Dental mercury toxicity and prevention of due treatment

The request was partially successful.

Dear Heart of Birmingham Teaching Primary Care Trust (PCT),

On 12th February 2011 I sent a request to the PALS of HOBtPCT about the outrageous seven years of failure to attempt any diagnosis or treatment of the severe chronic disabilities I have suffered caused by mercury from dental amalgams. And instead just constant pseudoscience quackery lies and evasions.

After six weeks of further waiting, I received a “reply” from Alan Daniels of the PALS, which revealed that this matter of entirely NON-dental disabilities had been referred only to the HOBtPCT “Dental” Advisory Panel, which had thereupon decided to reject my evidence and requests, and this without bothering to provide any rationale or answers to my reasonable questions.

I then emailed back to Alan Daniels on 24th March asking a small number of questions, but no reply or action has been forthcoming.

In consequence I demand to be informed of the following.

1. What are the names and offices of the members of this “Dental” Advisory Panel (as of 4th March 2011)?

2. What competence, expertise, experience, qualifications, or proper authority do each of the members of this panel have to dismiss this evidence about mercury toxicity?

3. What proper competence/etc do they have in the relevant fields of neurology, psychiatry, toxicology, allergy, endocrinology, dermatology or immunology diagnosis?

4. Why was this very important matter referred to this [group of] decisionmakers????

5. Why was it referred ONLY to these [people]?

6. What was their rationale for their decision (e.g., as recorded in the Minutes)?

7. What is the answer to my question asking what possible usefulness there could be in the proposed pseudoscience blood or urine test in the context of the abundant real evidence I had already presented [potentially defamatory material removed]?

8. When is your organisation [potentially defamatory material removed] actually going to make an honest effort to do something to correct the huge injury your charlatan quackery has caused?

Yours faithfully,

Robin P Clarke
http://www.dentalmercuryvictims.blogspot...

HoBtPCT Freedom Of Information,

This email address is no longer in use and so your email address has not
been received.

You must therefore resend your email to my new email address
[email address] and update your records accordingly.

Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Thank you

Sent request to Heart of Birmingham Teaching Primary Care Trust (PCT) again, using a new contact address.

Alex Skene left an annotation ()

Some potentially defamatory material has been removed from this webpage in line with our policy:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/reque...

The removed or re-worded text is indicated by [ ]

Regards
Alex - WhatDoTheyKnow volunteer

FOI HOB (HEART OF BIRMINGHAM TEACHING PCT), Heart of Birmingham Teaching Primary Care Trust (PCT)

Dear Mr Clarke

Thank you for submitting your freedom of information request to Heart of
Birmingham tPCT under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

In reviewing your request and the points you have raised, it has become
clear to me that this should be treated under The Local Authority Social
Services and National Health Service Complaints (England) Regulations
2009. I have forwarded your email to the Complaints Department.

Under the FOIA, the information you have requested is withheld under
section 40 Personal Information and section 41 Information Provided In
Confidence. Personal information relates to data belonging to any living
individual (person, organisation or any other body) who maybe identified
by a release. To release any personal information would also contravene
the Data Protection Act. Information provided in confidence is determined
as information obtained by a public authority from another individual and
which can give actionable breach of confidence. Information contained
within any healthcare records and other documentation is personal to that
of the patient only and should only be accessed by those with authority to
do so.

The complaints procedure allows the trust to ascertain the requester’s
details to ensure that they are entitled to access this information; the
FOIA does not allow the trust to ascertain this. As you will agree, it is
imperative that the trust acts accordingly in maintaining the highest
level of data protection with patient’s information.

Kind regards

Rebecca Hough

Freedom of Information Officer

Heart of Birmingham tPCT

Tel: 0121 255 0700

DDI: 0121 255 0860

Fax: 0121 224 4773

*** PLEASE NOTE MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS [email address] ***

show quoted sections

Dear FOI HOB (HEART OF BIRMINGHAM TEACHING PCT),

I find your reply utterly outrageous. I did not here raise a complaint but instead simply requested answers to the questions. You have now come up with a false excuse of MY confidentiality for failing to answer those questions. Which is very difficult to construe as other than an improper ploy to cover up the serious abuses by your scam organisation.

It is obvious from the details of my enquiry above that I am the same Robin P Clarke, patient of GP Dr Gini etc, about whom the enquiry is made. It is obvious that I am here giving permission to verify that and to release the information in question.

Just to make it even more unambiguous I have just sent an email (as per next reply here) to you to confirm my identity as the same as in previous correspondence with your shamsters.

It should be obvious that I cannot give a damn about confidentiality of my personal information required in any answer -- that is why I raised these questions HERE.

And I demand that these answers be given HERE. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Get on with anwering the questions and no more sham excuses for covering up the disgrace that your scam organisation is.

With due anger and contempt,

Mr Clarke

The email I have just sent to confirm my identity.
to: Daniels Alan; WhatDoTheyKnow; hob.info@nhs.; Akhtar Ishrat Afroze; rpclarke@au

To HOBTPCT,

This is to confirm my identity and the already rather obvious fact that the FOI request at
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/de...
has been made by myself about my own case and that bleeding obviously I cannot give a damn about the related my personal "confidential" information being included so far as required in any reply. Of course you would prefer that the ugly truth about your criminal scam organisation not be displayed openly but that is your problem and no justification for making excuses for not going ahead with providing this information about your scam which should rightly be in the public domain.

Robin P Clarke

----- Original Message -----
From: Daniels Alan
To: RPClarke@

Dear FOI HOB (HEART OF BIRMINGHAM TEACHING PCT),

The above questions 1,2,3, and 7 (copied below) in no way require any of my personal information in determining their answers. Stop making false excuses Rebecca Hough and get on with providing the answers here.

1. What are the names and offices of the members of this “Dental” Advisory Panel (as of 4th March 2011)?

2. What competence, expertise, experience, qualifications, or proper authority do each of the members of this panel have to dismiss this evidence about mercury toxicity?

3. What proper competence/etc do they have in the relevant fields of neurology, psychiatry, toxicology, allergy, endocrinology, dermatology or immunology diagnosis?
[....]
7. What is the answer to my question asking what possible usefulness there could be in the proposed pseudoscience blood or urine test in the context of the abundant real evidence I had already presented [potentially defamatory material removed]?

Yours sincerely,

Mr Clarke

FOI HOB (HEART OF BIRMINGHAM TEACHING PCT), Heart of Birmingham Teaching Primary Care Trust (PCT)

Dear Mr Clarke

It is not the trust's intention to refuse any part of your FOI request. This has however been forwarded to the complaints department because it appears that this is a more appropriate way of dealing with your request. This will allow you to receive all the information together rather than 'piece-meal' from a number of different sources within the trust. This seems a more feasible way of responding to your request as all the information will be contained within the complaint response. The trust is not covering up any 'abuses' or 'scams' as you appear to be suggesting and is not refusing to provide you with the answers but to provide you with these in a more appropriate way for you.

The trust does not support or encourage any hostile or abusive language from any individual. The tone and language of your emails are offensive and aggressive and I ask that any future correspondence from you is depicted in a more meaningful manner. If this continues during the current or any future requests from you, the trust will not enter into any further dialogue with you and will refuse any future requests. This is supported by Section 14 of the FOI Act relating to vexatious or repeated requests where the use of hostile, abusive or offensive language, unreasonable fixation or mingling requests with accusations and complaints are determined as harassing an organisation.

In conclusion, I can confirm that, should you wish to continue with this request under FOI, the trust can provide a response to only questions 1-3 under FOI. Unfortunately, identification (your identification) cannot be ascertained via email and therefore the trust cannot respond to the remainder of the request, questions 4-8. It has previously been explained that this would be refused under Section 40 Personal Information, Section 41 Information provided in confidence. Questions 7 and 8 are also refused by the trust under section 14 Vexatious request where this has been mingled with an accusation.

Rebecca Hough
Freedom of Information Officer
Heart of Birmingham tPCT

Tel: 0121 255 0700
DDI: 0121 255 0860
Fax: 0121 224 4773

*** PLEASE NOTE MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS [email address] ***

show quoted sections

Dear FOI HOB (HEART OF BIRMINGHAM TEACHING PCT),

Thank you for this further quasi-reply. So yes, please send the answers to questions 1,2,3 now.

Given your refusal to answer question 7,
I also request an answer to a revised question 7, obviating need for reference to my previous correspondence, namely:

7(rev). "What usefulness could there be in a blood or urine test (of mercury level) in the context of measurements of constant exceptionally high mercury vapour intake (460mcg/m3 open mouth unstimulated), and a load of the most characteristic symptoms of mercury poisoning, otherwise unexplainable, and in the context of the longstanding well-known uselessness of the urine/blood tests as evidenced in for instance the following:
“Those investigators who have studied the subject are in almost unanimous agreement that there is a poor correlation between the urinary excretion of mercury and the occurrence of demonstrable evidence of poisoning.” --Goldwater LJ, Ladd AC, Jacobs MG. Absorption and excretion of mercury in man. Arch Environ Health 9, 735-741 ( 1964)
and also this joint statement of the National Institute of Dental Health and the American Dental Association in 1984:
“The distribution of mercury into the body tissues is highly variable and there appears to be little correlation between levels in urine, blood or hair and toxic effects.” —NIDH/ADA Workshop on Biocompatibility of Metals, Journal of the American Dental Association 109, September 1984.

Quite what has changed since then?
Quite how would the blood/urine test add usefully to our understanding?"
[end of Question 7(rev)]

I still find your grounds for failing to answer the other ones to be false and unworthy.

"identification (your identification) cannot be ascertained via email"

Which I find to be a frankly ridiculous claim in the context that the email could only have come from myself or someone who's broken into my household and commandeered my computer and confidential accounts and already knows a peculiarly large amount about my attempts to get treatment. If your assertion is really the truth then you had better start using fingerprints and dna profiling to ascertain the identity of all who arrive at clinics and hospitals.

"The tone and language of your emails are offensive and aggressive"

It should be very obvious that the "tone and language" could have been vastly more "offensive and aggressive". I don't need to copy in here the sort of words and phrases which any fool can think of because they are regularly heard all over the place, except from myself. I find it again pathetic and hypocritical that your huge organisation gets upset by a few mere truth-telling words in the context of the VAST REAL injury and ongoing falsehoods and mistakes (to use your demanded censored language here) which of course should just shake off my back like nothings with not the slightest need for any apology or honest attempt at correction ever on your own parts.

Don't you think you should be grateful that you actually have a job and career unlike myself who has never ever had such fortune thanks to the devastation from pretendedly harmless dental amalgams? And your organisation doesn't even have the decency to do proper diagnostic investigations. And yet it's YOU that's challenging ME for being "aggressive"? (Which is a common mercury poisoning symptom by the way.)

"harassing an organisation"

Indeed it is so terribly heartbreaking that your tiny powerless organisation is being upset by my heavy hammerblows of questioning. No question of instead it being "harassing BY an organisation" (over a period of seven years). Your false analogy with cases of an organisation being deluged with excessive vexatious questions such as in "Climategate" is yet more genuinely offensive unworthiness here.

According to your HOBtPCT website,
"We welcome all feedback".

Which appears to be just another falsehood, which should be changed to "We welcome all feedback provided it only uses our unpublished approved list of forms of words and meanings."

Anyway, I do appreciate your honest cooperation to the extent it actually exists. I appreciate that you didn't knowingly choose to make your career within a [censored].

Yours sincerely,

Mr Clarke

FOI HOB (HEART OF BIRMINGHAM TEACHING PCT), Heart of Birmingham Teaching Primary Care Trust (PCT)

Dear Mr Clarke

With regards to the FOI request that you submitted please, find Heart of
Birmingham tPCT's response as follows:

Q1. The roles of the officers that were on the panel dated 4^th March 2011
are:

o Senior Commissioning Manager

o Dental Nurse Tutor

o Finance Manager

o Commissioning Manager

o Dental Education Tutor

o Specialist Registrar in Dental Public Health

The names of panel members are withheld under section 36 Prejudice to
effectiveness of public affair. This exemption has been determined to
mean any reluctance from open dialogue (of concern, advice and views)
within the organisation.

To release the names of the panel would impact upon decisions made by
Heart of Birmingham tPCT. If the identity of any panel members were to be
disclosed, panel members would be less likely to raise any issues or
concerns whilst reviewing issues/cases because they may fear that they
would be identified as being the lead for these decisions. This would be
detrimental because proposals/cases could be refused or
accepted/commissioned inappropriately because the necessary issues have
not been released. Therefore, individuals become less reluctant to raise
views if they know this would be public knowledge.

This is also within the public interest because this would have a
detrimental impact upon any public service that is/is not commissioned,
services may not be commissioned that should be or service commissioned
that should not be. Therefore public money would be spent inappropriate
and the community would receive an inadequate or no service.

Q2. It is not a requirement for the Panel to hold any specialist
knowledge in this field.

Q3. It is not a requirement for the Panel to hold any specialist
knowledge in these fields.

Q4. The Dental Advisory Panel advises and considers issues about
contracting and commissioning.

Any information relating to a specific 'matter' is withheld. Heart of
Birmingham tPCT understands that this 'matter' is related to a case that
was referred to the dental panel.

Specific information relating to individual’s cases are withheld under
section 40 Personal Information and section 41 Information Provided In
Confidence. Personal information relates to data belonging to any living
individual (person, organisation or any other body) who may be identified
by a release. To release any personal information would also contravene
the Data Protection Act. Information provided in confidence is determined
as information obtained by a public authority from another individual and
which can give actionable breach of confidence. Information contained
within any healthcare records and other documentation is personal to that
of the patient only and should only be accessed by those with authority to
do so.

Q5. The Dental Advisory Panel advises and considers on matters
relating to contracting and commissioning.

Any information relating to a specific 'matter' is withheld. Heart of
Birmingham tPCT understands that this 'matter' is related to a case that
was referred to the Dental Advisory Panel.

Specific information relating to individual cases is withheld under
section 40 Personal Information and section 41 Information Provided In
Confidence. Personal information relates to data belonging to any living
individual (person, organisation or any other body) who may be identified
by a release. To release any personal information would also contravene
the Data Protection Act. Information provided in confidence is determined
as information obtained by a public authority from another individual and
which can give actionable breach of confidence. Information contained
within any healthcare records and other documentation is personal to that
of the patient only and should only be accessed by those with authority to
do so.

Q6. The panel’s decisions are made based on supporting
information provided to them.

Any information relating to a specific 'matter' is withheld. Heart of
Birmingham tPCT understands that this 'matter' is related to a case that
was referred to the Dental Advisory Panel.

Specific information relating to an individual case is withheld under
section 40 Personal Information and section 41 Information Provided In
Confidence. Personal information relates to data belonging to any living
individual (person, organisation or any other body) who may be identified
by a release. To release any personal information would also contravene
the Data Protection Act. Information provided in confidence is determined
as information obtained by a public authority from another individual and
which can give actionable breach of confidence. Information contained
within any healthcare records and other documentation is personal to that
of the patient only and should only be accessed by those with authority to
do so.

Q7. Heart of Birmingham tPCT does not hold this information.
Under section21 information accessible to applicant by other means, I
refer you to contact Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust
where toxicology is performed and can most appropriately answer this
question. This can be submitted using the following link:
[1][email address].

Under the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005 Act,
sections 4 and 12, Heart of Birmingham tPCT imposes conditions on the
information provided and withholds permission for you to re-use this
information provided.

Rebecca Hough

Freedom of Information Officer

Heart of Birmingham tPCT

Tel: 0121 255 0700

DDI: 0121 255 0860

Fax: 0121 224 4773

show quoted sections

Dear FOI HOB (HEART OF BIRMINGHAM TEACHING PCT),

Thank you for answering part of my inquiry.

The answer you give should be a cause for great concern about malfunctioning of HOBtPCT. I carefully prepared a dossier of information pointing clearly to a diagnosis and appropriate remediation of my chronic severe NON-dental disabilities. You here inform me that the decision on my information was made solely by this Dental panel which was completely lacking in any qualifications or expertise in the diagnosis of any of my symptoms. Instead it was decided by this group whose only relevance is a potential/real bias against identifying dental amalgam as causing the disabilities.

So, again, what good reason was there for these utterly inappropriate people to be making that decision?

Why was it referred only to them?

And what was their rationale?

I have already shown that there is no good reason for supposed my personal confidentiality to prevent you answering these questions here.

I further note your claims about needing to keep the panel's names secret supposedly in order to protect the public interest. In that case, we ought also to be keeping secret the names of government ministers, judges, etc ad nauseam. In reality there is good reason that this Dental advisory panel should indeed have their names public, in order to discourage highly inappropriate abusive decisions such as this one clearly is. So I demand that their names be given here, and that shallow excuse withdrawn.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Clarke

Whitehouse Jill (HEART OF BIRMINGHAM TEACHING PCT), Heart of Birmingham Teaching Primary Care Trust (PCT)

Dear Mr Clarke

Thank you for requesting a review of the response that was made to your
Freedom of Information (FOI) request. This has now been reviewed and I
write to inform you of the decision.

Why was it referred to them and what was their rationale?

In the trust's previous response it was indicated that the trust
understood these questions are directly related to a specific case that
has been submitted to the PCT. As previously advised information relating
to specific cases and individuals are not subject to release under the
Freedom of Information Act. This is because there are no means of
confirming the identity of any individual submitting a FOI request. This
was explained to you and you were advised that the trust could only
provide you with information regarding the role and purpose of the Dental
Advisory Panel. You have been advised of the purpose of the Dental
Advisory Panel - to advise and consider issues about contracting and
commissioning.

It is understood that you are now in the process of submitting a
complaint. You will need to liaise with the complaints department and
clarifying the issues you wish them to review, including those you refer
to above.

As I hope you will agree, it is imperative that the Trust acts in
accordance with the Data Protection Act when dealing with patient specific
information. The purpose of the FOI Act is not to resolve issues of
complaint regarding cases submitted for treatment, issues with service
provision and such like or for responding to appeals when submissions have
been turned down, but instead to respond with information on how the
organisation makes its decisions. In order to respond to your FOI request
we have endeavoured to remain subjective (applicant and motive blind)
whilst trying to respond to the questions you have raised as well as we
can under the terms of the FOI Act.

In terms of FOI exemptions, this falls under Section 40(2) of the FOI Act
- Personal Information. This defines that personal information is
determined as any data related to a living individual who could be
identified from the information if it was supplied and for information
that is requested which relates to a third party. To release any
information that you have requested would mean that the trust may be at
risk of releasing data of a living individual to a third party.

This could have a detrimental impact on a living individual causing them
concern, distress and damage to their care and welfare should any
information they have provided about their health be within the public
domain.

Additionally, under Section 41- Information provided in Confidence - the
information is also withheld. This exemption has been determined to mean
as disclosing any information that may give actionable breach of
confidence. The public submit requests for cases of treatment to be
reviewed; these are submitted with an expectation that their information
will remain confidential. This would be a breach of confidentiality
should the information be confidential and/or sensitive data of the
individual or if this person has obtained the information from another
person who has asked or expected this to remain confidential.

As already stated, to release any information would undermine the Data
Protection Act. The trust would be disclosing information on a data
subject (in your request an individual) to possibly another member of the
public. Under principle one, this would not be lawful or fair.

The Names of the Dental Advisory Panel (DAP)

The trust has decided to continue to withhold the names of the individuals
that formed the Dental Advisory Panel on 4^th March 2011, although I would
confirm that the job titles of those individuals has already been released
to you. This is because:

. Future cases and reviews - it is the view of the PCT that to
release the names of any panel members may impact on the decision making
process relating to any future cases submitted to Heart of Birmingham
tPCT. This falls under Section 36 (2b and 2c) - Prejudice to effective
conduct of public affairs. This exemption has been determined to mean any
reluctance from open dialogue (of concerns, advice and views) either
between or internally of any individual (organisation, company, person or
any other body). There is an added risk that should panel members be
identified, they will be lobbied for cases submitted by individuals which
gives the trust concern over cases being reviewed efficiently.

The purpose of these panel meetings is to openly and subjectively review
issues for discussion and decision. To release the names of individual
panel members may deter them from openly expressing their views and
concerns, from sharing their professional knowledge and experience and
from actively participating in any discussion and decision making
process. This may then impact on subsequent decisions, contracts and
agreements entered into by the PCT and may result in inappropriate use of
public monies.

. Trust Standards - The trust has not previously released the
names of individual panel members for the reasons already outlined above,
namely that we require members of our panels and committees to be able to
air their views and concerns and participate in discussion openly in order
to ensure the trust provides the best services for our community and is
able to demonstrate value for money. Therefore under the duties of the
FOI At the trust needs to be consistent and ensure that all requests are
proceed equal and fairly.

. Damage to Reputations - This is addressed under Section 41
Information Provided in Confidence. Whilst members of the trust and
supporting agencies are aware that they are identifiable in their public
roles, there is an expectation both by the individuals and the trust that
if they participate in a decision making forum such as the DAP, the
likelihood of their identities being released is significantly reduced.
The reason for this being as already highlighted, that they would be less
likely to openly express their views and concerns, particularly if such
views are seen as negative and not supportive, and decisions made are
subsequently made public either by individuals or the media resulting in
negative publicity and potential damage to their professional reputation.
As such any decision made is made collectively by the panel not by
individuals and the trust has therefore responded to your request
outlining the roles of the panel members only.

. Pubic interest test - The public interest test also supports the
withholding of individual names for the reasons set out above. Bearing in
mind that the Trust is accountable to the public and needs to be seen to
be as open as possible in the conduct of its business, we have provided
you with the job titles of those who constitute the Dental Advisory Panel
in order to demonstrate the representation of the Panel membership.

In conclusion, because under the terms of the FOI Act, we can only respond
to your request subjectively, we can therefore only respond to the
questions you have raised with information that meets the criteria. As
previously advised, if you wish the trust to respond to the specific
questions you have raised, this should be pursued through the trust's
complaints process.

If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request following the
trust's review, you have the right to appeal to the Information
Commissioner at:

The Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House,

Water Lane,

Wimslow, Cheshire,

SK9 5AF.

Tel: 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45

Website: [1]www.ico.gov.uk

Jill Whitehouse

Corporate Services Manager

Heart of Birmingham tPCT

Tel: 0121 255 0856

Fax: 0121 224 4773

Email: [email address]

***PLEASE NOTE MY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS IS [email address]

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org