One of the biggest scandals in American health care is coming to a head this March 27th, 2007.  In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a case, called "Moms Against Mercury, et al., v. FDA" will get its time in the sunlight, and the Defendant, the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) isn't doing well in its Defense. The case is simple.  Citizens are suing the FDA for NOT, during the last THIRTY YEARS, ruling on the safety, or danger, of mercury amalgam tooth fillings.

The US anti-amalgam movement, an aggressive division of the North American Health Freedom Movement, has for years, chipped away at "official dentistry's" promotion of mercury amalgam tooth fillings, pointing out, correctly, their inherent dangers.  But "official dentistry" doesn't  listen, and in fact, actively punishes dentists that shy away from, or actively advertise the removal of, mercury amalgam fillings.  The war has been active for a long time.

With this legal assault the anti-amalgams have adopted an effective offense.  In essence, you might say, the anti-amalgam people, armed with silver bullets, have found the secret entrance to the FDA's dungeon, climbed down into the sanctuary during the daylight hours, opened the coffins of the FDA's sleeping staff dentists, sprinkled holy water over them, and driven wooden stakes through their hearts.  So to speak.

This case can be the decisive blow - for the FDA attorneys don't have very good answers.   The case reads:

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Thirty years after being directed to classify all devices, 20 years after classifying all other dental fillings materials, 13 years after being mandamused to classify but winning on exhaustion grounds, nine years after specifically promising (in writing) to classify, four years after pleading no excuses to Congress for not classifying, it's clear that FDA's policy is not to classify encapsulated mercury amalgam. To say FDA ignores this issue is incorrect: FDA's public relations machine is has been in high gear, as the Center for Devices bobs and weaves about its duty to classify through three 'literature reviews,' three 'consumer updates,' one 'white paper,' and a plethora of sound bites.