I read the quote from the ADA stating that they are not responsible for any damages because they did not manufacture or place the amalgams in people's mouths. Does that mean the dentists are responsible and liable because they placed them in our mouths or are the manufacturers responsible? Who are the Canadians sueing? Do they have a CDA?

From a legal standpoint, it seems most logical that the dentists are responsible. They would be the ones you sue.

Now dentists, on the other hand, would sue their "licensing authority", which would be the ADA for supplying them with misinformation thereby "putting them in legal jeopardy". In fact, the ADA prohibited them from speaking to patients about the dangers of mercury based on their so-called ethics guidelines and used it as a bases for revoking dentist's licenses.

In fact, I believe there is a good case here for a huge criminal prosecution because based on my information, the ADA knowingly lied about the dangers of mercury. They will claim they knew nothing about the dangers of mercury which raises the question, "Why did you state that it was safe then?".

They will reply, "Because we thought it was.".

The next logical question is, "Why did you think it was?".

Their answer, "Because we had studies that said so.".

Question: "What studies?".

Answer... Now they will come up with some study somewhere that could be construed to imply that mercury was safe even though there are a myriad of studies saying it is not. Nevertheless, this would be their legal maneuvering.

The irony here is this. If an herbalists says that some herb will "prevent", "treat", or "cure" some disease, they will be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license because the herb is being sold as a drug and you cannot distribute drugs without a license. This diabolical twist of logic has been (and is currently being) used to justify the invasion and closure of numerous herbs stores across this country which (not suprisingly) receives virtually no press. However, this same logic could be used to prosecute the ADA because they are making false claims about the safety of a substance that is well known to be harmful, yet is being used in a medical procedure. Ignorance?which is what they will claim?should not be an excuse for those considered experts in the field. Nevertheless, they will argue that amalgam fillings have never been claimed to be a cure for cavaties. The prosecutor should argue that the ADA does state that amalgams are a "treatment" for cavities, which makes it a drug which makes them practicing medicine. In other words, use the system's same twisted logic against those who use it for tyranny.

The sad part of this story is that the ADA officials will never (not in this life) get the punishment they deserve for the massive damage, disease and death they have caused. Families have been torn apart. People have died as a result; Some directly, others indirectly. Children have been made sick or lived their lives with horrible birth defects; and on and on. The drug companies have made trillions of dollars "treating" the side effects of mercury poisoning in the form of:

diabetes
allergies
autoimmune diseases
parkinsone's
alzheimers'
ADD/ADHD
depression
cancer
weight-related issues
OCD
arthritis
lupus
MCS
chronic fatigue
fibromyalgia
IBS
crohn's
yeast/candida
and countless more

This is?in fact?one of the greatest evils ever purportrated on mankind by mankind.

Americans should be furious.

I though of something else. Putting aside the "mercury poisoning from amalgams and diseases and conditions that result, given that it would be hard to prove that the mercury came from people's fillings which caused their maladies, what about just the issue of uninformed consent. For example, I go to the dentist tomorrow with a cavity and he gives me a "silver" filling and doesn't tell me he's putting mercury in my mouth. Can't I then turn around and sue him because he put a toxic heavy metal in my mouth without telling me and without me consenting or signing for him to do so? I thought this might be a way for people to sue. Those of us who haven't gotten any amalgams placed in the last five years, such as myself, would be exempt because the statute of limitations on medical malpractice is 5 years.

Sandra

I doubt it.

Hair products like colorings and cleansers contain known toxins. Treated lumber (like the stuff your deck or porch is made out of) contains known toxins. NutraSweet is a known toxin (for multiple reasons). Makeup contains potent toxins.

The "real" job of the FDA is to "establish" "ethics" which essentially prevents us from winning in court when fighting against those "ethics". Think about it.

"Established" - "Proven" - "Accepted Practice" - "Acceptable Levels" - etc.

These are but a few of the interesting words and phrases that the justice system relies on which are provided?either directly or indirectly?by the FDA.

My feeling is that we should be allowed to sue on that ground. My parents would not have consented to amalgam if they knew it

1. Contained toxic mercury

2. Leaked toxic mercury into our body

I do believe it is uninformed consent. Also I believe it is medical neglect to place a material and not check biocompatibility.

However, I think in law we need to prove 1. Cause. 2. Breach 3. Injury at least for personal injury claims.

But, I think people should be allowed to sue if they are given something and not told it contains toxins. This is definitely uninformed consent. I don't think the argument about hairsprays etc negates that because on the same principle we should be able to sue the manufacturers of those products for not telling us they contain toxins.

I agree, and this logic should also be applied to vaccines.

1 of 166 children born in the U.S. today are diagnosed with autism.

1 of 5.5 children born in the U.S. today are diagnosed with a learning disability.

California has limited the use of mercury-based preservatives in vaccines a couple years ago (2002 -I believe). Autism rates have began dropping there. It is the first time this has happened confirming our worst fear: Mercury in vaccines causes autism.

However...

President Bush is asking Congress to shield pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits related to vaccines even though some vaccines are known to have side effects, including death. They often contain aluminum (which is 100-times more toxic when combined with mercury), formaldehyde, ethylene glycol (car anti-freeze), and more.

And as if that that were not enough...

California is drafting legislation to mandate vaccines during a time of national emergency with no exemptions whatsoever.

Please, tell everyone you know to watch this video:

http://herballure.com/vp/strbc

Buy it and share it with all your friends and family. MAKE THEM WATCH IT! It's that important. This is 3 hours of hard-hitting, in-depth, critical information everyone considering vaccinations needs to see. This is my sincere passion speaking.

"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."

Thomas Jefferson


"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an underground dictatorship... To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic and have no place in a republic... The Constitution of this republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom."

Benjamin Rush MD,
Signer of the Declaration of Independence


"The germ of destruction of our nation is in the power of the judiciary, an irresponsible body ? for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow ? working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. ...when all government...in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and opressive as the government from which we separated."

Thomas Jefferson, 1821
emphasis mine


Very Important Information:
http://poisonevercure.150m.com/population_control.htm

Same is going on here, government is protecting those who use amalgam and mercury etc from being sued and are imposing on us what we have to do i.e. compulsory MMR (or privately go for the shots separately) but either way children in law have to be innoculated.

I feel this is wrong. I have always been a socialist, but since facing this issue of mercury poisoning, I have changed position. I don't think it's good to have the government decide things for us, and they control the NHS. Further, the NHS uses crappy materials like amalgam and poor composites. If we're going to have socialised medicine (which I agree with in principle) then we need the best materials used and fully informed consent to everything.

I will never vote for another labour governement, at least not unless they ban amalgam. A government who does not put the health of the people first is not worth having, and also there is the environmental issue of mercury.

Danger with the law is that people think that because something is legal, it is right, safe, etc. Not all people, but a fair number do. They believe what they are told, rather than thinking for themself.