From: BULLELKMAN@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 12:54 AM
To: FDADockets@oc.fda.gov; brownchas@erols.com
Cc: sandyduffy@comcast.net; FreKoss@aol.com
Subject: Docket Number #03N-0169

Dear FDA,

 

Please post this e-mail to Docket Number # 03N-0169. It is imperative that this important information becomes part of public record on mercury dental fillings. By recording this 

e-mail to Docket Number #03N-0169, it becomes information that will be available to the "public" to include the American public, elected officials and the media because of Freedom of Information Act. 

 

It is critical that the "public" has access to this information.

 

Thank you,

Mary Ann Newell

Manager of the Files for Consumers for Dental Choice

 

************************************************************************ Director

Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D. fax #:301.496-8276

 

 

NIDCR Director

Lawrence A Tabak, D.D.S., Ph.D. fax #:301.402-2185

 

 

General Counsel for DHHS

Alex M. Azar

202.690-7998



Consumers for Dental Choice

1725 K St., N.W., Suite 511

Washington, DC 20006

Ph. 202.822-6307; fax 822-6309

www.toxicteeth.org

                                                            

                                    June 17, 2003

Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D., Director

National Institutes of Health

                        fax 301.496-8276

 

Lawrence A Tabak, D.D.S., Director

NIDCR

                        fax 301.402-2185

 

Alex M. Azar, General Counsel

Department of Health and Human Services

                        fax 202.690-7998

 

Dear Director Zerhouni, Director Tabak, and General Counsel Azar:

 

            NIDCR is embarking on a secretive effort to circumvent federal bidding laws by handpicking the consultant to review the science on mercury fillings.

 

            For many years, NIDCR has advocated the position of the American Dental Association -- that mercury fillings are safe -- without supportive peer-reviewed research.  NIDCR repeatedly spends taxpayers’ money with favored contractors who do not publish the results, an indication that NIDCR chooses to waste money or that it doesn’t like the results.  

 

            This consulting contract repeats this pattern, but perhaps on the wrong side of the law.  Dr. Norman Braveman, assistant to Dr. Tabak, sought out an existing contractor doing unrelated work, added a task to that consultant’s contract which would be unable to be performed, thus requiring the contractor to hire a subcontractor.  Thus, Dr. Braveman has been able to handpick a consultant without using federal bidding laws – a consultant, I might add, whose roster is full of corporate clients with business before FDA.

 

            Certainly, NIH and DHHS should inquire whether Dr. Tabak has been aware of this legerdemain.

 

            We would ask you to block, or retract, this subcontract.  Enclosed are my letters to Dr. Braveman and Ms. Blevins (the contract officer), and to the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland.

                                                                        Sincerely,

 

 

 

                                                                        Charles G. Brown

Enclosures