What was the FDA's response to this legal action?
Not much.
Charlie Brown, two-time elected Attorney General for the
State of West Virginia, and now attorney for the Plaintiffs, says of the case:
Our case, filed April
27, 2006, by 9 petitioners (names below)* charges FDA with illegally
allowing the sale of mercury fillings. For thirty years, FDA has
defiantly refused to classify amalgam -- even though this step is required as
the legal prerequisite to sale of any implants. Even the repudiation of its
pseudo-science by two FDA Scientific Panels on September 7, 2006 has not
deterred FDA, who is making false and deceptive claims to mask the vote of
these Panels.
Faced with standing
before a federal court, FDA now departs from its role as chief cheerleader for
mercury fillings. In its brief, FDA admits, five times, that it does not know
if mercury amalgam is safe or unsafe!
The nine petitioners who sued FDA: Four
organizations: Moms Against Mercury (Amy Carson, Angela Medlin),
Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice (Mark Mitchell, M.D.),
Oregonians for Life (Mary Starrett), and California Citizens for Health
Freedom (Frank Cuny); two state officials: California Dental Board
Public Member Kevin J.Biggers, and Arizona State Senator Karen
Johnson; three individuals: Dr. Andy Landerman, Linda Brocato, and
Anita Vazquez Tibau.
This is a breakthrough not thought
possible a year ago. To repeat, FDA now admits that the evidence is
"changing," thus the safety of mercury fillings is not "definitive" and is
"the subject of intense disagreement." Quotations from FDA?s brief,
containing those admissions, are below.**
FDA's admissions in its brief to the US Court
of Appeals: "there is a lack of conclusive evidence regarding the health
effects of mercury fillings"; "constantly changing scientific evidence"
exists on mercury amalgam; "complex issues and intense disagreement
[exist] about the scientific evidence regarding mercury and its potential
health effects"; "the complexity of the issue and the lack of conclusive
scientific evidence on the health effects of dental amalgams"; "the
lack of ... definitive scientific evidence."
Let's
see what happens next.
Stay tuned...