FDA Reluctantly Admits Mercury Fillings Have Neurotoxic Effects on Children

Read the statement that has been added to the agency's Web site.
Buried under paragraph 6 at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html

"Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive
to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden,
should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner."

Thai Court Dismisses Government

Sounds like a good black and white court to me.

NZ entering 'two-stage recession'

An extremely optimistic review in my opinion.

Neal

*****************************************
FDA Reluctantly Admits Mercury Fillings Have Neurotoxic Effects on Children
Source: NaturalNews

The FDA has, for decades, ridiculously insisted that mercury fillings pose no health threat whatsoever to children. While
dismissing hundreds of studies showing a clear link between mercury amalgam fillings ("silver fillings") and disastrous
neurological effects in the human body, the FDA denied the truth about mercury and effectively protected the mercury filling
racket that has brought so much harm to so many people. For over a hundred years, a cabal of "mercury mongers" made up
of the American Dental Association, mercury filling manufacturers and indignant dentists have reaped windfall profits by
implanting toxic fillings into the mouths of children, all while insisting that mercury -- one of the most toxic heavy metals known
to modern science -- posed no health threat whatsoever.

Today, that reign of toxicity is about to end. Thanks to the tireless, multi-year efforts of people like Charles Brown, National
Counsel for Consumers for Dental Choice (www.ToxicTeeth.org), the FDA has now been forced to acknowledge a fact so
fundamental that, by any measure of honest science, it should have adopted the position decades ago. What position is that?
Simply that mercury is toxic to humans.

For the first time, the FDA has issued a warning that the mercury contained in silver dental fillings may pose neurological risks
to children and pregnant women.

"Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and
fetuses," reads a statement that has been added to the agency's Web site. "Pregnant women and persons who may have a
health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury
bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner."

The warning was one of the conditions that the FDA agreed to in settling a lawsuit filed by several consumer health groups.

"Gone, gone, gone are all of FDA's claims that no science exists that amalgam is unsafe," said Charles Brown, a lawyer for
Consumers for Dental Choice, one of the plaintiffs.

"It's a watershed moment," said Michael Bender of the Mercury Policy Project, another plaintiff.

Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin that can cause cognitive and developmental problems, especially in fetuses and children.
It can also cause brain and kidney damage in adults.

So-called dental amalgams, or fillings made with a mix of mercury and other metals, have been used since the 1800s.
Although it is known that small amounts of mercury are vaporized (and can be inhaled) when the fillings are used to chew
food, and though Canada, France and Sweden have all placed restrictions on the use of mercury fillings, the FDA has always
insisted that amalgams are safe.

Dental amalgams are considered medical devices, regulated by the FDA.

Even the FDA's new warning stops short of admitting that dental amalgams are dangerous for the general population. Instead,
it focuses on the same population that has already been warned to limit mercury exposure by consuming less seafood: children
and pregnant women. The FDA says it does not recommend that those who already have mercury fillings get them removed.

Millions of people have received amalgam fillings, although their popularity has dropped off in recent years. Currently, only 30
percent of dental fillings contain mercury - the rest are tooth-colored resin composites made from glass, cement and porcelain.
These alternative fillings are more expensive and less durable than amalgam, however.

In 2002, the FDA began a regulatory review of amalgam that was expected to be complete within a few years. In 2006, with
the review still incomplete, an independent FDA advisory panel of doctors and dentists rejected the agency's position that
there is no reason for concern about the use of amalgam. While the panel agreed that the majority of people receiving such
fillings would not be harmed, panel members expressed concern for the health of certain sensitive populations, including
children under the age of six.

The panel recommended that the FDA conduct further studies on the risks to children from dental amalgam, and that it
consider a policy of informed consent for children and pregnant: that is, warning those groups of the risks associated with the
fillings before installing them.

Part of the lawsuit centered on the FDA's failure to respond to these recommendations in a timely fashion.

"This is your classic failure to act," federal judge Ellen Segal Huvelle told the agency.

As part of the lawsuit settlement, the FDA must reach a final decision on the regulation of amalgam by July 28, 2009.

"This court settlement signals the death knell for mercury fillings," Brown predicted.
But J.P. Morgan Securities analyst Ipsita Smolinski disagreed, saying that the FDA is unlikely to ban amalgam entirely

"We do believe that the agency will ask for the label to indicate that mercury is an ingredient in the filling, and that special
populations should be exempt from such fillings, such as: nursing women, pregnant women, young children, and
immunocompromised individuals," Smolinski said.

*****************************************
Thai Court Dismisses Government
Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008

In a highly political decision, Thailand’s Constitutional Court effectively sacked the government yesterday by dissolving the
ruling People Power Party (PPP) and two of its coalition partners. Anti-government protests that paralysed Bangkok’s two
main airports for a week have been called off, but the country’s protracted political crisis is far from over.

The court ruled unanimously that the PPP, Chart Thai and Matchima Thipataya were guilty of electoral fraud in last
December’s national election. Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat announced that he would step down after the court
banned him and 108 executive members and officials from the three parties from politics for five years. Government
supporters, who protested outside the court yesterday, condemned the decision as a “coup in disguise” and a “judicial coup”.

It is the second time in three months that the Constitutional Court has ousted the government. In September, the judges ruled
that Prime Minister Samak Samaravej, also from the PPP, had violated the constitution by continuing to receive a small
honorarium for his appearances on a long-running cooking show on commercial TV. In May 2007, the court dissolved the
PPP’s forerunner, Thai Rak Thai (TRT), and imposed a political ban on former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and 110
senior TRT officials.

Yesterday’s court decision is another demonstration of the politicisation of the entire Thai state amid a bitter, protracted
confrontation between two factions of the country’s ruling elite. For months, Peoples Alliance for Democracy (PAD)
demonstrators have been allowed to occupy the Government House compound in central Bangkok. No action was taken by
the army, the police or the courts after PAD protesters seized control of Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi international and Don
Muang domestic airports, stranding up to 250,000 tourists and travellers. Instead, the Constitutional Court met with unusual
haste to sack the government for electoral fraud—a practice for which all Thai parties are notorious.

While the court ruling has defused the immediate crisis, the political standoff remains. PPP leaders have vowed to form a new
government by re-forming their party under a new name—Puea Thai (Party for Thais)—and choosing a new prime minister.
Even though some 24 PPP parliamentarians, including 13 cabinet members, will be forced to resign as a result of the court
ban, the renamed PPP and its allies will still have a clear parliamentary majority. Somchai’s deputy, Chavarat Charnvirakul,
has taken over as acting prime minister and parliament is being convened on December 8 to install a new government.

Such an outcome will not satisfy PAD or its backers in the military, the monarchy, courts and state bureaucracy. In ending the
airport occupations yesterday, PAD leader and media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul warned: “If a puppet government returns or
a new government shows insincerity in pushing for political reform, we will return.” Although protest numbers have been
dwindling as the confrontation has become more violent, PAD is still capable of mobilising thousands of largely urban middle
class supporters.

Sondhi launched the PAD protests against the Thaksin government in late 2005, precipitating a constitutional crisis that led to
an army coup in September 2006. The military junta called fresh elections under a revamped constitution last December,
expecting that the pro-Thaksin PPP would be sidelined, but the opposite took place. PAD restarted its protests in May
denouncing first Samak, then Somchai, as a “puppet” of Thaksin, who is currently in exile.

PAD spokesmen bitterly criticise Thaksin and the PPP-led government for corruption, treason and disrespect for the
monarchy. However, Sondhi and other PAD leaders publicly backed Thaksin and his TRT when he first came to power in
2001. Sections of Thai business supported Thaksin as a means of ending the IMF-backed restructuring measures
implemented by the Democrat Party-led government following the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis.

Having come to power, however, Thaksin alienated many of his establishment supporters by continuing to open Thailand up
to foreign investors. Sections of the military and state bureaucracy were resentful that Thaksin was undermining their
traditional prerogatives and associated payoffs. Layers of small and medium business in Bangkok complained at the failure of
the government to protect them from international competition. These elements formed the core of a rather heterogeneous
movement that also roped in those angered by Thaksin’s autocratic methods and the impact of his policies on jobs and living
standards.

There is nothing remotely progressive, however, in PAD’s agenda. Its “new politics” directly expresses the interests of the
traditional Thai elites that have ruled the country for much of the past 80 years through military dictatorships. PAD leaders
brand the many rural voters who supported the TRT, then the PPP, as ignorant and uneducated and call for 70 percent of the
national assembly to be appointed. PAD has no political party of its own and has an uneasy relationship with the opposition
Democrats. The main aim of PAD’s occupations has been to provide a pretext for the army or the state apparatus to directly
intervene.

There is no guarantee that the PPP will be allowed to re-label itself and form a new government next week. The Constitutional
Court ruling opens the door for further moves by the state apparatus against the government. Asia Times correspondent
Shawn Crispin pointed out that the Election Commission might now intervene to overturn the December 2007 results. “The
half-appointed Senate as well as the Privy Council [of the king] could potentially play appointment roles in such a scenario,
one political analyst suggests. It’s also still possible that the military will move to forcefully fill the political gap through an
appointed body, especially if Tuesday’s court decision leads to more street violence.”

*****************************************
NZ entering 'two-stage recession'

The economy faces a "very protracted slowdown" with only modest growth by late next year, despite a range of positive
factors, according to Arcus Investment Management.

A return to more normal economic growth will not be seen until 2011, Arcus says.

New Zealand has been in recession all year and it is becoming a "two-stage recession", with 2009 expected to be tough,
Arcus chief economist Bevan Graham says. Stage two of the recession will be "export led" with New Zealand's main trading
partners slowing from 4 percent growth in 2007 to just 1.5 percent expected in 2009.