Fluoride-Cancer Study Cover Up
This update includes Pam Killeen's recent (August 2005) interview with Paul Connett, PhD. This excellent 58 minute discussion will give you a quick snapshot of this whole sordid issue and is must hear!
The following link is referenced in the above interview and is an eye opener: 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation. This is an absolute required reading for anyone with children or planning to have them! Allowing this madness to continue is tantamount to child abuse!
Putting silicofluorides in our water is food adulteration of the highest kind, While sodium fluoride is medication without consent plane an simple! We are dealing with the greediest of the greediest and not reasonable people by any stretch of the imagination here!
...."Bassin analyzed the case/control data that Douglass had compiled from U.S. hospitals in the early 1990s under a grant from the NIEHS. In analyzing the data, Bassin found that males exposed to fluoridated water during their "mid-childhood growth spurt" (ages 6 to 8) had a significantly increased risk of developing osteosarcoma later in life. Bassin described these findings, in a dissertation that Douglass and four other Harvard scientists reviewed and approved, as "remarkably robust."....
....Now that we have learned what his data showed, Douglass' failure to disclose these findings is deeply troubling and the Fluoride Action Network is formally asking the NIH to remove him from the study."...
Here is one more proof (as if more was needed) on how the clear cut dangers of the fluoridation are maintained as controversial. I am afraid that should the FAN request to remove Douglass from the study come to pass, item 4 below "Commit to making the more recent data available as soon as possible so that it can also be available for the NRC's review of fluoride. Much of this data has now been compiled for years." will simply be shelved to maintain the status quo.
These shenanigan's continually put the future of our outstanding and honest students in jeopardy. This is a clear demonstration on how these control tactics are used to filters out the politically incorrect data and reinforce dishonest industry prostitutes such as Douglass.
I do hope FAN will follow this up through the courts if necessary.
See also: Debunking The "So Called" Fluoride "Experts"
That is the
FAN'S MEDIA RELEASE
JULY 28, 2005.
Group calls on NIH to remove Harvard professor from fluoride-cancer study.
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), today urged that a Harvard Professor be removed from a research group studying the association between fluoride and osteosarcoma because his objectivity and ethics are disputed and he has ties to a company that profits from fluoride. FAN also urges other steps be taken to ensure this study meets the highest standards of scientific integrity.
In June, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) charged Chester Douglass, a professor at Harvard and editor of Colgate's oral health newsletter, with suppressing research linking fluoridation to osteosarcoma, a rare but frequently fatal form of bone cancer. (1) Douglass remains central to the ongoing project.
In a letter sent today to Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni, the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), FAN requests that Douglass be replaced with a scientist who is independent of the fluoridation debate, and has no other conflict of interest. (2) FAN also requests the NIH make the data of the $1.3 million taxpayer-funded study freely available for full independent review.
EWG recently issued an ethics complaint against Douglass for misrepresenting his doctoral student's successful dissertation linking fluoridation to osteosarcoma. (3)
Elise Bassin, Douglass' doctoral student, analyzed data collected from U.S. hospitals in the early 1990s by a team of scientists led by Douglass and funded by NIH. In her case-control study, Bassin found that males exposed to fluoridated water during their "mid-childhood growth spurt" (ages six to eight) had a significantly increased risk of later developing osteosarcoma. Bassin described the findings as "remarkably robust." (4)
Bassin's dissertation, completed in May 2001 but unpublished and unknown prior to FAN obtaining a copy earlier this year, was recently sent to several expert reviewers by a Wall Street Journal science writer. The reviewers found it to be of "publishable quality." The head of oral health at the CDC, and fluoridation supporter, William Maas said, "She did great shoe-leather epidemiology." (5) According to EWG, Bassin's work "is the most rigorous study of the link between bone cancer and fluoride in tap water ever conducted in the United States." (6)
Prior to the discovery of Bassin's results, the only information available on Douglass' research was a very brief summary published in 1995 in the Journal of Dental Research where Douglass reported no link between fluoridation and bone cancer. (7) Despite assurances by Douglass that a more comprehensive analysis of his data would be forthcoming, Douglass never published the study.
"It's been 10 years now, and Douglass has yet to publish the findings of his first study," says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director of FAN. "Now that we know what his data showed, Douglass' failure to disclose these findings is deeply troubling. It will simply not be possible for us or the general public to have confidence in any further work he produces on this matter."
Summarizing Connett says, With lives at risk and the public's trust at stake, the NIH cannot afford anything less than to secure scrupulous scientific integrity on this study. We are asking that NIH do three things: 1) remove Douglass from the study; 2) demonstrate that none of the other study members has any other conflict of interest or ties to the government's fluoridation program, and, 3) make the data of the study, not just the conclusions, available for independent analysis and review.
Media Relations Director, Fluoride Action Network
(4) Bassin EB. (2001). Association Between Fluoride in Drinking Water During Growth and Development and the Incidence of Ostosarcoma for Children and Adolescents. Doctoral Thesis, Harvard School of Dental Medicine.
(7) Journal of Dental Research 1995; Volume 74, Page 98.
July 27, 2005
Dr. Elias Zerhouni
National Institutes of Health
9000 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20892
Sent via Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Dr. Zerhouni,
Knowing of your concerns about ensuring scientific integrity in the work of the NIH, we wish to draw your attention to a very troubling situation which has developed in an important NIH-funded study on fluoride and osteosarcoma.
Professor Chester Douglass of Harvard, a lead investigator of the project, has been charged by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) with misrepresenting the studys findings. (1) More specifically, Douglass has been charged with misrepresenting the results of an NIDCR-funded PhD Dissertation conducted by his own doctoral student, Elise Bassin.
For her dissertation, Bassin analyzed the case/control data that Douglass had compiled from U.S. hospitals in the early 1990s under a grant from the NIEHS. In analyzing the data, Bassin found that males exposed to fluoridated water during their "mid-childhood growth spurt" (ages 6 to 8) had a significantly increased risk of developing osteosarcoma later in life. Bassin described these findings, in a dissertation that Douglass and four other Harvard scientists reviewed and approved, as "remarkably robust." (2-4)
Bassins dissertation was completed in May of 2001. A Wall Street Journal science writer recently sent her thesis to several expert reviewers who found it to be of publishable quality. (5) The head of oral health at the Centers for Disease Control, William Maas, told the Wall Street Journal that Bassin "did great shoe-leather epidemiology." (5) According to EWG, "the Bassin work is the most rigorous study of the link between bone cancer and fluoride in tap water ever conducted in the United States." (6)
However, despite the merits of Bassins analysis, and despite the taxpayer dollars that funded it (via both NIDCR and NIEHS), her findings were never released. Hence, prior to the Fluoride Action Network obtaining a copy of the thesis earlier this year, the only publicly available information on Douglass 13-year NIH study, was a very brief summary that Douglass published in 1995 in the Journal of Dental Research. (7) In that summary, Douglass reported no association between fluoride and osteosarcoma. In the summary, he stated that a more comprehensive analysis would be forthcoming. However, its now been 10 years, and Douglass has yet to publish this promised analysis.
Now that we have learned what his data showed, Douglass' failure to disclose these findings is deeply troubling and the Fluoride Action Network is formally asking the NIH to remove him from the study.
Adding to our concern is the fact that Douglass has a possible conflict of interest in the outcome of this study because he is a consultant to Colgate (he edits their quarterly Oral Care Report). Colgate is one of the worlds largest manufacturers of fluoridated toothpaste a major source of fluoride exposure during childhood.
In addition to removing Douglass from the study, we would ask that the NIH demonstrate that none of the other study members have conflicts of interest either, which would include ties to the government's fluoridation program.
Finally, in our view, the ultimate safeguard for the public is an NIH commitment that the data of the study, not just the conclusions, be made available for independent analysis and review.
I hope that you agree that since the public, through your agency, has paid for this study, it is critically important that any ongoing work is not only conducted honestly, but is perceived to be conducted honestly. Not only are the lives of many young men possibly at risk but the trust of millions of American parents is at stake.
In summary therefore, we are asking the NIH:
1) Remove Chester Douglass from this ongoing study.
2) Demonstrate that there are no conflicts of interest with any of the other study group members.
3) Commit to making the data used in the 1995 [Douglass] and 2001 [Bassin] reports available promptly for independent analysis and review. The schedule of the NRC Fluoride Toxicology panel dictates that this disclosure needs to occur in the next several weeks to allow this important review panel to fully consider this data.
4) Commit to making the more recent data available as soon as possible so that it can also be available for the NRC's review of fluoride. Much of this data has now been compiled for years.
Paul Connett, PhD,
Fluoride Action Network,
82 Judson Street,
Canton, NY 13617.
2. Bassin EB. (2001). Association Between Fluoride in Drinking Water During Growth and Development and the Incidence of Ostosarcoma for Children and Adolescents. Doctoral Thesis, Harvard School of Dental Medicine.
posted by Chris Gupta on Wednesday August 17 2005
updated on Saturday September 24 2005
URL of this article:
Drinking Water Fluoridation is Genotoxic & Teratogenic
This paper by Prof. Joe Cummins is a very important 5 minute delegation made to London Ontario Canada "Civic Works Committee" public participation meeting on January 25, 2012 on fluoride*. While a bit technical it is short and easy to grasp. A must read as it goes to the heart of the matter regarding the well established toxicity of fluoride which is well in all scientific circles even before water... [read more]
February 06, 2012 - Chris Gupta
Democracy At Work? - PPM On Fluoride
Here is a commentary on the recent (Jan, 25th, 2011) Public Participation Meeting (PPM) on Fluoride in the City of London, Ontario. The meeting started with a strong pro fluoride stance form the City engineer. His lack of knowledge on chemistry of the toxic wastes used to fluoridate water could embarrass even a high school student never mind his own profession. He blatantly violated his "duty to public welfare" as... [read more]
January 29, 2012 - Chris Gupta
Why Remove Fluoride From Phosphate Rock To Make Fertilizer
Here is a bit of history that illustrates why they feed us hydrofluorosilcic acid in our water. Show this to those who ask why should the authorities slow poison us! "One of the main reasons for processing the raw phosphate rock for agricultural purposes is because of the fluoride content – mainly in the form of fluorosilicates/silicon tetrafluoride. Back in the early part of the 20th century when industrial farming... [read more]
June 09, 2011 - Chris Gupta