Response to “Amalgam versus composite” by Prof. Staehle

Re: Article: “Amalgam versus Komposit” by Prof. Staehle

In ZWP spezial 4/2003

The above-mentioned article cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

Under the guise of so-called scientific rigour — no one takes responsibility for defining it — Prof. Staehle attempts to portray amalgam as harmless and to brand the representatives of holistic dentistry as mutilators of dentitions and profiteers, even accusing them of “clear cases of malpractice” (quotation). If he characterises the surgical removal of jawbone around teeth with focal pathology as clear malpractice, this shows that he knows nothing about the pathophysiology of this condition and does not know the relevant international literature, or does not acknowledge it, or does not wish to do so.

That is precisely what is irresponsible on his part, rather than the attempt by those who think differently to treat a sick person whom so-called conventional medicine cannot help, using empirical and bioenergetic methods.

Here he polarises the debate in exactly the way he says he does not want from the proponents of amalgam and resin.

Apart from repeatedly doing precisely what he accuses practitioners of alternative medicine of doing, namely stirring up emotions, this kind of presentation does not belong in an ostensibly scientific, purely factual article intended to inform — at least, that is what the heading suggests to the reader.

His presentation is highly subjective, one-sided, insulting to physicians and dentists who work with alternative or complementary diagnostic and therapeutic methods — some 14,000 in Germany, after all — and also misleading; above all, it does nothing to help the patients concerned.

Moreover, he makes claims whose credibility, it appears, he can and wishes to substantiate only by virtue of his position and title, for example the assertion that amalgam can be regarded as proven to be toxicologically harmless.

There are sufficient international publications by independent scientists proving precisely the opposite.

Nor does it help him to accuse many opinion-makers and organisations of “denying or one-sidedly interpreting scientific studies on human mercury exposure caused by amalgam” (quotation), because that is exactly what he does by selecting only the studies that fit his worldview. These so-called “opinion papers” leave nothing to be desired in terms of one-sidedness and cannot withstand an international scientific standard.

One must ask: is he unable or unwilling to read the relevant international publications?

Prof. Staehle is and remains a notorious ignoramus, thereby violating the duty to seek knowledge inherent in objective scientific enquiry. Moreover, he understands nothing of what he criticises, namely naturopathic and empirical medical methods, but argues solely through his one-sided scientific lens, thus giving scientific sanction, among other things, to the approximately 3,000 deaths a year from diclofenac.

Who counts the so-called failures of conventional medicine and dentistry, let alone their botched treatments?

Oh yes, those too are scientifically substantiated and come under statistical risk.

The advisory council he quotes always consists of the same so-called “experts”, including people such as Prof. Staehle. Owing to the imbalance of these bodies — the absence of so-called alternative practitioners — other decision-makers are presented, through constant misuse of the concept of science, with a one-sided picture that does not correspond to reality and that approximately 80% of the population accepts only conditionally, since that proportion wishes to receive naturopathic treatment.

Which worldview — that of scientific medicine and dentistry or that of naturopathic and empirical medicine and dentistry — is more contemptuous of human beings, given the constant crises in healthcare and technology-driven medicine, is something readers can and should judge for themselves, while fully appreciating acute medical and dental treatment.

In any event, attitudes and statements such as those Staehle advocates and presents do not contribute to a more humane climate conducive to recovery.

Why does so-called conventional medicine and dentistry not ask itself whether the ever-growing army of chronically ill people might be of its own making, as a result of all its “anti-medicine” and rejection of holistic therapies — including the question of burdens placed on the matrix, our basic regulatory system, by dental materials?

Yours sincerely,