Addendum to Particulars of Claim in Respect of Expert Evidence of Causation

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE (in part)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. HQ11X01668

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

between:-

ROBIN PHILIP CLARKE

Claimant

and

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

/ THE CHIEF DENTAL OFFICER

Defendant

ADDENDUM TO PARTICULARS OF CLAIM IN RESPECT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE OF CAUSATION

The claimant wishes to add the following paragraphs in response to suggestions of possible desirability or presumed necessity of including expert opinion on causation (as is usual in clinical negligence claims).

A. Asserted expertise is the tort itself in this case, and the asserted experts are the Defendants themselves.

1. We need to start by considering what the reason for having expert reports is anyway.

2. A judge understandably does not reckon to have great expertise in all manner of medical specialisms. So the judge delegates some judgement to the specialist expert who is then considered as potentially a useful contributor of evidential input.

3. But the present case is crucially different from the usual clinical negligence cases. In just about every case of clinical negligence the alleged tort is some action carried out contrary to proper expertise. But in this case the tort is the false expertise itself. The pretence of expertise is itself the main issue on trial.

4. So any asserted expertise on causation would hold an entirely different role in this case than in just about any other clinical negligence case or even personal injury in general. Rather than having a role as usefully efficient authoritative evidential input, its role here would be more like one of contentious allegations by a defendant on trial. The Defendants in this case would have you believe that they themselves are the nation’s supreme experts on causation.
   

B. Non-existence of the relevant expertise

5. Furthermore, in this case there is in reality no expert skill or experience to call on anyway. There is not some established school or developed skill of diagnosis of amalgam illness causation. Rather it has to be a simple matter of judgement of how well the facts of the individual patient relate to the facts of the science of amalgam toxicity. And that judgement is far from something requiring much training or experience. It’s a lot less complex than the legal expertise commonly called for in clinical cases.

6. We can here easily demonstrate the shallowness of the Defendant’s own fantasies of there being expertise available in this field. As indicated in the Particulars of Claim (Paragraph 27), the only “expertise” the NHS raised over the past year in response to the Claimant’s own unusually persistent requests for diagnosis and treatment was the following:

a) Dr Pradhan stated there was no capability for diagnosing mercury poisoning anywhere within the Birmingham and Solihull MHFT (now confirmed by a FOI reply from BSMHFT, which further claimed — in psychotically unrealistic defiance of the most basic facts in Para 23 below — that “chronic mercury poisoning is highly unlikely to present in a psychiatric setting”).

b) The NHS toxicologists then proposed a urine test, well-known for many years to be useless pseudoscience (as per Particulars page 12).

c) The NHS toxicologists next proposed a blood test, also well-known for many years to be useless pseudoscience (as per Particulars page 12).

d) The HOBtPCT PALS thereafter referred the Claimant’s own diagnostic evidence ONLY to their Dental advisory panel, consisting of “Senior Commissioning Manager, Dental Nurse Tutor, Finance Manager, Commissioning Manager, Dental Education Tutor, Specialist Registrar in Dental Public Health”, and of which “It is not a requirement for the Panel to hold any specialist knowledge in these fields [of mercury toxicity, neurology, psychiatry, toxicology, allergy, endocrinology, dermatology or immunology diagnosis].” http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dental_mercury_toxicity_and_prev#incoming-173533

7. That is, over the whole last year, the entire resources of the BSMHFT and HOBtPCT have at best been able to deploy only the cheapest of pseudo-expertise which even a non‑expert can expose as what it is. In an accounting case you wouldn’t need an expert in accounting to give an expert opinion that “22 + 33 = 99” is untrue. The Defendants’ nonsenses here are only a moderate amount more intellectually challenging (and in the case of the BSMHFT and Chief Dental Officer’s make-believe science, quite a lot less), and certainly within the capabilities of any High Court Judge to see through.

C. Such expertise would not satisfy the test of being “reasonably required”.

8. CPR 35.1 states that “Expert evidence shall be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings.”.
   
9. In the present case, even if such expert opinion on causation were to somehow exist, it would not be “reasonably required to resolve the proceedings” anyway. That is because it is a simple matter of judging how well the facts of the individual patient relate to the facts of the science of amalgam toxicity. Indeed, as page 54 of the definitive book “Amalgam Illness” by Andrew Hall Cutler states: “With these you can get about as good an idea as any physician would have of whether you are mercury-poisoned”. That is, the world’s top expert on the subject says there is no requirement for an “expert opinion” on causation.
10. The facts can suffice alone for reaching a conclusion.

D. The role of Fact evidence relating to causation

11. In the CPR and associated documents, there appears to be ambiguity about what expert evidence is supposed to be. Sometimes it appears to be considered synonymous with opinion evidence (and specifically from a person with experience rather than mere recall of facts). But elsewhere there is a notion that any such opinion must be accompanied by an extended account of the facts upon which it is based, such as citations to scientific publications.

12. This ambiguity appears to reflect confusion of two distinct concepts within the word “expertise”. On the one hand, just having the maximal knowledge of all the facts of a subject may be taken as a definition of maximal expertise. On the other hand, competence in forming sound opinions (and producing sound results thereby) may be considered the prime characteristic, regardless of less-than-encyclopedic knowledge.

13. In this context, CPR PD16: 4.3 is likewise ambiguous. It refers to “evidence of a medical practitioner” and “a report from a medical practitioner”, but makes no mention of opinion or of causation, let alone opinion about causation, or even “expert reports” or “expert evidence”:

“Where the claimant is relying on the evidence of a medical practitioner the claimant must attach to or serve with his particulars of claim a report from a medical practitioner about the personal injuries which he alleges in his claim.”

14. In the context of all the above, the Claimant is capable of providing the factual basis for an opinion on causation. There is no need to rely on an opinion of the Claimant, because it will be well within the capability of the Court to form its own opinion from the presentation of the facts.

15. Because the Claimant will be acting only as a supplier of challengeable facts, rather than of opinion, any bias of the Claimant will be immaterial. A fact does not become less true for being adduced by an interested party. Were there any bias or other error in the Claimant’s presentation of facts, it could easily be exposed by the far more powerful resources of the Defendants.

16. If the Defendants still claim that relevant experts do exist (even though those experts would have to be claiming to have expertise in diagnosing a disease they claim does not exist anyway) and if the Court permits such purported expert evidence, the Claimant will dismiss their assertions with his own presentation of facts. The Court will then see for themselves the reason why the Defendants’ “experts” never reply to their critics. “Several official reports have shown that two plus two equals three”; “But it doesn’t; see here are two pennies….”; “But we have several official reports by leading qualified experts here which prove that two plus two does equal three”.

The facts which enable a conclusion about causation without need for any expert reports or opinions

Facts which rule out alternative causations.

17. Schizophrenia: The Claimant has never had any characteristic symptoms of schizophrenia/psychosis in four decades of illness. And schizophrenia is anyway not a causation but instead a merely descriptive syndrome of largely mysterious causation but which can include mercury in its causation anyway.

18. Wilson’s disease: According to the Wilson Disease Association
    http://www.wilsonsdisease.org/about-wilsondisease.php
    and Wilson’s Disease Support Group UK
    http://www.wilsonsdisease.org.uk/WDSG-P2.asp
    “Wilson disease affects approximately one in 30,000 people worldwide.”
    “No matter how the disease begins, it is always fatal if it is not diagnosed and treated.”
    And yet this disease has not yet come anywhere near to killing the Claimant in several decades of not being diagnosed or treated.
    And the Claimant has no sign of the Kayser-Fleischer rings depicted at http://www.wilsonsdisease.org/wilson-disease/kayserfleischerrings.php

19. Lead poisoning: The Claimant didn’t develop a habit of sucking or sniffing lead from age 17 onwards. None of his parents or two younger or two older brothers have had any such illness or disability despite sharing a common environment. No-one has ever suggested lead poisoning or found any test results evidence of it from the Claimant.
Due to his father being a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry he was aware from an early age that lead was somehow very dangerous.

20. Other mercury sources: No other plausible source of mercury intoxication that remotely compares with storing several ounces of the hazardous waste product with unreacted element in one’s mouth for several decades 2 inches from one’s brain.

21. There is more on alternative causations in Particulars, Paragraphs 112-115.

Facts which point to dental mercury causation.

22. Firstly, the facts in Particulars Paragraphs 109-111 and associated chart.

23. In respect of Paras 109(a-b), the characteristic symptoms of chronic mercury vapour are documented in innumerable studies and sources and case histories:

a) “References documenting symptoms to mercury exposure” published by the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, www.iaomt.org ; the first seven in their list are all very familiar as major symptoms of the Claimant, namely irritability, anxiety/nervousness, loss of memory, inability to concentrate, lethargy/drowsiness, insomnia, mental depression/ despondency/withdrawal; plus also very familiar, 9: muscle weakness, 11: tremors of hands, legs, eyelids, 12: decline of intellect, 13: loss of self-confidence, 16: bleeding gums, 18: loosening of teeth, etc.

b) Mats Hanson “Effects of Amalgam Removal on Health; 25 studies comprising 5821 patients” lists the main removal findings as “fatigue, anxiety/depression, muscle pains, headache, concentration problems, joint problems, metal taste, mouth symptoms, vertigo/dizziness, gastrointestinal problems, memory disturbances, problems with sight, irritability, sleep disturbances, heart problems, skin problems, allergies, problems with hearing, numbness, infection-prone (bold added here to indicate this Claimant’s most notable symptoms in that list).

c) That metareview by Hanson is more fully discussed in Particulars Para 22 along with three later studies cited there.

d) Extensive further documentation of causation of these same symptoms can be seen in excerpts here appended from www.flcv.com/depress.html and www.flcv.com/amalg6.html.

e) Many other case reports of “~miraculous~” recovery from such chronic symptoms are being pretended away by the medical denialocracy and publishing system. See heshamelessawy channel on youtube for just a start.

f) The classic book “Amalgam Illness” by Andrew Hall Cutler http://www.amazon.com/Amalgam-Illness-Diagnosis-Treatment-Better/dp/0967616808 more fully explains about some of these symptoms, with extended commentary about the extreme indecision (/“procrastination”) and fatigue causing marginal ability to cope with everyday life (page 71-2), despite appearing to be quite healthy and performing passably at testing times (pages 13 and 78), the prolonged crashing after exercise (page 86), the difficulties of impaired temperature regulation (page 27), and the impairment of adrenal and thyroid functioning (multiple pages).

g) The same book states on page 28 that “Victims of chronic mercury poisoning have difficulty metabolising alcohol and often give up drinking it because they do not enjoy it, or feel terrible after a drink or two”, which exactly reflects the Claimant’s experience from teenages onwards.

h) The same book also explains at some length about the deteriorations that can result from thiol-containing (“sulfur”) foods, as relates to the Claimant’s experiences with camembert and reblochon cheeses (Particulars Para 110).
--Sourabie AM, et al. First identification of two potent thiol compounds in ripened cheeses.
--Berger C et al. Production of Sulfur Flavors by Ten Strains of Geotrichum candidum. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 December; 65(12): 5510–5514.
--Bartschi C, Berthier J, Valla G. Inventaire et évolution des flores fongiques de surface du reblochon de Savoie. Lait. 1994;74:105–114.

i) Graeme Munro-Hall “Critique on SCENIHR preliminary report” reviews extensive studies showing that periodontal disease is caused by amalgams.

j) Katsunuma T, Iikura Y, Nagakura T, Saitoh H, Akimoto K, Akasawa A, Kindaichi S (1990). Exercise-induced anaphylaxis: improvement after removal of amalgam in dental caries. Ann Allergy 64:472-475.

Differences between oral mercury vapour and ambient mercury vapour.

24. There is a discrepancy between symptoms associated with amalgam and those associated in previous centuries with ambient mercury vapour such as from mining or hat-making. This is that tremor (and also or instead a fine jerkiness of intended movement, called intention tremor) was a regular main complaint of the earlier reports and yet not very notable in reports of amalgam illness.

25. The Claimant himself noticed that he only experienced this tremor symptom in the months after he moved to his present address, before he had arranged it to have an adequate system of ventilation at breathing-level, and specifically on wind-less days. Ventilation soon stopped this symptom.

26. These observations can be clearly understood in terms of different routes of intake of mercury vapour. Ambient vapour would partly enter in through the skin (just as it exitted through the skin when mercury miners used sauna for detoxing). It would thereby more strongly impact on the nerves nearer the surface which control the eyelids and fingers. By contrast, amalgam, being so close to the brain, and with the mercury known to easily travel the short distance up axons to the pituitary, would impact much more on the brain.

27. Finally, as the Defendants seem to have no clue what real expertise looks like, appended here as examples are the Claimant’s most recent scientific papers.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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

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

Signed

Robin Philip Clarke

Claimant

Dated

Excerpt from http://www.flcv.com/amalg6.html

Bernard Windham compilation of references re amalgam removal cases

[….]

VI. Results of Removal of Amalgam Fillings

[…] There are extensive documented cases (many thousands) where removal of amalgam fillings led to cure or significant improvement of serious health problems such as: [Arrows ( ) indicate symptoms prominent with the Claimant;
lines ( ) indicate other symptoms significant at some time / somewhat]

[click here to see the original pdf for the arrows and lines]

periodontal diseases (tissue inflamation,metal mouth,mouth sores,bone loss,burning mouth,etc.) (8,35,40,46,57,60,62,75,78,82,94,95,100,115,133,192bcf,212,222, 233abcdefgh,271,313,317,321,322,341,376,525,532,538,551,552,572,583),

oral lichen planus/leukaplakia (56,86,87,90,101,168, 313a)

oral keratosis (pre cancer)(87,251,543b),

immune system/ autoimmune problems (8,35,60,62,222,270,271,313,323,322, 342,91,212, 229,291,452, 470, 485,523,532,552),

multiple chemical sensitivities (26,35,60,62,95,222,229,232,233,115,313,342,537,583),

allergies (8,26,35,40,46,62,94,95,97,165,212,222,228,229,233,271,317,322,349, 376,469,525c,532,557,583),

asthma (8,75,97,222,228,271,322,552,556,557),

chronic headaches/migraines (5,8,34,35,47f,62,95,185,212ab,222,229,233abdefgh,271, 317,322, 349,354,115,376,440,453, 523, 525,532,537,538,552,556,583,595),

epilepsy (5,35,309,229,386e,557),

tachycardia and heart problems (8,35,59,94,115,205,212,222 ,232,233bcdg, 271,306, 310,322,525c,554,556,557),

blood conditions (8,212,222,232,233,271,322,523,551,35,95),

Chron’s disease (60,222,229,469,485),

stomach (gastrointestinal) problems (8,35,62,95,212ab,222,228,229, 233bdg,271,317,322, 440,469,525c, 532) ,

lupus (12,35,60,113,222,233,323,537),

dizzyness/vertigo (8,40,95,212,222,229,233bcdgh,271,322,376,453,525c,551,552),

joint pain/arthritis (8,35,62,95,103,212ab,222,229,233abcg,271,313,322,358,386de,469, 523,525c,538,551, 552,556,557,583),

insomnia (35,62,94,212,222,233ag,271,317,322,376,525c,583),

MS (62,94,95,102,163,170,212,222,229,271,291,302,322,369,469,485,34,35c,229, 523,532),

ALS (97,246,423,405,469,470,485,535,35),

Alzheimer’s (62,204,251c,386e,535,35),

Parkinson’s/ muscle tremor (222,248,228a,229,233f, 271,322, 469,557,212,62,94,98,35),

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (8,35,47f,60,62,88,185,212,293,229,222,232,233abcdfgh,271, 313, 317, 322, 323,342, 346, 369,376,386de, 440, 469, 470,523,532,537,538, 551,552, 556,557,595),

nausea (525c),

neuropathy/paresthesia (8,35,62,94,163,212,222,322,556,557),

muscular/jointpain/Fibromyalgia (5,8,35,60,62,185,222,233bcfg,293,317,322,346,369, 440, 469,470,523,527,532,538,552,94),

infertility (9,35,38,229,367),

endometriosis (229,35,38,9),

autism (601)

schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (294,465,34,35),

memory disorders (8,35,94,212,222,322,437,440,453,552,557,595),

depression (62,94,107,163,185,212,222,229,233bcfh,271,294,285e,317,322,376, 386de,437,453, 465,485,523, 525c,532,538,551,556,557,583,595,35,40),

anger (212,233,102,557,35,62),

anxiety & mental confusion (62,94,212,222,229,233abcfgh,271,317,322,440,453,525c, 532,551, 557,583, 35,57),

susceptibility to infections (35,40,62,222,233cd,251,317,322,349,350,469,470,532),

antibiotic resistant infection (251),

cancer (breast,etc./leukemia/oral) (35,38,94,180,228a,469,486,530,543b),

neuropathy/paresthesia (8,35,62,94,163,212,222,322,556,557),

alopecia/hair loss (40,187,271,317,322,349,583),

sinus problems (35,40,47f,94,222,271,322,532,583),

tinnitus (8,35,62,94,222,233cdg,271,322,349,376,525c),

chronic eye conditions: inflamation/ iritis/ astigmatism/myopia /cataracts/macula degeneration/retinitis pigmentosa, color vision loss,etc. (35,222,233abcg,271,322, 440,529),

vision disturbances (8,35,62,212,233abcg,271,322,525c),

eczema and psoriasis (62,168b,212b,233c,322,323,385,342, 375, 408, 459,525c,557),

autoimmune thyroiditis (369,382,91),

skin conditions (8,62,212,222,233bc,322,525c,583),

urinary/prostrate problems (212,222),

hearing loss (102,322,35),

candida (26,35,404,537,etc.),

diabetes (35,369,etc.), etc.

The above over 60,000 cases of cure or significant improvements were not isolated cases of cures; the clinical studies indicated a large majority of most such type cases treated showed significant improvement. Details are available and case histories. For example, one of the clinics (95) replacing amalgams in a large number of patients with chronic conditions had full recovery or significant improvement:

in over 90% of cases for: metallic taste, tender teeth, bad breath, and mouth sores;

in over 80% of cases for: depression, irrational fear, head aches/migraines, irritability, dizziness,insomnia, bleeding gums, throat irritation, nasal congestion or discharge, muscle tremor, and leg cramps;

in over 70% of cases for: bloating or intestinal cramps, skin reactions, sciatic pain, chest pain, poor memory, urinary disorders, fatigue, poor concentration/ADD, watery eyes;

in over 60% of cases for: allergies, constipation, muscle fatigue, cold hands/feet, heart problems.

A Jerome meter was used to measure mercury vapor level in the mouth, and the average was 54.6 micrograms mercury per cubic meter of air, far above the Government health guideline for mercury (217).

Some of the above cases used chemical or natural chelation to reduce accumulated mercury body burden in addition to amalgam replacement. Some clinics using DMPS for chelation reported over 80% with chronic health problems were cured or significantly improved (222,271,359).

Other clinics reported similar success. But the recovery rate of those using dentists with special equipment and training in protecting the patient reported much higher success rates than those with standard training and equipment, 97% versus 37 to 88% (435). [….]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Excerpt from http://www.flcv.com/depress.html

Numerous studies have found long-term chronic low doses of mercury cause neurological, memory, behaviour, sleep, and mood problems (5,72,74,107,109, 290,etc.).

Many studies of patients with major neurological diseases have found evidence amalgam fillings may play a major role in development of conditions such as

depression (94,107,109,212,222,229,233,285c, 294,317,320,322,372,374,453),

schizophrenia (34,35,295,601),

memory problems (70,94,212,222,600),

Occupational exposure to mercury has been documented to cause depression and anxiety (534).

References (of the above depress.html) overleaf….

[full references for the amalg6.html excerpt are available at that webpage]

References for depress.html excerpt

(5) Consensus paper of the WFSBP Task Force on Biological Markers: Biological Markers in Depression, R. Mossner, O. Mikova,, E. Koutsilieri, M. Saoud,AC Ehlisi, N. Mullers, AJ. Fallgatter & P. Riederer, The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 2007; 8(3): 141_174; http://wfsbp-verband.globit.com/fileadmin/pdf/guides/WFSBP Consensus Paper Biological Markers in Depression.pdf

(34) Patrick Störtebecker, Associate Professor of Neurology, Karolinska Institute , Stockholm. Mercury Poisoning from Dental amalgam‑ a hazard to the human brain, Bio-Probe, Inc. ISBN: 0-941011001-1

(35).Huggins HA, Levy,TE, Uniformed Consent: the hidden dangers in dental care, 1999, Hampton Roads Publishing Company Inc; & Hal Huggins, Its All in Your Head, 1997; & Center for Progressive Medicine, 1999, http://www.hugnet.com

(70) D.Echeverria et al, "Behavioral Effects of Low Level Exposure to Hg vapor Among Dentists", Neurotoxicology & Teratology; 17(2):161-168(1995);

(72) D.L.Smith,"Mental effects of mercury poisoning", South Med J 71:904-5,1978.

(74) A.C.Bittner et al, “Behavior effects of low level mercury exposure among dental professionals”, Neurotoxicology & Teratology, 1998, 20(4):429-39.

(94) F.Berglund, Case reports spanning 150 years on the adverse effects of dental amalgam, Bio-Probe, Inc.,Orlando, Fl,1995;ISBN 0-9410011-14-3 (245 cured)

(107) R.L.Siblerud et al, Psychometric evidence that mercury from dental fillings may be a factor in depression,anger,and anxiety", Psychol Rep, v74,n1,1994 ; & Amer. J. Of Psychotherapy, 1989; 58:575-87; & Poisoning and Toxicology compendium, Leikin & Palouchek, Lexi-Comp,1998, p705.

(109) Y.X. Liang et al,"Psychological effects of low exposure to mercury vapor", Environmental Med Research, 60(2): 320-327, 1993; & T.Kampe et al, "Personality traits of adolescents with intact and repaired dentitions",Acta Odont Scand,44:95-,1986; & R.Kishi et al, 1994, Residual neurobehavioral effects of chronic exposure to mercury vapor”, Occupat Envir Med., 1:35-41.

(212) Ziff, M.F., “Documented clinical side effects to dental amalgams”, ADV Dent. Res.,1992; 1(6):131-134; & Ziff, S.,Dentistry without Mercury, 8th Edition, 1996, Bio-Probe, Inc.,ISBN 0-941011-04-6; & Dental MercuryDetox, Bio-Probe, Inc. www.bioprobe.com. (cases:FDA Patient Adverse Reaction Reports-762, Dr.M.Hanson-Swedish patients-519,Dr. H. Lichtenberg-100 Danish patients,Dr. P.Larose- 80 Canadian patients, Dr. R.Siblerud, 86 Colorado patients, Dr. A.V.Zamm, 22 patients).

(222) M. Daunderer, “Improvement of Nerve and Immunological Damages after Amalgam Removal”, Amer. J. Of Probiotic Dentistry and Medicine, Jan 1991

(229) M.Davis,editor, Defense Against Mystery Syndromes”, Chek Printing Co., March, 1994 (case histories documented)

(233) Sven Langworth et al,”Amalgamnews and Amalgamkadefonden, 1997 and Svenska Dogbladet,1997 (286 cases); & F. Berglund, Bjerner/Helm, Klock, Ripa, Lindforss, Mornstad, Ostlin), “Improved Health after Removal of dental amalgam fillings”, Swedish Assocn. of Dental Mercury Patients, 1998. (www.tf.nu) (over 1000 cases) (Sweden has decided to phase out amalgam fillings & Gov’t maintains health records on all citizens)

(285)(c) Effects of low exposure to inorganic mercury on psychological performance. Br J Ind Med. 1990 Feb;47(2):105-9. Soleo L, Urbano ML, Petrera V, Ambrosi L. & (e) M.S.Hua et al, “Chronic elemental mercury intoxication”, Brain Inj, 1996, 10(5):377-84; & (f) Gunther W, et al, Repeated neurobehavioral investigations in workers, Neurotoxicology 1996; 17(3-4):605-14;

(290) D. Echeverria et al, Neurobehavioral effects from exposure to dental amalgam” FASEB J, Aug 1998, 12(11):971-980.

(294) “Do amalgam fillings influence manic depression?”, Journal of Orthomol.. Medicine, 1998, www.depression.com/news/news_981116.htm

(295) Cecil Textbook of Medicine, 20th Ed., Bennett & Plum, W.B. Saunders and Company, Philadelphia, 1996, p 69; & Comprehensive Psychiatry, Vol 18(6), 1977, pp595-598, & poisoning & Toxicology Compendium, Leikin and Palouchek, Lexi-Comp., Cleveland, 1998.

(317) S.Zinecker, “Amalgam: Quecksilberdamfe bis ins Gehirn”, der Kassenarzt, 1992, 32(4):23; “Praxiproblem Amalgam”, Der Allgermeinarzt, 1995,17(11):1215-1221.(1800 patients)

(320) U.F.Malt et al, “Physical and mental problems attributed to dental amalgam fillings”, Psychosomatic medicine, 1997, 59:32-41. (99 cured)

(322) P.Engel, “Beobachtungen uber die gesundheit vor und nach amalgamentfernug”,Separatdruck aus Schweiz. Monatsschr Zahnm. 1998, vol 108(8).(75 cases amalgam removal) http://soho.globalpoint.ch/paul‑engel

(372) Atchison WD. Effects of neurotoxicants on synaptic transmission. Neurotoxicol Teratol 1998, 10(5):393-416; & Sidransky H, Verney E, Influence of lead acetate and selected metal salts on tryptophan binding to rat hepatic nuclei. Toxicol Pathol 1999, 27(4):441-7; & Shukla GS, Chandra SV, Effect of interaction of Mn2+withZn2+, Hg2+, and Cd2+ on some neurochemicals in rats. Toxicol Lett 1982, 10(2-3):163-8; &Brouwer M et al, Functional changes induced by heavy metal ions. Biochemistry, 1982, 21(20): 2529-38.

(374) Benkelfat C et al, Mood lowering effect of tryptophan depletion. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 1994, 51(9): 687-97; & Young SN et al, Tryptophan depletion causes a rapid lowering of mood in normal males. Psychopharmacology, 1985, 87(2):173-77; & Smith KA et al, Relapse of depression after depletion of tryptophan, Lancet 1997, 349(9056):915-19; & Delgado PL et al, Serotonin function, depletion of plasma tryptophan, and the mechanism of antidepressant action. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1990, 47(5):411-18.

(453) Blumer W, "Mercury toxicity and dental amalgam fillings", Journal of Advancement in Medicine, v.11, n.3, Fall 1998, p.219

(534) Tirado V, Garcia MA, Franco A., Pneuropsychological disorders after occupational exposure to mercury vapors, Rev Neurol 2000 Oct 16-31;31(8):712-6; & Powell TJ. Chronic neurobehavioural effects of mercury poisoning on a group of chemical workers. Brain Inj 2000 Sep;14(9):797-814

(600) B.Windham, Health Effects of Mercury/Amalgam and Results after Replacement of Amalgam Fillings. (contains over 3000 medical study references and approx. 60,000 cases of amalgam replacement documenting recovery from 40 chronic health conditions, as documented by the treating doctor or dentist). www.flcv.com/amalg6.html

Addendum re Date of Birth

­ CLINICALNEGLIGENCE (in part)

IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUSTICE CLAIM NO. HQ11X01668

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

between:-

ROBIN PHILIP CLARKE

Claimant

and

THE DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH

/ THE CHIEF DENTALOFFICER

Defendant

ADDENDUM TO PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
IN RESPECT OF DATE OF BIRTH

The Claimant adds the following inresponse to the Defendant’s objection that the Claimant’s date of birth was notstated in the Particulars, in breach of PD 16 4.1.

Compliancewith the spirit of this PD

1. A famous person, whose name is familiarto many, has been reported to have expressed the notion that “The Sabbath Rulewas made for mankind, not mankind for the Sabbath Rule”. And could it be otherwise?

2. The “age” of the Claimant can be mostfairly stated as that he has not yet finished studying for his A-levels.

3. The Claimant has had the best severaldecades of his life involuntarily stolen from him by this matter. He has near to absolutely nothing in commonwith those who are “the same age as” himself. The preoccupation of many with crude stereotypical assumptions about aperson’s “age”, and supposedly self-evidently corresponding abundance of pastyears of opportunity, are outstandingly offensive to him. It is obnoxious enough that he has had allthose best years stolen from him, without additionally having the matter of hissupposed “age” needlessly rubbed in his nose. And it is obvious that wherever a statement of “date of birth” goes, animplicit statement of “age” goes relentlessly with it.

4. A high proportion of people casuallyabuse their gift of youth, by indulgences in harmful habits such as smoking,drinking, junk foods, excessive sunlight, and lack of exercising. By contrast the Claimant has always strivento avoid these harms and instead conscientiously attended to healthful habitssuch as careful nutrition and avoidance of harms (except, long unknowingly,ironically, dental mercury).

5. The only proper real or potentialrelevance of the Claimant’s “date of birth” within the Particulars documentwould be for determining the following:

a) theClaimant’s identity;

b) the ageat which an injury started;

c) therelative ages at which any alleged causal factors were operative;

d) theapproximate duration of the injury.

Andall of these determinations are already effectively fulfilled by other moreefficient means in the Particulars, making an inclusion of a date of birthsuperfluous.

Impossibility of compliance with this PD

6. In anycase, the Claimant does not know his date of birth anyway. He wasn’t keeping a diary at the time of hisbirth and has never seen a birth certificate of himself. Given some tendency of parents tomisrepresent their childrens’ provenances and ages he prefers to keep an openmind and to not pretend to know something he doesn’t. And one would hope that justice in the UK is not needlesslyconfined to only those who are confident they know their date of birth.

Compliance with the letter of this PD

7. Meanwhile,in case there could be some obscure problem with the principles indicated inthe preceding paragraphs, the continuation of this Paragraph 7 does in any caseinclude the date most commonly asserted as being the Claimant’s date ofbirth. And thereby is fully fulfilledthe letter of the PD 16 4.1(1) specification that the Particulars “must includethe Claimant’s date of birth”.

##/##/1950;##/##/1951; ##/##/1952; (etc redacted)##/##/1979.

STATEMENTOF TRUTH

I believe thatthe facts stated in this Addendum are true.

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

Signed,

Robin PhilipClarke

Claimant, Dated

Defendants' Application (See pdf instead)

I haven't yet found a way to convert this document of the defendants from the original pdf file, but you can find that pdf by clicking here.

Application to Dismiss Application

­ CLINICALNEGLIGENCE (in part)

IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUSTICE CLAIM NO. HQ11X01668

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

between:-

ROBIN PHILIP CLARKE

Claimant

and

THE DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH

/ THE CHIEF DENTALOFFICER

Defendant

APPLICATION TO DISMISS APPLICATION

Introduction

1. The Defendants’ Application for summary judgment or to strikeout the Claim should be dismissed without a hearing (i.e., at most only theirwritten rebuttals hereto), because it can be shown to be clearly an abuse ofthe Court and of the proper purpose of summary judgment or strike-out.

2. The proper purpose of strike-out and summary judgment is toact as a sort of filter and reduce inefficiency, in respect of statements ofcase (or parts thereof) of which the inadequacy can be shown both clearly andquickly. Thereby can be properlyavoided much further work on such cases.

3. A defendant may misuse the strike-out procedure, in the hopeof avoiding the matter coming to a proper trial, and in the hope of generatingconfusion and prejudicing the outcome by “turning the tables” on the claimantsuch that the claimant becomes treated as the defendant of his claim ratherthan given the proper opening presentation of the claim that the normal processrightly grants.

4. The application by the Defendants falls firmly into thelatter, abusive category. If there wereso much as a single clear fatal defect of the Claim, they could just state itand rest their case thereupon. Butinstead they only put forth a barrage of consistently misleading assertionswhich confusingly turn just about all the issues of the case on theirhead. It will be shown here that alleleven supposed faults of the Claim are entirely specious, 100%false.

The notion of a “reasonable body of expert opinion”that amalgam is harmless

5. Consider for instance, their opening premise, their Paragraph4(1) notion that “use of dental amalgam incontrovertibly accords with the viewsof a reasonable body of …. opinion”. That surely decisively demolishes the Claim, given their four pages ofimpressively-authoritative citations and the thick wadge of exhibits theyattach?

6. Nearlytwo pages of the Defendants’ Application are taken up with paragraph 9, inwhich they boast about how their “experts” are supported by that long quotationfrom a WHO 2009 report. And yet theseDefendants, despite having the great resources of the DH at their disposal,fail to mention that that WHO 2009 report was retracted five months earlier bythe WHO themselves due to being a fraudulent propaganda concoction (as indicatedby Exhibits RPC1, RPC2, RPC3, and conspicuous absence from the WHO’s ownwebsite). The Defendants are nowroutinely quoting that fraudulent report at their victims.

7. Theirparagraph 8 contains a similar long quotation from FDA 2009 as being supposedlybetter experts than the Claimants’ own experts. And yet they fail to mention the ongoing massive legal challengesto that FDA 2009, and nor do they mention the serious corruption surrounding it(Exhibit RPC4). While in charge ofpreparing FDA 2009, Commissioner Hamburg was improperly holding $200,000 Scheinamalgam stock options. She says sherecused herself from involvement but has refused to say quite when. She passedit on to her FDA successor Scharfstein who is currently hopelessly attemptingto defend his improper suspension of a famous mercury researcher in the MarkGeier v Maryland Board of Physicians case. Such are the Defendants’ “respectable” “experts”. A serious flaw of FDA 2009 was also pointedout in Particulars 23(g).

8. Then their paragraph7 contains yet another of these boasting quotations, this time from SCENIHR2008. And yet they make no mention ofthe damning critiques which were cited in the Particulars of Claimthemselves (Paras 23(a), 35(b), 35(c), plus I was going to add more inevidence stage). And of course theymake not the slightest rebuttal of those critiques either, because, as said inParticulars Para 29:

“These “experts” neveranswer the criticisms, or even acknowledge their existence. Because they haveno answers.”

A 2011 article in the Journal of Occupational Medicineand Toxicology (Exhibit RPC5) unpicks the pervasive falseness of theSCENIHR report, and in a concluding section headed “The role of organiseddentistry in SCENIHR and in defending amalgam” notes that:

“The SCENIHR amalgam expert group consistedof one engineer (chairman), four dentists, a toxicologist, and twovetinarians. The chairman had tightcontacts to the industry. No expertsfor medicine or environmental medicine were included. One must wonder why it was the dentists who represented thestrongest party in SCENIHR. Due totheir education and clinical experience, dentists are not able to judge medicalsystemic side effects caused by dental amalgam….”

And the critique by MatsHanson (RPC6) states that the SCENIHR is:

“….moredistinguishing for what it has left out than for what it contains. … We cannotfind any reference to…. Likewise wefind no information on…. Not so forother health effects….. We must assumethe omission is deliberate…. We canfind no discussion on…. This“greenwashing” report will not be accepted in Scandinavian countries where theawareness of amalgam toxicity is widespread and the report is more akin to the“science” produced by the tobacco industry.”

And numerous otherequally damning critiques of SCENIHR’s “expert” report are publicly availableto read, but again, never mentioned by the Defendants (or by the SCENIHRthemselves).

9. Notsatisfied with the above three-card trick, the Defendants add to it (inParagraph 10) yet another of these trade propaganda scripts, the WHO/FDI 1997statement, the untruthfulness of which was already shown in Particulars Para23(d), but of course they make no mention of that either.

10. You can thus see thatthe greater part of the Defendants’ Application is taken up with that parade ofmisleading misinformation, well-designed to mislead a reader that they reallydo have all that sound respectable expertise on their side, when in realitytheir very Application itself proves to be an outstanding accidental WitnessStatement illustrating the exact counter-point: that their “experts” are indeed in realityfalsifying charlatans who only present one side of the case and pretend theother side does not exist
—which was exactly the tortious conduct being alleged in this Claim.

So why should we believe anything else that’s written above the Defendants’“Statement of Truth”? And why, if thereis any genuine expertise defending amalgam usage, do they instead soconsistently only call up pseudo-expertise, again and again, in their support?

~~~~~~~~~~

11. It will next be shownthat the entire remaining content of the Defendants’ Application is equallymisleading and meritless, indeed outrageous.

Alleged deficiency in respect of evidence of causation

12. The assertions in theDefendants’ Paragraph 11 about a supposed deficiency of expert evidence oncausation were already addressed in the Addendum re Experts, to which they havehere made no reference let alone rebuttal – because, again, they have noanswers. And the point that “there areno experts” is now even more laid bare, thanks to the Defendants’self-incriminating paragraphs 7, 8, 9, and 10, exposed hereabove.

Yet more pseudo-expertise on causation

13. Their Paragraph 11further asserts that KH7 (RPC7 herewith) constitutes useful expertcounter-evidence on causation. And yetthatletter from Dr Whittington was written on the basis of merely two meetings tochat with me, 34 years ago. Dr W. was aGeneral Practitioner with no expertise in psychiatry or toxicology, did notrule out mercury, and no tests were done. He merely suggested that commonplace Freudian speculation that “Thesewould seem to relate to his upbringing.”, which is nowadays considered verydated and non-scientific in scientific circles.

Alleged lack of historical opinion against amalgam usage,and of duty of care

14. The next supposedlydamning fault is raised in Paragraph 4(2), that “The Claimant does not plead oridentify any reasonable body of scientific / medical / dental opinion which suggestedthat at that time [40 years ago] that the use of dental amalgam was clinicallyinappropriate.”

15. On the contrary,Particulars Paragraphs 17 and 18 gave citations on exactly that point, andindicated the existence of more: “Numerous studies and reports exist, forexample:… Numerous examplesinclude:…” Substantial cuts were madeto the Particulars here, due to complaints that it was far too lengthy. Andthis case has not even got to the evidence stage yet.

16. In the context of themany regular intense condemnations of the use of amalgam, and testimony to itscausing classic mercury vapour disabilities, in the 1960s the duty of careburden of proof lay on the Defendants to show safety. But instead they sided with the amalgam trade lobby andtheir concealment of the truth, exactlyas is now exposed in their latest disgraceful document that is the Defendants’Application.

17. For approximately fortyyears the Claimant was incapacitated by the classic mercury poisoningsyndrome repeatedly described by these earlier sources, and yet in all thattime the Defendants did nothing about it except mislead yet more victims withcomplete lack of informed consent and with absolute denial that there was anypossibility of even the slightest causation by amalgam (as per nauseatinglylengthy Particulars Para 27).

Alleged lack of pertinent advice from the Defendants

18. Paragraph 6 states “I amunable to identify …. any asserted advice given by the Defendants at the time…. over 40 years ago.” Exhibit RPC8herewith shows advice being given by the Chief Dental Officer in 1998. Its second sentence, “COT last consideredthe safety of dental amalgam in 1986…” makes clear that a previous such adviceoperation took place in 1986 and there was at least one previous to that. Subsequent to the Emergency Medical Servicefounded in 1939, the NHS was founded in 1948. It is unreasonable to expect the Claimant to locate some advice documentfrom the mid-1960s when the advice or negligent absence thereof obviouslyexisted anyway. They wouldn’t haveadvised for instance use of leeches or head-hammering therapy in the theNHS. But they did advise (or notcaution against) storage of large lumps of a notorious neurotoxin in mouths twoinches from brains, because a profitable trade lobby pressed them to.

19. RPC8 shows that theDefendants were giving such false advice more than 25 years ago and therebyhave for many years prevented the due diagnosis and treatment of the Claimant’sclassic mercury poisoning syndrome. And it is too improbable to deny that already inthe 1960s the same advice existed in fact or implicitly in omission(suppressing valid risk warnings), and thus was also causal to the initialinstallation of nineteen amalgams in the teenage Claimant at that time.

Alleged public law immunity and hence lack of duty of care

20. Paragraph 6 continues byasserting public law immunity, and concluding with the assertion that theproper defendants would be the dentists involved. But dentists are not toxicologists and do not pretend to be. Just as a High Court Judge is not soarrogant as to pretend to be a medical expert, likewise dentists reasonablygive trust to the advice so confidently pressed on them by the Defendants indocuments such as RPC8. The dentistscould not reasonably be considered negligent in doing so, and indeed the blameproperly lies with the authors of the defective advice, so a judgment against adentist would be both unjust and unavailable. Redress accordingly can only be against the authors of the negligence,namely the extant Defendants.

21. Paragraph 6 furthermisleads with the assertion that “The expression of views by the Government andChief Medical Officer are obviously public acts which cannot give rise to aprivate law duty.” Exhibit RPC8 explicitlyshows “advice”, medical clinical practice advice, being given not to thegeneral public but specifically to an audience of “General DentalPractitioners” and “General Medical Practitioners”. It is thus obvious that RPC8 is medical advice from officersacting as higher-level advisory consultants in the medical system. “Free from risk” is a statement of medicaladvice. A statement of public policywould consist instead of for instance “Amalgam is hereby permitted for use inall patients’ teeth”.

22. And in line with thisthe Defendants’ website repeatedly states that the role of the CDO is toadvise, or to give advice, as an advisor.

23. Compared to thespin-doctoring characterisation as “expression of views by the Government andits Chief Medical Officer”, a greatly more reasonable characterisation is asfollows. NHS junior doctors and theirassistants are liable for negligent clinical practice. There is thereupon a heirarchy of moresenior medics and consultants who may provide advice to the preceding. They are all liable for any negligentclinical advice. They risk losing theirjobs for it.
This goes up the scale until it reaches the top ranks who give top-level adviceon what the lower practitioners should be doing clinically. These top-level personnel, such as the ChiefDental Officer and the MRHA, are thus performing exactly the same function ofclinical advice as are the lower clinical consultants, hence with the same dutyof care to the patients to whom their advice is applied. And yet the Defendants would have us understandthat a peculiar immunity from blame for negligence suddenly arises in respectof just those top levels; and that a peculiar inaccessibility of justicesuddenly arises at that same point, in peculiarly sharp distinction from thewell-developed system of compensation for all other acts of NHS (and hence DH)negligence.

24. Even though the clinicaladvice from the CDO is at a nationwide level, there arises none of theconsiderations which elsewhere might justify public law immunity. Notably, the Defendants have not put forthany actual such consideration. It isnot a matter of competing demands on resources, or of valid politicalchoice. It is a matter of choosing toendanger the health of un‑informed victims by practicing false medicine forprofiteering purposes, and then systematically pretending it has not happenedand persistently preventing due treatment. And a recent public commentary by BirminghamLaw Society stated the important consideration that:

”Clinicalnegligence litigation has acted as a major incentive and source of learning topromote better patient safety. If people cannot challenge the standard of carethey receive there is a risk that the NHS will become complacent and fail tolearn lessons or seek to improve.”

25. It is not even that the Defendantsshould have banned amalgam outright, but only that they should not havepromulgated such a regime of falsehood about it, enduringly preventing anyrestorative treatment of those who were injured by it. And now seeking to prevent even any fundingfor the treatment they callously deny, in their perverted concept of justice.

26. It is not even as if theClaimant is here seeking to have Dr Cockroft personally dragged before a juryand then sacked and bankrupted for injuring the Claimant and others (thoughmany would).

Allegation of 2004 or 2007 “date of knowledge”

27.The Paragraph 12 allegation of being time-barred is equallyfalse.

28.Contrary to their yet further false assertions, theDefendants’ exhibits KH8 and KH9 (here RPC9 and RPC10) show no knowledgewhatsoever, neither of causation nor, equally critically, of negligenceof DH advice, let alone any suggestion of possible legal action or even who adefendant might be.

29. Asserting something is absolutely different fromknowing it. Thousands of peopleadamantly assert that three of the World Trade Center towers weredemolished by secretly-planted bombs and then fell at free-fall speed intotheir own footprints. Yet theycertainly don’t know any of this, and their “knowledge” would rightly bedismissed by every court in the world.

30.The Claimant did assert his “confidence” that the amalgam wascausal, but only by way of a desperate attempt to persuade them to providereasonable precautionary treatment for his terrible illness. He had not at that time managed to findanything even remotely like real compelling scientific evidence to provecausation (indeed none of that now raised in the Particulars, let alone theAddendum), and so there would have been not the slightest prospect of filing awinnable claim on the basis of his mere assertions and gross lack of knowledgeat that time, especially in the face of a daunting parade of official"experts" deceiving everyone with absolute assertions that there wasnot the slightest evidence of harm (as per above).

31.The email KH8 / RPC9 was concerned with the lack of evidenceof safety, which is quite distinct from any possible positive evidence ofharm. No knowledge of evidence ofcausation of the injuries is indicated in it. The only content relating to any positive harmfulness is the quotationsfrom the Swedish 2003 report, and yet the most that that report contains isthose mere assertions that “amalgam must be considered an unsuitablematerial”, and “amalgam should be eliminated in dental care”. No supporting scientific references orargument were contained in that 2003 report by which a claimant could defendthose assertions against the weight of seemingly much more authoritativecounter-assertions such as those paraded in this very Defendants’ Application. Let alone establish causality of theClaimant’s particular symptoms, of which nothing was even asserted inthat 2003 report. It was preciselybecause of the inadequacy of that report that the Claimant was several yearsafterwards still trying to find actual scientific evidence that could converthis fears into genuine confident knowledge of what was causing hisdisabilities.

32.The letter KH9 / RPC10 was primarily about the Claimant’supdate review of his autism theory (i.e. the paper it mentioned as being there-attached),which had nothing whatsoever to do with the Claimant’s illness as he has neverhad (nor claimed to have) any autism-type condition, which would not begin atage 17 anyway.

33.That letter did contain a desperate appeal for treatment ofhis terrible illness. If he had had anysignificant evidence of causation to call upon, he would surely have includedit there. He did not, and we cantherefore infer that he indeed did not have any such knowledge. KH9 / RPC10 is therefore evidence of theexact contrary of what the Defendants assert. And exactly likewise the request for precautionary treatment in emailKH8/ RPC9.

34.Furthermore, the “date ofknowledge” also cannot precede “date of knowledge” of the causal negligence ofadvice by the Defendants, which did not become apparent to the Claimant untilseveral years later still. Andfurtherfurthermore, a case in the US Federal Appeals Court (exhibit RPC11)recently ruled that date of knowledge can only begin once the “medicalcommunity at large” recognises a link, in which case has it even occurred yet?

35.The whole concept of “date of knowledge” is flawed in the context of acase such as this where there is in reality only a suspicion, a theory, insupport of which bits of evidencegradually accumulate, with no decisive date such as when a patient discovers anobject has been left in his chest. The“date of knowledge” concept originated with that very different sort of case inmind.

Allegation that there are no good reasons fordisapplying a time-limit

36.This section is superflous in view of the preceding one, butwill still be included here so as to show the 100% completeness of thevacuousness of the Defendants’ Application.

37.Their Paragraph 12 asserts that “there can be no good reasonsfor dis-applying the time limit in this case”. But yet again this is falsehood.

38.Supposedly the fact that the Claimant’s disabilities havespanned about four decades, and the Claimant has been increasingly desperatelyappealing for treatment for seven years, raises an “obvious prejudice caused bythis additional delay in issuing proceedings”. Really? Would not an “obvious”fairer view be that in the context of those greater time-spans of inexcusableinaction by the Defendants themselves, anyone demanding a mere three-year limitationperiod would be positively mean-minded? Most victims of the same experiences as this claimant would have toppedthemselves long ago. Relevant toLimitation Act 1980 s.33(3)(b) and (d).

39.This unreasonableness is all the more so, given that as per LimitationAct 1980 s.33(3)(c) the Defendants have been very far from assisting withenabling of any of the “knowledge” in question.

40.And even more so, given that the Claimant (/initiatinglitigant) has been during much of the last few years severely mentallyincapacitated to near non-functionality by the very same Defendants’fault. Indeed for much of the timemight reasonably be considered to have had a status of legal incapacity, suchwas his mental paralysis (as per Particulars Para 44(c)). Even this present document has taken himmany days of struggle even now, when his obsessive countermeasures have broughtconsiderable alleviation.

41.In this connection, please note (i) the 1926 testimony ofProf. Alfred Stock about the mental paralysis he experienced in his own dentalmercury poisoning and subsequent recovery, which can easily be found on theinternet by searching for Alfred Stock Birgit Calhoun; and (ii) the quotationsbelow from pages 71-2 of Amalgam Illness by Andrew Hall Cutler (ExhibitRPC12) (which facts would in principle, if the whole of this section were notsuperfluous anyway, have major relevance to the considerations of LimitationAct 1980 s.33(3)(a)).

But firstly note that this Claimant unlike Prof Stock etal. has had to singlehandedly attempt to manage his household in poverty atthe same time as endlessly trying to persuade the Defendants to providetreatment and meanwhile trying to keep himself (a bit) sane.

“Mercury poisoned people also do not have as manyhours in the day that they are able to concentrate, pay attention and be activeas other people do. Thus a few minutesof unnecessary work on their healthcare is a greater burden on them than it ison other patients.” “Procrastination[or rather this Claimant would describe it as “indecision”] is a symptom ofmercury poisoning. You will do it alot. Learn all of the ways you can todefeat it [in my experience none] and use them. Have your friends and family help with this too [some chance].”[p.72:] “How to keep your life together during treatment: There will be a long period of time duringwhich you just won’t be able to get as much done as you would like. You are probably already behind in life becauseof this. Focus on catching up andkeeping up! Don’t take any new thingson! Do essential things and ignore therest!” “For practical purposes youdon’t have as much time in the day as other people. So don’t take stuff on that “just takes a minute”. You don’t haveas many minutes to spare as other people do!” “Simplify life, avoid stress [so try starting a legal action as alitigant in person].”

And yet we are to believe that it would be so unfair onthe pathetic powerless little Department of Health to have this Claimantpersecuting them three years too late?

The amalgam allegedly not having been placed by theDefendants

42.The Defendants’ remaining piece of rubbish is their Paragraph4(4) statement that “The dental amalgam was not placed into the Claimant’steeth by the Defendants ….”. That isboth untrue and irrelevant (hence indeed not mentioned in the Particulars).

43.It is irrelevant because even if all 19 amalgams had beenplaced by private dentists, that placement would still have been caused by theDefendants’ negligent advice which was given to and applicable to all dentistryin the UK rather than only NHS. This isevidenced in Exhibit RPC8.

44.It is additionally irrelevant because the original placementwas only a small part of the causation of the injury. The failure to remove it, or even notify anyone of the risk, inall the subsequent many years, was a larger part of the causation, as theClaimant could otherwise have achieved a recovery by removal and detoxificationas experienced by many others victims.

45.It is anyway untrue as should have been apparent from the Claimants’registration with the (NHS) Dental Hospital for 26 years. Subsequent to the Dental Hospital theClaimant has had only NHS treatment, from dentist Deborah Morse. And prior to the Dental Hospital theClaimant also only had NHS treatment, by dentists in the towns local to hishome. Though as the Dental Notes frombefore the Hospital were not supplied to him even on second request, therecords have presumably been mislaid. But in any case, if the Defendants really want to make a big issue ofthis irrelevant point, then the Claimant can provide witness statements from noless than six other family members, attesting that the family of five childrenwas too poor to afford private treatment (and indeed the Claimant qualified forfree school meals) and most certainly would not have had private dentistsinstalling nineteen amalgams while he was only a teenager.

Conclusion

46. The Defendants’sApplication seeks to make out ten damning flaws of the Claim, namely:
(1) a reasonable body of expert opinion showing harmlessness;
(2) a deficiency of evidence of causation;
(3) evidence of an alternative causation;.
(4) lack of earlier reasonable opinion of harmfulness;
(5) a lack of any pertinent advice from the Defendants;
(6) public law immunity;
(7) lack of duty of care;
(8) 2004 or 2007 date of knowledge;
(9) no good reason for disapplying of time-limit; and
(10) the amalgam not being placed by the Defendants.

47. And yet it has here been shown that every oneof those alleged flaws is bogus, ten out of ten, 100% timewastingfalsehood. Not a single one of the manysentences makes any valid challenge to the Claim. And we can only suppose that this is as powerful as their Defence(not yet filed, and now overdue) is going to get, else they would have raised amore sound point here already. Itfollows that it is the Defence that has
(11) “poor prospects of success” rather than the Claim.

48. The Defendants’Application for Summary Judgment or to Strike Out the Claim should therefore berecognised as entirely devoid of merit, unworthy, outrageously deceiving, andan abuse of the Court’s processes, and for these reasons dismissed without ahearing unless they can provide written repre-sentations which clearly disprovethe facts and evidence here submitted.

49. At the very least theyshould specify a maximum of two clear, unambiguous, fatal defects of the Claimwhich their application has raised. Andit is already clear from the foregoing that they cannot.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this Application ToDismiss Application are true.

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

Signed

Robin Philip Clarke

Claimant

Dated