Florida Amalgam Lawsuit Dismissed

"Mark Thorson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"We are very pleased that the court has dismissed the ADA
from one more amalgam lawsuit," said Peter M. Sfikas, ADA
chief legal counsel. "Each dismissal represents another huge
victory for organized dentistry and the public."

See the whole article here:

http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=922

The article says:

"Judge Mihok also dismissed the Florida Dental Association from the suit,
granting its "motion to dismiss" and "motion to strike" on grounds that the
complaint failed to state the cause of action."

This means that the plaintiffs could not come up with enough facts to make a
claim., IOW, they were blowing smoke. Just like the other anti-science
lawsuits that were dismissed for similar reasons.

Three cheers for real science.

jwn dds

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Thorson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"We are very pleased that the court has dismissed the ADA
from one more amalgam lawsuit," said Peter M. Sfikas, ADA
chief legal counsel. "Each dismissal represents another huge
victory for organized dentistry and the public."

See the whole article here:

http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=922

Quoted message said:

The article says:

"Judge Mihok also dismissed the Florida Dental Association from the suit,
granting its "motion to dismiss" and "motion to strike" on grounds that

the

Quoted message said:

complaint failed to state the cause of action."

This means that the plaintiffs could not come up with enough facts to make

a

Quoted message said:

claim., IOW, they were blowing smoke. Just like the other anti-science
lawsuits that were dismissed for similar reasons.

I disagree. This was not real, or otherwise, science.

If the plaintiffs were interested in science, there would have been no
lawsuit.

This is pure legalized whining, shot down by a system which does not
countenance whining.

"jwndds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:RoLyc.742576$Ig.501597@pd7tw2no...

Quoted message said:

Three cheers for real science.

jwn dds

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Thorson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"We are very pleased that the court has dismissed the ADA
from one more amalgam lawsuit," said Peter M. Sfikas, ADA
chief legal counsel. "Each dismissal represents another huge
victory for organized dentistry and the public."

See the whole article here:

http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=922

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article says:

"Judge Mihok also dismissed the Florida Dental Association from the

suit,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

granting its "motion to dismiss" and "motion to strike" on grounds that

the

Quoted message said:

complaint failed to state the cause of action."

This means that the plaintiffs could not come up with enough facts to

make

Quoted message said:

a

Quoted message said:

claim., IOW, they were blowing smoke. Just like the other anti-science
lawsuits that were dismissed for similar reasons.

.....or Jan Drew beatin' down on the dentists .... now that the nursery
school tykes are bigger than Jan and won't take it anymore.

JOEL

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 22:51:06 GMT, "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12,

2004' M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t said:

I disagree. This was not real, or otherwise, science.

If the plaintiffs were interested in science, there would have been no
lawsuit.

This is pure legalized whining, shot down by a system which does not
countenance whining.

"jwndds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:RoLyc.742576$Ig.501597@pd7tw2no...

Quoted message said:

Three cheers for real science.

jwn dds

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Thorson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "We are very pleased that the court has dismissed the ADA
> from one more amalgam lawsuit," said Peter M. Sfikas, ADA
> chief legal counsel. "Each dismissal represents another huge
> victory for organized dentistry and the public."
>
> See the whole article here:
>

http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=922

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article says:

"Judge Mihok also dismissed the Florida Dental Association from the

suit,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

granting its "motion to dismiss" and "motion to strike" on grounds that

the

Quoted message said:

complaint failed to state the cause of action."

This means that the plaintiffs could not come up with enough facts to

make

Quoted message said:

a

Quoted message said:

claim., IOW, they were blowing smoke. Just like the other anti-science
lawsuits that were dismissed for similar reasons.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Florida Amalgam Lawsuit Dismissed
From: "jwndds" [email hidden]
Date: 6/12/2004 2:24 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <RoLyc.742576$Ig.501597@pd7tw2no>

Three cheers for real science.

jwn dds

Here is where that *real science* originated from. I came down to real $$$$ and
the good of the people came LAST on the list. What Mark has posted which is
typical for him, is that EVIL organized medicine and dentistry does MORE E V I
L.

Three cheers indeed.

http://www.wholisticresearch.com/info/artshow.php3?artid=20

(The Most Expensive Medical Mistake in The History of The World)

The History of Mercury Amalgam

In the early 1800s French dentists successfully (sic) mixed mercury with other
metals and plugged the mixture into cavities in teeth. These early mixtures
contained relatively small amounts of mercury and required heat to enable the
metals to bind together. In 1819 Benjamin Bell in England developed an amalgam
mix with much
more mercury in it that enabled the metals to bind at room temperature. Back in
France in 1826 Taveau produced a similar formulation and then in the 1830's the
amalgam concept was introduced in America.

****Many American dentists denounced
amalgam use on account of the toxic nature of mercury and when the American
Society of Dental Surgeons was formed in 1840 its' members were required to
sign a pledge never to use mercury amalgam on account of its great toxicity.
*****

The pledge
was abandoned within five years! (Curious historical note No1. Quick silver is
a common name for mercury, both here and in Germany, and the 'quick' in German
is pronounced quack, thus amalgam-using dentists became known as quacks - a
term
which has come to mean an inept and fraudulent medic - perhaps amalgam-using
dentists should still be called quacks).

****In 1848 the Society found 11 of its' members guilty of "..malpractice...for
using amalgam.." and suspended them.***

The arguments raged on, then, as now, until finally the god won - money that
is, and the A.S.D.S. dissolved in chaos in 1856. There was a lot of profit in
amalgam fillings, cheap to make and easy to use, compared with gold, expensive
and technically more difficult. The American Dental Association took its' place
and cunningly, did not take a stand on the amalgam issue, allowing market
forces to prevail until about 1895. The Encyclopaedia Britannica reports "that
amalgams were not altogether in good repute until after 1895", by which time
the A.D.A. was supporting the use of amalgam.

Rest at site.

Sad.

Jan

May you have every tooth filled, twice.
"jwndds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:RoLyc.742576$Ig.501597@pd7tw2no...

Quoted message said:

Three cheers for real science.

jwn dds

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Thorson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"We are very pleased that the court has dismissed the ADA
from one more amalgam lawsuit," said Peter M. Sfikas, ADA
chief legal counsel. "Each dismissal represents another huge
victory for organized dentistry and the public."

See the whole article here:

http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=922

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article says:

"Judge Mihok also dismissed the Florida Dental Association from the

suit,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

granting its "motion to dismiss" and "motion to strike" on grounds that

the

Quoted message said:

complaint failed to state the cause of action."

This means that the plaintiffs could not come up with enough facts to

make

Quoted message said:

a

Quoted message said:

claim., IOW, they were blowing smoke. Just like the other anti-science
lawsuits that were dismissed for similar reasons.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Florida Amalgam Lawsuit Dismissed
From: [email hidden] (Jan)
Date: 6/12/2004 5:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Here is where that *real science* originated from. I came down to real $$$$
and
the good of the people came LAST on the list. What Mark has posted which

Quoted message said:

is
typical for him, is that EVIL organized medicine and dentistry does MORE E V
I
L.

oh...Janster...did your "not evil altie dentist" do all that work on your mouth
for NOTHING???

course not...doesn't that make him as EVIL as eom???

hawki.....

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t [email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Mark Thorson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"We are very pleased that the court has dismissed the ADA
from one more amalgam lawsuit," said Peter M. Sfikas, ADA
chief legal counsel. "Each dismissal represents another huge
victory for organized dentistry and the public."

See the whole article here:

http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=922

it also means they could have had a bad lawyer.

Quoted message said:

The article says:

"Judge Mihok also dismissed the Florida Dental Association from the suit,
granting its "motion to dismiss" and "motion to strike" on grounds that the
complaint failed to state the cause of action."

This means that the plaintiffs could not come up with enough facts to make a
claim., IOW, they were blowing smoke. Just like the other anti-science
lawsuits that were dismissed for similar reasons.

jwndds said:

Three cheers for real science.

So you're an advocate of real science are you?

In 1987 Swedish researcher A W Johansson was granted publication
of a patent for an apparatus which measures the migration of mercury
ions from a test piece of dental amalgam when it is subjected to an
electrical potential.

You can read all about it at:

http://www.jageblad.se/research/

And the patent documents are at:

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=SE8505974&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

Which of the following do you think represents the most rational and
scientific response to Johansson's work?

1) accept it without question

2) dismiss it out of hand beacause you don't like the sound of it

3) sit around on your butt making up "scientific" excuses for ignoring
it

4) investigate experimentally to determine whether or not the
apparatus does what the patent says it does, and then consider
honestly and scientifically whether the results of this investigation
require you to alter your position on the suitability of amalgam
for use as a material in restorative dentistry

Go on, give us some "real science".

Keith P Walsh

PS, enquiries concerning the electrical properties of dental amalgams
can be found at:

http://book.boot.users.btopenworld.com/intro.htm

"Keith P Walsh" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In 1987 Swedish researcher A W Johansson was granted publication
of a patent for an apparatus which measures the migration of mercury
ions from a test piece of dental amalgam when it is subjected to an
electrical potential.

You can read all about it at:

http://www.jageblad.se/research/

I did. This is halluncinatory [censored]:
Negative radiation, the hitherto unknown natural law, influences the outer
electron shell of mercury atoms, which normally includes two electrons, to
increase to a total of three electrons. With three electrons in the outer
shell a negative mercury ion is formed which becomes very unstable and
thereby comes to oscillate with a frequency of approx. 3900 MHz.
The activation and transmitter part has an ion memory of mercury amalgam
which is activated by the inner tube's bottom zinc plate. This produces
mercury radiation in the inner tube.

The receiver part consists of a circular zinc antenna disc which activates
the negative mercury ions to emit their extra electron, which implies that
the ions cease to rotate and are transformed into mercury vapour.

Quoted message said:

And the patent documents are at:

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=SE8505974&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

They mean nothing.

Quoted message said:

4) investigate experimentally to determine whether or not the
apparatus does what the patent says it does, and then consider
honestly and scientifically whether the results of this investigation
require you to alter your position on the suitability of amalgam
for use as a material in restorative dentistry

False dichotomy. Your hero's "theory" sucks. You can't defend it save by
making it a victim. Tell me about something you don't beieve in.

moo

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:14:11 GMT, Mark Thorson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"We are very pleased that the court has dismissed the ADA
from one more amalgam lawsuit," said Peter M. Sfikas, ADA
chief legal counsel. "Each dismissal represents another huge
victory for organized dentistry and the public."

See the whole article here:
http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=922

See the whole article here:

*****************************************
Florida court grants ADA motion to dismiss amalgam suit

By Mark Berthold

Orlando, Fla. — In defending itself against anti-amalgam lawsuits, the
American Dental Association is batting 1000.

The Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Orange
County, Fla., granted June 3 the ADA's "motion to dismiss" a lawsuit
by plaintiff Wooldridge et. al.

Judge A. Thomas Mihok dismissed the suit, which was originally filed
Sept. 12, 2003, on the basis that the plaintiffs were unable to show
enough facts to demonstrate the court had personal jurisdiction over
the ADA.

Judge Mihok also dismissed the Florida Dental Association from the
suit, granting its "motion to dismiss" and "motion to strike" on
grounds that the complaint failed to state the cause of action.

"We are very pleased that the court has dismissed the ADA from one
more amalgam lawsuit," said Peter M. Sfikas, ADA chief legal counsel.
"Each dismissal represents another huge victory for organized
dentistry and the public."
*************************************************************

As usual the ADA wins a "huge victory" in the amalgam debate by
successfully evading any scientific discussion on the subject.

When are you people going to recognise that the dental profession is
largely ignorant of the physical behavior of dental amalgams?

For instance,

- there isn't anyone at the ADA who knows what the electrical
conductivity of a typical dental amalgam is

- there isn't anyone at the ADA who knows what the permittivity of a
typical dental amalgam is

- there isn't anyone at the ADA who knows what the permeability of a
typical dental amalgam is

- there isn't anyone at the ADA who knows what the seebeck coefficient
of a typical dental amalgam is

The electrical, electromagnetic and thermoelectric behavior of the
material are defined by these properties.

And if you'd only wake up you might recognise that the greatest
expertise that the ADA has developed over the last 150 years is in its
ability to evade the acknowledgement of its own ignorance.

Keith P Walsh

PS, enquiries concerning the electrical properties of dental amalgams
can be found at:

http://book.boot.users.btopenworld.com/intro.htm

Happy Dog said:

"Keith P Walsh" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In 1987 Swedish researcher A W Johansson was granted publication
of a patent for an apparatus which measures the migration of mercury
ions from a test piece of dental amalgam when it is subjected to an
electrical potential.

You can read all about it at:

http://www.jageblad.se/research/

I did. This is halluncinatory [censored]:
Negative radiation, the hitherto unknown natural law, influences the outer
electron shell of mercury atoms, which normally includes two electrons, to
increase to a total of three electrons. With three electrons in the outer
shell a negative mercury ion is formed which becomes very unstable and
thereby comes to oscillate with a frequency of approx. 3900 MHz.
The activation and transmitter part has an ion memory of mercury amalgam
which is activated by the inner tube's bottom zinc plate. This produces
mercury radiation in the inner tube.

The receiver part consists of a circular zinc antenna disc which activates
the negative mercury ions to emit their extra electron, which implies that
the ions cease to rotate and are transformed into mercury vapour.

Quoted message said:

And the patent documents are at:

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=SE8505974&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

They mean nothing.

Quoted message said:

4) investigate experimentally to determine whether or not the
apparatus does what the patent says it does, and then consider
honestly and scientifically whether the results of this investigation
require you to alter your position on the suitability of amalgam
for use as a material in restorative dentistry

False dichotomy. Your hero's "theory" sucks. You can't defend it save by
making it a victim. Tell me about something you don't beieve in.

moo

Are you saying that Johansson's apparatus doesn't do what his patent
says it does?

And, if so, how do you know that it doesn't?

Keith P Walsh

A patent does not prove that the contraption works as offered.

IOW, it proves onloy that it is novel.

Nothing else.

"Keith P Walsh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jwndds said:

Three cheers for real science.

So you're an advocate of real science are you?

In 1987 Swedish researcher A W Johansson was granted publication
of a patent for an apparatus which measures the migration of mercury
ions from a test piece of dental amalgam when it is subjected to an
electrical potential.

You can read all about it at:

http://www.jageblad.se/research/

And the patent documents are at:

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=SE8505974&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

Which of the following do you think represents the most rational and
scientific response to Johansson's work?

1) accept it without question

2) dismiss it out of hand beacause you don't like the sound of it

3) sit around on your butt making up "scientific" excuses for ignoring
it

4) investigate experimentally to determine whether or not the
apparatus does what the patent says it does, and then consider
honestly and scientifically whether the results of this investigation
require you to alter your position on the suitability of amalgam
for use as a material in restorative dentistry

Go on, give us some "real science".

Keith P Walsh

PS, enquiries concerning the electrical properties of dental amalgams
can be found at:

http://book.boot.users.btopenworld.com/intro.htm

"Keith P Walsh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Happy Dog said:

"Keith P Walsh" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In 1987 Swedish researcher A W Johansson was granted publication
of a patent for an apparatus which measures the migration of mercury
ions from a test piece of dental amalgam when it is subjected to an
electrical potential.

You can read all about it at:

http://www.jageblad.se/research/

I did. This is halluncinatory [censored]:
Negative radiation, the hitherto unknown natural law, influences the

outer

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

electron shell of mercury atoms, which normally includes two electrons,

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

increase to a total of three electrons. With three electrons in the outer
shell a negative mercury ion is formed which becomes very unstable and
thereby comes to oscillate with a frequency of approx. 3900 MHz.
The activation and transmitter part has an ion memory of mercury amalgam
which is activated by the inner tube's bottom zinc plate. This produces
mercury radiation in the inner tube.

The receiver part consists of a circular zinc antenna disc which

activates

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the negative mercury ions to emit their extra electron, which implies

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the ions cease to rotate and are transformed into mercury vapour.

Quoted message said:

And the patent documents are at:

http://l2.espacenet.com/dips/viewer?PN=SE8505974&CY=ep&LG=en&DB=EPD

They mean nothing.

Quoted message said:

4) investigate experimentally to determine whether or not the
apparatus does what the patent says it does, and then consider
honestly and scientifically whether the results of this investigation
require you to alter your position on the suitability of amalgam
for use as a material in restorative dentistry

False dichotomy. Your hero's "theory" sucks. You can't defend it save

by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

making it a victim. Tell me about something you don't beieve in.

moo

Are you saying that Johansson's apparatus doesn't do what his patent
says it does?

To secure a patent the contraption has to be novel, not workable.

Quoted message said:

And, if so, how do you know that it doesn't?

It is up to him to prove it works. A patent proves nothing in that regard.

I find that charlatans often rely on patents to 'prove' their contraption or
concoction works. They rely on the gullibility of others to accept that
false proof.

No, I am not calling you gullible. Johansson did.

"Alexander Vasserman DDS., BS." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12, 2004" <M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t

[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Mark Thorson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"We are very pleased that the court has dismissed the ADA
from one more amalgam lawsuit," said Peter M. Sfikas, ADA
chief legal counsel. "Each dismissal represents another huge
victory for organized dentistry and the public."

See the whole article here:

http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=922

Quoted message said:

it also means they could have had a bad lawyer.

Not really. The ruling requires that the plaintiff provide the proof they
will offer, and then the judge must view it in the most favorable light (for
the plaintiff). Thus, even after their best shot, they had not case.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article says:

"Judge Mihok also dismissed the Florida Dental Association from the

suit,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

granting its "motion to dismiss" and "motion to strike" on grounds that

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

complaint failed to state the cause of action."

This means that the plaintiffs could not come up with enough facts to

make a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

claim., IOW, they were blowing smoke. Just like the other anti-science
lawsuits that were dismissed for similar reasons.

"Keith P Walsh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:14:11 GMT, Mark Thorson <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"We are very pleased that the court has dismissed the ADA
from one more amalgam lawsuit," said Peter M. Sfikas, ADA
chief legal counsel. "Each dismissal represents another huge
victory for organized dentistry and the public."

See the whole article here:

http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid

=922

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

See the whole article here:

*****************************************
Florida court grants ADA motion to dismiss amalgam suit

By Mark Berthold

Orlando, Fla. - In defending itself against anti-amalgam lawsuits, the
American Dental Association is batting 1000.

The Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Orange
County, Fla., granted June 3 the ADA's "motion to dismiss" a lawsuit
by plaintiff Wooldridge et. al.

Judge A. Thomas Mihok dismissed the suit, which was originally filed
Sept. 12, 2003, on the basis that the plaintiffs were unable to show
enough facts to demonstrate the court had personal jurisdiction over
the ADA.

Judge Mihok also dismissed the Florida Dental Association from the
suit, granting its "motion to dismiss" and "motion to strike" on
grounds that the complaint failed to state the cause of action.

"We are very pleased that the court has dismissed the ADA from one
more amalgam lawsuit," said Peter M. Sfikas, ADA chief legal counsel.
"Each dismissal represents another huge victory for organized
dentistry and the public."
*************************************************************

As usual the ADA wins a "huge victory" in the amalgam debate by
successfully evading any scientific discussion on the subject.

Wrong. When the motion was made to dismiss for failure to state a claim the
plaintiff's must provide all proof that they have that their claim is valid.
Then, the court reviews that proof to see if their is the possibility that
the claim is valid.

Here there was insufficient proof of possible validity. Further, the ruling
has NOTHING to do with amalgams as used, but with the alleged evil
complicity of the ADA. IOW, the whacko conspiracy [censored] was found to be just
that, whacko conspiracy [censored].

Quoted message said:

When are you people going to recognise that the dental profession is
largely ignorant of the physical behavior of dental amalgams?

For instance,

- there isn't anyone at the ADA who knows what the electrical
conductivity of a typical dental amalgam is

- there isn't anyone at the ADA who knows what the permittivity of a
typical dental amalgam is

- there isn't anyone at the ADA who knows what the permeability of a
typical dental amalgam is

- there isn't anyone at the ADA who knows what the seebeck coefficient
of a typical dental amalgam is

The electrical, electromagnetic and thermoelectric behavior of the
material are defined by these properties.

And if you'd only wake up you might recognise that the greatest
expertise that the ADA has developed over the last 150 years is in its
ability to evade the acknowledgement of its own ignorance.

Keith P Walsh

PS, enquiries concerning the electrical properties of dental amalgams
can be found at:

http://book.boot.users.btopenworld.com/intro.htm

Quoted message said:

"We are very pleased that the court has dismissed the ADA
from one more amalgam lawsuit," said Peter M. Sfikas, ADA
chief legal counsel. "Each dismissal represents another huge
victory for organized dentistry and the public."

See the whole article here:

http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?article

id=922

Quoted message said:

Thankfully, the system worked in this situation. It is unfortunate that greed
and ignorance produce such nuisance lawsuits. Its a plague to those who work
to improve our healthcare system and only profits the lawyers.

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 13:52:05 GMT, "M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-June 12,

2004' M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t said:

I find that charlatans often rely on patents to 'prove' their contraption or
concoction works. They rely on the gullibility of others to accept that
false proof.

This is irrelevant.

The only truly scientific response to the work that Johansson appears
to have carried out is to investigate experimentally whether or not it
can be repeated.

And if anyone wished to assert that this work cannot be repeated then,
according to the established principles of scientific understanding,
it should first be necessary for them to demonstrate that it can't.

Keith P Walsh

"Keith P Walsh" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Are you saying that Johansson's apparatus doesn't do what his patent
says it does?

Yes. It isn't a requirement that patented things actually perform as
claimed. (With the exception of perpetual motion machines.)

Quoted message said:

And, if so, how do you know that it doesn't?

The same way I "know" that the sun won't spontaneously begin speaking
French. The theory behind this thing is a joke. Actually, it's too
incomprehensible to be a joke.

Again, tell me about a claim you've heard that you don't belive to be true
and why.

moo