To win this round, FDA paid an enormous price.  To achieve credibility with the court, FDA abandoned its long-time role of cheerleader for amalgam, five times admitting in its court brief that it FDA doesn?t know if mercury fillings are safe or unsafe. (Those 5 admissions at www.toxicteeth.org/natcamp_fedgovt_fda_admits_Mar07.cfm) 

That a federal agency continues to allow untrammeled sales of a mercury-based device to pregnant women and children while conceding ?the lack of definitive scientific evidence? and ?intense disagreement about the scientific evidence? is reckless, contemptible, and immoral.  FDA must be hoping that no one outside the Capital Beltway finds out.  Or perhaps some of FDA?s protectors of mercury fillings (see next paragraph) intend to disavow those admissions before the ink is dry on the court decision.  Suspecting just that, I sent a warning letter to FDA counsel advising that any statements by FDA returning to the status quo ante constitutes a Fraud on the Court.  (Letter at www.toxicteeth.org/natcamp_fedgovt_fda_brown_Apr07.cfm)

FDA?s hard-line protectors of mercury fillings include Associate Comm?r Norris Alderson, who presented the ?white paper? apologia for amalgam in September, a position soundly rejected by two Scientific Advisory Committee position; Center for Devices Director Dan Schultz, MD, and Dep. Director Linda Kahan, Esq., who together uphold the outrageous ?professional courtesy? stand to allow self-interested dentists ignorant of toxicological issues to make the decision, hence giving primacy to dental economics over children and fetal health; Division Director Chiu Lin, who used an unauthorized substantial equivalence test to OK an application for mercury fillings, even though the applicant himself advised Lin that mercury fillings aren?t allowed for pregnant women and children in its home country, the U.K.; and Dental Devices Branch Director Mary Susan Runner, the initiator of the notorious BETAH-LSRO contract and the ADA?s fifth columnist inside FDA.