Vimy Letter to the Swedish Medical Council
December 15, 1992
An open letter to Sekreterare Tore Schersten
Swedish Medical Research Council
S-1 13 85 Stockholm, Sweden
Re: Potential Biological Consequences of Mercury Released from Dental Amalgam.
A Swedish state of the Art Conference, April 9,1992.
Dear Secretary Schersten:
By now you must have felt the pressure of a number of groups who have criticized your "conference". In fairness to you, it is apparent that trust was misplaced in an organizing committee, which had no intention of convening an objective academic scientific forum. Rather, these individuals had a predetermined agenda, as demonstrated by their public positions on the issue of amalgam safety taken on many occasions prior to this meeting.
Drs. Larsson, Loe and Bergman are all on the record as defenders of the status quo. Dr. Bergman's objectivity is tainted by his wife's involvement in the issue; while Dr. Larsson is on the record as a strong supporter of amalgam. Indeed it was incredible to see this person act as both presenter and "judge", especially since he has no scientific experimental track record of his own to demonstrate his expertise in this area. Finally, Dr. Loe, politically, administratively and economically affiliated with the American dental establishment, is apparently more concerned with preventing litigation in the U.S.A. than he is with determining scientific truth. His opening biased remarks made it obvious why he was chosen as moderator. Dr. Bostrom was red herring - a physician "yes"-man with absolutely no research expertise in this area.
The conference presenters showed a general lack of expertise. Most have poor research records and many had not published research papers on either mercury or dental amalgam. This is easily determined by reviewing the bibliographies to their written presentations. They have few if any research papers of their own to cite! The penultimate example was Dr. Petr Skrabanek, a self anointed "quack catcher". This individual, who has no scientific expertise of amalgam, is one of a growing group of self appointed watch-dog "experts", In North America, we have an organization called the National Council Against Health Fraud which purports to be expert in everything. Dr. Skrabanek's mere presence at the meeting totally discredited the scientific purpose of the conference. Sweden, a country of many noted scientists, was better represented by the quality of the expertise in the audience than by the quality of many conference speakers.
Finally, I understand that my invitation to present a paper at this conference was extended reluctantly by the organizing committee, and only after political pressure for a more balanced meeting. If you review the list of speakers chosen it will be obvious that the intention of the organizers was to "white wash" the conclusions. The conclusions of the conference were drawn by the organizing committee and do not represent a consensus view of all the participants or the audience. Since the results were apparently preordained, as 1 have just described, they are not credible.
1 have enclosed for your information a reprint of a recent medical scientific forum on the same issue (Goering et al). As you can see, there is now international scientific concurrence on a number of points related to the amalgam mercury issue and its potential effects on human health; a concurrence which is in marked contrast to the "massaged" conclusions of the Swedish Medical Research Council's biased organizing committee.
Murray J. Vimy BA, DMD, FAGD, FIAOMT
Clinical Associate Professor Department of Medicine
(also Private Practice of Dental Medicine)
Copied from http://vest.gu.se/~bosse/Mercury/Mouth/Misc/vimyopenletter.html