Field Control Therapy Support Forums

The dramatic term 'dental holocaust' might at first raise a few eyebrows, so I thought I would outline how this term first came to mind.

According to Webster's dictionary, the word 'holocaust' - besides referring to the Nazi program of extermination of Jews - may generally be used to refer to "an act of great destruction and loss of life."

The epidemic of Amalgam Illness now dates back over a century and a half, and can in my view be held largely responsible for the modern rise of many fatal diseases, including cancer and many others.

The Nazi Holocaust itself differs from this Amalgam Epidemic in at least 2 key ways:

(1) Length: It happened over a much shorter, intenser (and very horrific) period - whereas the Amalgam Epidemic has been drawn out over a period at least 15-20 times longer, alas, as a much more insidious 'invisible' plague of 'unaccountable' illness;

(2) Design: The Holocaust was designed and orchestrated, at head, by a group of people who intentionally sought to achieve genocide - whereas the Amalgam Epidemic seems to me a product of mass ignorance, arrogance and conceit - but not intentional genocide by any means.

Nonetheless, the Nazi Holocaust does also have some key similarities to the Dental Holocaust which are shocking to consider:

(1) Herd mentality: The majority of the people involved in the Nazi Holocaust were NOT the head orchestrators, but cogs in the machine just 'doing their job without asking questions.' In this way, millions of people were murdered. And the same phenomenon explains how so many people have put so much poison into so many millions of mouths just 'doing their job without asking questions.'

In my view, this is the same phenomenon at work – one of humanity's worst enemies – i.e. the herd mentality.

(2) Mass scale of suffering: A further key similarity is as follows: the resulting extent of the suffering and number of deaths on a mass scale. The Dental Holocaust has arguably led to more suffering and many more deaths, in fact, than the Nazi Holocaust did, if we attribute the rise of most modern diseases – including most deaths from cancer – to amalgam fillings as one of the most important causative agents.

(3) General public unaware: In addition, both of these ‘holocausts’ have involved a lack of public awareness at the time of the problem. Hence during the Nazi Holocaust, historians generally consider that most people had little idea of what was actually going on, or of the actual extent of the killings. Similarly, since the Dental Holocaust continues to this day, we can observe a lack of public awareness that the problem even exists, or of the actual extent of the deaths and suffering that result.

(4) Mentality of perpetrators: In both cases, if we try to dissect the mentality of the perpetrators, we also unfortunately find some similarities. We must remember that the Nazis prided themselves on their lack of humanity and emotion, and were above all cold, calculating and scientific in their approach, with a disdain for human emotion. Our modern scientific establishment could be characterised likewise, it’s just that instead of disdaining human emotion the scientific trend is to disdain ‘subjectivity,’ which amounts to the same thing.

For example, there have now been many thousands of clear 'anecdotal reports' of the grave harm inflicted by amalgam filling placements, and yet the totality of these 'anecdotes' (even as compiled for class action lawsuits) are still disregarded by the prevailing dental and scientific establishments, for basically the same reasons that the Nazis held subjective human emotions in contempt. There are thus in both ‘holocausts’ the signs of the elitist egotism of an arrogant group of idealogues – both enamoured with scientific facts and figures but uninterested in subjective human feelings.

In summary, you might feel we are exaggerating the case of Amalgam Illness by adopting the term ‘holocaust,’ but I do not feel that is so.

And if you peruse the rest of this forum (http://www.fctforums.com/viewforum.php?f=10), investigate the above-mentioned thousands of ‘anecdotal reports’ of human suffering (http://www.toxicteeth.org), and also consider the thousands of shocking scientific studies that have accumulated on the subject (http://www.iaomt.org) (since in addition to the 'anecdotes' there is plentiful scientific research too with extremely concerning results, especially once you have 'joined the dots' between the different areas of specialised research in order to ascertain the bigger picture), you too might conclude that the term is an apt one.

There are, indeed, many other disease triggers too, and many other toxins – amalgam fillings are by no means the only cause of illness in our times, and no FCT practitioner would claim that they are, since in FCT we test for and treat a large number of different causes of illness. However, mercury poisoning (together with lead) is the most pivotal factor tipping the balance towards sickness, i.e. without these, most people wouldn't become sick, but would be able to overcome the various other disease triggers more effectively.

As far as I’m aware, the term ‘dental holocaust’ is one I have coined myself for the first time, since I have never before heard anyone use it. However, I would be happy if it went into common usage, because this would signal a deep shift in the public awareness of what one writer has described as 'history’s greatest mistake.'

They say that 'history repeats itself.' I hope not, but if key lessons could be drawn from both the Nazi Holocaust and the current ongoing Dental Holocaust, then how about the following suggested possibilities:

1. Never 'just do your job without asking questions.'

2. Resist the 'herd mentality' as much as possible by thinking for yourself.

3. Avoid accepting 'received wisdom' on any subject, especially on potentially dangerous matters involving ideas about alleged superior races or suggested uses for placing highly toxic metals inside people's heads(!) Such ideas may seem absurd now, when you stop and consider them in this light, and yet they are swallowed by millions of people if during their era they are the 'received wisdom' of the masses.

4. Avoid accepting 'received wisdom' unquestioned even if this 'received wisdom' is issued by official governments or institutions or dental training curricula - instead judge the value of an idea on its intrinsic worth, not on the credentials of the institution or person proposing it.

5. Also avoid assuming something is true just because everyone else believes it is. Otherwise you will be easily fooled, e.g. if you live in a country where the prevailing notion is that 'Aryan' people are superior and other races inferior, or where the prevailing notion is that dentists know what they are doing and metal fillings are okay because everyone else has them too. Prevailing notions and trends are often mistaken, and therefore it is imperative to question them automatically and habitually.

[N.B: I have never forgotten this since I visited Georgia, the birthplace of Joseph Stalin, one of history's most brutal dictators and mass-murderers, and discovered that most Georgians to this day believe Stalin was a great and noble hero. At first I was amazed, and wondered how this could be - it was like a mass hypnosis where a whole nation held this absurd belief contradicted by all historical and anecdotal evidence. I even met a widely read and very knowledgeable university professor who ought to have known better, but the most he could do was hint to me that the noble hero Stalin did also have a 'forceful rule' - a point he illustrated to me by raising his fist in the air, then looking nervously over his shoulder to check no one had heard him - knowing that he was venturing into fringe theories deemed ridiculous by the masses! Then I realized why it was: just as with the current Dental Holocaust, entire nations are capable of holding totally erroneous beliefs merely because it is a matter of 'received wisdom.' And then even the most intelligent of individuals fear to consider alternative ideas that could contradict 'what everyone knows.']

6. Never place 'scientific' data as a God on a pedestal above human emotion and subjective experience.

7. Instead pay attention to the 'anecdotal experience' of those who are suffering, because in my experience of my own patients they most often provide many clues to the answers to their own problems if only we will exercise a little empathy and listen to them closely (example: many CFS patients have reported that they feel "as though someone had poisoned them" - I wonder why. . . and yet billions of euros of scientific research has not yet discovered this because they continue to idly investigate red herrings, instead of directing research funds to the real issue: toxicity!)

8. Remember also those good old traditional values such as loving thy neighbour, respecting all sentient beings, and treating others as you would have them treat you.

9. Finally - as a matter of basic common sense that seems to have eluded the human race for millenia - always remember that there is no ethnic race on Earth which is inferior to any other - and that the Earth's crust contains highly toxic substances which should be left forever UNDISTURBED and not mined for human profit at the expense of the health and happiness of millions of people!

Actually, these last points are perhaps worth repeating, so I'd recommend re-reading the last two paragraphs one more time! If these three basic points of common sense had sunk in, then humanity would be a lot happier, saner and healthier, but as it stands it appears that the vast majority of the human race has yet to draw these simple conclusions (sigh). . . oh hell, I'll summarise them one more time, and forgive me the repetition of this mantra! In my view, there are probably very few other things any of us could ever say or read that more urgently need repeating often. . .

Who knows? Maybe TV and radio talk shows around the planet should suggest everyone says these three things aloud before breakfast each day until. . . no, not until pigs fly, but until the world shows signs of changing -

- I should be as loving towards others and my environment as towards myself, since we are all connected

- no race of people is inferior to any other

- toxic substances like mercury shouldn't be mined from the Earth's crust for any use: they should be left there

As an interesting footnote, I have mentioned elsewhere on this forum, and would like to mention here again, that Dr Dietrich Klinghardt has said the following about amalgam fillings: that if their widespread use hadn't been introduced into Germany in the decades prior to the rise of Nazism there, the Third Reich (and therefore the Holocaust) would never have taken place. . .

This is because amalgam fillings (which are about half mercury) are placed inside people's heads, very close to the brain, and mercury toxicity causes brain damage (the 'Mad Hatter Syndrome'), which Dr Klinghardt holds accountable (like Professor Stock) for the craziness which led to the Third Reich. Now that is certainly food for thought, and by this line of reasoning the Dental Holocaust has not only been an even larger historical catastrophe than the original Nazi Holocaust, but was also arguably one of the ultimate causes of the latter as well. . . Isn't it therefore time we all put a stop to this at long last???

As usual Simon you make some excellent and intelligent points regarding an issue which you would think by now would be a daily topic of discussion, heated conversation and concerted action. The Internet has made all relevant information concerning the EXTREME toxic nature of this substance readily available to all.

Before mercury is placed in your mouth it is considered a substance of such toxicity that it must be handled in specific and precise fashion. Likewise once it is removed from your mouth.

However, in your mouth-- somehow, maybe Houdini knows-- its extreme toxicity is no longer a factor. In your mouth mercury magically loses its toxic nature.


I do take issue with your use of the word "Holocaust" however.

A holocaust is a term with specific denotation, that is, before it got hijacked by a certain political lobby to refer to the massacre of the Jews during the Second World War. More precisely, what happened to the Jewish people during that unfortunate era was attempted genocide.

That, alas, was also attempted against aboriginal Americans by the invading Europeans, against the Armenians, the Cambodians, and so on. Indeed genocide as a form of political control and expression of subjugation of a identifiable specific people seems to be the wave of the future, such has been its increasing frequency, during the 19th and 20th , and now the 21st centuries.


Here is the wikipedia entry for genocide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide



A holocaust, however, is a type of religious sacrifice.

Here is the Wiki entry for that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(sacrifice)



According to Norman Finkelstein, author of the Holocaust Industry, the unfortunate suffering of the Jewish people during the Second World War has been turned to political and propagandistic ends. Finkelstein's parents were themselves survivors of that era, so his claims, in my view, are not to be taken lightly.

If you think about it a moment, when you say Holocaust of the Jewish People, what you are speaking about, with the above in mind, is mind numbing in its implication: you are averring that those Jews massacred by the Nazis were effectively a sacrifice, a whole burnt offering to G-d. That to me is beyond comprehension.

OK, enough of terms and history: what you have to say about massive and widespread diseases to due mercury amalgam toxicants is right on the money. I take issue with the phrase "Dental Holocaust" however, though I certainly acknowledge the meaning with which you intend it.

I don't think "Dental Genocide" works on the other hand...


.... though "Vaccination Genocide" might.



That however is another topic. Sigh....

Hmm... Reading the Wikipedia link you posted, it does mention various things there that imply that many Jewish people might take offense at the choice of the term "Holocaust" (etymologically: "completely burnt") to describe the Nazis' attempted genocide, and that indeed the Hebrew word for the same thing, "Shoa" ("whirlwind"), has very different origins.

While that is an interesting aside, I stand by my use of the term "Dental Holocaust," though, for different reasons.

This is on the basis that language is a fluid phenomenon, and words grow and change their meaning according to usage, and may or may not over the centuries and millenia retain in their usage the meanings of the original etymological roots... indeed often they don't. Usually the current meaning of a word isn't totally unrelated to its roots, but often it will have shifted significantly.

To give two examples (though I'm sure there must be many more): to be "sensible" nowadays implies being reasonable and practical, even though its roots are more to do with sensation. If someone was a stickler for the roots of words and conserving words' meanings, they'd probably insist on this usage of "sensible" being incorrect, and say that the only correct usage of "sensible" is when used as the opposite of "insensible" in terms of sensations/the senses. However, this would be against the principles of linguistics, in which the definitions of words must move with the times according to common usage.

Another example is "orthodox" - the root of this word was literally "right/true opinion" - i.e. a positive value judgement is built into the word from its roots. But that's not its meaning now, because it's now used to refer simply to the common, accepted way of doing something, but without stating whether that way is better or worse than alternatives.

So, to quote from the same Wikipedia article about the contemporary 'common usage' of the word 'holocaust', pre- and post-WWII:



As described above, contrary to the roots of the word that you referred to, 'holocaust' has for over a century been in use as a term to refer to "an act of great destruction or loss of life," as in the Webster's dictionary definition at the start of this thread. I think this is an example of an "acquired meaning" in linguistics, i.e. the roots of words are always interesting to consider, but they don't determine the meaning of a word - that is determined by its common usage over time - and also shifts over time, of course...

Since WWII, 'holocaust' has been increasingly used to refer particularly to the Nazi programme, but (as in the quote above) this hasn't killed its other uses, such as in reference to other genocidal programmes... and particularly, it seems, to events involving a scale of death and suffering that's horrific. By naming a particular genocide or attempted genocide a "holocaust" it perhaps lends an additional sense of horror to the term, and this seems to be what has become the role of the word in common usage - and in the way I've coined it here, too...

Yes, thanks for this comment. I agree... I just can't figure out why we almost never hear about this on the daily news. Just think about all the time on TV and radio that gets spent on things that drag on and on like the OJ Simpson trial or Bill Clinton's sex life... I'm not passing comment here on whether these news items are valuable or useless to viewers, as you could probably argue that anything is of value if you wanted to put a positive spin on it.

However, surely the mass poisoning of our civilization by the second most toxic substance in existence is more newsworthy?

I don't understand all the machinations of the media, or specifically why a "blackout" occurs on certain issues. For example, when the famous South African free-speech journalist Donald Woods arrived in Britain in the 1980s, during the time of Apartheid in his homeland, he was asked if he agreed the British press was "free" unlike the South African press. His response, interestingly, was that yes, he agreed it was very free, except on certain topics, most notably Ireland and the Royal Family. And it does appear true that the media gets in the habit of silence on certain topics.

But partly, too (call me naive), I can't understand why individual journalists don't see why this is such an overwhelmingly newsworthy topic, and not only for the health section of a newspaper, but for its front pages. Speaking to the main health writer for the popular Irish Times newspaper, for example - and this is in the same city that spawned the mythically outspoken and martyred ethical journalist Veronica Guerin (but I couldn't speak to the latter, unfortunately, as she was already shot dead a few years ago on the streets of Dublin) - she professed to be very sympathetic to the topic, and even attended a day of shocking talks on it in Dublin. When I afterwards proposed that she run a piece on amalgam filling poisoning, though, she said she would need to wait until I had something "new" - that she could report on. "New?" I replied, gazing at her in disbelief, trying to comprehend what was going on in her grey cells!

She seemed to think that running an article on a large-scale poisoning which has hitherto gone relatively unreported in the media, but one that dates back over 150 years and impacts upon almost every aspect of our lives and civilization in some way, makes it not "new" enough to qualify for inclusion in the paper... no space to jam it in, between all those very important articles already being published on OJ Simpson, Bill Clinton and whatever else they prefer to fill their readers' minds with... rather than the truth of what is happening to our society and bodies because of Amalgam Illness.

Perhaps she was just "fobbing me off" with a poor excuse - I don't know - but I still don't understand if it's that the journalists are too scared to publish such a scathing attack on conventional dental "received wisdom," or whether they're not scared but just have brains too full of OJ Simpson and Monica Lewinsky (and - sad but true - mercury) to be able to appreciate the significance of Amalgam Illness. Is it a result of living in a "culture of fear," or the result of "Mad Hatter Syndrome" from a civilization with increasingly mercury-toxic brains (ironically, people who have NEVER had amalgam fillings, including myself and several other people I know, are in my experience far better able to appreciate the significance of this topic, probably through having less mercury-toxic Mad Hatter brains!) ... or a result of living in a culture that has been trying to "dumb down" its population for so long that people quite literally are too "dumb" to realize what matters?

Interestingly, as a piece of synchronicity, since I started this thread I've met another person who has coined a similar term for the 'Dental Holocaust'... She has similar views to mine as expressed on this thread, and wants to make a feature film about the subject, as soon as she can find a producer who will take on her proposal (great idea, I thought!)

Her "working title" for this feature film is "The Silent Holocaust"... so she was, understandably, quite intrigued to learn that I'd coined such a similar phrase. If anyone reading this happens to be working in cinema and have an interest in such a project, let me know and I can put you in touch! She said she has all the contacts and plans ready to make a great film, but needs to recruit a team to make it happen. And I say, Good luck to her!

It would be, most likely, to the dental industry what "The Insider" was to the tobacco industry, or "Erin Brockovich" was to big industry in general!

Yes of course what you say is true, some words do shift their range of semantic meaning over time. Some words more than other words.

Language in some undefined sense is a living thing: a language is born, comes into being, evolves over time and then expires, in time.

A language and the way in which words are used , phrasing and phraseology, grammar and syntax, etc. will intimately reflect the, and indeed you might say is a keynote indicator of the vitality of a society, the healthiness, if you will, of a society. So for example, in a totalitarian society, a Nazi Germany or a Soviet Union, how language is used for its speakers will reflect the inner conditions of that social system. People will tend to self censor, ranges of meaning and expression will be crippled, abtract expression will tend to predominate, evasiveness in expression, vagueness, and an over all general tendency to scleroticization of the langauge itself: the range and robustness of its expresiveness, its liveliness will harden and atrophy.

The more control and propaganda in a society the more the language of that society will reflect this. The use of language will reflect this evasiveness, prevarication and so on, not only in the choice and selection of words used but also in the very structure of the langauge itself, in how those words are used.

We are witnessing this process in action in American politics and media analysis right now. When you visit the States and speak with people there it is impossible not to note this inner prevarication, bordering even on dissembling and how it is reflected in the way in which words and language are used, picking and choosing as they go, or simply reflecting predigested media soundbites. That is an overall general impression of the degeneration in the use of American language in comparison with, say 20 years ago, when the American language was a much more robust, direct and forceful thing. People at that time said what they meant and meant what they said. That of course is an overall impression. For whatever it may be worth.

Orwell has some very intersting things to say about all this both in his 1984, with his discussion there about Newspeak, and also in some of his essays.


Now in regards to the use of the word 'Holocaust': the term itself has become a word supercharged with political overtones and, it is my belief based on a perusal of Finkelstein's book mentioned above, of propagandistic intent, and indeed in many countries of legal ramification and implication. All this is most unfortunate, especially when you consider where the word is coming from, how right up until WW2 it had a very precise range of meaning, religious meaning, then I don't know in what circumstance or who was the first to do so or how the shift in meaning came about, it was applied to the massacre of Jews. At that point in time, in orthodox religious Jewish circles where the word probably had its greatest currency, it could only have been regarded as blasphemous.

But somehow the range of menaing shifted rapidly until it became accepted as a normative term denoting very precisely the attempted genocide of the Jews during WW2. Now, everyone 'knows' what is meant when you say 'Holocaust'.

So perhaps given the contemporary conventional use of the word, and along with how you have presented your case above, your phrase 'Dental Holocaust' works, though again there is a shift in the range of meaning. Sure, why not: 'Dental Holocaust'... 'The Silent Holocaust;'

Further: ... 'The Medical Holocaust', "The Aids Holocaust", 'The Cancer Holocaust', ... 'The Seal Holocaust', ...'The Forestry Holocaust', and so on and on ....

Then finally, what with the recent research on how the biosphere of the planet is literally being killed by our cell phone and wireless technologies, perhaps we could talk about the Holocaust of Humanity, or perhaps more precisely about a planetary Biocide.


Dr Yurkovsky mentioned something to this effect in his October seminar. I forget exactly what he said or the context, but he didn't sound very hopeful, quoting some study. Do you remember what that was?

Thanks for your further thoughts and reflections. It's true that language is a complex phenomenon, and it's amazing to stop and consider all the factors that are related to it, and to people's expression in different cultures and eras. The "Newspeak" and "media soundbites" you mention do seem increasingly pervasive, and it does frustrate me that people don't think more for themselves and, in line with that, express their own thoughts in their own words, instead of giving up that authority to allow the media and other people to define both the topics and (paucity of range of) language that passes through their minds during most of the day.

Yes, what I remember Dr Yurkovsky referring to last October, in particular, were the rapidly declining sperm counts (shown in the tables he presented - and indeed, I saw a headline running this week in a popular magazine, entitled something like 'Are men dying out?'), in line with ever-increasing pollution of every part of our environment - including for example the Arctic - with heavy metals and other toxins. He felt these, and other signs, were examples of harbingers of a general decline in humanity's health, and possibly, in line with this, even humanity's survival ultimately. Certainly he didn't paint a rosy picture for the near future of our species, unless something significant is done to arrest the contamination of ourselves and environment with heavy metals in particular, and toxins in general.

Or, to put it in a nutshell, using a crude but descriptive analogy of my own: We have become essentially like pigs soiling our own sty, and rolling around in our own excrement, on a global scale - where the Earth is our sty in this case. This 'excrement' which is poisoning our bodies, minds, homes and planet consists of a huge gamut (i.e. tens of thousands, many of them newly created in labs) of both natural and artificially created toxins that shouldn't be there and which are antithetical to the health and even survival of mammalian species, including ourselves, where king of them all are mercury, radiation/EMFs and lead, but above all mercury.

That is an inflammatory and extreme picture, yes. Sadly, it has nothing to do with my opinion or Dr Yurkovsky's, it's just the picture being painted by all the medical and toxicological data, if anyone cares to take a look at the world around us in the cold light of science.