Same facts - opposite conclusions?

[Guest guest]

" WC Douglass " <realhealth

Daily Dose - Same facts - opposite conclusions?

Fri, 29 Jul 2005 07:30:00 -0400

 

 

 

Daily Dose

****************************************************

July 29, 2005

 

 

 

****************************************************

 

The Fluoride Flip-flop, part two

 

In the last Daily Dose, I told you about how something is rotten in

the much-heralded Harvard University Department of Oral Health Policy.

First, a doctoral student at the Ivy League institution concluded in a

2001 thesis that there was a strong link between levels of fluoride in

public water and the incidence of bone cancer among boys.

 

But the head of that department, a man ironically also named Dr.

Douglass presented a final report to his research benefactors that

starkly contrasted to the conclusions his doctoral student came to

about the correlation between osteosarcoma and fluoridated water:

Namely, he claimed there was no such statistically significant link.

 

There's only one problem: His findings are based on some of the SAME

RESEARCH that his 2001 doctoral student's fluoride-incriminating

conclusion was derived from!

 

According to a recent Associated Press piece, Douglass' department

received a $1.3 million study grant in 1992 from the National

Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to further research a

fluoride/bone cancer link an earlier U.S. Public Health Service study

had pinpointed among young men in fluoridated-water areas. The

resulting research, spanning 7 years and concluding in 1999, led to

two divergent conclusions among researchers within the same Harvard

department.

 

However, one of these researchers is the Editor-in-Chief of a

newsletter funded by one of the biggest players in the militantly

pro-fluoride toothpaste industry. I'll give you a hint: It's not the

grad student.

 

Yes, you read that right. Despite his good name known for integrity,

Mr. hoity-toity, grant cashing, Harvard-honcho doctor-boy is the

figurehead mouthpiece for The Colgate Oral Health Report, a quarterly

publication paid for by the Colgate/Palmolive Corporation that serves

the dentistry and toothpaste industries - and unmistakably promotes

fluoride and fluoridation of public water.

 

Nah, there's no conflict of interest at play, is there?

 

At least one advocacy group thinks there is. According to the article,

they've alleged " scientific misconduct " on the matter, and called on

Harvard University to conduct an investigation of Douglass' ties to

the fluoride-related industries. A spokesperson for Harvard claims

that the school is convening a committee to check into the allegations...

 

****************************************************

 

 

I, for one, wouldn't need some bloated committee to conclude what's

happening here. Fluoride-friendly forces have been trying to cover up

this industrial toxin's link to bone maladies since 1970. In that year

- less than 2 decades after public-water fluoridation became

widespread in the U.S., by the way - a New York study showed a higher

incidence of bone defects in fluoridated-water communities when

compared to those where the water was un-poisoned (non-fluoridated).

 

Couple this with the 1991 U.S. Public Health Service study and the

2001 Harvard thesis I outlined above that the dental industry is

trying so desperately to downplay and anyone with half a brain would

conclude that there's something about fluoride ingestion that's

detrimental to the bones (duh! I've only been claiming this for 30 years).

 

But NO - before this research can take hold and be seriously

considered, Mr. Harvard Department Head climbs out of the rich, silk

lining of the dental lobby's pocket long enough to look at the SAME

EVIDENCE and spin it into the opposite conclusion. The problem then

goes away, because his credentials and connections overpower his

former student's. End of story, most likely.

 

This is just another in a long line of shameless instances in which

industry infiltration of the scientific community has resulted in

findings favorable to that industry's interests. I'll keep you posted

as this brouhaha develops, if it does indeed persist. I hope the story

gets some more exposure in the press, but I won't hold my breath.

 

I'm just hoping the name " Dr. Douglass " isn't permanently sullied by

this travesty.

 

Defending my claim, and protecting my name,

 

William Campbell Douglass II, MD