ADA Lies about the Richardson Report
An example of some of the lies perpetuated by the
American Dental Association
The American Dental Association web page on the Richardson report contains the following text (as of August 1998)
On February 17, Health Canada rejected the Richardson Reports recommendations on amalgam fillings. The ADA agrees with Health Canada and reaffirms its support of amalgam as a safe, durable and cost-effective restorative material.
Some of the main reasons Health Canada gave for rejecting the report include:
In rejecting the Richardson Report, Health Canada cited poor quantifications in the key toxicological study used to determine the number of fillings each person should have. The ADA had expressed concerns about how that and other data was interpreted and is satisfied that those interpretations were not the basis for Health Canada's policy on amalgams.
Where is the Lie?
The lie, propagated since February 1996, is in the fact that Health Canada has NEVER rejected the Richardson report.
Immediately following is a transcript of a letter from the Director of Health Canada, Dr. Richard Tobin, to Dr. Mark Richardson confirming that not only did Health Canada accept the Richardson report but that it considered it to be scientific and to have been done in a "careful and conscientious manner with methods generally appropriate for this type of risk assessment."
This type of lying by the dental associations is not unknown. We refer you to a transcript of a letter written by Health Canada to the Canadian Dental Association castigating them for lying to their dentists and the public.
Transcript of Health Canada letter confirming acceptance of the Richardson Report
Medical Devices Bureau
Main Statistics Canada Bldg.
Postal Locator 0301H1
Canada K1A 1C1
February 27, 1996
Dr. Mark Richardson
OConnor Associates Environmental Inc.
14 Clarendon Ave,
Dear Dr. Richardson,
Re: Assessment of Mercury Exposure and Risks from Dental Amalgam
Following the meeting of the Amalgam Stakeholders Committee in Toronto on February 16 and 17, there has ben considerable discussion in the news media concerning the committee's conclusions regarding your report and Health Canada's view of the merits of this study.
The exact text of the committee's statement on your report was as follows:
"The committee believes that the amalgam risk assessment was done in a careful and conscientious manner with methods generally appropriate for this type of risk assessment. However. given the poor quantifications of exposure in the key toxicological studies used, it is inappropriate to conclude that a TDI set using this approach represents a distinction between health and disease.
In any further risk assessments (when sufficient data become available), the committee believes that significant adverse effects on the central nervous system (or other body systems) would be the appropriate end points."
Some reports of the meeting have quoted selectively from this statement, or have paraphrased it to imply that the committee rejected the report in its entirety as being "unscientific", and that Health Canada concurs with this rejection.
The fact that the committee considered the report to have have been "done In a careful and conscientious manner with methods generally appropriate for this type of risk assessment" indicates that the report was "scientific". Furthermore, the Medical Devices Bureau considers It to have scientific merit; otherwise, the Bureau would not have released it.
It is true that currently available mercury exposure data are not reliable enough to permit a confident determination of a tolerable daily intake for mercury. However, it is our view that when such data become available, the analytical methods which you have developed can be used to arrive at a risk assessment.
I hope this letter will serve to clarify that the Medical Devices Bureau has not rejected your report and values the research you have done in the Bureau's study of amalgam safety.
Richard S. Tobin, PhD. Director