Biosis #46: Dentistry Shouldn’t Be “Just Another Profession,” Embracing Difference, & More!
Posted on Tuesday, February 24th, 2015
The February 2015 issue of Biosis, our quarterly newsletter, is now online. In this issue:
- JoAnne’s Motivational Minute: Embracing Difference
I think of the patchwork quilts my great grandmother once made. From her large basket of remnants and still serviceable parts of well-worn housedresses and work shirts, she prepared patches and sewed them together. You could remember some of the family history by identifying the patches. You could enjoy the beauty of the varied colors and textures and patterns.
Each patch was unique. Together, they formed a functional whole – brought together with love, attention and care.
I prefer a world that is just such a quilt…
- Dr. Verigin’s Comment: Dentistry Shouldn’t Be “Just Another Profession”
Every day, the media regales us with stories of ever-increasing scientific knowledge and supposed medical “miracles” through new therapies, diagnostic tools and other advanced technologies. Medical professionals are particularly bombarded with hype over the latest drugs to manage symptoms of any type of illness, dysfunction or syndrome you care to name.
One “side effect” they never mention: How drug-driven medicine often distracts the health professional, effectively dulling their sixth sense – the intuitive hunch, the inner eye, the gut feeling that supports the ability to diagnose safely and quickly, even in the most primitive conditions.
- From Our Blog: Yet More Evidence Pointing to Mercury Amalgam’s Risk
In 2000, Freya Koss filed a personal malpractice suit against her former dentist. Her complaint
alleged that the dentist had exposed her to dangerous levels of mercury vapor during the unsafe removal of an existing amalgam filling and replacement with a new one. Further, she alleged that her injuries were due to numerous deviations from the acceptable standard of care in 1998, the most significant being the use of liquid mercury rather than a pre-encapsulated form of dental amalgam. Secondly, the liquid mercury amalgam was inadequately mixed in an antiquated and damaged amalgamator, whose 1941 manufacturing date was confirmed by the company’s original records.
In addition, the complaint alleged that the dentist did not follow recommended precautions to prevent inhalation of mercury vapors, known to cause harm to the nervous system. Also, the dentist had failed to inform her of the risks involved in the drilling out and replacement of mercury-containing amalgam fillings.
After nearly 15 years of struggle, the case was quietly settled out of court in her favor last autumn. The evidence that she had compiled during this time and through ensuing years of activism against dental mercury was, in a word, “indisputable.”
And the scientific record against amalgam continues to grow.
Read Biosis #46 now.