all of
that ...you'll just reject any evidence to the contrary anyway.

JWN DDS

2005-02-09, 3:09 pm

Results 2,710,000 for water + toxicity
Results 458 for water + safety + shure

This seems about as scientific as some of Jan's work.

jwn dds

<silverblue001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107974797.092714.201230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> oN wrote:
>
> Riiiiight. What's your point?
>
> Maybe if you tried spelling "sure" correctly ...
>
> Just remember that random websites on the internet aren't necessarily
> reliable sources of information. Try some *peer reviewed* journals.
> It's always good to question what you read. In the case of a
> scientific study: who were the experimenters? What were the methods
> used? What are the possible confounding factors? No study is perfect.
> After you've done all of that, THEN you can formulate an opinion ...but
> if you've already made up your mind, there's no point in doing all of
> that ...you'll just reject any evidence to the contrary anyway.
>

jdrew63929@aol.com

2005-02-09, 3:09 pm

Try some *peer reviewed* journals.

Robert W. Maver, F.S.A., M.A.A.A.
Reprinted from The World Research News, 1st quarter 1998 issue, with
permission.

The premise is that there are innovative medical therapies existing
today that offer solutions to some of our most pressing health
problems and that at the same time offer a significant reduction in
health care costs. These therapies are largely being ignored or in
some cases ridiculed.

To most of us involved in scientific research, this seems an odd
notion at first. Surely, one would think, discoveries and
breakthroughs offering great promise in the treatment of disease
would be at once communicated and embraced by the scientific/medical
community. However, those who study the history of scientific
progress conclude otherwise. Science frequently fails to demonstrate
the dispassion we attribute to it.

Historical citations of science resisting new ideas are too numerous
to review in any depth, from Copernicus to Galileo to Darwin, Mendel,
Ohm, Young, Pasteur, lister, Fleming ... the list goes on and on. It
is perhaps more instructive to briefly examine the reasons for resis
tance to innovation in medicine.

Tomato Effect - The tomato effect in medicine occurs when a highly
efficacious therapy for a certain disease is ignored or rejected
because it does not '.make sense" in the light of accepted theories
of disease mechanism and drug action. Doctors at the university of
New Mexico School of Medicine introduced the tomato effect in JAMA.
May 11, 1984. Its name is derived from the history of the tomato in
North America. By 1560, the tomato was becoming a staple of the
continental European diet. However, it was shunned in America until
the 1800's. Why? Because we knew it was poisonous. Everyone knew
tomatoes belong to the nightshade family. The leaves and fruit of
several plants in this family can cause death if ingested. The fact
that Europeans were eating tomatoes without harm was not relevant. It
simply did not make sense to eat poisonous food.

Peer Review - Ile peer review process probably has done more to
discourage innovative research than any other factor that I have
observed. The March 9, 1990 issue of JAMA was devoted entirely to the
topic of peer review. One article in particular, by Horrobin (himself
editor of a peer reviewed medical journal) , cited 18 examples of
peer review attempting to suppress medical innovation. The article
observed: " ... some of the most distinguished of scientists may
display sophisticated behavior that can only be described as
pathological. Editors must be conscious that, despite public
protestations to the contrary, many scientistreviewers are against
innovation unless it is their innovation. Innovation from others may
be a threat because it diminishes the importance of the scientist's
own work.

"Peer review in the grant giving process is so restrictive that most
innovative scientists know they would never receive funding if they
actually said what they were going to do. Scientists therefore have
to tell lies in their grant applications. Such views have explicitly
been stated by at least two Nobel Laureates."

The (JAMA) article contends that medicine has lost sight of the basic
purpose of peer review, asserting, "the true aim of peer review in
biomedical science must be to improve the quality of patient care."

Wrong Economics - When a new therapy comes along that is cheaper,
safer and more effective, it is seen as a competitive threat to those
engaged in the therapy it will displace. Those who stand to be most
economically disadvantaged naturally endeavor to block its
acceptance.

International Barriers - A combination of communication problems
(language barriers) and national chauvinism (if it wasn't discovered
here it can't be of much value) keep some innovative practices
developed in Europe and Asia from reaching the United States.

Cumbersome Bureaucracy - It has been estimated that the FDA approval
process takes an average of 12 years and costs $231 million. This
presents unique difficulties for independent researchers and for
therapies that do not lend themselves to patentability.

It is my observation that there is a role for the insurance industry
in advocating evaluation of innovative medical thera pies. Actuaries
should be almost immune to the tomato effect. We are focused almost
exclusively on statistical results as opposed to theory. Since the
insurance industry pays most of the bills, it should have great
economic motivation to see safe., effective and inexpensive therapies
extensively evaluated and widely disseminated. Consideration of an
industry-wide fund for innovative research could deal with the
problem of peer review. The insurance industry is a sleeping economic
giant. When it awakens to the cost containment possibilities
available through innovative therapies, we will see enormous changes
in the practice of medicine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Volume 6 No. 3 The Road Back Foundation" Antibiotic Therapy for
Rheumatic Diseases Summer 1998

Joel M. Eichen

2005-02-12, 1:30 pm

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:12:43 GMT, "JWN DDS" <dds__@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Results 2,710,000 for water + toxicity
>Results 458 for water + safety + shure
>
>This seems about as scientific as some of Jan's work.
>
>jwn dds

GOOGLE SEARCH

"Jan Drew does not know what she is talking about."

4,674,567,983,456,072 pages.

"Jan Drew is right."

4 pages.

>
><silverblue001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1107974797.092714.201230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>

W_B

2005-02-12, 1:30 pm

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:37:01 -0500, Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com> wrote:

>oN wrote:
>
>
> Yeah. If only eugenol worked that well!
>
>Steve

A young man walked into my office the other day and asked
if his amalgams could be 'googled' into composite...

Yep, but it costs extra... <8^]]>
--

W_B
Take out the G'RBAGE
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com

2005-02-12, 1:31 pm

4,300,000 for whiskey
about 4,700,000 for whisky
Wich one is better?
I like Vodka, anyway, it is sure, and there is no mercury, but ooggly googly
says : about 47,100 for vodka + mercury
;(

"JWN DDS" <dds__@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LgtOd.33685$L_3.1927@clgrps13...
> Results 2,710,000 for water + toxicity
> Results 458 for water + safety + shure
>
> This seems about as scientific as some of Jan's work.
>
> jwn dds
>
> <silverblue001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1107974797.092714.201230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>