ADA Gets "Kiss of Death"...
 See
our full line of Nutritional supplements
Sunday, September 18th, 2005
It had to happen sooner or later. The ADA (American Dental Association)
has had a long run - with the posse chasing them. I'm surprised they've
lasted this long.
They'll scream, they'll holler, they'll whine, they'll whimper. They'll
threaten, and they'll lash out - but in the end it won't matter - the
American Dental Association is finished. Nail their doors shut. Board
up their windows. It's soon to be all over for them.
The ADA, as we know in the Health Freedom Movement, stateside, is an
organization designed to protect the status quo in US dentistry. Never
mind that the methods they protect are from two centuries ago.
We also know that a significant part of the ADA's annual income comes
from "product endorsement" (about 42%), and I have
a strong feeling that to encourage that "endorsement,"
the ADA uses its contact with State Dental Boards, to prosecute Dentists
that use products NOT endorsed - leaving a distinctive chill on the
market.
I can't help but wonder if this type of operation were being performed,
say, in the Bronx against "mom & pop" small businesses,
it'd be run, by guys named "Big Louie, Hatchet Face, Stabbin' Jack,
Dirty Guido, Johnny Leg-Breaker, and Don Alfresco," and the Feds
would be wiretapping corner phone booths.
Isn't this called a "protection racket?"
Keep
in mind that some of the things they protect, and get income from,
include mercury amalgams, flouride in water, and root canals.
But that little bit, above, is just window dressing for the incredible
story I'm about to tell you. Sit up, because if you don't - in a minute
you're going to spill your health drink all over your freshly washed
hemp shirt.
Ready?
There's six important Court actions ongoing in the United States (US),
all involving the US dental establishment, that cumulatively represent
the end of the "status quo" in dentistry, and all that
it has protected. As we already know, US dentistry lags far behind the
rest of the world, with US dentists acting more like automobile body
shops than health professionals - focusing on appearance over health.
The first important Court action is in Tennessee. It's a lawsuit
called "Barnes v. Kerr," and it is an unusual case.
In it, Barnes, a dentist, sued Kerr-McGee, a manufacturer of mercury
amalgam for, as DAMS leader Leo Cashman says:
Barnes, who used mercury amalgam fillings for the first ten years
of his practice, alleged that he had been poisoned by the mercury
in the amalgam fillings that he placed and removed on a daily basis.
In 1999, Dr Barnes brought a products liability case against Kerr
Corporation, the manufacturer of the only amalgam products Barnes
ever purchased. Barnes retained Jim Love and Robert Reeves, attorneys
most knowledgeable about mercury amalgams, to represent him. Dr. Mark
Richardson, PhD, F.L. Lorscheider, Ph.D., Gary Ordog, M.D., Robert
Granacher, M.D., George Colpitts, D.D.S., and other expert witnesses
testified on Dr. Barnes?s behalf concerning the various scientific,
medical, and dental issues that arose in the case. Kerr challenged
the admissibility of Dr. Barnes?s scientific and medical testimony
on the basis that it was not supported by valid and reliable published
science. However, the trial court ruled that the supporting science
was valid and reliable and overruled Kerr?s motion.
Kerr filed an ensuing motion for summary judgment claiming that
its warnings were adequate as a matter of law. Kerr also argued
that the vast majority of Barnes?s exposure was not attributable to
Kerr?s products, but to amalgam fillings that Barnes removed. Because
the appearance of an amalgam filling will not reveal the filling?s
manufacturer, Kerr argued that Barnes could not prove that Kerr?s
products actually injured Barnes. The District Court granted Kerr?s
motion. The judgment was appealed to the 6th Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeals, but on August 11th, 2005, the Court of
Appeals upheld the District Court?s ruling.
If the Sixth Circuit Court?s opinion is published, Barnes v. Kerr
may profoundly change the legal landscape regarding amalgam. Barnes
argued that Kerr?s warnings addressed only mercury?not mixed dental
amalgam. Barnes admitted that he was aware of mercury?s toxicity,
but testified that in dental school, he was taught that mixed dental
amalgam was safe and the mercury rendered inert. However, the Sixth
Circuit?s opinion held that the warning sufficiently notified Barnes
that mixed dental amalgam was dangerous. The Court noted, ?the
label on each jar of dental amalgam capsules featured not only a skull
and crossbones next to the word ?Poison,? but also a list of illnesses,
including ?bronchiiolitis, pneumonitis, pulmonary edema [and] redness
and irritation to [the] eyes and skin.? Likewise, the Court noted,
the MSDS (material safety data sheet, provided to all dentist buyers)
warned that chronic mercury exposure could lead to ?nervous irritability,
weakness, tremors, gingivitis, erethism and graying of the lens of
the eye.? Further, the Court ruled that the other ingredients mixed
in amalgam with the mercury ? silver, copper and tin ? are not claimed
by the manufacturer to ?neutralize the danger while the dentist is
working with the product.?
You can read all of Leo's article on this case by clicking here.
What's important is the following:
- Under the ?learned intermediary? doctrine, dentists are obligated
to pass along manufacturer?s warnings to their patients. In light
of the ruling in Barnes v. Kerr, dentists will be required to explain
to their patients the dangers acknowledged in Kerr?s warnings.
- Arguably, state dental boards will no longer be able to prohibit
dentists from communicating the dangers of mercury amalgam to their
patients.
- In order for a dentist to obtain a patient?s informed consent,
the information given to a patient concerning amalgam will change
very dramatically.
- The Court?s opinion will provide a direct challenge to the ADA?s
proclamations of amalgam safety.
- In formulating a successful legal strategy, Kerr may have impaired
the market for its dental amalgam product.
The second important case is in Ohio. It's called "Kerger
v. ADA, et al." In this case, a woman, Jessica Kerger,
sued the ADA, The Ohio Dental Association, and two mercury amalgam manufacturers,
for, as Leo Cashman says:
A personal injury lawsuit against them by Jessica Kerger, an Ohio
woman, and her family is gaining traction in the courtroom. Judge
Nancy A. Fuerst has denied a detailed ?motion to dismiss? by the defendants,
two dental amalgam manufacturers, the American Dental Association
(ADA) and the Ohio Dental Association (ODA). In her complaint, Jessica
Kerger alleges that she has suffered neurological deficits and hormonal
function problems relating to mercury from her dental amalgam fillings.
In 2004, Kerger sued amalgam makers and the ADA and ODA for personal
injuries resulting in serious disability. Some parts of the Kerger
complaint were dismissed by the court, but key claims were not dismissed,
including ?fraud, misrepresentation and negligent claims to a third
party.?
?The stuff that really matters stayed in,? Jessica Kerger said. The
ADA has petitioned Judge Fuerst to clarify her ruling and say why
she kept the key charges in court.
Normally, in a case like this (Kerger)
I'd shrug my shoulders and "wait and see," for I know
that the ADA will trot out all of it's usual arguments. Like the tobacco
industry, the ADA has been defending these things for years - and knows
how to proceed. Which brings us to the third case...
The third important Court action is in Illinois - and it is
related to the Kerger case. It's called "Federal Insurance v.
ADA," and it's "the kiss of death,"
no matter how it's decided, for the ADA. For, Federal Insurance was
the ADA's insurance carrier during the time Jessica Kerger was being
injured. They are no longer their insurer.
Federal Insurance, a division of the CHUBB group, is as Leo Cashman
says:
Meanwhile another court will have to determine whether the ADA has
any insurance coverage in the Kerger case. The ADA?s former insurer,
Federal Insurance Company, has sued the ADA charging that any ADA
conduct that would have hurt Jessica Kerger (e.g., caused her to mercury
poisoned by dental amalgams) was deliberate and intentional and therefore
not covered by its insurance policies with Federal (Federal Insurance
provided insurance coverage for ADA from 1965 until January 1, 2000)?
The ADA has been the industry?s biggest defender of the dental amalgam
(mercury) filling, even going so far as to hold that it is ?unethical?
for a dentist to replace an amalgam filling out of concern for the
toxicity of mercury. It has also obtained revenue for giving its Seal
of Approval for the amalgam product sold by the various dental material
manufacturers. Without Federal Insurance by its side, ADA would have
to be on its own for its defense in the Jessica Kerger case and would
be on its own to absorb potentially huge liability lawsuit damages
in the Kerger case and other like it.
Federal Insurance Company, established in 1901, is a division of
the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, one of the world?s top global
insurance companies. Chubb has over 100 offices, in 30 countries.
Even by itself, Federal itself has over $23 billion in assets and
a net worth close to $8 billion. If it is now taking an adversarial
role towards the ADA and its conduct regarding amalgam, it appears
to have the lawyers and the deep pockets to press its case.
The fourth important case is in Colorado - and I've spoken about
it many times. It's called the
"Cavitat v. Aetna" Federal Lawsuit, which, is by
the way, proceeding along nicely. Aetna countersued Cavitat a while
back, claiming a whole host of strange things. In it they called me
a "Paid Troublemaker," among other things, and for
some reason, every time I read their claim (which, I admit, isn't often),
I have to laugh - even Aetna has problem finding good attorneys, I guess,
but there's a Motion for Dismissal in front of the Judge - so we'll
see what happens.
From reading the Court documents available through the Pacer system
on the Cavitat case, it looks as though Aetna's BIG MOVE is to hide
the transcript, from the public, of Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD's
("Bobbie Bogus") deposition in this case.. For what-ever
reason, Aetna seems to want that information withheld. Knowing Baratz,
and the way he testifies when he's under fire, his testimony was probably
so damning, Aetna's CEO has probably already written Cavitat a check
- they just haven't delivered it yet... For the most part Aetna relied
on Baratz's statements to attack Cavitat - and that's why Cavitat sued
them.
Baratz, you may remember, made history in a Wisconsin hearing room,
a few years ago - when he sweat through his suit while being examined
in a three day "credibility hearing," I helped organize.
He also, in Florida, before that, came running into a hearing room shrieking
like a girl, claiming "My life is in danger. I need police protection,
blah-blah-blah, squeak, squeak, squeak..." just because I was
in the building. Then there was that
hearing in Boston last June where I showed up...
I FULLY understand why Aetna would want to suppress what Baratz says.
That is EXACTLY the right thing to do. BUT, Aetna is more than a little
late. They should have suppressed what Baratz, and his
"quackbuster" cronies, said about Cavitat BEFORE they
put all that crap on their website - the stuff they got sued for.
Now It's time for Aetna to write a check - or face a Colorado jury,
bringing shrieking, sweaty, Bobbie in as their witness. (Insert laughter
here). They won't be able to hide this clown from the jury... Baratz
is the best witness Cavitat has - and supposedly, he's Aetna's witness...
The fifth important case is in Massachusetts - and I've spoken
about it only once before. It was the June
6th hearing in Boston story and the case surrounding it. This'll
be the very first time that anyone has outright challenged the use of
a quackbuster, like little Bobbie Baratz, as the primary, or only, witness,
in a dental case. This case challenges the "ultimate"
authority of the ADA. Simply put, so far, several State of Massachusetts
employees have been sued for using a known crackpot dirtbag like Bobbie
Baratz, and who he represents, as a witness against a reputable dentist.
I'll let you know what happens.
But here's a little tidbit to think about - the State of Massachusetts
did little, if any, checking on Bobbie's veracity, or his so-called
expertise. For instance, Bobbie testified for about six and a half hours
about how this dentist improperly installed a dental bridge in a patient's
mouth. On cross-examination Baratz was forced to admit that since 1986
(where in another case he claimed he "no longer practiced dentistry")
he had not installed any bridges. In fact, he has NEVER, EVER, installed
a bridge. When asked about how he felt he could testify "as
an expert" on a subject he knew NOTHING about, he replied "I
researched it..."
Personally, I do not understand why Baratz has survived as a so-called
"expert witness" this long. Anyone, and everyone, who uses
him should be sued for all that they may own.
The sixth important case is in Wisconsin - and I've spoken about
it many times. It's the Vander
Heyden case. This a case where the dental establishment simply wanted
to flex its muscles. They were going to show the upstart "Biological
Dentists" just who had the biggest horns in the pasture. So,
without the benefit of the law on their side, or expertise, or much
of anything, including a prosecutor who clearly didn't even know how
to organize a case, they charged Rick Vander Heyden with "practicing
beyond the scope of Dentistry," because he once used an electronic
device, along with regular diagnostic tools, to help him try and figure
out just what was causing a patient a particular problem.
Well, the prosecutor didn't even bring a witness into the Courtroom
at all - none - and certainly no expert witnesses. But that didn't deter
the actual Dental Board from taking Rick's license away from him. They
did. Naturally, it went to Court, and a few days ago, as I expected,
the Court reversed the Board's ruling, staying the revocation - and
scheduled a hearing. My feeling - the prosecutor didn't put on a case
in front of the Administrative Law Judge because he already had a "Decision"
from key Dental Board members in his pocket.. Vander Heyden was targeted.
Now, of course, things have changed.
Stay tuned...
Tim Bolen - Consumer Advocate
This "Millions of Health Freedom Fighters - Newsletter" is
about the battle between "Health and Medicine" on Planet Earth.
Tim Bolen is an op/ed writer with extensive knowledge of the activities
of a subversive organization calling itself the "quackbusters,"
and that organization's attempts to suppress, and discredit, any, and
all health modalities that compete with the allopathic (MD) paradigm
for consumer health dollars. The focus of the newsletter is on the ongoing
activities, battles, politics, and the victories won by members of the
"Health Freedom Movement" against the "quackbusters"
It details "who the quackbusters are, what they are, where they
are operating, when they appear, and how they operate - and how easy
it is to beat them..."
For background information on the "Battle between Health and Medicine"
go to:
http://www.savedrclark.net/by_whom2.htm. A copy of THIS newsletter,
and older ones, are viewable at the website
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/default.htm.
For EVEN MORE interesting and related articles go to http://www.bolenreport.com.
|
Friendly
