Particulars of Claim

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE (in part)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIMNO.

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

between:-

ROBINPHILIP CLARKE

Claimant

and

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

/ THE CHIEF DENTAL OFFICER

Defendant

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

The layout of this document has got substantially mangled in conversion from pdf. The original pdf can be found at this link here.

1. The Claimant’s earliest extant Dental Records indicate that healready had at least nineteen dental amalgams before age 24, and “says didn’tvisit dentist for a few years before coming here”. Ever since age 17 he has experienced chronic invalidity and hashad to depend on benefits payments. Inthe UK, advice and views as to whether systemic harm may result from use ofdental amalgam are given by officials within the Department of Health (DH) suchas the MHRA and the Chief Dental Officer (“CDO”).

2. In accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Clinical NegligenceClaims, the Claimant sent a Letter of Claim on 10^th November 2009. On 30^th November 2009 theDefendant sent a reply, resting its defence entirely on five documents namely,SCENIHR 2008, COT 1997, WHO 1997, FDA 2002, and EC 1998.

3. In the latter two instances it was unclear as to which documents theDH had in mind. A further reply of 7^thApril 2010 still failed to fully clarify, other than giving three titles thatwere claimed to be “available online”. In respect of EC 1998 the nearest the Claimant has been able to identifyis a 1997 draft. In respect of FDA2002, the reply stated that it was the [draft] Special Controls GuidanceDocument of that year. The FDAthereupon told the Claimant that that document was no longer available, beingsuperceded by the 2009 final version.

4. The Defendants’ replies would have usassume that that FDA in 2002 constituted expert testimony that there is noreason to believe that amalgam causes any toxicity. Yet this is a misrepresentation, because, on the contrary, theFDA 2002 Proposed Rule contains the following statements:

“Conversely, the evidence is not persuasive that the potential fortoxicity at the levels attributable to dental amalgams should be totallydisregarded. The potential for effectsat levels of exposure produced by dental amalgam has not been fully explored.”;

and

“it is not possible to determine whether those changes observed inpersons with low-level occupational exposure to mercury might also occur as aresult of exposure to mercury from dental amalgams. Adverse health consequences, however, cannot be totallydismissed.”;

and

“The Risk Assessment Subcommittee could not draw unambiguousconclusions or develop a risk assessment based on these [neurological and psychological]endpoints…”;

and

“The Risk Assessment Subcommittee [is] comprised of 34 senior levelexperts…”.

Expert reports on Amalgam Illness cases

5. It is usual in aClinical Negligence case to include expert opinion in respect ofdiagnosis. But the Defendants here denyall existence of Amalgam Illness, so must also deny existence of expertexperience in diagnosing it.

6. In a context ofvicious persecution of medical heretics, diagnosis of Amalgam Illness does nothave some recognised school of experience-developed skill like violin-playing,but rather entails an ad hoc judgement of how well the facts of the case accordwith the facts of the science. And itreally is not (in this case) very complicated, notwithstanding those whosecareer interests might encourage them to claim otherwise.

7. Any purportedsuch diagnostic expert opinion in this case would be not an enlighteningpredicate but rather a timewasting added issue in question.

8. This claim involves two causes of action:

(a) Negligent breach of duty of care.

(b) The release of a dangerous thing, namelypoisonous mercury vapour, causing foreseeable injurious consequences.

Negligent breach of duty of care

Duty of care

9. TheClaimant made a FOI request on 28^thFebruary 2010, namely: “Who hasresponsibility for approving dental amalgam?”. To which the DH replied:

“…. dental amalgam is classified as amedical device under the European Community Medical Devices Directive 93/42/ EEC (MDD). Theenforcement of the Directive in the UK is the responsibility of the Medicinesand Healthcare products Regulatory Agency ( MHRA). In conjunction withEuropean counterparts, MHRA monitors the use and effects of dental amalgam.
In the light of the MHRA’s advice, it is the Chief Dental Officer’s view thatthat the use of dental amalgam is free from risk of systemic toxicity and thatonly a very few cases of adverse reactions occur, despite its widespread useover the past 150 years. ….“

10. The MHRA in giving that advice,and the Chief Dental Officer in expressing that view, function as regulators ofclinical practice, with a duty of clinical care towardsall those patients in respect of whom their advice and view are to be applied.

11. The abovementioned EC Directive 93/42/EEC states:

“MemberStates shall take all necessary steps to ensure that devices may beplaced on the market and put into service only if they do not compromise thesafety and health of patients ….” [Article 2]
and:

“Wherea Member State ascertains that the devices referred to in Article 4 (1) and (2)second indent, when correctly installed, maintained and used for their intendedpurpose, may compromise the health and/or safety of patients, users or, whereapplicable, other persons, it shall take all appropriate interim measures towithdraw such devices from the market or prohibit or restrict their beingplaced on the market or put into service. The Member State shall immediatelyinform the Commission of any such measures, indicating the reasons for itsdecision and, in particular, whether non-compliance with this Directive is dueto: [….] (c) shortcomings in the standards themselves.” [Article8(1)]

12. The above Articlesof the Directive thus make additionally clear that this duty of care to preventthe unsafe usage of amalgam in the UK lies within the Member State (of whichthe DH is the relevant agency).

13. And in years priorto that EC Directive, the DH likewise had that duty of care.

14. The precedingparagraphs indicate that the Defendants have had at all material times a dutyof care to carefully seek and recognise any evidence of harm of usage of dentalamalgam and to advise accordingly to prevent its unsafe usage.

15. Within that duty of care there lies a duty to ascertain in respectof reviews of evidence, as to whether (a) those reviews give properconsideration of any evidence which suggests possible harmfulness, or(b) they instead unsoundly dismiss such evidence or even fail to mentionit.

16. The Claimant has been at all material times a resident and citizenof the UK and therefore the defendants have had this duty of care towards himduring all this time.

Breach of dutyof care

17. The Defendants, and their predecessors, breached their duty of carein that throughout all material times:

(a) they failed to carefullyseek or give recognition to the evidence of harm of the use of dental amalgam;

(b) they persistently advised that amalgam was without systemic risk,when at all material times there existed substantial known evidence forsuspecting such harm and absence of sound evidence of safety; and they did soin defiance of repeated warnings from well-informed and well-qualified criticswhom they merely ignored without acknowledgement;

(c) they ignored reports indicating harmfulness, and cited in theiradvice only reports which failed to mention evidence of harmfulness and gave anunduly reassuring distorted account of the evidence.

Particulars of breaches of duty of care

18. Some Particulars of breaches of the duty of care are detailed in thefollowing paragraphs 19-30 under the heading “Pervasive untruthfulness, misleading statements, and hencelack of credibility of the most expert defenders of amalgam”, and the toxicitysection paragraphs 31-38.

Pervasive untruthfulness, misleading statements, and hencelack of credibility of the most expert defenders of amalgam

19. The Defendants, who purport to speak withexpertise when they defend dental amalgam as being supposedly safe, habituallyfail to mention the evidence which runs counter to their assertions.

(a) Pro-amalgam official reports, authored bycommittees of supposed experts, fail to mention the studies and facts that runcounter to their assertions of safety. (Particulars in Paragraph 23)

(b) Criticisms pointing this out are ignored, as ifthey did not exist. (Particulars in Para 24)

(c) The defenders then habitually cite thosegrossly-biased reports as supposedly showing that amalgam is safe, but nevercite the other official reports which conclude it is harmful (or uncertain)instead. (Particulars in Para 25)

(d) The CDO recently publicly denied knowledge ofthe even most basic easily demonstrable facts of dental mercury. (ParticularsPara 26)

(e) Whenever patients appear to possibly havedental amalgam poisoning, or themselves suggest that they might have, theDefendants take extensive evasive measures to avoid any proper investigation ofthe possibility. (Particulars in Para 27)

These habitual omissions and misrepresentations, ofwhich instances are particularised below, call into question whether thereexist any genuine expertssupporting the Defendants’ position and whether any testimony of the defenders of amalgam is worthy of belief.

Particularsof failing to mention evidence of harm.

20. Historical reasons to suspect harm from mercury vapour

Numerous studies and reports exist, for example:

(a) Alfred Stock 1926:

”Mental weariness andexhaustion, lack of inclination and ability to perform any, particularlymental, work, and increased need for sleep.…. nearly complete memoryloss…..Obstacles, which formerly I would have overlooked smilingly, seemedinsurmountable….merely writing a simple letter caused unending effort….”

(b) BMJ 287:1961 (1983) Did the Mad Hatter have mercury poisoning? HAWaldron:

“The principal features of erethism wereexcessive timidity, diffidence, increasingshyness, loss of selfconfidence, anxiety, anda desire to remain unobservedand unobtrusive. The victim alsohad a pathological fearof ridicule and often reacted with an explosive loss of temper when criticised.”

21. Historical critiques of dental amalgam specifically

Numerous examples include:

1899 Tuthill: “makes a mental wreck of itsvictim”.

1974 J Am Dent Soc 98(4),904: “symptoms include ….self-consciousness, embarrassment without justification, disproportionateanxiety, indecision, poor concentration, depression, irrational resentment ofcriticism, and irritability.”

22. 28 studies showing benefits of amalgam removal

(a) Numerous published scientific studieshave supported the notion that dental amalgams have serious adverse effects onthose having them. Not least are28 studies of amalgam removal, featuring 6622 patients. There are 25 of these studies cited anddiscussed in a publicly online meta-review by Mats Hanson (“Effects of amalgamremoval on health; 25 studies of 5821 patients”), and three later studies areProchazkova Sterzl Kucerova 2004; Sterzl Prochazkova Hrda 2006; Wojcik GodfreyHaley 2006.

(b) And these are the studies of the mostpowerful kind, namely direct evidence, and positive evidence. Such simpledirect evidence trumps any amount of opposing speculative inferences viaintermediary concepts such as urine or plasma levels (which are demonstrablymisleading anyway) . And given 28 positive studies, a lot more than 28 negativestudies would be required to cancel them out (because an instance of failing tofind evidence is a lot less significant than an instance of succeeding infinding it). And yet there is no morethan a handful of (methodogically dubious) negative studies, which come nowherenear countering them.

(c) And these findings cannot be dismissedas merely placebo effects. As MatsHanson’s review indicates, “Often the removal of amalgam is a final, unpleasantand expensive measure after many years of ill health where conventional medicaltherapies have not improved the situation”, and patients regularly experiencedlong-term resolutions of problems which had affected them for many yearspreviously.

(d) Norcan the findings be dismissed due to some of them lacking controls. For such objections to have any merit wewould have to accept the fantastic thesis that miraculous prompt and sustainedresolutions of longstanding intractable serious problems have “just happenedto” coincide with amalgam removals in thousands of documented cases.

23. Reportsciting only studies opining in favour of amalgam while not mentioning thosethat contraindicate.
(The first five of these following are the five “expert” reports on which theDefendants based their defence in their reply to the Letter of Claim.)

(a) The 2008 SCENIHR report, eventhough 72 pages long, failed to mention any of the above-cited 28 amongits references. Commentaries byvarious authors have pointed outextensive additional serious omissions. And yet the SCENIHR did cite the misleading Kingman et al 2005 paper,and other numerous papers relating to blood and urine levels without mentioningthat they have long been well-known to be seriously misleading because whatmatters is the level of mercury in brain etc. cells rather than in blood orurine which have negligible relationship with it (as explained in Para 27).

(b) The 1997 COT statement merely refersto an EC report which in turn reviews five other reviews from pre-1994. Whatever the merits of that opaque audittrail, it anyway likewise failed to relate to any of those removal studies(about half of which were before its date) or to the autopsy evidence (which isthe most informative), and then ended with a citation of:

Larsson KS (1995). The dissemination offalse data through inadequate citation. J Internal Med, 238:445-450.

And in that same year the COT issued astatement against vitamin B6 which was described in the Lancet by Prof. ArnoldBeckett as “one of theworst applications of pseudoscience that I have ever encountered” and “this travesty ofscience” (doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)26027-2). The COT’s B6 recommendation was abandoned in the face of an unprecedentedlevel of public protest.

(c) The EC1998 report not only contains these same faults of omission and commission, butalso complacently mentions in-passing the condition of “when water spraycooling and vacuum suction are used”, while not giving any consideration of thesituation when such cooling or suction briefly (or not so briefly) fail to beapplied, and the patient consequently breathes in a lungful of the dust. In the Claimant’s own 27 years of personalexperience at the Dental Hospital, such breaches of suction were not rare, andthere was never any warning to avoid inhaling. Such dust in the lungs causes hugely-increased mercury vaporisation fromthe large surface area of the dust, hence hugely-increased vapour intake untilsuch later date at which the dust has all vaporised away. This intake can be expected to soonoverwhelm the detoxification capability and thereby lead to frank amalgamillness. And yet this very seriouslikelihood (or rather certainty) is sidestepped.

(d) The “WHOConsensus Statement on Dental Amalgam 1997” does not cite any studies butmerely asserts that amalgams are “considered safe”, “not been shown to causeany other [i.e. systemic] adverse health effects”, and “there is no scientificevidence that general symptoms are relieved by the removal of amalgam”. It also falsely claims that “It has beenused successfully for more than a century and its quality has improved over theyears.” On the contrary, the modernstandard non-gamma-2 amalgams were only invented in 1963 and are well-establishedas emitting 30-50 times more of the toxic mercury vapour, a very strange sortof “improvement”.

(e) The FDA 2002 Proposed Rule likewisemisleadingly declared “the significant human experience with amalgam for over100 years”. It failed to mention theremoval studies. It dismissed uncitedas “methodologically flawed” all of the many studies that contradicted itspremises.

(f) The 53-pageClarkson TW, Magos L. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 36:609-662, 2006 omittedmention of the large number of contrary studies, while endorsing numerouspatently unsound or misleading ones (such as relating to blood and urinelevels), as documented by Mutter J, Naumann J, Guethlin C. Crit. Rev.Toxicol. 37:537-549, 2007.

(g) The FDA in their 2009 Final Rule citedthat seriously flawed Clarkson/Magos 2006 review but failed to mention theMutter et al damning commentary on it that was published in that very same journal.

24. Criticismslikewise being ignored and pretended not to exist.
None of the above-cited documents (or their issuing agencies or endorsers) giveany hint of the existence of the numerous severe, damning criticisms that havebeen made of them in commentaries.

25. Documentsciting only reports that support amalgam while omitting any mention of thevarious ones that contraindicate it.

(a) theletter (30 Nov 2009) in reply to the Letter of Claim, mentioning only SCENIHR2008, FDA 2002, WHO 1998, EC 1998, and COT 1997;

(b) areply to a Freedom of Information request from Tim Hayward filed on 26 August2009, essentially identical to (a) above:
(http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mercury_filling_safety);

26. The CDO denying knowledge of the most basicfacts of dental mercury.

http://www.dentistry.co.uk/news/news_detail.php?id=1732:
"England's Chief Dental Officer has dismissed a TVdocumentary highlighting the dangers involving mercury amalgam as ‘scaremongering' and ‘sensationalist'.” But you can see for yourself his supposed expertise (on ITV in2009) (http://tinyurl.com/chiefdental or

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMI_em8UPo4 from 5m30s):
“I’m not sure that’s true” (that mercury vapour is continuallyreleased);
“not measureably”; and “I’m not sure that’s actually true” (thatamalgam is the main source of mercury in the body**).

· Svare, C.W.,Peterson, L.C., Reinihardt, J.W., et al. (1981): The effect of dentalamalgams on mercury levels in expired air. J Dent Res 60:1668-1671.

· Patterson, J.E.,Weissberg, B.G., Dennison, PJ. (1985): Mercury in human breathfrom dental amalgams. Bull Environ Contam Topical 34:459-468.

· Vimy, M.J.,Lorscheider, F.L. (1985): Serial measurements of intra oral airmercury: estimation of daily dose from dental amalgam. J Dent Res64:1072-1075.

· Berglund, A., Pohl,L., Olsson, S., Bergman M. (1988): Determination of the rate ofrelease of intra-oral mercury vapor from amalgam. J Dent Res 67: 1235-1242.

· Vimy, MJ., Lorscheider, FL. (1985): Intraoral air mercuryreleased from dental amalgam. J Dent Res 64:1069-1071.

· Clarkson, TW.,Friberg, L., Hursh, JB., Nylander, M. (1988): The prediction of intakeof mercury vapor from amalgams. In: Clarkson, TW., Friberg, L., Nordberg,GF., Sager, P.R. editors. Biological Monitoring of Toxic Metals, New York.Plenum Press: 247-260.

· Vimy, M.J.,Lorscheider, F.L. (1990): Dental amalgam mercury daily dose estimatedfrom intra oral vapor measurements: a predictor of mercury accumulationin human tissues. J Trace Elem Exp Med 3:111-123.

· Mackert, J.R., Jr.(1987): Factors affecting estimation of dental amalgam mercury exposurefrom measurements of mercury vapor levels in intra oral and expired air.J Dent Res 66:1775-1780.

· Olsson,, S.,Berglund, A., Pohl, L., Bergman, M. (1989): Model of mercury vaportransport from amalgam restorations in the oral cavity. J Dent Res68:50~508.

· Olsson, S.,Bergman, M. (1987): Intraoral air and calculated inspired dose ofmercury [Letter]. J Dent Res 66:1288-1289.

**Criteria 118 WHO 1991 states that amalgam is up to6x the other sources combined; **AposhianHV, Environ Health Perspect 1998: – 2/3 comes from amalgam.

**Richardson GM. Assessment of mercury exposure and risks from dental amalgam. HealthCanada 1995. Tolerable Daily Intake is exceeded in adults with 4 or moreamalgams.

Poison in theMouth (BBC TV Panorama 1994) stated:

“MANGOLD (BBC): …. It's easy todemonstrate how the mercury vapor escapes from their small fillings. We invitedan expert to bring a mercury vapor tester to check. The air around the fillingsis measured. [….] This is the actual reading as the needle goes off the scale.”
http://tinyurl.com/amalgam1994 or

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2288515475015225824#
Transcript at http://www.fluoridealert.org/BBC-mercury.htm

27. Evasivemis-management of patients with possible mercury poisoning.

(a) Otherpatients: Mats Hanson’s commentary on the SCENIHRreport states: “Patients in both Norway and Sweden have repeatedly complainedto the health authorities about the way they have been (badly) treated andtheir reports on health changes after amalgam removal have been ignored.”

(b) This claimant’s own experience of seven years’ ongoing evasionsby NHS staff:

2004 RequestedDental Hospital to show evidence of safety; defective response; then theyfailed to answer the Claimant’s rebuttal; then they abruptly shooed him awayfrom their other victims of uninformed consent.

Dental Hospital said the Claimant should see a doctor instead.

2006 GPDr Daniell made referral to the QE Hospital for amalgam removal “as aprecaution”. She said there were nouseful tests of amalgam toxicity.

QE Hospital said they could not do the removals.

Referral switched to Dental Hospital.

Dental Hospital Consultant Stephen Chambers said a student would dothe removals.

Six months later, on attending the student appointment, the Claimantwas told that the Dental Hospital could not do the removals after all.
Stephen Chambers sent to the Claimant’s GP a secret letter containing threedefamatory falsehoods (that he had concealed his previous registration; hadconcealed that there had been a “lengthy” correspondence; had been dischargedseveral times with insinuation of unworthy reasons).

2008

20^th March: GP Dr PRWTurner of Karis asserted there was no basis for amalgam referral, reciting uponthat secret letter from the Dental Hospital. In reality the letter from Chambers contained no evidence aboutthe mercury question except for accidentally confirming the Claimant’spersistent difficulty remembering to do things which is a characteristicsymptom of amalgam poisoning.

3^rd September: Harley Streetdentist el-Essawy found the Claimant had exceptionally high 460mcg/m³oral mercury vapour (unprovoked, open mouth) and recommended melisa test.

2009 HarleyStreet melisa test positive 3/3 mercury, 3/3 nickel, 3/3 silver.

New GP Dr Peter Gini of Broadway Centresaid the Claimant should see a dentist instead.

NHS Dentist Deborah Morse said the Claimant should see a doctorinstead.

Dr Gini said the Claimant should instead get the dentist to send arequest.

After a lot of chasing, eventually the request was received by GP’sfax.

Dr Gini wrote back saying he did not have anything to say about it.

The Claimant pointed out in a letter to Dentist D Morse that therewere three pre-existing breaches of manufacturer’s directions for use ofamalgam.

After further correspondence the Dentist again dismissed the matter,citing defunct Healthcare Commission.

Dentist’s phone never answered.

19^th October: The Claimanttravelled there himself and the practice manager told him they were notcontracted to do or refer for Advanced Mandatory, so approval from contractsmanager Steve Connelly was required.

Steve Connelly said the dentist must do the referral instead.

Dentist practice manager again said Steve Connelly must do it (asnot normally NHS funded).

Steve Connelly said the Claimant should see a doctor

10^th December: The Claimantasked Dr Verma for a referral to a toxicologist; she said she would have toconfer with Dr Gini.

2010

29^th January: The Claimantwas told that Dr Gini was referring to a toxicologist.

22^nd April: Dr Verma said an(unrequested) referral to Dental Hospital had been declined. And that referring to a toxicologist wouldnot be useful, and it would be better to refer to a psychiatrist.

11^th June: First appt withpsychiatrist Dr Pradhan.

1^stOctober: Dr Pradhan declared that there was nocapability for diagnosing mercury poisoning anywhere within theBirmingham/Solihull MHFT.

So the Claimantimmediately went back to the the GP clinic. GP Dr Zaman phoned toxicologist Mrs Khan who proposed a urine mercurylevel test, which even GP Dr Daniell had ruled out as useless 4 yearsbefore. So the Claimant himself phonedMrs Kahn. She explained that a urinetest was the standard test for occupational recent mercury intake, and that itwould (supposedly) indicate whether there was currently significant mercuryinput from the amalgams. She declinedto discuss it further, proposing instead that the Claimant could discuss itwith his GP.

Arch Environ Health 9, 735-741 (1964)stated:

“Those investigators who have studied the subject are in almostunanimous agreement that there is a poor correlation between the urinaryexcretion ofmercury and the occurrence of demonstrable evidence of poisoning.”

and a joint statement of the NationalInstitute of Dental Health and the American Dental Association stated in 1984that:

“Thedistribution of mercury into the body tissues is highly variable and thereappears to be little correlationbetween levels in urine, blood or hair andtoxic effects.”

And later studies have further confirmed thatconclusion. Even with normal or lowmercury levels in blood, hair and urine, high mercury levels are found incritical organs such as brain and kidney (Danscher et al., 1990; Drasch, 1997;Hahn et al. 1989, 1990, Hargeaves et al., 1988; Lorscheider et al., 1995; Opitzet al., 1996; Vimy et al., 1990; Weiner & Nylander, 1993). Drasch et al. (2001, 2002, 2004) found that64% of individuals occupationally exposed to mercury vapor and having typicalclinical signs of mercury intoxication had low mercury levels in blood. A more recent autopsy study again confirmedthe lack of correlation between inorganic (e.g. dental) mercury levels in urineor blood and mercury levels in brain (Björkman et al. 2007).

9^thNovember: The Claimant took a letter to Dr Gini questioning the pseudoscienceof Mrs Khan’s proposed test.

10^thNovember: Dr Gini wrote back that“….this is a dental problem.…please arrange to see any dentist of yourchoice. Unfortunately we cannot take this any further.”

11^thNovember: The Claimant delivered a reply to Dr Gini, indicating the absurdlyconflicting words and deeds of the various people abovementioned, all inconflict with Dr Gini’s own last letter. Later the same day the Claimant attended an appointment at which DrGini then said that there was a directive from the PCT that prohibited him fromdealing with “dental matters”. Hesaid the Claimant would have to enquire of the PALS of the HOBtPCT aboutthis.

15^thNovember: An email from the PALS stated:

“I can trace nodirective from this PCT regarding the issue that you raise.”

The same day theClaimant enquired by letter of Dr Gini to clarify quite what was the directiveto which he had referred.

22^nd December: A letter (16Dec; PM’d 21 Dec) from Dr Gini’s receptionist which requested the Claimantto make an appointment for a blood test.

23^rd December: The Claimantsent a reply questioning the need or value of a blood test which would also bepseudoscience (as per the quotations above). And also pointing out that he still had not been told what was thedirective from the PCT that Dr Gini reckoned was constraining him.

29^th December: A reply dated29^th Dec from Dr Gini, at last included the supposed directive whichturned out to be from BENPCT, a letter of 30^th Sept 2009 headed “Re:Patients with dental problems that access GP services.”, and which turned out to be manifestlyirrelevant to the Claimant’s case, being concerned only with typical dentalproblems properly investigated primarily by dentists such as painful teeth.

And yet Dr Gini’s letter again repeated the fallacy that theClaimant should instead see a dentist about his “dental and alliedproblems”. His letter concluded with “We.… do not intend to respond to any other communications from you about yourdental amalgams.”

12^th February 2011: The Claimant sent a carefully documentedreport to the PALS of the HOBtPCT requesting proper diagnosis andtreatment action.

23^rd March: The Claimant received a reply from the PALSindicating that the Claimant’s (non-dental) problems had beenreferred exclusively to their dental advisory panel; which is logicallyequivalent to them referring the autopsy of a suspected murder only to thelocal union of murder suspects (whose official view is that no murders haveever been committed and the whole concept of “murder” is just a big scarestory).

At no time in allthis seven year farce did any of these NHS personnel attempt to make anydiagnosis or conduct any tests (except finally the pseudoscience urine andblood tests).

28. The compilationof facts in paragraphs 19-27 points to an outstanding record of misrepresentation among thosepurporting to speak as experts in support of the supposed safety of amalgam.

29. These “experts” NEVER ANSWER the criticisms, or evenacknowledge their existence. BECAUSETHEY HAVE NO ANSWERS.

30. Even the most key advisors anddecisionmakers on publichealth policy have participated in this misrepresentation. So it calls into question whether anytestimony or documentation of purportedexperts in defence of amalgam is worthy to be believed, and whether they haveany case to present that has merit.

Evidence of systemictoxicity of dental amalgam restorations: history and outline

31. Therehave been regular expert condemnations of amalgam up to the present day. In the above-cited 1994 BBC TV Panoramabroadcast “Poison in the Mouth”, the following notable experts expressed theiropposition to the use of amalgam:

Prof. Boyd Haley (University of Kentucky)

Dr. Murray Vimy (University of Calgary), WHOconsultant

Prof. Lars Friberg,the world's leading authority on mercury poisoning and was chief advisor to theWHO on mercury safety

Prof. Fritz Lorscheider (University ofCalgary)

Prof. Vasken Aposhian (University ofArizona)

Dr. David Eggleston (Universityof Southern California)

Dr. Diana Echeverria (Universityof Washington)

Prof. Gustav Drasch (Universityof Munich)

Prof. Stephen Challacombe (Guy'sHospital, London)

The BBC invited the Department ofHealth to respond to the criticisms but they declined to do so.

32. Inthe 1990s Prof. Max Daunderer of the University of Munich published a “handbookof amalgam illness” extending to three large volumes – about this illness whichthe Defendants claim does not even exist.

33. A1995 report for Health Canada, “Assessment of Mercury Exposure and Risks fromDental Amalgam”, stated that the permissible Total Daily intake (TDI) wasexceeded in adults with 4 amalgams.

34. Threemain lines of evidence and reasoning attest to systemic toxicity from amalgamrestorations:

(a) thedirect studies of the health effects of removal of amalgams;

(b) autopsymeasurements (and inferences therefrom) of levels of tissue/intracellularmercury accumulation resulting from amalgams, compared with determinations ofthe threshold levels of tissue/intracellular mercury at which toxic effectsbecome observable;

(c) studiesof the health effects of dental occupational exposure, viewed in the context ofdeterminations of ratio between the levels resulting from occupation and thelevels due to amalgam-bearing.

35. Theselines of evidence have been presented in publicly-available expert reportdocuments such as:

(a) MutterJ, Naumann J, Guethlin C. Comments on the Article “The Toxicology of Mercuryand its Chemical Compounds” by Clarkson and Magos (2006). Crit. Rev.Toxicol. 37:537-549, 2007.

(b) MutterJ. Criticism to the Europaen Commission’s SCENIHR Paper on the Safety of DentalAmalgam.

(c) Mutter J. Is dental amalgam safe forhumans? The opinion of the scientific committee of the European Commission. Journalof Occupational Medicine and Toxicology 6:2, 2011.

(d) MatsHanson. Effects of Amalgam Removal on Health; 25 studies comprising 5821patients.

36. Thefollowing additional publicly-available expert reports provide yet furthertestimony to the toxicity of amalgam :

(a) SwedishDental Materials Commission / Maths Berlin 2002.

(b) MathsBerlin, Mercury in dental-filling materials – an updated risk analysis inenvironmental and medical terms, 2003.

(c) HealthCanada 1995, “Assessment of Mercury Exposure and Risks from Dental Amalgam.” GMark Richardson.

(d) Critiqueon SCENIHR preliminary report. Graeme Munro-Hall (European president ofInternational Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology).

37. The(non-) responses of the Defendants’ purported experts to the lines of evidencelisted in Paragraph 35 have consisted of the following:

(a) pretendingthe direct studies of amalgam removal do not exist (or dismissing them withunsound objections such as placebo effects or lack of controls or lack of“peer-reviewed” publication);

(b) ignoringthe autopsy measurements and instead focusing exclusively on blood and urinelevels despite it being long well-known that such levels are largelyunindicative of the in-cell levels which are what actually matter; therebynon-significant results are obtained which supposedly justify their claims thatthe mercury levels do not reach harmful levels;

(c) pretendingthe more unfavourable occupational evidence does not exist, and pretending thatlevels from normal amalgam bearing must be far below those from occupationalexposure, when in reality they are found quite comparable;

(d) pretendingthat new studies, such as those of DeRouen et al 2006 and Bellinger et al 2006,competently demonstrate a lack of harmfulness;

(e) otherpatently untrue statements and omissions of key facts.

38. Inrespect of the DeRouen and the Bellinger studies in JAMA, the criticisms byJoachim Mutter, Boyd Haley and others are damning enough. And further, even if this Claimant who hassuffered decades of devastating subsequent invalidity had been included in oneor both of those studies, even his case would have been recorded in thesestudies as “evidence of safety” rather than of harm.

Release of a dangerous thing

39. These Defendants were responsible (as shown in Paragraphs9-27) for advice which allowed the release of a dangerous thing, namelysubstantial levels of toxic mercury vapour, in the Claimant’s mouth, therebycausing foreseeable injuries (as per Paragraphs 42-107 below).

40. In a case of release of poison, the burden of proofwas placed on the Defendants to show that the release of the poison was anunavoidable consequence of carrying out their obligations.

41. In the present case, the prolonged (over fourdecades) release of further mercury vapour into the Claimant’s body could havebeen prevented by advising changing to non-amalgam restorations in respect ofpatients starting to show signs of systemic mercury toxicity. So it was not an unavoidable consequence oftheir obligations.

Firstinstallation of the claimant’s amalgams

42. The earliest extant Dental Records show that atleast 19 of the 20 amalgams were already in place by age 24. They also state:“Says didn’t visit dentist for a few years before coming here” (which is hardlysurprising given the catastrophic mental state indicated below here) and“Doesn’t eat sweets”.

43. It is therefore highly improbable that nonewere already in place when his disabilities started at age 17. Indeed the Claimant recalls some fillingsbeing installed in his early teens.

Particulars of Injuries

44. List of ill-effects experienced

(Note: NOpsychotic/schizophrenic symptoms at any time throughout 40 years of severemental disability.)

(a) Extreme deficits of memory and concentration
By age 20 this was so severe that he could not getto the end of a sentence without forgetting its beginning, and so reading,writing and listening became nearly-impossible (and he rarely did much speakinganyway).

(b) Much fatigue, lack of energy(mental/physical) for no evident reason.

(c) Extreme indecision (“procrastination”). What most people can decide in moments maytake weeks for him to decide.

(d) Severe reaction to hair-washing and bath-ing for 30+ years from ~1973 onward. Consequent phobia of washing and obvious consequent severe socialproblems. The fact that he smeltunwashed convinced everyone that he must certainly be an insensitive fool. In 2003 he established that this wassensitivity specifically to hot water storage systems and adopted use of showerand kettles in substitute (as per correspondence with the housing co-operativeabout his problems with the hot water system).

(e) Extreme instability of circadian cycle,such that he was no longer able to get to school on time, and ultimately atbest only able to arrive in the afternoon, and in later 1970s regularly unableto get up before 4pm (in the days when banks and offices closed by 4pm). In 1980 he read a science report in TheTimes which enabled him to invent and construct an effective light-entrainmentsystem which eased this problem substantially thereafter, but still asignificant problem.

(f) Extreme shyness, extreme tendency to blushing, various phobias,including severe agoraphobia/social phobia and phobia of writing (andconsequently failed English Language O‑level twice) and of communicating ingeneral (Obviously much reduced from earlier). The Claimant would stay in his bedroom till no-one was around beforehurrying out; would crouch down to avoid being seen through the window.

(g) Blank mind, like writers’ block appliedto life in general.

(h) Prolonged crash after exertion.

(i) Inability to adapt to abrupt changes of temperature, such that on entering any public building in winter he becomesextremely overheated and sweaty however many clothes he took off. (This symptom has not reduced or beenadequately worked-around.)

(j) Several years of IBS, now managed by regular consumption ofglutamine and avoidance of gluten products (wheat etc).

(k) Constant adrenal deficiency such that he has had to takebottles of salty water with him everywhere for many years.

(l) Muscular weakness to the extent that hecould never do press-ups, pull-ups or squats (until improved in recent yearsfollowing heavily enhanced nutrition).

(m) Exciteable, restless, irritable(zinc/copper ratio keeps this down).

(n) For many years used to get delirious (non-psychotic), used toget hyperactive; both ceased after he started colloidals containinglithium.

(o) Dry skin (recently reduced by coconutoil and humidifying).

(p) Slight jerkiness of fine movements (which he noticed wasincreased by wind-less days; reduced by installing large nose-level ventilationslots).

(q) Eyebrows red with eczema, constant for last 20 years.

(r) Disappearance of outer ends of eyebrows.

(s) Female-pattern hair-loss.

(t) Low temperatures down to 35.2C (r,s,t = three hypothyroidfeatures).

(u) Easily getting confused, silly mistakes.

(v) Persistently unpleasant effect from drinking alcohol
(so lifelong non‑drinker).

(w) Periodontal disease.

(x) Food allergies.

(y) Depression (till 1978).

(z) Excessive salivation, waking up choking several nights a year.

(aa) Migraines (till 1978).

(bb) Hot flushes, extreme sweating. Etc.

(cc) Neuritic pain (like gnat bites).

(dd) Joint pains.

(ee) Clumsiness (hopeless at sports).

(ff) Biting teeth together produces ringing in ear. [now ceased]

(gg) Temporary muffling of hearing for no apparent reason.

(hh) (etc.)

All the above despite substantial spendingon healthcare efforts and entirely avoiding abuses such as drinking, drugs,junk foods or even passive smoking.

45. A report from a medical practitioner detailing the readilyobservable aspects of the Claimant’s current condition is attached (and is alittle inaccurate, e.g.: upper scalpnot anterior).

The severity of theinjuries

46. The nature andseverity of the Claimant’s injuries are reflected in

(a) a starktransformation from superlative academic expectations to total career failure,and

(b) an exceptionallybizarre paradox of his biography.

From easy excellence to total failurein formal education and career

47. Beginning aroundage 17 there began a drastic transformation from easy academic excellence tomultiple severe disablements. With nosubsequent recovery even 40 years later, despiterepeated desperate attempts at making progress in formal education.

48. The graph and data below here show he was still getting high examrankings at term 14 (age 16), following a previous record of regularly highrankings.

49. Grammar School Exams of Term 9 (age 14):
first in Maths, first in Physics, first inChemistry, first in Geography, third in French, fifthin Latin (in a class of 32).
“He achieves this standard with little effort.” (first in physics);
”Not enough effort”(Latin).

O-level results of Term 15: Maths 2, Physics2, Chemistry 2, French 2, Biology 3,Religion 3, History fail, English Language fail,Literature fail.
A-level results of Term 21: Maths C, PhysicsD, Chemistry O (fail).
Next year, Bromsgrove COFE: A-level Music D.
Next year, Bromsgrove COFE: retakes, unable to continue courses.
Year after next, Redditch COFE: O-level English B, A-levelEconomics unable to continue. And twopsychology extramural evening classes.
Next year, Human Psychology at Aston Univ: failed all first yearexams.
Next year, sought readmission.
Five+six years thereafter, Bournville COFE: A-levels Physics B, MathsC, Psychology unable to complete, Computer science unable to complete.
Ten years thereafter, Matthew Boulton COFE: A-levels Biology andSociology, unable to continue beyond three weeks.

50. Persistent correspondence with universities trying to get admissionto undergraduate courses (and re-admission to Aston). He made his final admission attempts in 1996, 24 years after hisfirst.

51. The Claimant hasbeen unable to attain other than excessively mediocre qualifications and neverbeen able to usefully complete courses of formal education or develop any sortof career. And instead has been abenefits dependant for all but a few months of his adult life.

52. Severe mentaldisabilities led to all his attempts being consistently failures, no matter howmuch he tried to succeed.

53. In the decades after leaving schoolthe Claimant tried again and again to make some progress in formal education,or in earning money by one means or another. But all these efforts encountered the same difficulties, and ended inexhaustion and failure.

Exceptionally paradoxical biography

54. The Claimant hashad a number of major scientific papers published (and written numerous othersof equal quality, just never fully prepared for publication due to the abovedisabilities) including:.

1993: A theory ofgeneral impairment of gene-expression manifesting as autism. Person Indiv Diff465-482.

1994: Draft of a theoryof manic-depressive illness. New Ideas Psychol.

1998: Outline of atheory of manic-depressive illness. Med Hyp.

2000: Does longer-termmemory storage never become overloaded, and would such overload manifest asAlzheimer’s and other dementia? Med Hyp.

2011 (currently with ajournal): The causes of autism: A theory further confirmed by four predictions;why dental amalgams caused increasedautism; and why mercury pollution caused the Flynn effect IQ increase.

55. Not a singlefault of reasoning or evidence has ever been found in any of his theories —which is very exceptional.

“Robin P Clarke isone of those rare souls”;”excellent”; “fine work” ‑‑ Bernard Rimland, most famous autismresearcher, founder of Autism Research Institute etc.

“Well worthpublishing” – HJ Eysenck, mostcited-ever scientist.

56. But due to histotal lack of institutional status and qualifications his publications havebeen steadfastly unmentioned by the vast majority of professional researchers,who have a narrow “closed shop” contempt against anyone lacking the examqualifications they consider to be the obligatory exclusive criterion ofintellectual competence.

57. The mentalcapabilities that are obligatory for the narrow concept of intellectualexcellence which totally monopolises the academic and other career selectionsystems—facility in reading, writing, remembering, recalling, and doing thesethings with speed and reliability and endurance and on demand — are exactlythose mental qualities that are most impaired by mercury poisoning.

58. Certain rarevaluable capabilities, of generating significant original ideas, of readilydistinguishing true from false and reality from mere myth, and seeing beyond the false assumptions ofoneself and conventional wisdoms, tend to be little or not at all affected bymercury poisoning. But almost no‑oneever credits these important talents anyway in an individual who is deficientin those other capabilities which are impaired by mercury.

59. The Claimant wasable to get published the great theory papers despite the disabilities becausehis massive patience and conscientiousness was not there casually cast asidemerely for want of speed or facility or fulfilling of deadlines. Editors don’t demand to know whether youwrote it within some maximum permitted number of hours and during daylight.

The Claimant’s persistent, consistentlack of distinction in community groups.

60. Over the decades theClaimant has been regularly involved in a number of voluntary community orcampaigning groups and attended many meetings thereof (listed below). But his extensive archives of minutes showin every case his involvement has been characterised by marginalness, andpaucity of actual contribution, rather than any significant role as would havebeen expected of an academically excelling, initiative-taking, person.
Woodstock Residents Association. Woodstock Area Caretaker. PushBikes (Birmingham cycling campaign). Friends of the Earth. Birminghamfor People. Stop-the-War Coalition. Ladywood Housing Liaison Board. Summerfieldand Ladywood Neighbourhood Management Board. Ladywood Constituency Tenants Group.

The beginning and continuation of thedisabilities

61. Before age 17 theClaimant had not had any significant health or social problems. And he had consistently ranked at or nearthe top in exams, as per Paragraphs 48 and 49 above.

62. From age 17 therebegan a drastic transformation from easy academic excellence to multiple severedisablements. With no subsequentrecovery even 40 years later.

63. School reports of the sixth form state:
Term 17: “Frequently absent.” “Frequent late arrival.” “A rather enigmaticpersonality who does not seem to be putting his heart into the work inwhich he could do so well…”.
Term 18: “Misses too many lessons.” “Misses too many lessons.” “So oftenabsent.” “Frequently late and absent without any satisfactory reason to offer.”"Chemistry practical absent.”“His knowledge of organic chemistry was farfrom complete.”
Term 19: “he has surrendered none for marking. A tragic waste of outstandingability.” “No written work of any description has been submitted thisterm.” “We all know he has some goodqualities. Why does he fail to showthem here?”. “He no longer cooperates with the school in any way …. heattends so seldom anyway.”
Term 20: “Attended for only one of the three papers. in this he scored 37/150.A shocking waste of ability.” “If regular absence continues…”. “Rarelypresent….”. “Contributes absolutely nothing to the lesson.” “He takes no partin school life and very little in lessons.” “His attitude and behaviour perplexes me.”
Term 21: “His attendance has continuedto be erratic.” “attendance has been so irregular…”. “has taken no part”. “Hisenigmatic personality….”.

64. Around the same age, the Claimant developed a sort of phobia ofwriting and talking. He recalls his perplexity at this, on one occasion indesperation telling his mother he could not write, but they were both at a losswhat to do, so he never talked about it again. This longstanding writing phobia was reflected in failing O-levelsEnglish language, English Literature, and History, and then failing EnglishLanguage a second time (despite excellent spelling and grammar). He eventually passed it at age 22, after aconcentrated effort on that minimal single objective.

65. In the sixth form, on tryingto study the chemistry textbook, for all that the subject fascinated him (andhis father was a FRIC and a head of chemistry research who invented a method ofanalysis) he could never get beyond the first page, he just could not rememberit. Contrast Term 12 (Age 16):“Certainly redeems himself when it comes to a test of memory…”.

66. And a problem of disordered waking/sleeping overwhelmed theClaimant, to the extent that he became unable to wake up till the afternoon andunable to get to sleep until breakfast-time.

67. He was intensely embarrassed to be arriving at school in the lateafternoon, and increasingly tended not to go at all. No-one offered him any help with what to do about any of theseproblems. As the preceding excerptsfrom school reports make clear, they were as utterly baffled as himself, and hewas too embarrassed and social-phobic and confused to say anythinghimself. People with mentaldisorder/disability tend to be in denial as do their parents due to the stigma.

68. The year after Alcester Grammar School the Claimant studied A-levelMusic (one year) at Bromsgrove College of FE. The result was a D grade.

69. The next year he re-enrolled at Bromgrove College of FE to retakeMusic and Physics A-levels. But hissymptoms increased again and his attendance became as infrequent as it had beenin the last year at the school. He tookno exams that year.

70. In the period of some years before or after leaving school, theproblems became worse and at some point therein he developed some severeallergic reaction to hair-washing and bath-ing. In consequence he also became very phobic of hair-washing andbath-ing.

71. In an attempt to correct his sleep-wake cycle, the Claimant devisedthe idea of a week of six “days” each about 27 hours long. In due course this did lead to him waking at7am and going to college. But the nextday he woke at 10am, and the six “days” had been such a horrendous experiencethat there was no question of trying any such again.

72. His memory and attention deteriorated to the extent that he couldnot get to the end of a sentence before forgetting its beginning. This made reading, writing, listening andspeaking almost impossible. His secret“thinking-books” (detailed below) indicate his attempts at “practicing” ofconcentrating on listening to the radio, something no normal 20-year old wouldeven think of doing let alone writing down the idea.

73. In an attempt to cope with the severe memory and attention deficits,and try to make progress in understanding and resolving his manifold problems,the Claimant started to write his thinking down in secret thinking-books, touse a process of paper-assisted thinking. The content of these thinking-books was (mainly) not like the organisedrecord-keeping or note-taking of healthy people but rather comparable to thescrap paper a student might use for doing a maths calculation.

74. These secret thinking-books have provided, fortuitously, acomprehensive, direct, and uncontrived record of the symptoms of his illnessesand personal experiences thereof. They contain repeated references to depression,indecision, sleeping disorder, tiredness, allergy, phobias, shyness, socialanxieties, difficulties with concentration/ attention, sense of failure andstriving to solve the mystery of what had happened and how to regain normalfunctioning again.

75. He started writing in the first of his secret thinking-books atabout the demise of his college attendances at age 20, and he continued throughapproximately ten of such notebooks till about age 28. The earliest thinking-books contained veryprimitive, disorganised, unsound ideas as befitted the very naive, veryinexperienced and ignorant young person with prematurely truncated educationaldevelopment.

76. By the time he was writing his lattermost thinking-books, atapproximately age 28, the content had greatly advanced in quality such that inparts it was beginning to form the basis of the documents for publication whichhe started writing at that time. Butthat improvement was not due to mere maturation or passage of time as will beexplained further below.

77. After the collapse of his second year of studying at BromsgroveCOFE, in the summer break he obtained a casual job as an office assistant tothe engineers at Redditch District Council. But by the third week he was becoming increasingly overstressed and hegave notice of resignation.

78. Throughout the following academic year he was neither employed norenrolled in any course. Histhinking-books indicate much preoccupation with trying to get accepted byuniversities.

79. In the academic year after that, he enrolled at Redditch COFE tostudy English Language O-level and Economics A-level. He also attended two extramural (non-examined) evening classes inpsychology at the University of Birmingham. He made an obsessive focus on preparing for the English Language exam,as can be seen in his secret thinking-books. Only in that way did he manage to pass it at last. But his studying of the A‑level Economicscollapsed yet again and he did not attend the exam.

80. Meanwhile he had been given a conditional offer by BirminghamUniversity, and an unconditional offer by Aston University, and lacking inconfidence that he would pass the Economics he accepted the unconditionaloffer.

81. Thus, five years behind time, he managed to start on a course ofHuman Psychology at Aston University, but not due to any improved examinationresults (apart from at last passing English Language). Within weeks the same problems overwhelmedhim and his studying ground to a halt as he became engrossed in trying tounderstand what was happening to him.

82. The most noticeably troubling problems at this time were thesleep/wake problem, the washing allergy/phobia, paralysing indecision, andcrippling social phobias. He alsorecalls an incident in an experimental class: the students all had to do some tedious arithmetic (this being beforethe age of calculators) and it took him much longer to do than the otherstudents, long after all the others had finished, to his great embarrassment asif he was making an exhibition of himself as some sort of idiot.

83. In due course he failed all the first year exams (due touncategorised psychological illness), as is indicated by the letters ofcorrespondence with the university about his appeal against termination andthereafter the possibility of rejoining the course on basis that he wassupposedly not ill anyway.

84. At this time, he developed all sorts of peculiar symptoms, includingmigraines, outbreaks of extreme sweating, hyperactivity, and delirium.

85. A crucial event occurred in the year after the university when theClaimant was a tenant sharing in a house in Moseley, Birmingham. His waking/sleeping problem was still verymuch present, so he was sitting awake in the kitchen late at night. He noticed a book on a shelf, with its titleconcealed by a paper wrapping. Heopened it and found that it was a very detailed compilation of informationabout nutrition (Let’s Eat Right to Keep Fit, by Adelle Davis). He could barely read coherently, and barelyremember any of what he did read, but he was impressed by the thoroughness andrationality of that book, and so he struggled to carefully study it, re-readingsentences many times over due to the memory difficulty, and started to followits recommendations.

86. The great importance of that development is that almost all othervictims of mercury poisoning have not had that crucial information available tothem. The power of that book can beseen in that in the few years before reading it he acquired 19 of the 20amalgams, whereas in the more than three decades since he has needed only onemore (and no lost teeth).

87. That book dated from many years before the present, and did not sayanything about mercury poisoning. Itwas only many years later that nutritionists became commonly familiar with theimportance of selenium, zinc, glutathione, in any role let alone incounteracting mercury. But nevertheless, the information that was fortuitouslyinvaluable in counteracting the mercury. That is because one can discern the different nutritional deficienciesfrom the characteristic symptoms, regardless of what is causing thosedeficiencies. And mercury produces awhole load of nutritional deficiencies, not least as an anti-antioxidant.

88. Due to following this advice some of the commonplace mercurysymptoms became eliminated or reduced to greater or lesser extent. These included depression, obsessions,anxiety, some of the phobias, migraine, periodontal, and the IBS he wasburdened by for several years at a later stage.

89. The next month the Claimant moved to an unfit flat (rising damp, dryrot, rats, mice, seriously improper electrics, and rain flooding in six placesinter alia) and in the subsequent years he continued working on trying toimprove his health and overcome his problems among other things.

90. He spent a lot of time trying to find ways of earning money. Among other things working on trying todevelop inventions. He spent much timeresearching them in the patents libraries. But it is almost impossible to succeed even with a brilliant inventionunless one already has substantial personal energy or resources to do theproduction oneself.

91. Meanwhile, like most mentally disabled people he was very reluctantto think of himself as disabled. Heinstead registered as able and available for work, though this was partlybecause he could find no indication that he could get social security benefitsotherwise (not having any NI contributions record).

92. But then a new policy was introduced, whereby unemployed claimantshad to attend monthly interviews to report their job-seeking attempts. He attended a number of these interviews,and meanwhile attended job application interviews even though they bore noresemblance to any job he wanted to do or would even be capable of actuallydoing.

93. He was somehow transferred toinvalidity benefits instead. He has norecall of how it happened, but guesses that at some point the employers startedcomplaining about a clearly pathological candidate coming to theirinterviews.

94. In 1980 he read the here-attached science report in the Times aboutlight and sleeping, and this enabled him to invent and make the world’s firsteffective light-therapy device. Thissubstantially reduced the sleep/wake problem.

95. However, the improvement of sleeping pattern did not resolve theentire collection of problems. He then identifiedthat some key problems were varieties of neuroses, more specifically phobiasand to a lesser extent obsessions. There was especially the problem that he regularly tended to blush forno reason (in public), and that he had a phobia of getting in such blushingsituations (i.e. just about any public situation). And he found just about any social encounter to betraumatic.

96. He struggled to overcome this social phobia, via a notion that themore one exposed oneself to social situations the less salience any particularsituation would have, a sort of habituation. He entered into correspondence with the Society for BehaviouralPsychotherapy about this. He thinkseventually the combination of his own habituation therapy, combined with hisunderstanding of the anti-neurotic effect of vitamin B6 substantially resolvedthese problems.

97. The next year his curiosity was aroused by a report that high IQ ofparents was associated with autism, and claims of a seeming relationship ofgenius with autism. Therefrom heaccidentally discovered the first of his still-unchallenged theories, thegene-expression theory of autism (and IQ). Only by huge investment of years of time and effort was he able to writeup the theory to publishable form. After nine years the autism theory was accepted for publication by theworld’s most-cited-ever scientist HJ Eysenck (“well worth publishing”), and theworld’s most famous autism researcher Bernard Rimland wrote of it as“excellent” “fine work” and “Robin P Clarke is one of those rare souls”. But the vast majority of professionalscientists are intensely hostile to ideas coming from a person devoid ofinstitutional status or qualifications. Everyone else then assumes that because the “leading” Professor S B-Cavoids ever mentioning it (like those non-mentioning amalgam “experts”), itmust “therefore” be obviously worthless rubbish anyway.

98. He then moved on to publishing some of the other theories.

99. In 1992 the Claimant enrolled yet again to take A-levels, this timeBiology and Sociology at Matthew Boulton COFE. But by the third week he was too exhausted to continue. So he turned back to concentrating on thetheories and hopelessly trying to make a success of the many businessopportunities that are advertised as relatively easy means to earn anincome.

100. In 2003, he at last discovered the(seemingly sole) cause of his several decades of severe reaction towashing/bath-ing. Namely defective hotwater systems without a lid on the tank, such that the tank thus became contaminatedby dust and thereafter organisms. Aspart of dealing with this, following fruitless correspondence with hislandlords, the Claimant installed a shower and bought some kettles.

101. His expectation was that he hadthereby resolved the central cause of his health problems and could now at laststart to make progress in his life. Butinstead he still continued to experience most of the same symptoms asbefore. He was regularly exhausted orotherwise feeling unwell. Just a modestamount of exercise was enough to bring on familiar threatening sensations (ofacute oxidative stress?).

102. After 35 years of illness, he wasstill struggling unsuccessfully for the ordinary health that others find socasually.

103. When the dental hospital proposed toadd yet another amalgam he challenged them to provide evidence of safety. Their reply was unconvincing and they failedto respond to his rejoinder.

104. The NHS would not remove the amalgams,and as a chronic benefits dependant he could not afford the high cost of payingfor it himself. So he continued tobecome more ill from the continuing enforced poisoning.

Present condition

105. Much experience shows that theClaimant’s present symptoms would be much worse or fatal were he not followinga very tedious regime of constant precautions. For instance: carefully ensuring a nose-level draught at all times (evenwhen freezing outside); correct levels of selenium and zinc and the full rangeof essential antioxidants at regular spacing throughout every day;conscientiously avoiding both over-exercising and under-exercising; no junkfood (i.e. what most people consider normal food); preventing the IBS by dailyintake of glutamine and avoidance of all gluten (wheat etc); avoiding thewashing/bath-ing reaction by avoiding all hot-water tank systems; keeping hislife very simple with limited activity to avoid mental overload; trying to keepa bit of floss-tape separating the gold from the adjacent amalgam (which makesa big difference to vapour output). Allthese precautions are born of bitter experience rather than any mere theory orsuperstition.

106. While he is far less mentallydysfunctional than in the 1970s, he continues to have a serious problem of slowmemory, attention, indecision, slowness, sleep/wake, and especially lack ofenergy and endurance, among other things such as inability to adapt normally tochanges of temperature (such that he becomes drenched in sweat while others arenochalantly wearing warm coats). Hebarely copes now whereas in the 1970s he would not have been coping at all (andwasn’t then running his own household, to any standard).

107. A report from a medical practitionerdetailing the readily observable aspects of his current condition is attached.

Causation

108. It is the Claimant’s case on causationthat:

(a) had the Defendants not given defective advice concerning usage ofdental amalgam, which failed to properly reflect the evidence of harm and lackof evidence of safety, the Injuries as particularised in this Claim would nothave occurred;

(b) the defective advice from the Defendants caused NHS personnel toinstall amalgams, in increasing numbers, and with insufficient caution, and tofail to remove them at any stage;

(c) those amalgams then released mercury, during installation and orthereafter, and as vapour and otherwise, such as to enter the Claimant’s bodyand thereby cause chronic injuries characteristic of chronic dental mercurypoisoning.

109. Numerous facts point towards dentalmercury as the cause.

(a) Firstly the predominant and most disabling symptoms are a whole listof some most characteristic features of dental mercury poisoning as reported bymany studies and individuals we can cite in evidence.

(b) The symptoms include some quite peculiar ones notably associatedwith chronic mercury poisoning, such as an unpleasant reaction to alcohol,lengthy crashes starting after stopping exercising, lack of normal temperatureadjustment.

(c) This collection of symptoms developed after amalgam had been placedin teenage years, and have not gone away in 40 years since.

(d) The symptoms extend well beyond any standard psychological ormetabolic syndrome recognised by the DH etc.

(e) In the 1990s he had taken a tablet of alpha-lipoic acid (ALA), whichis considered an exceptionally health-enhancing antioxidant. It made him so ill that he never took a secondtablet. Only many years later he learntthat it is a key chelating agent which gets mercury out of the brain but alsoallows it to flood into the brain. It should not be used until several months after amalgam removal whenout-of-brain levels have fallen sufficiently.

(f) He had improvements in the last few years due to his growingunderstanding of mercury vapour and devising countermeasures thereof. For instance arranging elaborate nose-levelventilation systems, and antidoting with selenomethionine, zinc, mackerel, etc,avoiding everyday chelators, being cautious about excessive exercising.

(g) He had a notable improvement in 1975-6, on getting much outdoor airin those two years of famous drought, to the extent that he was at lastaccepted into a university.

(h) But then in 1976-7 in his small under-ventilated university room(Stafford Tower), the symptoms rapidly became worse again (effectively ceasingattendance by the second term).

(i) The checklist in Andrew Hall Cutler’s book at page 56-9 gave a score of at least 99.9% certainty ofmercury poisoning.

(j) In breach of published Directions For Usage of amalgam, a gold inlayhas for many years been placed such that it contacts with amalgam occlusallyand proximally. This causes a galvanicbattery effect and massively increases mercury output. As AHC’s book says on page 82, “The work hasto be re-done immediately, removing all amalgam from contact with a dissimilarmetal. This is very dangerous…”. The Claimant’s attempts to get NHSpersonnel to do anything about this were persistently unsuccessful, so toameliorate he has tried to keep a piece of floss-tape wedging the gold andamalgam apart. But it falls out and heforgets to reinstate it.

(k) After 40 years of illness in 2009 he at last got two test resultsconfirming a mercury problem. Firstly,the MELISA measurement of abnormal level of immune reactivity which produced3/3 mercury positive results. This testis not some fanciful pseudoscience but rather is well-attested by numerousstudies published by reputable scientists.

(l) The second test result was a findingthat he has extraordinarily high levels of mercury vapour in his mouth, fromwhich it follows that he must have an equally extraordinarily high level ofintake of mercury, and much of it ending up in his brain. With the Jerome mercury vapour analyser hehas been found to have some of the highest oral measurements ever recorded,even with open mouth and no preceding stimulation of the amalgams. On visiting Dr El-Essawy of Harley Street inSeptember 2009 he obtained readings of 460 overall open mouth, and 610near the improper gold-amalgam contact in the upper-left quadrant (despite muchless amalgam there). On re-visiting inNovember 2010 readings about 40% of the previous were obtained, which isexplainable in terms of his having left the floss-tape wedged by the gold sincethe previous day (which he had forgotten about and only remembered when it fellout after he got back to Birmingham).
Please note the readings of others in this 2009 ITV video:
http://tinyurl.com/chiefdental or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMI_em8UPo4
From 5m25s, you can see readings of 9.93, 2.58, and 1.66mcg/m³ just before the CDO is seen stating his expertise about itall being unmeasureable anyway, and immediately thereafter a furthermeasurement of 2.44. Compare theClaimant’s 2009 results of 460 overall open mouth, and 610 nearthe improper gold-amalgam contact in the upper-left quadrant.
Even Lichtenberg’s severely symptomatic patients only had an average of 55mcg (Lichtenberg H, J OrthomolecularMed 11, 87-94, 1997). The followingchart makes this point clear:
[the chart is in the pdf original linked here]

110. In 2010-2011 the Claimant had someweeks of serious regression eventually identified as due to thiols in camembertcheese; then a second regression after switching to reblochon which alsocontains thiols.

111. That mercury affected the Claimantwhen it did not affect others can be understood as follows:

(a) He had a huge number, nineteen, fitted within ahandful of years, and producing the huge vapour intake indicated above.

(b) It only takes a moment of impaired suction toenable the patient to inhale the amalgam dust which then lodges in the lungswhere its very large surface area causes a greatly increased intake of mercuryvapour.

(c) A reiterated principle in the literature isthat a person has a certain amount of initial tolerance of mercury but aftercontinuing intake the capacity for detox/removal becomes impaired and finallyexhausted. Thereafter, a level ofintake that has no noticeable effect on others, in the words of Tuthill (inconcurrence with many others) “makes a mental wreck of its victim”.

(d) Mercury during infancy tends to act as anantiinnatia factor, in lower levels causing increased IQ. It follows that genes reducing mercuryremoval will tend to cause raised IQ. The Claimant had a particularly high IQ (~180, even higher than his fourbrothers), which could very likely have been partly due to one or moremercury-retaining genes. And thosegenes would also cause a genetic vulnerability to mercury poisoning.

(e) There were breaches of Directions For Usage,namely gold in occlusal and proximal contact with amalgam, excessive use, usein a case with immune sensitivity (melisa test).

Any reasonable alternative explanations?

112. No other causal event happened around age 16-17 that couldaccount for this drastic deterioration followed by permanent invalidity. The Claimant had continued living at thesame address as for the previous 13 years, and there was no change of householdor of school. He continued to sharemeals with his parents and four brothers, there were no environmental incidentsin the locality, and no onset of symptoms among the six other family members orhis school colleagues.

113. School reports of the last two yearsindicate a mystery, not present before: “A rather enigmatic personality”; “Whydoes he fail to show them here?”; “His attitude and behaviour perplexes me”;“His enigmatic personality….”.

114. The collection of symptoms does notcorrespond at all well with any recognised syndrome (other than chronic mercuryvapour), such as neurosis, schizophrenia, bipolar, dementia, delirium, autism,stroke, etc. The symptoms extend wellbeyond any purely psychological syndrome.

115. Schizophrenia can begin in late teensbut this has clearly never been schizophrenia. The most schizophrenia-diagnostic symptoms have never been present, atany time in approximately 4 decades of mental disability, and most of thesymptoms are not at all characteristic of schizophrenia.

Limitation/ knowledge

116. This case falls within the scope ofLimitation Act 1980 s.11, by which there is normally a time-limitation of 3years from the “date of knowledge”.

117. The Claimant could not reasonably beexpected to file a claim at a time when he lacked knowledge of clear facts andinstead had only vague, confidently-dismissed suspicions available to him, suchas could not enable a successful claim and would rightly be dismissed asinadequate.

118. In the present case the nearestequivalent of “knowing” these key “facts” would be when the Claimant hasreceived information sufficient to justify confident dissenting views that (a)amalgam toxicity does indeed exist, (b) he himself has been injured by suchamalgam toxicity, and (c) the Defendants’ advice was biased to a non-trivialextent.

119. It was only by 2009 that the Claimantcould with adequate reasonableness form opinions (i) that the Defendants wereunacceptably negligent and (ii) that his own injuries were very much likelycaused by the amalgam and hence by that negligence….and reasonably hope thatthose same facts could persuade a court to the same opinions.

120. Thus the Claim has been filed withinthe designated limitation period.

121. Furthermore, even if there had been anearlier “date of knowledge” in this case, various criteria for discretionaryexclusion indicated in s.33 (1) and s.33(3) would apply.

Particularsof Damages

122. The losses incurred by the Claimantare set out in the Schedule of Losses served with these Particulars of Claim.

123. The Claimant also claims interestpursuant to Section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 on the amount found to be due to the Claimant at suchrate and for such period as the Court thinks fit.

AND the Claimant claims:
(1) Damages.
(2) Interest pursuant toSection 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981, to be assessed.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in theseparticulars of claim are true.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Signed

Robin Philip Clarke

Claimant

Dated