The FDA, as quoted by Qruel's little site:
"After review of the scientific evidence and review of numerous studies submitted in support of banning or upclassifying dental restorative products containing mercury, FDA does not find any persuasive evidence that the physiological and psychological symptoms attributed to amalgam fillings are caused by amalgam fillings. Furthermore, FDA does not find any persuasive evidence that there is any improvement of these symptoms after removal of amalgam fillings. Although there are studies purporting to support the view that amalgam products pose risks to persons beyond the small subpopulation of hypersensitive individuals, conclusions cannot be drawn studies because they are methodologically flawed."
FDA Consumer Update: Dental Amalgams February 2002

lolwut.

Wikipedia is in general a non-optimal resource when it comes to things like this, because the NPOV rules lean to the sort of "teach the controversy" kind of middle-ground bs that lets people get away with framing some things as "issues" that shouldn't be. I looked up but couldn't read the 2nd citation because it's in German. If you can find a translation of the entire paper, rather than just the abstract, I'll take a swing at it.

But first, check the paper you linked. So the patients with autoimmune disorders in the study were specifically selected for lymphocyte reactivity to mercury, ok, that's already bringing it out of the original question about general amalgam safety. Then note the discussion, in which it is observed that health worsened for some of the patients in treatment, but this effect was dismissed because of smoking...wonder about the smoking habits for all the rest of the patients? Hmmm..... Then consider the materials and methods where the setup for determining whether a patient was getting better or worse was described. Any good, quantitative analysis there? Oh, and then there's the fact that the study had a sample of 35 people, of which four diseases were represented, and of which the maximum number of people in one disease category was 15.

....hm. I mean, there's some shaky ground, and that's even for their very specific case of people suffering from immune disorders with high lymphocyte reactivity to mercury, who, it does seem reasonable, might be better suited for non-mercury treatments. As for the general public...well, there's a reason I don't feel particularly inclined to argue about this "issue".

Oh, and Qruel....lol.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I'm lazy, so I just went to Wikipedia to learn about this controversy. If what the article states is true, then it sounds like the scientific jury may still be out on this issue:
One review from the US found little evidence to link mercury fillings to health problems[1] while the other from Germany found that removal of dental amalgam lead to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials.[2]
Therefore I think it's a legitimate scientific debate, even if the ADA maintains that mercury amalgam is safe. For example, for some people with autoimmune disorders removing mercury amalgam has been beneficial. I don't know where the preponderance of research points for the general public, however, because I am no expert.
Just one man's opinion.

Awesome *quality.

*yawn*...did you miss the part where I said I wasn't citing because I wanted to argue? I'm not trying to convince people, I was dropping the link because it was easily readable and on target. You already know your opinion carries zero weight with me.

PNAS isn't the only journal on the planet, and I wasn't citing because I want to argue, but because they're something for people to read easily and with papers they can access that are reasonably on topic. Not like anyone's looking to IAOMT for unbiased papers.

On review, I've decided to bump this video from the Science Channel. While the individual interviews were fairly fun, if the overall video is inaccurate to the point that it would make a physicist uncomfortable, I don't think that's a good thing. After all, who better to judge?

Still, I'm sure this will still get plenty of attention now that it's a highly-ranked vid. Let history be the judge.

Food for thought from PZ Myers, with a healthy dose of criticism and contextual information.

Specifically, the interesting point to be made is that Darwin didn't simply predict that the length of the insect tongues would MATCH the orchid tubes, but rather that the orchids would be selected for longer tubes each generation (because the insects, now with slightly shorter tubes, would be forced to press up against the flower to get the nectar and thus would receive pollen all over their bodies that would then be spread by the insects), and the insects would be selected for longer tongues in order to reach across the ever-increasing distance.

It's somewhat of an arms race, in that the orchids benefit by the insects having to struggle to reach the nectar, and the insects benefit by having longer proboscises to not have to struggle to reach the nectar, leading to the development of very long tubes and tongues.

*science

Not that I particularly care to argue:

NCAHF Position Paper on Amalgam Fillings

The "Mercury Toxicity" Scam: How Anti-Amalgamists Swindle People by Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Ok, folks. Here's my take.

Initial impressions: Each interview is very shortened and not always as thorough as should be expected, but nothing is outright incorrect. I'm getting the distinct impression that this video is cutting out hours and hours of interviews to get a few little blips of speech that are being slapped together by layman TV people to get the nice easy piece they want. For example, I'm not particularly sure why Professor Lloyd is brought in, he seems to be speaking to an entirely different set of questions than the video is supposed to be asking.

Eric, the roulette table is in reference to the Schrodinger wave equation and its implication in wave function collapse. In theoretical terms, the video is putting forward an interpretation of such an event, specifically Everett's many worlds hypothesis. If you want an explanation, I can put one together for you, but altogether it's a reasonable (albeit not the most widely-held) hypothesis, insofar as quantum mechanical hypotheses are.

Overall, the video just seems to be very disjointed and sloppy. Each speaker is cohesive individually, but the leaps the video is making are not connected and occasionally simply off-topic.

I'm tempted to leave this video in the Science Channel because it's at least making people ask questions. The question "Are there parallel universes?" is one that is still in the hypothesis stage without substantial data in support of or against an answer either way, so it falls within the softer side of science, the part not yet locked down by solid evidence. In this sense, the video is still in keeping with scientific principles.

I am, however, concerned that this video does seem to be misleading in that it is presenting a number of phenomena and theories that are not quite topical or sufficiently linked as to be topical to the specific question of whether parallel universes exist, and doesn't place them appropriately. Why are they getting into entanglement theory? Why are they talking about quantum computers? ....I don't really know. Hell, they don't even distinguish a change in topics when they move from the "Dang there could be multiple versions of you within the same universe because the universe could be infinitely big" theory to the "Holy crap there could be multiple universes because there could be branching due to quantum decoherence" theory. Bad bad bad. Naughty TV show.

In short, I think I see both sides of the argument here. KP, you're right, I think the scientists are cool and damn smart (and Seth Lloyd is fucking BALLER) and their research and theories are great. Irishman and Jonny, you're right, the overall video is being screwed up by crappy TV program producers/editors and their regrettable fill-in voice-overs. I'm at a loss for what to do. I think I'll come back, see how a few more people weigh in, and then decide whether this video stays or goes.

P.S. If you happen to think a video in the Science Channel is questionable, please let me know via profile comment or email. I happen to be SWAMPED in my own research, and I don't have near enough time to clean out all the swill from the channel as throughly, as often or as quickly as I would like.

One point being brought up - that university professors have much more important things to teach than why creationism/ID is not science....well, yes, and no. Teachers and professors have more important things to teach, but I believe by this point we can no longer justify NOT covering this issue, even if in brief, because MOST PEOPLE IN AMERICA DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE. Yes, there is a shitload of real material to cover during classes, but what use is all that if students listen during lecture and then toss all that information out as they walk out the door because they think the idea that some bearded guy in the sky created all life on Earth by pointing his finger is scientifically feasible? We've turned up our noses at teaching against stupidity, and because of that we're now facing an epidemic of idiocy. We need to start taking a few minutes out of the first class of any intro bio course to lay the fucking beatdown on creationism, and then start the actual lecture.

*blog *ban

On second thought, this can stay for now. I removed it originally not because of the actual treatment, which has a long way to go before it passes into FDA trials (please note that the only literature covers experiments targeting cancer cells in vitro without demonstration of cell specificity), but may or may not turn out to be legitimately useful. I'm just horrified by the absolute shit piece that CBS managed to put together. *science

I beg anyone watching this piece to consider the following:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2276230
http://www.healthnewsreview.org/review/review.php?rid=1236
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=109190

I'm not debating that - I agree, Israel is very different than the US, and yes, I do believe that proper training is necessary and should be mandatory for gun owners. Furthermore, the story I linked to is anecdotal at best. I'm not at all trying to argue that, if students were allowed to carry guns on campus, the VA Tech school massacre would definitely have gone differently. And of course the problem is symptomatic of much deeper sociopolitical issues. (Aren't they all?) That's not the point.

My link was in direct answer to Dag's question: "In the VA school massacre, do people honestly think..."

My answer is, yes some people do honestly think that the VA school massacre could have ended better if students had had guns, and I think it's folly not to understand people see such a story as proof that a different ending is possible at the very least, outside the realm of terrible cop movies.

You seem to have already made up your mind, but one statement I think you might reconsider: "In the VA school massacre, do people honestly think that if students were packing heat- that it would have ended better? Life is not a cop show."

Jerusalem yeshiva student: "I shot the terrorist twice in the head"