[Karl Note: The WSJ deserves SOME praise for at least publicizing one of the most evil manipulations of "science" -- one that has been spawned at my Alma Mater, Harvard, but I cannot say this is Harvard's finest hour.
Dr. Chester Douglass in charge of the Department at Harvard. HIS research showed that flourides were NOT dangeorus when added to drinking water.
Millions of young people have been forced to drink flouridated water for decades. Neither they nor their parents have had any choice.
Dr. Doublass saw to that.
One of his students blew the whistle -- it has been "out in the scientific world" for months, but only today, finally, does the WSJ print a luke-warm condemnation of the guy who helped kill science at Harvard and murder thousands of Americans with this evil forced drugging.
"Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or
processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research
is not accurately represented in the research record." [emphasis added]
This potential violation of ethical standards i s made more serious by i t s
enormous public health implications. Millions of boys drink fluoridated water every
day, and any health risk as serious as bone cancer that i s associated with fluoridation
could have a devastating impact on hundreds of children each year. While Douglass
might not agree with the conclusions of this work, that i s not a justification for
misrepresenting it i n his final report t o federal health officials and taxpayers.
Adding t o our concern is the fact that Douglass's misrepresentation of the
Bassin findings appears t o be part of a pattern. (source, below)
Are you drinking flouridated water? Perhaps you should print this page and take it to your Water Department, or City Council.
It is time that our many governments quit accepting junk science and forced drugging.
The enormity of Douglass' crime is much better described HERE than in the WSJ article immediately below.
Karl Loren
 |
 |
|
|
|
July 22, 2005 |
|||
|
|
|||||||||
Fluoridation, Cancer: When health officials decided to add fluoride to the water supply of Grand Rapids, Mich., in 1945, they plunged ahead despite the lack of a rigorous, large-scale study of the risks and benefits. And for most of the next 60 years, fluoridation research has gone pretty much like that. It has not been science's finest hour. Questions about fluoridation have returned with renewed vigor because of allegations of scientific misconduct against a prominent researcher at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. The Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization in Washington, charged last month that Chester Douglass misrepresented an unpublished study about bone cancer and fluoridated tap water. In written testimony to the National Research Council last year, Dr. Douglass said he had found no evidence that fluoridation increased risk of osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer. But a 2001 study he cited, and oversaw, found that boys who drink fluoridated water have a greater risk of developing the disease. (Dr. Douglass did not respond to requests for comment.) More interesting than what Dr. Douglass said or didn't say, however, is the study he swept under the rug. It was conducted by one of his doctoral students, Elise Bassin. She started with the same raw data as her mentor -- 139 people with osteosarcoma and 280 healthy "controls" -- but saw a way to improve on it. Since most of the 400 people diagnosed in the U.S. each year with osteosarcoma are kids, and since any ill effect of fluoride would likely come when bones are growing most quickly, she focused on the 91 patients who were under 20. Her result: Among boys drinking water with 30% to 99% of the fluoride levels recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the risk of osteosarcoma was estimated to be five times as great as among boys drinking nonfluoridated water. At 100% or more, the risk was an estimated seven times as high. The association was greatest for boys six to eight. To be sure, one study proves nothing. Moreover, Dr. Bassin hasn't published her core findings (though in 2004 she and colleagues published a description of their methodologies). As Boston University epidemiologist Richard Clapp says, "Peer review picks up things that even doctoral students at Harvard might miss." So I asked scientists to read the study. BU's Kenneth Rothman, founding editor of the journal Epidemiology, called it "of publishable quality." Zeroing in on young patients, he said, was good science: "If there were an adverse effect of fluoride, it's possible an effect of early exposure would be manifest in the first 20 years of life -- but not after." Looking at all ages, in other words, could conceal any link between fluoridation and cancer. Besides focusing on kids, Dr. Bassin and her colleagues found out where each cancer patient ever lived, and what kind of water they drank when. Other studies have just noted what water a patient was drinking at the time of diagnosis. The problem with that is, you risk classifying someone as drinking nonfluoridated water who in fact drank fluoridated water when it mattered -- in childhood. The result is that the osteosarcoma rates of people drinking fluoridated water might look no different from those of people drinking nonfluoridated. "She did great shoe-leather epidemiology," says William Maas, head of oral health at the CDC and a supporter of fluoridation. Previous studies have been contradictory. A 1991 animal study by the National Toxicology Program concluded that fluoride might raise the risk of osteosarcoma, but only in male rats, not female. Also in 1991, a scientist at the National Cancer Institute found an "unexplained increase" in osteosarcoma in men under 20 in fluoridated communities. Most human studies, though, provide "no credible evidence for an association between fluoride in drinking water and the risk of cancer," said a 1993 NRC report. But when you look carefully at the negative studies, you have to wonder. Some investigated a link to all cancers; because osteosarcoma is rare, an increase would be unlikely to show up in that vast sea. Other studies were tiny, or included adults as old as 84, which would wash out effects that target kids. Most categorized osteosarcoma patients as drinking fluoridated or nonfluoridated water based on where they lived at diagnosis, not as kids. Concerned about such lapses, the NRC report called the studies "of limited sensitivity." Even if fluoridation causes just a few hundred cases of osteosarcoma every year, does the public health benefit justify that risk? "When we started fluoridating water, we thought to get the benefits it would have to get incorporated into the enamel before the tooth erupted," which happens only if you swallow it, says the CDC's Dr. Maas. But that turns out not to be so. Topical fluoride, as in gels and toothpaste, works at least as well. Most proponents now say fluoridation cuts the rate of tooth decay 18% to 25%. How much is that? Less than one tooth surface. "The absolute impact of 18% or even 25% is low," says Steven Levy of the University of Iowa, who supports fluoridation. The next authoritative report on fluoridation will be the NRC's. One scientist close to the committee thinks it may be released this fall, months later than expected. "We thought this was going to be routine," he says. "It wasn't." With fluoridation, it seldom is. • You can email me at sciencejournal@wsj.com1.
|
||||||||||
| Copyright 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved |
|
_________________________________________________
1) June 27, 2005: EWG Ethics Complaint to NIEHS re: Dr. Chester Douglass
http://www.ewg.org/issues_content/fluoride/
20050627/pdf/ltr_strother_20050627.pdf
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP €
June 27, 2005
Ms. Janice Strother, NIEHS Ethics Coordinator
NH Room 269
PO Box 12333
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
MD NH-01
Dear Ms. Strother:
1436 U Street NW, Suite 100
Washington. OC 20009 USA
t: 202.667.6987
f: 202.232.2592
w: www.ewg.org
Return To Top
During the past week we have had several conversations with NIEHS ethics staff
about potential, serious misrepresentations of research results contained i n a final
report to NIEHS submitted by Or. Chester Douglass, chairman of the Harvard University
School of Dental Medicine’s Department of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology for
grant number 5 R01 ES06000.
We are writing to request a formal investigation into this issue, based on the
discrepancies described betow.
The principle issue of concern i s the serious contradiction between the
conclusion in the grant report, where Dr. Douglass reports no evidence of a link
between fluoride and osteosarcoma, and the findings of the grant-supported
publications tisted i n support of this position that conclude exactly the opposite. By
reporting the results of grant-supported publications i n this way, it appears that Or.
Douglass may have viotated Sec. 93.103 (b) of federal research rules concerning
falsification of data and the reporting of research results.
Specifically, i n the grant report, Dr. Douglass concludes that there i s no
evidence of a link between fluoride and osteosarcoma, and references work by Dr. Elise
Bassin as one of only two publications supported by the grant that support this finding.
The issue i s that Br. Bassin’s findings, contained i n her doctoral thesis at Harvard, do
not support the finding that Douglass reported t o NIEHS - but instead resoundingty
contradict it. What makes this inconsistency more curious i s that Douglass was the
lead advisor on the Bassin doctoral thesis. Dr. Douglass personally signed off on Dr.
Bassin’s research.
In Douglass’s grant report t o NIEHS he presents only the following conclusions
regarding fluoride and bone cancer:
“The analysis carried out for the Orthopedic Surgery I
Research meeting reported an Odds Ratio of 1.2 t o 1.4 between fluoride andOsteosarcoma that was not significantly different from 1.”
The Bassin doctoral thesis was one of two grant-supported publications cited in
support of this conclusion. However, the Bassin work does not support this finding. In
contrast, the Bassin doctoral thesis found a strong, statistically significant association
between fluoride levels in tap water during the mid-childhood growth spurt and
_____________________________________________________________
Stroth e r
6/2 7/05
page 2
osteosarcoma in adolescent boys. This is even more noteworthy because the Bassin
work is the most rigorous study o f the link between bone cancer and fluoride in tap
water ever conducted in the United States. Unlike the epidemiology studies that have
found no relationship between fluoride in tap water and bone cancer, Bassin focused
her analysis on the population of concern (males under 20 years of age) during the
relevant period of growth and development. Her study also vatidated fluoride levels i n
the tap water consumed during that time period. '
The foltowing is just one of several passages from the Bassin thesis describing
the link she observed between fluoride i n tap water and bone cancer i n boys:
"Among males, exposure to fluoride at or above the target levet was associated
with an increased risk of developing osteosarcoma. The association was most
apparent between ages 5-10 with a peak at six to eight years of age. The odds
ratio for the high exposure group was 5.16 at 7 years of age with a 95 percent
confidence interval of 1.64 t o 16.20." (Bassin page 75)
By inaccurately reporting the findings of the Bassin publication, it
appears that Dr. Douglas violated Sec. 93.103 (b) of federal research
guidelines by falsifying his final report for grant 5 R01 €506000. Falsification i s
defined i n Sec. 93.103 (b) as follows (emphasis added):
"Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or
processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research
is not accurately represented in the research record." [emphasis added]
This potential violation of ethical standards i s made more serious by i t s
enormous public health implications. Millions of boys drink fluoridated water every
day, and any health risk as serious as bone cancer that i s associated with fluoridation
could have a devastating impact on hundreds of children each year. While Douglass
might not agree with the conclusions of this work, that i s not a justification for
misrepresenting it i n his final report t o federal health officials and taxpayers.
Adding t o our concern is the fact that Douglass's misrepresentation of the
Bassin findings appears t o be part of a pattern.
In a presentation Douglass made to the Royal Coltege of Physicians i n London i n
November of 2002, Douglass concluded that case-control studies showed no association
between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma. This conclusion directly contradicts the
findings of the Bassin doctorate that Douglass signed off on in 2001.
I n January 2004, Douglass submitted his final grant report t o NIEHS as written
testimony t o the Nationat Research Councit committee studying the toxic effects of
fluoride. This appears t o be an attempt to use the imprimatur of the NIEHS t o
influence the deliberations of a National Academy of Sciences committee by submitting
an NIEHS grant report concluding t h a t six years of research had found no evidence of a
relationship between fluoride and osteosarcoma.
_____________________________________________
Strother P U P 3
6/2 7/05
In sum, we are convinced that the evidence presented warrants a full
investigation into the worrisome discrepancies i n research reporting on the part of Dr.
Douglass. We thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sin cere ly , g4?ylw-- 4
Timothy Kropp, PhD
Senior Scientist
W d & Richard Wiles
Sr. Vice President
_____________________________________________
|
I promise to answer your message -- click here to send me a personal message
|
SUBSCRIBE: The Vibrant Life Magazine is a free electronic weekly newsletter written and published by Vibrant life. You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here. The newsletter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter. The letter has been changed to product and information news which is sent out regularly each week.
REMOVAL: You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways. Click here to read about this entire newsletter system. Every edition of Product and Information Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list. If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed. Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge. But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.
Personal Message: When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions. Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US. You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.
You can reach Vibrant Life in many ways, including by mail to Vibrant Life, PO Box 10666, Burbank, CA 91510-0666. Within the US and Canada, use the toll free number: (800) 523-4521, the local number: (818) 558-7099, eMail to barb@oralchelation.com or any one of the hundreds of message forms throughout the 60 web sites. Vibrant Life normally ships the same day we get an order. There are message forms on each of the 100,000+ pages on this and other sites where you can communicate with Vibrant Life. Check out our companion site, at: http://www.oralchelation.net where Karl's 2000 page book is published. Karl Loren is the author and webmaster for this BOOK, as well as for another web site about ORAL CHELATION. His personal philosophical articles are at PHILOSOPHY.
Copyright © May 23, 2012 4:51 PM by Karl Loren on behalf of Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions: One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com . The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site. This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others.
