Baratz Testimony

Dental Information

Review of Robert Baratz Testimony Before the Florida Dental Board by Two Distinguished Chemistry Professors and Researchers

Review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board

By Dr. Ralph Dougherty

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry

Florida State University

Telephone: 850-644-5725

"I have qualified as an expert witness in chemistry and toxicology in both federal and state courts. I have conducted extensive research in analytical toxicology. I have more than 100 papers published in refereed journals."

"To allege that there is no mercury in mercury amalgam as Dr. Baratz has done in his sworn testimony before the Florida Dental Board is either a reflection of ignorance, or intent to deceive."

Sincerely,

Ralph Dougherty

Dr. Boyd E. Haley

Chair, Department of Chemistry

University of Kentucky

3 January 2002

The following is my comments on the content and specific statements made in the Sept. 29th Florida Dental Board where the FDA presented "Amalgam Related Material" to support their proposed rule. Please feel free to share it with whomever you wish and especially the Florida Dental Board (FDA).

Sincerely,

Boyd Haley

With regards to statements made by Dr. Baratz. First, to be an esteemed academic as claimed one should hold an academic position and publish articles in refereed journals on his subject of expertise. I have been unable to find a single research article on mercury or amalgams or about anything authored by Dr. Baratz. I further could not find any source of academic appointments in tenure leading positions. With my personal knowledge of numerous outstanding and productive academic research scientists available to the FDA for consultation I am somewhat perplexed that they would select someone with such weak credentials---unless they were searching for someone who would adamantly support their preconceived position of amalgams being totally safe. Dr. Baratz is evidently well known for taking that position. Finally, statements made by Dr. Baratz concerning amalgams and chemistry in general are so pathetic that they almost defy sensible analysis. I WOULD CHALLENGE THE FDA TO TRY TO GET THE DEPARTMENT CHAIRS OF CHEMISTRY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY TO AGREE WITH DR. BARATZ'S COMMENTS REGARDING THE CHEMISTRY OF AMALGAMS AND MERCURY. However, knowing this is unlikely I will deal as best I can with Dr. Baratz's statements one at a time in order of presentation.

Page 6, line 27-28. Dr. Baratz has no published basis for making this statement. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. How can Dr. Baratz say that a patient on a kidney dialysis program is not further injured by additional mercury (a potent kidney toxicant) exposure from their amalgams? I don't think such a study has ever been undertaken. When exposing a person to years of a chronic level of toxic mercury it is the responsibility of the pro-amalgam group to prove it does no harm, not vice-versa. Can Dr. Baratz or the FDA confirm that the 22,000-fold increased mercury levels in the hearts of inter-city young men who die of Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopthy did not come from dental amalgams? { Frustaci, A., Magnavita, N., Chimenti, C., Caldarulo, M., Sabbioni, E., Pietra, R., Cellini. C., Possati, G. F. and Maseri, A. Marked Elevation of Myocardial Trace Elements in Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy Compared With Secondary Dysfunction. J. of the American College Cardiology v33(6) 1578-1583, 1999,}

Page 6, lines 31-32. One grain of standard sucrose does not weigh near one milligram. Therefore his visual aid is totally misleading and indicates that he has not, or does not, remember experiments where weighing small amounts was involved.

Page 6, lines 37-41. Sodium metal when added to water burns violently, but it does not explode when added to a glass of water. I have done this as a demonstration so I know the results first-hand. No one would be killed or even injured unless they touched the burning metallic sodium. Yes, chlorine gas is toxic and is a man-made material (as is metallic sodium) that does not exist naturally. Dr. Baratz wants to claim that metallic sodium and chlorine gas are toxic but become non-toxic on conversion to a compound, sodium chloride, and therefore, mercury in an amalgam is not toxic because it is surrounded by other (toxic) metals that he feels produces something that is not mercury. This is banal.

Reactivity and biological compatibility is the essence of the amalgam issue. Human blood contains about 140 millimolar chloride anion and 124 millimolar sodium cation. This ions are not toxic because they are not very reactive with biomolecules. These ions are used to perform many biological functions necessary for life, including maintaining the ionic gradient and electrical potential across cell membranes. However, mercury is not found to serve any useful purpose in human tissues and is a well known inhibitor of many enzymes, including the enzyme that transports sodium across cell membranes. In contrast to sodium cation, mercury cation, produced from mercury vapor by a blood enzyme, is very reactive and inhibits almost every biological pathway or enzyme driven function in man. To compare amalgam material to sodium chloride in the manner Dr. Baratz has chosen to reveals a total misunderstanding of chemistry and biochemistry of heavy metal toxicity.

Page 6 line 42 to page 7 line 2. Since all of the metal components of amalgam are basic metallic elements with no charge how can someone make the inept statement that there is no mercury in amalgams. It is an "element" and the fact that elements cannot be broken down or changed is a basic tenant of chemistry. The metals in amalgams have no net charge and therefore form only metallic bonds. Mercury is a liquid at room temperature and quite volatile because it forms weak metallic bonds with itself. This makes mercury unlike all other metals. The metallic bonds formed between mercury and other metals in amalgams are stronger and a solid phase is produced---but the bonds between mercury and, say silver, are weaker than silver-silver metal bonds and therefore break easier releasing elemental mercury vapor at a regular rate. This is why you can heat a gold ring covered with mercury and rapidly make it gold again and why dimes made silvery with mercury soon resort to their old form. The bottom line is that inclusion of mercury into an amalgam reduces its vapor pressure but it does not reduce it to the point that mercury cannot be significantly emitted.

Dr. Baratz states that if you detect traces of mercury from amalgams it is because that material has been decomposed by heat and friction. How does he explain the observations of the release of 43.5 micrograms mercury per cm2 surface area per day for two years straight in a test tube without additional heat and no friction? {Chew, C. L., Soh, G., Lee, A. S. and Yeoh, T. S. Long-term Dissolution of Mercury from a Non-Mercury-Releasing Amalgam. Clinical Preventive Dentistry 13(3): 5-7, May-June (1991).} Bottom line is that it is quite easy to demonstrate mercury release from a dental amalgam. I suggest the FDA not believe either Dr. Baratz or myself but instead make 20-30 amalgams and send them to the state universities in Florida and have them determine how long a single amalgam must be in a gallon of water before the water is considered unsafe to drink by OSHA or EPA standards. Then the FDA can then make a decent decision on the mercury release and toxicity of amalgams using data from an unbiased source.

Page 7, lines 10-13. Sodium chloride intake is necessary for life. Mercury is toxic to every type of cell. Dr. Baratz's comparison amalgams to sodium chloride is ridiculous. Amino acids contain carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen and so does cyanide but the difference is how these molecules react in the body---one is a food and the other a lethal toxin. Amalgams release mercury and other metal ions and solutions in which amalgams are soaked are cytotoxic! { Wataha, J. C., Nakajima, H., Hanks, C. T., and Okabe, T. Correlation of Cytotoxicity with Element Release from Mercury and Gallium-based Dental Alloys in vitro. Dental Materials 10(5) 298-303, Sept. (1994)}

Page 7, lines 15-18. Yes, everything is toxic if an overdose is obtained---that is common sense. However, mercury has no food or biological function and is toxic at concentrations much lower than even most other toxicants. Low levels of mercury have been shown to inhibit the same enzymes/proteins that are found inhibited in Alzheimer's diseased brain. { Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E. Mercury-EDTA Complex Specifically Blocks Brain -Tubulin-GTP Interactions: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer"s Disease. pp98-105 in Status Quo and Perspective of Amalgam and Other Dental Materials (International Symposium Proceedings ed. by L. T. Friberg and G. N. Schrauzer) Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart-New York (1995). Pendergrass, J. C., Haley, B.E., Vimy, M. J., Winfield, S.A. and Lorscheider, F.L. Mercury Vapor Inhalation Inhibits Binding of GTP to Tubulin in Rat Brain: Similarity to a Molecular Lesion in Alzheimer's Disease Brain. Neurotoxicology 18(2), 315-324 (1997). Pendergrass, J.C. and Haley, B.E. Inhibition of Brain Tubulin-Guanosine 5'-Triphosphate Interactions by Mercury: Similarity to Observations in Alzheimer's Diseased Brain. In Metal Ions in Biological Systems V34, pp 461-478. Mercury and Its Effects on Environment and Biology, Chapter 16. Edited by H. Sigel and A. Sigel. Marcel Dekker, Inc. 270 Madison Ave., N.Y., N.Y. 10016 (1996)}

Later research with neurons in culture nanomolar (10-9M) levels of mercury caused cell destruction and formation of three of the widely accepted diagnostic hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. { Olivieri, G., Brack, Ch., Muller-Spahn, F., Stahelin, H.B., Herrmann, M., Renard, P; Brockhaus, M. and Hock, C. Mercury Induces Cell Cytotoxicity and Oxidative Stress and Increases -amyloid Secretion and Tau Phosphorylation in SHSY5Y Neuroblastoma Cells. J. Neurochemistry 74, 231-231, 2000. Leong, CCW, Syed, N.I., and Lorscheider, F.L. Retrograde Degeneration of Neurite Membrane Structural Integrity and Formation of Neruofibillary Tangles at Nerve Growth Cones Following In Vitro Exposure to Mercury. NeuroReports 12 (4):733-737, 2001.} Therefore, being unnecessarily exposed to continuous low doses of mercury for scores of years is an unhealthy situation. Does the FDA operate with the mantra of allowing itself to do this and eliminate any disagreement by posturing that no one has proven mercury toxic when indeed this has been done over and over. Due to the overall difficulty and complexity there is not one epidemiological study showing any major negative effects of mercury from amalgams, but there are none showing it to be safe either. With all of the data on animal cell culture studies showing mercury toxicity showing concern and eliminating all long-term exposures to mercury is justified.

Page 7 lines 15-34. This paragraph should convince everyone that Dr. Baratz is way off base. I had to replace all of the mercury thermometers in the teaching labs in our department of chemistry because of the OSHA/EPA restrictions where the spill of one thermometer could create a toxic in-building situation and the possible wash-out into the sewage stream caused an unacceptable environmental hazard. Dr. Baratz seems unaware of the long-term affects of mercury accumulation. Sure, he could ingest liquid mercury a single time and walk away but how many industrial workers have been seriously injured by less severe but continuous mercury exposures? Also, if he did ingest liquid mercury then he could pay a severe price later on in his life but he doesn't seem to know this. Why does he think the government has outlawed the sale of mercury thermometers to the general public?

In this paragraph Dr. Baratz states that mercury is not absorbed from the gut. This is totally incorrect. Mercury vapor is rapidly absorbed into all hydrophobic areas of the body. Where is the publication to support his absurd contention? He is further incorrect in his statement that the amount that comes off of an amalgam is equivalent to the amount you get every day by breathing air, drinking water and eating food. In a 1998 NIH study on 1,127 US military personnel it was shown that the blood/urine mercury levels were much higher in individuals with dental amalgams and the amount of mercury was correlated with the number of amalgams surfaces. The average amalgam bearer had 4.5 times the urine mercury level of individuals who were amalgam free. { Kingman, A., Albertini, T. and Brown, L.J. Mercury Concentrations in Urine and Whole Blood Associated with Amalgam Exposure in a US Military Population. J. of Dental Research v77(3): 461-471, 1998.}

Dr. Baratz states that even the most ardent anti-amalgamist have virtually the same amount of mercury in their bodies as does the members of the Florida Board of Dentistry. That would be true only if all of them are free of amalgams. In a published report removing amalgam fillings dropped the level of mercury in the urine in the patients by about 5-fold at a subsequent date. { Begerow, J., Zander, D., Freier, I. And Dunemann, L. Long-term Mercury Excretion in Urine after Removal of Amalgam Fillings. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health v66 (3), 209-212, 1994.}

Neither Dr. Baratz nor I have the right to make sweeping statements without providing the scientific literature on the subject that backs up our statements. Under adjudication many of his statements, now on record, such as given on page 7 line 19, "So to say that dental amalgam has mercury in it is false. It has what used to be mercury." will provide a feast for the opposing lawyers. I am very surprised that Dr. Baratz has chosen to pass himself off as an amalgam expert with no publications in the area and this is compounded by what appears to be total ignorance of the relevant literature.

Page 8 lines 1 to 10. My comment is that the EPA and OSHA government units don't think the amount of mercury released from amalgams is safe. If indeed the groups listed by Dr. Baratz say amalgams are safe (are amalgams listed on the Food and Drug Administration list of safe dental materials?) where are the scientific studies that back their claims. Who represents the NIH and says amalgams are safe? I challenge Dr. Baratz to find a single research article where experimental protocols are used that provide proof of safety of dental amalgams. It is easy to compose a "committee mainly pro-amalgam dentists" and have them proclaim amalgams safe, but have them show the relevant basic research that proves this is another thing. Does he really have publications from the Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer's Associations that claim amalgams are safe? I would really like to see him produce these documents.

Page 8, line 30. Keeping or bringing science into the dental profession is my goal also. This means both Dr. Baratz and I have to back our statements with refereed scientific publications, not wild, unjustified claims or opinions. I would like to challenge Dr. Baratz to produce the research papers that back his many claims.

Top "Quackbuster" Bobbie Baratz Under Scrutiny in Wisconsin...

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/baratzwiscons1.htm

The sleeping giant of Health Freedom is awakening in Wisconsin. Here's why...

Last year apparently, the State of Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing (DORL), hired Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD, the current President of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) ( http://www.ncahf.org/) to be the "Do All, Be All, Health Expert" for the State. Bobbie is evaluating cases for Wisconsin - and is apparently recommending who to prosecute, and what for.

It is not known how much money Baratz has been paid, so far, by Wisconsin, but Baratz recently was able, he claims (by his own testimony in deposition), to have purchased an entire health center in Braintree, Massachusetts in which he only has to work four hours a week.

All that, is unacceptable to Wisconsinites... The first of several questions that arises, of course, "Is Baratz qualified to determine the health fate of millions of Wisconsinites?" Well, let's examine that question.

According to the record, since his termination of employment with Harbor Health Services in 1999 after a physical altercation with a 72 year-old woman, Baratz has been making his living REMOVING HAIR in a hair removal salon, and performing NIGHT AND WEEKEND DENTISTRY, OUT OF HIS HOME," where, he admits, he has neither a dental chair, nor any dental assistants.

And, of course, the occasional "expert witness" testifying job - like in Wisconsin.

Indeed, the self-vaunted NCAHF, of which Baratz claims to be the current President, is operating out of the back room of his hair removal salon.

WISCONSIN'S REACTION?

In response to Baratz's efforts, the flyer distributed around Wisconsin by the NEWLY FORMING Wisconsin Association for Health Freedom (WAHF), says "Right now...there is an ongoing attempt on the part of the Department of Regulation and Licensing in Wisconsin to suppress our choices of healthcare by persecuting practitioners of various healing techniques."

In North America, Health Freedom Fighters outnumber quackbusters 100,000 to 1. Now, Wisconsin is increasing that ratio. The Wisconsin team is outraged, and they have a plan,,,

BOBBIE BARATZ IS IN BIG TROUBLE...

An Attorney working on a case in Wisconsin, where Baratz was the case advisor and expert witness, took my advice and CAREFULLY looked at the resume qualifications, and credentials, of one Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD. A Private Investigator from the State capitol in Madison was brought in. Then Baratz was deposed TWICE - primarily about his resume claims.

Baratz's Resume, submitted to the State of Wisconsin for hiring purposes, is a FANTASTIC not-funny joke. Baratz has, literally, "made up a life" on his resume. He's made himself out to be a Professor of Medicine at a Medical School - he's not. He claims he's on the staff at three major hospitals - he's not. He claims to be a Consultant to NBC, CBS, and ABC - he's not. He claims to be a Consultant to the FDA office of Criminal Investigation - he's not. And on, and on, and on. Each line a little more fantastic then the next.

Then too, a legitimate MD, with a real resume, reading one of Baratz's so-called "case analyses," found eleven incidents in Baratz's statements that were directly, and easily, controvertible in BASIC Medical School textbooks. This gives rise to the question; "Is Baratz really this unknowledgeable, or is he making this stuff up?"

Recently, legal papers (public documents) were filed in the State of Wisconsin dealing with the results of the investigation. Strong language was used. I suspect that Baratz's problems have taken a new turn.

All of the statements in "quotes," in the remainder of the article below, are from those legal documents...

Early in the documents, it boldly states - "Baratz lacks the requisite qualifications to testify as an expert witness." Then, "Baratz is not the expert the State purports him to be." "A witness must be qualified to answer the question put to him...No expert has Carte Blanche." "Baratz is not a qualified expert under Wisconsin law."

MORE INTERESTING IS...

"Baratz lacks experience as a medical doctor." "By his own testimony, Baratz has seen patients in a private office setting for only a few months out of his entire career as a licensed Physician, which spans little more than the (10) years."

Then again, "Baratz's obvious anti-alternative animus should disqualify him as an expert." "Baratz has made several material misrepresentations about his practice and work experience."

IT GETS BETTER...

Then, we see - "Based on his own testimony, Baratz's claim that he has been published more than 150 times is clearly overstated." When Baratz was confronted with this, in deposition (knowing we'd hired a Private Investigator), "He testified (in deposition) that he HAS NEVER published a clinical or medical study involving research, science or data collection in any general literature."

"Apparently Baratz counts internal corporate documents he has written as 'publications.' He even includes in his list of 'publications' those times when he was interviewed off-camera, or quoted in an article." "Quite obviously, Baratz has misstated his past history as an author in an effort to bolster his credibility as an expert. He should not be permitted to manufacture credibility by falsely stating his publication track record."

IT GETS EVEN BETTER...

Get this - Baratz states in deposition - "I've worked for the FDA in several capacities. I was invited as a consultant to the FDA to products review panels of the FDA -- and that was the dental products panel - on two occasions in '91 and '94."

However, Sharon L. Blount, a Consumer Safety Officer for the FDA states: "After contacting our committee Management Office, I have been informed that we had no consultant by the name of Doctor Robert S. Baratz on our Dental Products Panel."

AND, BETTER YET...

"Baratz does not qualify as an expert witness under the standards promulgated by the American Medical Association." "In AMA Policy H-265.994(3)(a), it provides in part: The AMA believes that the minimum statutory requirements for qualification as an expert witness should reflect the following: (i) that the witness be required to have comparable education, training and occupational experience in the same field as the defendant; (ii) that the occupational experience include active medical practice or teaching experience in the same field as the defendant; and (iii) that the active medical practice or teaching experience must have been within five (5) years of the date of the occurrence giving rise to the claim."

BOBBIE'S ALREADY IN TROUBLE - ELSEWHERE...

Bobbie Baratz has tried his tricks in other places -and got himself battered with reality. It looks to me that it's just a matter of time...

Click on the articles below for further information...

Quackbuster Baratz and Barrett Both Hiding Under the Bed... file://C:\QuackPotWatch\opinionpieces\hidingunderbed.htm
Florida Dental Board Backs Down... file://C:\QuackPotWatch\opinionpieces\floridaboardbacksdown.htm,
Quackpots Lose AGAIN, in Florida... file://C:\QuackPotWatch\opinionpieces\quackpotsloseflorida.htm,
Cowardly "Quackbusters" DISMISS Case to Avoid Being DEPOSED?... file://C:\QuackPotWatch\opinionpieces\cowardly.htm,
The Tables Have Turned" On the Quackbusters... http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/tables%20turned.htm,

THE QUESTIONS HERE ARE...

What kind of nitwit, in Wisconsin, hired this guy? Didn't anybody at the State of Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing read Baratz's resume' - and check on it? All somebody had to do was pick up the telephone a few times - and ask a few questions. Don't they have any Investigators working at the DORL?

WHAT THE WISCONSIN ASSOCIATION FOR HEALTH FREEDOM IS GOING TO DO...

The committee has been forming, and organizing, for months. I've been all over the State, as have others, lecturing on the dangers of letting any of the quackbuster ilk have an influence on health care policies in Wisconsin.

THE FOUNDERS OF THE WAHF RECOMMEND FIVE OBJECTIVES...

(1) Find out who, at the Department of Regulation and Licensing, is responsible for the hiring of Baratz - and see them adequately disciplined, making sure that written regulations and policies are set in place about the hiring standards for future consultants. So that this won't happen again.

(2) Demanding, both personally, and through their legislators, that the Department of Regulation and Licensing FORMALLY INVESTIGATE THE CLAIMS (in resume' and conversations) made by Baratz, that caused him to be hired as a expert consultant - determining whether the State of Wisconsin was criminally defrauded by Baratz's claims, and his consequent hiring as that expert consultant.

(3) Asking, both personally, and through their legislators, that the ATTORNEY GENERAL of the State of Wisconsin FORMALLY INVESTIGATE THE CLAIMS (in resume' and conversations) made by Baratz, that caused him to be hired as a expert consultant - determining whether the State of Wisconsin was criminally defrauded by Baratz's claims, and his consequent hiring as that expert consultant.

(4) Demanding that, If it is so found that Baratz criminally defrauded the State of Wisconsin by either or both of the above, that the act of PROSECUTION take place - to the full extent of the law.

(5) Get legislation passed in Wisconsin, that (a) allows the citizens of Wisconsin the right to choose their form of healthcare and (b) freedom for practitioners to offer those choices.

THE LAST WORD...

I think that Baratz, being from the big city of Boston, and all, probably figured he was dealing with rubes, hicks, and hayseeds, when he dropped his poisonous anchor in Wisconsin. After all, the person that hired him clearly wasn't all that bright.

Rubes, hicks, and hayseeds? Boy, was he wrong. That's hardly the case. I drove all over that State of Wisconsin, and I have to tell you that not only are these people SHARP, but they exhibit, and practice, a version of human relationship UNEXCELLED anywhere I've been. They exude warmth and caring. And, they are genuinely nice.

As a California boy, hardened and aged in the fast lane, it was a luxury dealing with these people. I look forward to the continuance...

Baratz, and whoever hired him, are in for a hard ride... Already, in a formal courtroom hearing just this last month in Wisconsin, where Baratz was severely questioned about his qualifications and resume, Baratz broke down and CRIED, and SCREAMED, for almost fifteen minutes. There is a video tape...

Stay tuned... There's MUCH more coming.

Tim Bolen
Consumer Advocate

Dr. Robert Baratz was the expert witness for the Florida Dental Assoc. before the Florida Dental Board at a hearing on Sept. 29, 2001. The following is according to him his credentials.

Compare the credentials to the competance in science of the testimony & rebutal by researchers

Dr. Robert Baratz: (DDS,MD,Phd) (page 6)

"I attended and graduated from Boston University, with a degree in Biology cum laude, and then went to Northwestern Dental School where I obtained my doctor-dental-surgery degree almost 30 years ago and I have been practicing dentistry 30 years in 2002. Yes, I look young. As do most of you. Along the way I also earned a Ph.D. in cellular biology and anatomy from Northwestern and after teaching for somewhere in the order of 15 years, I went to Medical School and obtained a medical degree from Boston University School of Medicine. I did an internship and residency in internal medicine, and obtained my board in oral medicine and have been practicing both internal medicine and emergency medicine for more than 10 years. I have done a number of other things as well. I have also worked in the medical device industry and been the medical director for several companies. Currently I am the President of International Medical Consultation Services, Inc., which is a company that does tracking of medical devices and has do

(Sworn testimony of R. Baratz before the Florida Dental Board on amalgam rule, Sept 29, 2001)

1. "A dental license is a privilege and a licensee has an obligation to present factually correct information to the public. And your duty is to see that that happens." (page 6)

2. "And except for a handful of reports of simple allergies, no patient, anywhere, has ever been harmed by the materials in a properly mixed and placed amalgam restoration". (page 7)

3."That is about one milligram. The amount of mercury that might be released from a dental amalgam is a fraction of that, in a day. A fraction of a fraction of that. And that is what all the controversy, if you want to call it that, is about". (page 7)

4."Sodium, if I were to take some sodium metal and drop it into this glass of water in front of Mr. Nicol here, all of you would be killed by the explosion." (page 7)

5. "The point is that dental amalgam does not contain mercury. It has none." (page 7)

6. "It contains things that were mixed together which formerly were mercury and formerly were a bunch of other metals but once we mixed them together they are no longer that, those separate materials, they are now a new material we call amalgam." (page 7)

7. "If you detect traces of mercury that are released from that material, it is because that material has now been decomposed by heat and by friction to drive it back towards what used to be the ingredient."

(page 7)

8."You often hear people say, Well, mercury is a deadly poison. Amalgam has mercury therefore you are putting poison in people''s mouths. That is fundamentally false and anyone who says that is not telling the truth. They do not understand what a poison is. If that is true, then eating sodium chloride is equivalent to poisoning yourself, and we do it every day." (page 7)

9. "So to say that dental amalgam has mercury in it is false. It has what used to be mercury." (page 8)

10. "I don''t have one here but I could take a thermometer that had mercury in it, snap it into this glass and drink it in front of you and not be harmed. I could sniff it and not be harmed." (page 8)

11. "The quantities that would be in there would be equivalent to about the amount of mercury that would go into one amalgam restoration. That would be about 250 milligrams. To say that that is a harmful substance is false." (page 8)

12. "There are case reports where people have tried to commit suicide by drinking not just the amount that was in the thermometer, but a pint of liquid mercury. Guess what happened. Diarrhea. It is not obsorbed from the gut. Even in pure form. " (page 8)

13. "And it is even less well obsorbed in the gut as powered amalgam once amalgam is made."

(page 8)

14. "There are allegations that vapor comes off the surface of a dental restoration, and indeed a tiny bit does. The amount that comes off is equivalent to the amount you get every day by breathing the air in this city, by drinking th water in this city, by eating the food in this city." (page 8)

15. "Whether you have amalgam or not, you body has mercury in it. Even the most ardent anti-amalgamist have virtually the same amount of mercury in their bodies as you do, because there has not been one patient who has ever been harmed by it." (page 8)

16. "Is this material safe and effective? Yes it is." (page 8)

17. So I am bringing you the same simple message that I brought to the FDA in 1991, and to legislative boards in other states, there is no evidence that amalgam is harmful, and suggesting it is, or telling people it is, while practicing under a dental license or other professional license, is wrong. It is unprofessional conduct. (page 9)

18. "In other words, these quanities are so small that we didn''t have the instrumentation to measure them. They are down in the parts per billion or less, range. This is a drop of water in a huge swimming pool. That''s how small they are." (page 10)

19, "There are no toxic substances in amalgam although there are people who advocate that there are, but there are not" (page 10)

(Board member discussion after testimony)

Dr. Garcia:

Dr. Baratz, you may be soft spoken but you made your points very well. I think you guys have done a super job of establishing a record right here, today.

Ed Bayo, Atty for Board: (page 12)

I like this rule a lot better than what I saw at Tampa and my suggestion would be that paragraphs 1 through 4 are the way to go and drop the last 2 paragraphs. I think that paragraph 6, when you are going to penalize, that should be addressed in disciplinary guidelines. It does not belong in Rules. You don''t have any rule that specifically talks of penalty so that should be included somewhere else. If I understand Dr. Baratz correctly, I question how much support there is for the last sentence of paragraph 5, where it''s much more likely to cause significant damage..I mean if I hear correctly the vapor released is not that big a deal, but in any event, I think that 1, 2 3 and 4 is really what you need.

You took action at your last meeting to also amend your advertising rule and there is language that is already ongoing, I believe that between this and this, you''re covered.

Having said that, keep in mind that the standard of practice in this rule may be of guidance in setting a standard of practice but ultimately that standard of practice may well be decided on the case or acouple of cases. All of this information and the record that has been developed here is very valuable when the time comes, if there is a time when somebody challenges this rule, I''m certainly going to call on Dr. Baratz and others to bolster any possible challenge.

I think what I said, paragraphs 1 through 4, and between that and what you already took action last time is plenty. I think that if you attack from that, you are in good point.

Dr. Baratz: (p11)

I''m not sure I can respond from a legal point of view except to say that in 1987, I was called by the prosecuting attorney for the Department of Education in the State of New York, for exactly the purpose that is before you today. A case involving a dentist that you may have heard about down here in Florida, named Joel Berger (sp?). Joel Berger lost his license in the State of New York for exactly the type of behavior that this rule covers. Subsequently I was called by the State of California to deal with a Dr. Hullett in the State of California in the early 90''s. Subsequently I was called by the State of Colorado to deal with a dentist that some of you may have heard of named Hal Huggins, who was conducting a number of practices that would be in violation of the proposed rule. And I could go on with that list in the States of Iowa, Minnesota, Kentucky, Maine, Rhode Island and other places where I have been involved in helping the Board try to deal with practitioners who were practicing outside the realm of

Dr. Laboda: (page 15)

Unfortunately there is a small group of true believers. They''re the scary ones. They are the ones that really believe it is the correct thing to do, but that is a minority. The great majority of them do it for financial gain and so as far as mother and apple pie, this rule is important and I think we need to pass it.

I would move that we adopt paragraphs 1 through 4, as we get into rulemaking, with paragraph 6 being moved into disciplinary guidelines.

Dr. Ross: Any other discussion -- All in favor of the motion let me know by an aye sign. (Chorus of ayes). Those opposed? Motion carries.

Review of FDA witness Dr. Robert Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board by 2 distinguished Chemistry Professors and Researchers

Snip from review of Dr. Baratz testimony before the Florida Dental Board by Dr. Ralph Dougherty, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Florida State Univ.

850-644-5725

"To allege that there is no mercury in mercury amalgam as Dr. Baratz has done in his sworn testimony before the Florida Dental Board is either a reflection of ignorence, or intent to deceive."

Sincerely,

Ralph Dougherty

Dr. Boyd E. Haley

Chair, Department of Chemistry

University of Kentucky

3 January 2002

Page 6, line 27-28. Dr. Baratz has no published basis for making this statement. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. How can Dr. Baratz say that a patient on a kidney dialysis program is not further injured by additional mercury (a potent kidney toxicant) exposure from their amalgams? I don't think such a study has ever been undertaken. When exposing a person to years of a chronic level of toxic mercury it is the responsibility of the pro-amalgam group to prove it does no harm, not vice-versa. Can Dr. Baratz or the FDA confirm that the 22,000-fold increased mercury levels in the hearts of inter-city young men who die of Idiopathic Dialated Cardiomyopthy did not come from dental amalgams? { Frustaci, A., Magnavita, N., Chimenti, C., Caldarulo, M., Sabbioni, E., Pietra, R., Cellini. C., Possati, G. F. and Maseri, A. Marked Elevation of Myocardial Trace Elements in Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy Compared With Secondary Dysfunction. J. of the American College Cardiology v33(6) 1578-1583, 1999,}