Pathologists, starting almost 30 years ago, who were doing DNA studies on oral cancer tissues accidently found the viral DNA strands inside oral cancer cells. It was reported in the literature for almost three decades in peer reviewed journals sporadically. It wasn't until about 2000 when an unknown researcher picked up the torch with some proof of principal money from a very small and underfunded foundation, and did a very small study which identified it as a distinct sub etiology. Even then with published data in the Journal of Oncology it took many people in the oncology world talking about this no longer speculative evidence, to get the word out that this was no longer speculation but fact, and for real serious funding to come from the NCI to elucidate more.

Many doctors outside of oncology still a decade later do not realize that it is a cause. But there was a scientific process from discovery of a tangible bit of evidence, to mature that into larger and larger studies to prove that this was not an isolated situation.

FYI peer reviewed studies have been done on amalgams going back two decades and longer. Perhaps you should read them and then decide if your hypothesis is still sound. What you will find is that there are people (with genetic predispositions) that are allergic to components of amalgam. The dental amalgams used in the last 50 years are mercury, silver, tin, copper, and zinc. No nickel. In my own opinion, I wouldn't use something in my mouth that had mercury in it as there is a potential for leaching in minute amounts over years. And I recommend to my friends that they get composite fillings which these days are better in many ways, including strength and esthetics to the old school amalgam idea. I would guess that in dental practices it is used less and less and these new composite filling materials are easier to use and better, with no associated hazards (even to the doctors and assistants that work with mercury vapors in their offices every day). But you have to remember that amalgam has been around for hundreds of years in various incarnations, and at the time I was young, it was all there was. However, the issue is always going to come down to volume and duration of exposure (of mercury in particular) which in most people is low to the extreme. What might interest you, is that there is some evidence of mercury causing lichenoid lesions. The evidence for lesions like lichen planus which occurs orally being tied to oral cancer is not strong, and most oncology professionals (while you can never rule anything out completely in the reasons why some cells develop damaged DNA) would say there is no connection. As amalgams are used less in the world, this is a situation that if they are, even in a minor way associated with some kind of cellular transformation, that the marketplace is going to deal with it by their being replaced by superior and cheaper alternatives like composites. But both speculation and real research is out there for anyone that wishes to take the time to do the work to figure it out, ending up with educated and informed opinion at the end. Will that opinion alter the world.... perhaps if that person's passion is great enough, and the evidence of substance. When doing your research remember that in the web world, just because it is on some site, does not make it a fact, and there is no lack of anti-amalgam sites on the web.

So here is my dilemma. If I want the big cancer treating institutions to continue to refer patients to this message board for help from others that are generous enough to donate their time and personal knowledge to help people behind them on the path, the board has to conform to a guideline that sees that erroneous information, speculation, and such isn't part of who we are. For the most part over the years this is done through strong science posters like Markus and Gary jumping into discussions and reasoning things out with people. That failing to happen, I get the usually unpleasant task of moderating the dialog, which always ends up with someone being unhappy that their viewpoint (like the guy that came here and wanted everyone to believe that cigar smoking was an OK thing to do) cannot be expressed on the boards. I don't enjoy the process, I don't like to be the guy in the black hat, and at the end of the day, the buck stops with the board moderators. It isn't a democracy.

There are lots of boards on the web for any idea that you can think of. People singing the praises of spit tobacco, railing against vaccination, even are sure that the world will end in 2012. Each has it's proponents and detractors. Here we have one purpose, and that is to help people going through issues related to their diagnosis, treatments and emotional issues associated with oral cancer. We are not going to solve more esoteric issues with our peculations, and for the most part they do not help those newly diagnosed patients that need your help in more practical "dealing with it now" immediate problems. For those that wish to convince someone that their idea is worthy of exploration, OCF is not the forum. They can write lots of institutions that are funding research, they can communicate with researchers that may share their hypothesis, all thing which might actually, if there is any merit to the idea, move something forward. Doing it here on the forum does not move your idea forward.

So would you have me lose the ability to work with the institutions that refer to us because they trust us to hold certain standards, or should we just let the board run off into speculation of things we cannot know and depart from the reason the boards exist.......

Linda Rose: Thank you so much for alluding to the fact that I am someone that shuts doors. I have given a decade of my life and the personal money to start this foundation. I don't expect any accolades for that, but what I also believe is this shows me to be someone that wishes to open doors, and spread knowledge. And clearly you have made it unnecessary for me to see myself as others see me (the quote you like so well) as you have made your view of me clear.