Dato:  Tors Jan 9, 2003  9:22  
Emne: 
SV: US FDA Consumer Update: Dental Amalgams

Helt enig;- men:

Det er ikke bare å fortelle massemedia kompliserte sammenhenger, så
vil de formidle, folk vil lytte eller lese, gjøre sitt og
helsebudsjettet halveres. Som påvirkningsagent erfarer jeg vel at
kanskje ett av ti fremstøt mot trykte media slår inn om jeg er heldig
med det jeg kaller krysspress.
Da greier jeg å knytte meg til et eller flere innlegg/artikler i
samme avis. Innlegget mitt adresseres så til både avisen og de
personene (evt. journalistene) som får sine innlegg omtalt.

Pressefriheten er der stort sett når det gjelder fotball, dagens
strømpriser og lignende. På tabuområder fra amalgam til dagligdags
stråling og kanskje videre til sammenheng med for eksempel diabetes
er også pressefriheten der;- for deg som har en presse.

Du kan da gjerne finne frem til en interessert journalist som sier
halleluja (dette skal vi trykke). Men det forhindrer ikke at
redaksjonen kan si korsfest ved å hindre trykking.

Ett ferskt eksempel:
Nedenstående ble foreslått som leserinnlegg eller såkalt synspunkt i
en avis:

Diabetes - en teknologisk lidelse?

I forrige nummer pratet Yngve Bersvendsen om forbindelsen mellom fett
og diabetes mens Kristin Elven kom inn på hvordan uheldige sider ved
elektrisitetens magnetiske komponent kunne kompenseres med
magnetterapi. "Magnetterapi hjalp Jorunn"). Kan vi knytte en
forbindelse mellom diabetes og vanlige strømforhold?

I geologisk medisin kan man se på hvordan spesielle sykdomsbilder kan
knyttes til for eksempel områder med bauxittleier (råstoff til
aluminiumsproduksjon). Her i landet kan vi sammenligne karter som
viser utbredelse og hyppighet av multippel sklerose med tilsvarende
karter for radonforekomster rundt om i landet. Da finner vi svært
godt sammenfall eller samvariasjon;- mest markert akkurat her i
Hordaland. Så radon er en faktor man ikke bør overse i forbindelse
med MS. Men selve kartleggingen sier oss jo ingenting om hvor stor
betydning denne ene faktoren har. ....................

(Så fulgte litt om eloverfølsomhetsomhet, som "teknologisk lidelse"
før jeg dro gjennom litt av det som Morten Lande har holdt frem her i
gruppen om muligheten for en sammenheng mellom diabetes og
strømforhold.)

Dette var like før jul. En journalist mailet så at dette var
interessant og at "Vi har tenkt å trykke leserbrevet i vår første
avis på nyåret, ......" (Bemerk ordet vi.)
Jeg så ikke noe til innlegget i denne utgaven, men det kan jo ennå
dukke opp.

Slike erfaringer gjør at jeg, som Marianne Rygg, også satser litt på
brever og for eksempel nyttårshilsener til myndigheter. Jo flere vi
er som uroer og sår tvil hos myndigheter og redaksjoner jo bedre er
det, synes jeg.

Mvh
Tor Johnsen





--- I nordbiomed@y..., "Roland Nyberg" <Nyberg.Roland@t...>
> Hej Maryanne och alla andra!
>
> Vilken utmärkt och lättläst sammanfattning av relevanta hårda fakta
Du
> presterat genom ditt brev till FDA Maryanne! Du har väl tillsett
att den
> kommer massmedia tillhanda? FDA, liksom SOS, liksom vårt svenska och
> flertalet andra regeringar/parlament tar bara hänsyn till det som
> penetrerats i media. Det som inte lyfts fram i media FINNS INTE.
Oavsett
> vad vi tycker om det. Opinionsbildning är verktyget.
>
> Roland Nyberg
>
> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: Maryanne Rygg [mailto:mrygg@o...]
> Skickat: den 6 januari 2003 21:53
> Till: FDA - CDRH
> Kopia: recipient list suppressed
> Ämne: US FDA Consumer Update: Dental Amalgams
>
>
> To: US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and
Radiological
> Health
>
> I am an American citizen living in Norway, and I have been
following the
> debate about dental amalgam for some years. After the hearing about
> dental
> amalgam held November 14 in the US Congress Committee on Government
> Reform,
> I looked foward to seeing the next update of FDA's Consumer Update
on
> Dental
> Amalgams.
>
> I was therefore pleased to see an update appear on December 31,
2002 at
> www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html. I was, however,
dissappointed
> when
> I read the contents of the update.
>
> Your update cited "The World Health Organization (WHO), in its
> Consensus
> Statement on Dental Amalgam reached a similar conclusion. They
wrote:
> "Amalgam restorations are safe and cost-effective...Components in
dental
> restorative materials, including amalgam, may, in rare instances,
result
> in
> local side-effects or allergic reactions. The risk of adverse
> side-effects
> is very low for all types of restorative materials, including
amalgam
> and
> all resin-based materials".
>
> Today I searched the website of WHO without finding any document or
> report
> which contained the above statement which you have quoted. Perhaps
my
> search was not thorough enough. Please respond and tell me exactly
> which
> WHO document or report this quote is taken from.
>
> Although I did not find the statement which you have cited, I did
find
> "Concise International Chemical Assessment Document No. 50:
Elemental
> mercury and inorganic mercury compounds: Human health aspects
> (www.who.int/pcs/cicad/summaries/cicad_50.html) which was completed
in
> September 2002 and which was based on the "Toxicological profile for
> mercury
> (update) published by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
> Registry
> of the US Department of Health and Human Services (ATSDR) in 1999.
> Although
> you referred to studies by the USPHS in 1995 and 1997, you did not
refer
> to
> this report from 1999-2002. Why not? Reading this report on
elemental
> mercury and inorganic mercury compounds, you will see that the
> conclusions
> hardly coincide with the statement which you have cited above. This
> report
> only considered elemental mercury and inorganic mercury compounds.
Had
> they
> studied methylmercury as well, their conclusions would most likely
have
> been
> even more alarming. Recent research has shown that mercury escaping
from
> dental amalgam, is converted to methylmercury by bacteria in the
mouth
> (but
> I notice you did not mention this in your consumer update).
>
> Another recent report which is extremely easy to find is the United
> Nations
> Environmental Programme - Global Mercury Assessment, completed in
the
> autumn
> of 2002. Why did you not refer to this report? Here is the link to
that
> report and some excerpts:
>
>
http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Report/Final%20report/final-
assessment-r
> epor
> t-25nov02.pdf
>
> A quick look at the first 22 pages of the 270-page report,
covering "Key
> Findings" and a "Summary of the Report", reveals comments that I
believe
> support arguments for a ban on dental amalgam (and other uses, for
> example
> in vaccines).
>
> Some examples:
>
> Page iii, key findings: "MERCURY EXPOSURE HAS SERIOUS EFFECTS -
(par.
> 5).
> Mercury has caused a variety of documented, significant adverse
impacts
> on
> human health and the environment throughout the world. Mercury and
its
> compounds are
> highly toxic, especially to the developing nervous system. The
toxicity
> to
> humans and other organisms depends on the chemical form, the
amount, the
> pathway of
> exposure and the vulnerability of the person exposed. Human
exposure to
> mercury can result from a variety of pathways, including, but not
> limited
> to, consumption of fish, occupational and household uses, dental
> amalgams
> and mercury-containing vaccines."
>
> Dental amalgam fillings are listed as one of the important
anthropogenic
> sources on pages vi-vii.
>
> >From the summary, page 3: TOXICOLOGY - (par. 53)...For elemental
> mercury
> vapour, the most important source for the general population is
dental
> amalgam, but exposure at work may in some situations exceed this by
many
> times".
> (par. 54)...New findings during the last decade indicate that toxic
> effects
> may be taking place at lower concentrations than previously
thought, and
> potentially larger parts of the global population may be affected".
> (par. 56) Methylmercury is a well-documented neurotoxicant, which
may in
> particular cause adverse effects on the developing brain. Morever,
this
> compound readily passes both the placental barrier and the blood-
brain
> barrier, therefore, exposures during pregnancy are of highest
concern.
> Also,
> some studies suggest that even small increases in methylmercury
> exposures
> may cause adverse effects on the cardio-vascular system, thereby
leading
> to
> increased mortality. Given the importance of cardiovascular diseases
> worldwide, these findings, although yet to be confirmed, suggest
that
> methylmercury exposures need close attention and additional follow-
up.
> Moreover, methylmercury compounds are considered possibly
carcinogenic
> to
> humans (group 2B) according to the International Agency for
Research on
> Cancer (IARC, 1993), based on their overall evaluation."
>
> >From the UNEP Mercury Assessment summary on page 21 (par. 137)
> "...Despite
> these gaps in information, a sufficient understanding has been
developed
> of
> mercury (including knowledge of its fate
> and transport, health and environmental impacts, and the role of
human
> activity) that international action to address the global adverse
> impacts of
> mercury should not be delayed."
>
> -------------
> After reading the two reports I have referred to, I hope you will
> understand
> why I was disappointed with your consumer update from December 31,
2002.
> As
> a citizen of the USA, I would like to feel confident that the
> information
> provided by the FDA would help me protect my health and that of my
> family.
> This latest consumer update does nothing to reassure me that the FDA
> gives
> me accurate, up-to-date information.
>
> Respectfully,
> Maryanne Rygg
> Norway

Dette er kopi av et innlegg i det medisinske nettforum Nordbiomed.

 

Om Nordbiomed

 

Til Snowboat hovedside