Sweden recommends banning mercury fillings for health and environmental reasons

sweden-01The Center for Devices and Radiological Health continues to promote the myth that no studies exist showing the health risks of mercury amalgam. For example, in its latest propaganda, “CDRH Consumer Information: Questions and Answers on Dental Amalgam,” October 31, 2006, CDRH makes the following claim:

Canada and Sweden have environmental policies that favor a reduction of mercury in all products… Both countries, however, state that there is no scientific evidence of a connection between the use of dental amalgam and medical problems. [Emphases added.]

That statement by CDRH is patently false. Furthermore, Mary Susan Runner and Linda Kahan are provably aware that the statements are false.

susan_runner_fda_cdrhA) Runner knows about the Swedish report which condemns mercury amalgam for health reasons.

An exhaustive 2002 study, under the auspices of Sweden’s Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, concluded: “The safety factor thought to exist with respect to mercury exposure from amalgam has been erased”; and “For medical reasons, amalgam should be eliminated in dental care as soon as possible.”, Report of the Dental Material Commission – Care and Consideration, Kv. Spektern, SE-103 33, Stockholm, pp. 41-42 (November 2002) (emphasis added).

On December 1, 2003, via e-mail, one Michael LeTort, with France’s FDA equivalent, sent Dr. Runner an e-mail stating with “I attach the Swedish report FYI, in case you did not have it.” Runner in turn, on that date three hours later, forwarded it to six persons, including three from FDA (Melvi Stratemeyer, Lireka Joseph, and Lillian Gill) and including one Norman Braveman of NIDCR. Braveman responded via e-mail on that date two hours later:

“Thanks, Susan. Does this have any implication for the FDA consumer fact sheet on amalgam?”

No record exists of Runner replying. What we do know is that Runner never corrected the fact sheet, and, worse, CDRH repeats this false claim in its 2006 fact sheet. Thus,

• For three years, Runner has known about the Swedish report; she received the report, and passed it on.

• Runner is aware that it condemns mercury amalgam for health reasons (unless she ignored her duty by intentionally choosing not to read it).

• An NIH official pointed out to her the incongruity of the Swedish report, suggested she change the fact sheet, and Runner ignored the request, choosing instead to maintain the false information.

The evidence is clear: Runner is aware that CDRH is lying to the American people when it claims no studies exist, and she participates in keeping the lie going. This evidence should cause Runner to be removed from her Director position, if not fired outright.

Invitation to Dr Alderson et al

About The Author

Leave a Reply