Now there you go again getting personal when I try to have an intelligent discussion and this approach can have no value in science or even debunking malarky. Why would you go there unless you are out of reasons to disagree and refuse to open your mind up to demonstrable facts?I'm not sure why you would put out these videos which have some obvious problems and grossly exagerrate what is seen by the average viewer. I can only conclude that you are doing this for propaganda value.
Why not ask me why I put these videos up for the public to see instead of calling it propaganda or some other denigrating term often used in propaganda?
FYI 76% of the public in a recent poll by Zogby did not even realize that silver amalgams "Contained" mercury and much less that mercury is the principal ingredient. This is after 150 years of use. That is what I call a consumer deception.
Af for exaggerated claims I will stand by what I say in them. I've clarified your misunderstandings I think sufficiently for you to agree. if not then I'll try to clarify some more. The science is irrefutable and thus since it does involve a fairly big paradigm shift I understand why it has met some resistance in those who do not use science as a guide.
Those of us who routinely rely upon science as a compass have had to make quite a few paradigm shifts in the last 50+ years as toxicological research has evolved.
In fact, one of the keys to an openminded scientist is how quickly he/she can abandon an old paradigm when a tiny bit of data refutes the previously held truth. Why? Because he/she knows that no matter how happy they were with the earlier theory once that bubble is popped it will not be put back together.
Dentists have claimed for over 100 years that amalgams do not leak mercury. In 1984 the NIDR/ADA admitted they did.
Next question then is how much and not can you prove that the amount released caused me to develop a named disorder. That is called the cigarette defense and totally violates the precautionary principal.